Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Sultanate of Delhi, 711–1526 A.D. c20.s2: Muhammad bin Tughluq, 1325—1351

The Sultanate of Delhi, 711–1526 A.D. c20.s2

Language
English

Contents

Muhammad bin Tughluq, 1325—1351

His early career

c20.s2.t1.1

The eldest son of a frontier governor, Fakhr-ud-din Muhammad Jauna Khan had been brought up as a soldier. Even as a boy he must have distinguished himself in this profession. From his ability as a scholar, when he was in the prime of his life, it is clear that he must have been given the best possible literary eduation in his boyhood and he must have been a precocious child. The first important office that he held was that of the master of the horse under Khusrav Shah. Fakhr-ud-din was an extremely ambitious youth who saw the possibility of his reaching the throne of Delhi. To realise this object he set foot on agitation against Khusrav, his patron, who had endeavoured to placate him; and his father, Ghazi Tughluq, seems to have acted simply on the advice and initiative of his more clever and ambitious son. His opportunities came when his father became the Sultan of Delhi in 1329. He was nominated heir-apparent and given the title of Ulugh Khan. In 1321, he undertook an expedition to Warangal which failed disastrously. Two years later, he was again sent to reduce Prataprudra Deva to submission. This time he succeeded in defeating the ruler of Warangal and bringing him a prisoner to Delhi. Early in 1325 he brought about his father's death, probably because he would not wait but wanted to anticipate the course of nature. Four years before that date he had believed in the rumours of his father's death and had almost carried out his accession. These facts show beyond doubt that he was an over-ambitious and unscrupulous youth. He believed in his ability and wisdom and thought that he would do better as a ruler than any of his predecessors.

His accession

c20.s2.t2.1

After Ghiyas-ud-din Tughluq's death in February or March, 1325, Ulugh Khan sat upon the throne under the title of Muhammad Tughluq. For forty days he remained at Tughluqabad, after which he marched in state to the city of Delhi and took his seat on the throne in the Red Palace of Balban. The capital city was well decorated for his reception. The king threw gold and silver coins among the populace. His accession was well received by the people and there was no revolution and no opposition. People seem to have expected great things from him and he, too, seems to have been confident of doing better than the previous Sultans of Delhi.

Revenue reforms, 1326-27

c20.s2.t3.1

Muhammad was a very diligent ruler. Soon after his accession he issued numerous ordinances for the improvement of the administration of revenue. The first ordinance was for the compilation of a register of the revenue and expenditure of the provinces of his kingdom. He directed the governors of the provinces to send to the capital all relevant records and other materials for its compilation. Summaries of income and expenditure came to Delhi from distant parts of the empire, like the Dakhin, Bangal and Gujarat, and the work proceeded smoothly. The Sultan seems to have undertaken this labour in order to introduce a uniform standard of land revenue and to see that no village remained unassessed.

Taxation in the Doab

c20.s2.t4.1

His next measure was to increase taxation in the Doab with a view to augment his resources. Probably he wanted to raise the revenue by five to ten per cent, not by increasing the land tax but by certain other taxes. Probably these taxes were the house tax and the grazing tax. We are told by a later, though standard, authority that in order to realise these taxes the houses of the people in the rural areas were numbered and their cattle were branded. He attempted to realise the land revenue and the newly imposed taxes with rigour. Unfortunately, when the policy of additional taxation was enforced in the Doab, there occurred a famine owing to the failure of rains. The people offered resistance. The Sultan's officers continued realising the taxes. The cultivators had, therefore, to abandon their lands and take to highway robbery. Muhammad bin Tughluq made an attempt to help the cultivators by giving them loans to buy seed, bullocks, etc., and making arrangements for the digging of wells for irrigation, but the policy failed. In the first place, it was too late to have introduced the grant of loans. Secondly, as people had nothing to eat, they utilised the loans for purposes different from those for which they were intended. Thirdly, the house and grazing taxes had been unpopular since they were introduced by Ala-ud-din Khalji. As they had been allowed to fall into disuse under Ala-ud-din's successors, their revival by Muhammad was very much resented. The Sultan got no extra revenue. In fact, even the usual revenue could not be realised from the Doab. Worst of it all, the Sultan himself became thoroughly unpopular with his subjects.

Creation of agriculture department

c20.s2.t5.1

The next experiment of Muhammad Tughluq was the creation of the department of agriculture. It was called *Diwan-i-Kohi*. The main object of this department was to bring the uncultivated land under cultivation by giving direct financial support from the state treasury. A large tract of land, sixty miles square in area, was first chosen for this purpose. The land was cultivated and different crops in rotation were sown. The government spent over seventy lakhs on the scheme in two years' time. The land was distributed among those who were in the need of it and a large staff of officers and guards was appointed to look after it. But the experiment failed for several reasons. Firstly, the piece of land chosen for the experiment was not fertile. Secondly, the experiment was altogether new with no precedent and, therefore, required great attention from the Sultan himself which he could not give. Thirdly, three years were inadequate to yield any tangible result. Fourthly, the money earmarked for the purpose was badly spent; part of it was misappropriated by corrupt officials and a part was spent by the people on their personal needs. The experiment, which was one of the best in the history of the revenue administration in the country, had, therefore, to be abandoned.

Transfer of the capital, 1326-27

c20.s2.t6.1

An important political experiment of Muhammad was the transfer of the capital from Delhi to Devagiri which was renamed Daultabad. Several reasons led to this fateful decision. The first was that the Sultan was anxious to have a capital which should not only be situated at a strategic place but should also be in the centre of his far-flung kingdom. Muhammad was impressed by Devagiri, and we are told by Barani that the geographical importance of the place was one of the reasons for its selection as the metropolis. As he writes: "This place held a central situation; Delhi, Gujarat, Lakhanauti, Satgaon, Sonargaon, Telang, Malabar, Dwarasamudra and Kampil were about equidistant from thence........." Secondly, Delhi was too near the north-western frontier which was constantly threatened by Mongol raids, while the Sultan wanted the new capital to be at a safe distance from the invaders from the north-west. Thirdly, while northern India had almost been conquered and pacified, the Dakhin was a new and uneasy partner in the Sultanate. It could be effectively subdued and managed by a government that had its headquarters in southern India. Lastly, he must surely have felt that southern India was so rich and that he would be able to utilise its resources more easily and effectively by an intimate contact with it. Ibn Battuta gives another reason, namely, that Muhammad was disgusted with the citizens of Delhi who had written anonymous letters full of abuse and he undertook the transfer of the capital in order to punish them. Curiously enough, this tale has been accepted by a great historian like Woolseley Haig. It is impossible to imagine that so serious a measure could have been decided on so frivolous a ground.

c20.s2.t6.2

Having decided the measure, Muhammad ordered the transfer of the capital and also the people of Delhi, men, women and children, to Daultabad with all their belongings. The people would not like to leave Delhi which had been endeared to them by long association; but Muhammad was bent upon taking all the inhabitants with him. Ibn Battuta tells us that he caused a search to be made and a blind man and a cripple were found in the city unwilling to leave. It is said that the cripple was put to death, while the blind man was ordered to be dragged to Daultabad with the result that only one of his legs reached the new capital. The Sultan had a look over the deserted town from his palace and was satisfied to see that there came no smoke from the chimney or the kitchen of a single house. These stories are nothing more than bazar gossip.

c20.s2.t6.3

The Sultan made commendable arrangements for the comfort of the people during their journey from Delhi to Daultabad. It is said, temporary huts were set up along the seven hundred mile road and free food and drink were supplied. Shady trees were also said to have been planted; but these could have hardly afforded any shelter to the travellers, for they could not have grown up in such a short time. The people suffered tremendously from fatigue, privation and mental agony. Many of them died on the way and many after reaching their destination.

c20.s2.t6.4

The scheme was a complete failure, not because the transfer of the capital was undesirable and without precendent and should not have been undertaken, but because the Sultan failed to see that the only desirable thing to do was to shift the court. Courtiers, officers and big merchants and traders would themselves have sooner or later accompanied the court to Daultabad. It was unnecessary to order the transfer of the whole population bag and baggage. Secondly, the Sultan did not realise that people would not abandon their homes and hearth except in extreme and unavoidable circumstances. The people of Delhi, who loved their city as their ancestral abode, were no exception to this rule. Thirdly, the Muslim population of Delhi was unwilling to live in Hindu surroundings in the Dakhin. Fourthly, Delhi was, without doubt, a better place for the capital of India than Daultabad which could not have successfully controlled distant provinces like Bangal or the Panjab. Above all, it was very difficult, if not impossible, for the government to resist the Mongols and protect the north-western frontier of the country from their attacks from Daultabad. Hence Muhammad committed a twofold mistake, namely, wrong choice of the place and wrong method of bringing about the transfer.

c20.s2.t6.5

In fairness to the Sultan, it must be added that as soon as he saw that the scheme had failed, he ordered the people to return from Daultabad to their homes in Delhi. But Daultabad now became a deserted town, while Delhi was only partially repopulated. It did not regain its former prosperity for years to come.

The introduction of token currency, 1329-30

c20.s2.t7.1

The reign of Muhammad Tughluq is an important landmark in the history of Indian coinage. He has been called 'a prince of moneyers'. He reformed the entire system of coinage, fixed the relative values of the precious metals and issued various types of coins. Most of these coins were noted for their artistic design and execution. His most notable experiment in the field was the introduction of token currency. There were several reasons for introducing brass and copper coinage. Firstly, there was the want of precious money in the treasury which had been drained by wars and rebellions and also by costly experiments in the field of administration. Secondly, owing to famine and harsh taxation policy in the Doab, there was a considerable fall in the Sultan's revenue. Thirdly, he was anxious to augment his revenues in order to undertake the conquest of the distant provinces of India and of some foreign countries. Fourthly, Muhammad was fond of experimentation and, therefore, wanted to open a new chapter in the history of coinage in India. Fifthly, he was encouraged by the examples of Chinese and Persian rulers before him who had introduced token currency in their countries in the thirteenth century.

c20.s2.t7.2

With the above objects in view, Muhammad promulgated an order making copper coins the legal tender and putting these coins on par (in value) with gold and silver coins. He ordered that the people should use these coins in all transactions just like gold and silver coins; but he took no steps to make the mint the monopoly of the State. Those days, in make and design and in execution and finish, the coins turned out by the royal mint were not such that they could not be easily imitated by private persons. And as the Sultan made no arrangement for preventing the circulation of counterfeit coins, private persons began to manufacture copper coins. Barani says in right orthodox Muslim fashion that the house of every Hindu became a mint. There is no reason to believe that Musalmans resisted the temptation to which, according to Barani, the Hindus succumbed. People hoarded gold and silver coins and paid their revenues in the new ones. Foreign merchants purchased Indian commodities with the token currency in the country, but refused to accept the latter while selling foreign products. Trade came to a standstill. Business was very much hampered, and gold and silver became scarce. The result was a great confusion and the Sultan was bewildered to see his scheme crumbling down before his very eyes. He was compelled to withdraw the token currency and to order the people to take from the royal treasury gold and silver pieces in exchange for brass and copper coins. The State was, thus, defrauded, while private people made huge profits at its expense.

c20.s2.t7.3

The failure of the scheme was due not so much to the backwardness of the people and their prejudice and ignorance (though they failed to appreciate it) as to the failure on the part of the Sultan to prevent the manufacture of counterfeit coins by private individuals and their circulation in the market. It was a mistake on the part of Muhammad to have failed to appreciate the limitation and circumstances of the age. He must be, therefore, primarily held responsible for the failure of the scheme.

Policy towards Church

c20.s2.t8.1

With the example of Ala-ud-din before him, Muhammad ignored the *shariat* (Canon law) and "to base his political conduct on reason."

c20.s2.t8.2

[Figure: INDIA IN 1350 A.D. Muhammad Tughluq.

c20.s2.t8.3

Boundary of the Empire Territory Inherited Route of Ibn Battuta This page appears to be completely blank.

c20.s2.t8.4

He decided that in administrative and political matters secular considertions alone must prevail. This brought him into clash with the *ulema* who had all through, except during the reign of Ala-uddin, influenced the state policy. But the Sultan did not really intend to defy the *shariat*. He consulted theologians on all important matters, but accepted their advice only when it appealed to reason and expediency. He deprived the theologians of the monopoly of administration of justice. He overruled the judgment of the *qazis* whenever he found it defective. He appointed some non-theologians to judicial posts. Whenever the *ulema* were found guilty of rebellion, sedition or embezzlement of religious funds, the Sultan inflicted upon them severe punishments. Shaikhs and Sayyids were not immune from the rule of law. The result of the policy was that domination of the *ulema* in political and administrative affairs of the State came to an end. But this earned for the Sultan great unpopularity with Muslim divines.

c20.s2.t8.5

Like Balban, Muhammad believed that the Sultan was the "Shadow of God". His coins bore the expression, "*Al Sultan Zilli Allah*" (Sultan, the shadow of God). Through his coins he endeavoured to convey to the people the importance of the king's majesty. On some of his coins we come across verses like : "Sovereignty is not conferred upon every man, but is placed on the elect," "He who obeys the Sultan truly obeys God," "The Sultan is the shadow of God," and "God is the supporter of the Sultan." He dropped all reference to the Khilafat, though he did not assume the title of Khalifa.

c20.s2.t8.6

Inspite of his justice, generosity and personal ability, the Sultan found that he was getting more and more unpopular. Thinking that the disaffection of the people might be due to his ignoring the Muslim law, he reversed during the later part of his reign his policy towards the Khilafat. He implored the Khalifa of Egypt to confirm him as the Sultan of Delhi. He removed his own name from the coins and inserted that of the Khalifa. All royal orders were issued not in the name of the Sultan, but in that of the Khalifa. In 1340, the Sultan invited the beggarly descendant of the Khalifa of Egypt, named Ghiyas-ud-din Muhammad, showed him the utmost servility and respect and presented to him extremely costly gifts. But even this did not restore Muhammad's popularity, which caused him great worry; but there was no help.

c20.s2.t8.7

Muhammad was by nature a man of liberal disposition and broad outlook on life. He was not intolerant to the religion of the vast majority of his subjects. He employed some of them on fairly important posts. The contemporary Muslim historians who have indulged in unqualified praise for the policy of religious persecution of the Hindus by Muhammad’s predecessors on the throne of Delhi have no comment to make about this ruler’s attitude towards his non-Muslim subjects except to blame him for his generosity.

Plan for the conquest of Khurasan

c20.s2.t9.1

Like Ala-ud-din, Muhammad Tughluq was ambitious of conquering countries beyond the borders of India. Early during his reign he formed the design of conquering Khurasan, Iran and Trans-Oxiana. The Khurasan project was due to the instigation of some Khurasani nobles who had been attracted to the Sultan’s court by his lavish generosity. A huge army, numbering three lakhs and seventy thousand men, was collected and was paid one year’s salary in advance. But the project could not be undertaken and the army had to be dispersed. It was found that such a huge force could not be maintained for long without unduly straining the resources of the state. It was not an easy affair to cross the huge snowbound mountains that lay between India and Khurasan and to fight the hostile people inhabiting the intervening lands. Moreover, the political condition of Khurasan had taken a turn for the better. So the project was given up.

c20.s2.t9.2

Conquest of Nagarkot, 1337

c20.s2.t9.3

The fort of Nagarkot situated on a hill in the Kangra district in the Panjab had defied Turkish army since the time of Mahmud of Ghazni. Inspite of the conquest of almost the whole of India by Ala-ud-din Khalji, that fort had remained in the hands of a Hindu prince. In 1337 Muhammad undertook an expedition against it. The raja offered resistance, but he had to submit and the fort was restored to him.

Qarajal expedition, 1337-38

c20.s2.t10.1

Muhammad was desirous of establishing his authority over the Himalayan states which had not so far been reduced to submission. Hence he led an expedition to Qarajal which was situated in the Kamaun hills at a distance of ten days' journey from Delhi. The huge Delhi army attacked the Hindu stronghold, but it suffered greatly owing to the mountainous nature of the country and heavy rainfall. The Sultan was, therefore, obliged to retire; but he succeeded in compelling the chief to pay him an indemnity. Some modern writers have described the Qarajal expedition as an unsuccessful adventure to conquer China and Western Tibet. This view is incorrect, as no contemporary authority has made any mention of Muhammad's desire to conquer China or Tibet.

Relations with China

c20.s2.t11.1

Muhammad had cordial relations with some of the Asian countries, particularly China. The Chinese emperor, Toghan Timur, sent an envoy to Delhi in 1341 seeking Muhammad's permission to rebuild Buddhist temples in the Himalayan region. These Himalayan temples were demolished by Muhammad's soldiers during his Qarajal expedition. The Sultan sent Ibn Battuta as an envoy to the court of the Mongol emperor of China. Ibn Battuta started in July 1342, and returned in 1347. As regards the temples, Muhammad replied that according to the laws of Islam permission could not be given for their reconstruction unless *jizya* was paid.

Mongol invasions, 1328-29

c20.s2.t12.1

The north-western frontier of the Sultanate was threatened by a series of Mongol invasions which occurred after Muhammad had ordered the transfer of his capital to Daultabad. At the head of a powerful army, the Mongol chief, named Tarma Shirin, entered the frontier and ravaged the country from Multan and Lahore to the vicinity of Delhi. The Sultan was taken by surprise. He had neglected the frontier. There was no capable warden of the marches to resist the invaders. It seems that the Mongol chief was bribed and persuaded to retire. This was a very unwise policy. It exposed the weakness of Muhammad's administration and showed that the policy of resistance followed by Balban and Ala-ud-din was given up.

Rebellions

c20.s2.t13.1

Muhammad Tughluq's reign was disturbed by numerous rebellions. These may be divided into two categories: (a) early rebellions, and (b) later rebellions.

c20.s2.t13.2

*Early rebellions.* The early rebellions were due not to the failure of Muhammad’s domestic policy, but to the ambitious designs of certain important chiefs. The first rebellion was that of the Sultan’s cousin, Bha-ud-din Gursasp, governor of Sagar near Gulbarga. He was defeated in 1327 and flayed alive. The second rebellion was that of the Hindu chief of Kondhana (modern Singhgarh near Poona). He was defeated and compelled to become a vassal of Delhi. The third rebellion was that of Bahram Aiba of Multan who held, besides Multan, Uch and Sindh. He, too, was defeated and put to death.

c20.s2.t13.3

*Later rebellions.* The later rebellions, which were too many, were caused by the Sultan’s oppressive policy of increasing taxes and by his ruthless punishments inflicted upon the people. Certain others were due to the transfer of capital and the policy of the currency reforms which made Muhammad unpopular and instigated ambitious men to take advantages of his difficulties.

c20.s2.t13.4

(1) In 1335 Sayyid Jalal-ud-din Ahsan rebelled in Ma’abar (the eastern coast of southern India with its capital at Madura). Although Muhammad proceeded in person to southern India, the rebel could not be put down. Ma’abar became independent.

c20.s2.t13.5

(2) Amir Hulaju, governor of Lahore, was the next powerful notable to rebel. He was, however, defeated and killed.

c20.s2.t13.6

(3) Malik Hushang, son of the governor of Daultabad, revolted in 1335-36, but later he submitted and was pardoned.

c20.s2.t13.7

(4) Bangal took advantage of the unpopularity of Muhammad. The Sultan sent an army which defeated and killed Ghiyas-ud-din of Bangal (1330-31). A little later there occurred a dispute among certain powerful notables in that province. One of them, Ali Mubarak, appealed to Delhi for help, but received none. So he proclaimed himself king of Lakhanauti. That province was, thus, lost to Delhi.

c20.s2.t13.8

(5) The next to rebel was the governor of Kara, named Nizam Ma’in. He was, however, defeated and flayed alive in 1337-38.

c20.s2.t13.9

(6) In 1338-39 came the turn of Nasrat Khan, governor of Bidar. He was defeated, made to submit and deprived of his fief.

c20.s2.t13.10

(7) Ali Shah rebelled at Gulbarga in 1339-40. He was defeated and banished to Ghazni.

c20.s2.t13.11

(8) One of the most formidable rebellions was that of Ain-ul-mulk Multani, governor of Awadh. Ain-ul-mulk was probably one of the topmost living nobles and officers. He had held important offices since the time of Ala-ud-din Khalji and played a prominent part in the history of his time. He was a highly learned scholar and was well versed in theology and jurisprudence. He subsequently wrote a book, entitled *Munshat-i-Mahru* or *Insha-i-Mahru* which gives a good account of the administration of Firoz Tughluq. He was one of the few important men who could wield their sword and pen with equal facility. He was transferred by Muhammad from Awadh to Daultabad in 1340-41. Ain-ul-mulk was made to believe that his transfer was preliminary step towards his destruction. So he revolted. But he was defeated and taken a prisoner. He was dismissed from his post and subjected to indignities. But as the Sultan was convinced that he was a half-hearted rebel, he spared his life.

c20.s2.t13.12

(9) Shahu Afghan was another rebel who killed the governor of Multan and occupied the city. Muhammad himself proceeded to punish him. Shahu fled to the hills.

c20.s2.t13.13

(10) The next rebellion occurred in Sunam and Samana. The Sultan undertook an expedition to those places and defeated the chiefs—Jats and Bhatti Rajputs. After this success he brought to Delhi the rebel leaders and forcibly converted them to Islam.

Foundation of the Hindu kingdom of Vijayanagar

c20.s2.t14.1

(11) The widespread rebellions gave an opportunity to the Hindus of southern India to make a bid for their independence. An enterprising Hindu leader, named Harihar, laid the foundation of the kingdom of Vijayanagar in 1336. He gave secret support to Krishna Nayak who rebelled against the Sultan of Delhi in 1343-44. This rebellion could not be suppressed and a large part of southern India passed into the hands of the Hindus.

c20.s2.t14.2

(12) The people of Devagiri rebelled in 1345 owing to the extortions and harsh treatment of the local officers. The historian, Farishta, writes that the people "rebelled in all quarters and the country was devastated and depopulated in consequence."

c20.s2.t14.3

(13) Next in importance came the rebellion of the foreign nobles, known as *Amiran-i-Sadah* (Centurians) who had enjoyed certain special privileges. These foreign nobles embezzled money, aided other rebels and took to plunder whenever there was any confusion in the Dakhin. Muhammad instructed Aziz Khummar, governor of Malwa, to punish the foreign nobles. Aziz treacherously put to death a number of them. This caused dissatisfaction among the foreign nobles in Gujarat who, too, raised the standard of rebellion. They captured Aziz and put him to death. Muhammad had to proceed to the scene of action. He defeated the rebels near Dabohi. This success was able to put down the *Amir-i-Sadah*.

c20.s2.t14.4

(14) The foreign nobles at Devagiri became apprehensive of their fate. They rebelled and occupied Devagiri. From there the trouble spread to Berar, Khandesh and Malwa. The Sultan had to proceed to Devagiri and to put down the rebellion. Meanwhile, there was another rebellion in Gujarat and Muhammad had to proceed there. This gave the rebels of Devagiri a chance. They repudiated allegiance to Delhi and laid the foundation of the Bahamani kingdom.

c20.s2.t14.5

(15) The rebellion in Gujarat proved to be formidable. The Sultan, however, hunted down the rebel, named Taghi, who was compelled to take shelter at Thatta in Sindh. Muhammad remained in Gujarat for three years in order to reorganise the administration of the province and conquer Girnar, that is, modern Junagarh. After this, he proceeded to Sindh to punish Taghi, and there he was taken ill. He died on March 20, 1351. In the words of the historian, Badauni, "The king was freed from his people and they from the king."

His character and estimate

c20.s2.t15.1

No character in our medieval history has aroused so much interest and controversy as that of Muhammad bin Tughluq. Contemporary historians, like Barani and Ibn Battuta, who came into intimate contact with him, have expressed opposite views about his personality and his virtues and faults. Modern European writers have passed diametrically opposite judgments on the character and achievements of the Sultan. Elphinstone, for example, expressed doubt "whether he was not affected by some degree of insanity." Havell, Edward Thomas and Smith have dittoed Elphinstone. Gardiner Brown, on the other hand, has painted Muhammad in bright colours and exonerated him from the charges of madness, blood-thirstiness and that of being a visionary. We have two monographs on the reign of this Sultan from the pen of two of our scholars. Yet the controversy is not stilled and the subject continues to exercise the minds of writers and thinkers as usual.

c20.s2.t15.2

As a private gentleman, Muhammad's character leaves nothing to be desired. Endowed with a keen intellect, a marvellous memory and an inordinate thirst for learning, he was a profound scholar of logic, philosophy, mathematics, astronomy and the physical sciences, besides Persian literature and poetry. Adept in the art of expression, composition as well as speech, he was also a noted dialectician. He loved calligraphy and fine arts, specially music, was a patron of letters and arts and loved the company of learned men.

c20.s2.t15.3

Muhammad’s personal life was marked by a high standard of morality. He was free from the prevailing vices of the age. By nature he was one of the humblest of men. Both Barani and Ibn Battuta bestow high praise on him for his generosity and tell us that the Sultan was profuse in the distribution of gifts, presents and rewards. He seems to have been an affectionate relation and a good friend as is testified by his fondness for his cousin, Firoz, and regard for Barani and other friends. Inspite of the charge of irreligiousness, it is clear from a perusal of Ibn Battuta that Muhammad had faith in morality and was devoted to his religion. He was regular and punctilious in the five daily prayers and fasts enjoined by Islam. By habit and inclination Muhammad was diligent. In fact, his application to the details of administration and his perseverance had become proverbial. He was brought up as a soldier. As an experienced general he had fought battles. Historians are unanimous in their praise for his love of military activity.

c20.s2.t15.4

As was to be expected from a man of his profound learning and wide range of interest, Muhammad was possessed of a liberal disposition and catholicity of taste. Inspite of his devotion to Islam, he was not intolerant and was ready to appreciate merit in men of diverse faiths and positions in life.

c20.s2.t15.5

But, when judged as a ruler and administrator, Muhammad must be pronounced a failure. In fact, his achievements, during his long reign of twenty-six years, were negative. He inherited a vast kingdom which embraced not only practically the whole of northern India but also the Dakhin. Before he closed his eyes in death, the Sultanate of Delhi was considerably reduced in size. The Dakhin was lost. Bangal severed its connection. Sindh, too, was slipping away from his grasp when death overtook him. Even in the provinces that still formed part of the Turkish kingdom, rebellion and strife were rife. His experience and reputation as a soldier and general failed him in the hour of his trial. He was out to conquer countries beyond the frontiers of India; he lost a considerable portion of what was his at the time of his accession. Muhammad’s ambition was to remodel the administration and to place the revenue administration and the currency system on a scientific basis. One of his cherished desires was to have a capital situated in the centre of his dominion. All these projects came to naught. Nay, they caused a considerable reaction and alienated the people beyond measure. Long before his death, he almost confessed his failure. “I visit them (people) with chastisement,” he said to the historian Barani, “upon the suspicion or presumption of their rebellious and treacherous designs, and I punish the most trifling act of contumacy with death. This I will do until I die, or until the people act honestly, and give up rebellion and contumacy. I have no such *wazir* as will make rules to obviate my shedding blood. I punish the people because they have all at once become my enemies and opponents. I have dispensed great wealth among them, but they have not become friendly and loyal.” What else could this mean except the confession of one who was conscious of his failure?

c20.s2.t15.6

Some modern writers are of opinion that Muhammad was not responsible for his failure as a ruler; he failed because circumstances were against him, because people were backward and prejudiced and, also, because the Muslim *ulema* turned against him for his policy of setting aside their interference in state affairs and punishing them for going against his orders. There is some point in the above contention; but Muhammad’s failure was chiefly due to his limitations and to certain grave defects in his character. He lacked balance, practical judgment and commonsense. He was obsessed with theoretical learning and his knowledge was bookish and was not derived from actual experience in life. He was not endowed with the royal gift of judging human character and lacked the power of inspiring confidence in men and getting on with his colleagues. It was his hobby to propound lofty theories and visionary projects. Seldom did he care to think out his schemes in detail. They were sound on paper; but, when reduced to practice, they came to nothing. Muhammad had no patience either with men or with institutions, including his own lofty projects. By character and habit he could not persevere on, but would give up a project without seeing its end. He was, without doubt, over-hasty. Possessed of a violent temper, he would easily get annoyed. Once angry, he would lose his balance and would never attempt to see the other side of a problem. He had no discrimination in the awarding of punishment and would inflict the penalty of death for a petty crime as well as for a heinous offence. Being sensitive, he imagined that the people were, without reason and inspite of his generosity, against him and so they must be punished. These were, therefore, the main causes of his failure. If the people were backward he should have attempted like a wise and practical statesman to take them with him in his projected reforms. What was after all the use of introducing schemes which were too ahead of the age and incomprehensible to his subjects for whose benefit they were intended? Generally speaking, circumstances were not against him. When he ascended the throne, he was cordially welcomed by the people; but as he persisted in his wild schemes, such as, raising the taxes in the Doab in the midst of a famine, it was but natural for the people to offer resistance. It seems too much to say that he failed because of ill-luck and that he should be styled as an ill-starred monarch.

Was he mad?

c20.s2.t16.1

Elphinstone was the first historian who believed that Muhammad suffered from some degree of insanity. His views have been shared by later European writers. A perusal of the contemporary authorities shows that there is nothing in the pages of Barani and Ibn Battuta which might show that the Sultan ever suffered from any kind of madness. Probably, Elphinstone and other European writers were misled by the statement of Barani and Ibn Battuta that there were always some dead bodies found lying in front of the Sultan's palace. Muhammad inflicted the punishment of death for petty offences not because he was mad but because he could make no discrimination between crime and crime. The mistake was due to the lack of a sense of proportion rather than to mental insanity. It must also be said in fairness to the Sultan that punishment of death was common in the medieval age both in Europe and in Asia. It is also incorrect to say that Muhammad delighted in shedding human blood. The charge was brought against him by Barani, who belonged to the clerical party which was particularly hostile to the Sultan for his policy of depriving them of their privileges and chastising them for their failings and presumptions.

c20.s2.t16.2

The charge of atheism is also untenable. Barani says that the Sultan had lost faith in Islam and acted against its tenets, while Ibn Battuta definitely asserts that he was very meticulous in his daily prayers and other religious rites enjoined by Islam. Not only did he adhere strictly to the dogma, percept and practice of his religion but he punished those who deviated from them, and even those who did not say their prayers regularly. The truth was that in the early stage of his career Muhammad was assailed by doubts and, hence, he acted as a sceptic. But, some years after his accesion, he gave up scepticism and behaved like an orthodox Sunni Musalman.

c20.s2.t16.3

There is another charge against Muhammad, namely, that of his being a visionary. There is some substance in the contention that he was fond of building castles in the air and that he thought of schemes which failed in operation. But one should not forget that many of his projects and reforms, such as the currency and revenue reforms, were, on the other hand, sound, constructive and practicable. Some of them even showed “flashes of political insight.” Hence, Muhammad was both an idealist and a visionary.

Was he a mixture of opposites ?

c20.s2.t17.1

Dr. Ishwari Prasad maintains that only when viewed superficially Muhammad appears to be an “amazing compound of contradictions,” but he was really not so. Dr. Mahdi Husain endeavours to show that though he had contradictory qualities in him, these appeared at different periods of his career and that there were clear reasons behind them. Hence, Dr. Husain contends that he could not be called a mixture of opposites. The present writer differs from the above learned historians and believes that Muhammad did possess contradictory qualities at one and the same period of his career and that these remained part and parcel of his character throughout his life. Dr. Mahdi Husain has shown that the Sultan was sceptic in the early days of his reign, but became really religious in his later years. This would show that so far as religion was concerned, the Sultan could not be called guilty of being religious and irreligious at one and the same time. But Dr. Husain is silent so far as the other qualities are concerned. Muhammad was humble and, at the same time, extremely arrogant, so that, as Barani writes, he would not like to be told that there was any part of the world or heaven which was not under his control. At times, he was so moderate and servile that Ibn Battuta considered humility to be the most important trait of his character. Usually, he was extremely generous; but, at times, he was thoroughly narrowminded. Ibn Battuta has given a number of examples of Muhammad’s great reverence for abstract justice and form of law. These show that he would, at times, appear as a suppliant in a court of justice, would behave like an ordinary citizen and receive punishment from the hands of his judge; on the other hand, he would, normally, inflict barbarous punishments of death and mutilation for the most petty offences. Usually, he was all kindness; but at times, when his wrath was excited, he would behave like a most cruel man and a great tyrant. Hence one cannot escape the conclusion that Muhammad bin Tughluq was a mixture of opposites.