The Sultanate of Delhi, 711–1526 A.D. c24.s5: Finance
The Sultanate of Delhi, 711–1526 A.D. c24.s5
- Language
- English
Finance
c24.s5.1
The fiscal policy of the Sultanate period was based on the theory of finance of the Hanafi school of Sunni jurists. The early Turkish rulers of India had borrowed the system from their Ghaznavide predecessors. The principal sources of revenue as sanctioned by the *shariat* and realised by the Sultans were: (1) *ushr*, (2) *kharaj*, (3) *khams*, (4) *zakat*, and (5) *jizya*. Besides these there were a number of other taxes, such as income from mines and treasure trove, heirless property and customs and excise duties. The *ushr* was a land tax, charged on land held by Muslims and watered by natural means. It was one-tenth of the produce. *Kharaj* was the tax on land held by non-Muslims. According to Islamic law its rate was to be from one-tenth to one-half. *Khams* was one-fifth of the booty captured in wars against the infidels. Four-fifths of it went to the army. The *zakat* was a religious tax levied upon Muslims only. It was charged on the property if its value exceeded a certain fixed amount. The value of the property which was exempted from this tax was called *nisab*. Its rate was one-fortieth or 2½ per cent of the property. The proceeds of this tax were spent on specified items for the benefit of Muslims only, such as, repair of mosques and tombs, expenditure on religious endowments and paying stipends and subsistence allowances to men of piety and poverty.
c24.s5.2
**What is Jizya.** *Jizya* or poll tax was charged from non-Muslims only. There is a difference of opinion among scholars about the nature of this tax. Some maintain that it was a religious tax levied on the non-Muslims “in return for which they received protection of life and property and exemption from military service, as non-Muslims were not entitled, according to orthodox jurists, to live in a Muslim country.” Some of the modern Muslim scholars, however, hold that it was a secular tax charged from non-Muslims, as they were exempt from military service, which every Musalman, at least in theory, was liable to render to the State. Early Muslim jurists divided taxes into two groups—religious taxes and secular taxes—and they included *jizya* in the latter category. The religious tax was the *zakat* or the *sadqah*, which was charged from Muslims only. As *jizya* was not charged from the Muslims and as there was no fixed rule that its proceeds should be spent for religious purposes only, it was included by Muslim jurists among the secular taxes. The view that *jizya* is a secular tax on the basis of the above classification is evidently untenable. Whatever might have been the original intention with which this tax was levied in Islamic lands outside India, there is no doubt that, by the time the Arabs conquered Sindh, *jizya* had acquired a religious significance. It was imposed on the non-Muslims as the State gave them “protection of life and property and exemption from military service,” and the Sultans considered it to be a religious duty to realise this tax rigorously. Those of our modern writers who hold this tax to be secular conveniently forget the first part of the injunction, namely, the protection of life and property of the *zimmis*, and emphasize only the latter part, namely, exemption from military service. It is clear from the history of the Mughul period that the vassal Hindu rajas who furnished military assistance to the Mughul emperors in the time of Babur and Humayun and in the early days of the reign of Akbar and throughout that of Aurangzeb, were not exempt from the payment of *jizya*. We know definitely that the ruler of Udaipur was required to cede a certain part of his territory in lieu of *jizya* while, at the same time, he had placed a contingent of his troops at the disposal of Aurangzeb. It is, thus, obvious that *jizya* had a religious colour about it. The ruling of *qazi* Mughis-ud-din of Bayana about this tax has already been given in a former chapter. It will be too much in view of the facts of the history of the entire period to maintain that *jizya* was a secular tax like *Turush ka danda* or any other poll tax.
c24.s5.3
Women and children, monks and beggars and the blind and the cripple were exempt from *jizya*. For purposes of this tax the entire Hindu population was divided into three grades. The first grade paid at the rate of 48 *dirhams*, the second at 24 *dirhams* and the third at 12 *dirhams*.
c24.s5.4
*Other taxes.* There was a tax on import, which was 2½ per cent on merchandise; on horses it was 5 per cent. From the non-Muslims the excise or import tax was charged at double the rate of that from the Muslims. Then there were a house tax, a grazing tax, a water tax and a number of other minor taxes. The State charged one-fifth of all minerals and one-fifth of treasure acquired by an individual. The State also claimed a share of unstamped bullion minted and found in an area conquered by the Muslims. All the property of men dying in the State and without heirs went to the State. Another important source of income was the presents made to the Sultans by the people, officers and nobles. This brought in a large revenue every year.
c24.s5.5
*Land revenue.* Land revenue was, of course, a most important source of the income of the Sultanate of Delhi, next only to plunder and booty acquired in the time of war. For the purpose of fiscal administration there existed four kinds of land, namely, (1) *khalisa* territory, (2) land divided into *iqtas* and held by *muqtis* either for a number of years or for lifetime, (3) the principalities of the Hindu chiefs who had come to terms with the Sultan, and (4) the land given away to Muslim scholars and saints in gift, such as *milk* or *inam* or *waqf*. The *khalisa* was directly administered by the central government. But the State dealt with local revenue officers, like *chaudharis* and *muqaddams*, and not with individual peasants. There was an *amil* or revenue collector in each sub-division (probably *shiq*) who collected revenue from the above named officers, while they, in their turn, realised it from the peasants. The State demand or scale of revenue was not based on any careful calculation and the ascertainment of the actual produce of the soil and seems to have been a summary assessment. In the *iqta* the administration, including assessment and collection of revenue, was in the hands of the *muqti* who deducted his own share and paid the surplus to the central government. It was in his interest to show a nominal surplus and to evade payment on one pretext or another. The Sultan, therefore, appointed, on the recommendation of the *wazir*, an officer, called *khwaja* in each *iqta* to keep an eye on the revenue collection and exercise some check on the *muqti*. The possibility of collusion between the *muqti* and the *khwaja* was minimised by the presence of spies who reported directly to the central government about the activities of the local officers. The Hindu rajas who owed allegiance to the Sultan enjoyed complete autonomy in their respective States and were required to pay tribute. Similarly, *zamindars* paid a fixed revenue to the government and the peasants in their jurisdiction did not know any authority except their own landlords. The land given away as *waqf* or *inam* was free from revenue assessment and was allowed to become a hereditary possession of the grantees.
c24.s5.6
The system, as described above, continued throughout the period of the Sultanate of Delhi. The first ruler to introduce a vital change in the revenue policy and administration was Ala-ud-din Khalji. His revenue policy was guided by two main considerations, namely, (1) increasing the State's income to the utmost limit, and (2) keeping the people in economic want so as to prevent them from entertaining any thoughts of insubordination and rebellion. Accordingly, he undertook the following measures.
c24.s5.7
Firstly, he confiscated the land held by Muslim grantees and religious land held as *milk* (proprietary right), *inam* (free gifts), *ibarat* (pensions) and *waqf* (endowment). Most of the land of the above description was annexed to the State; but some assignees seem to have remained untouched. Secondly, he withdrew the privileges hitherto enjoyed by Hindu *muqaddams*, *khuts* and *chaudharis* who were obliged to pay taxes, like others, on the land held by them and also the house and the grazing taxes. Thirdly, he increased the state demand to one-half of the produce. Fourthly, he imposed some other taxes on the peasants in addition to the land revenue and those that were already in vogue. These were the house tax and the grazing tax. *Jizya*, customs duties and *zakat* continued to be levied, as in the time of the previous Sultans. Fifthly, he introduced the measurement of land in order to ascertain the actual produce and had the *patwari's* records requisitioned to provide the revenue settlement. Sixthly, he established an efficient machinery for the rigorous collection of all kinds of revenue and did not make any allowance for any damage, natural or accidental, to the crops. Though measurement could not be applied to all the provinces of his dominion, the aim of his policy was to increase the revenue considerably and to make all classes of the people, such as peasants, landlords, merchants and traders, to shoulder the burden of taxation.
c24.s5.8
Ala-ud-din’s policy, being too rigid and unpopular, could not be followed by his weak successors. Many of his harsh regulations were allowed to fall into decay; but the scale of revenue fixed by him was not altered. Ghiyas-ud-din Tughluq softened the rigour of Ala-ud-din’s revenue policy and administration, though he did not, in any way, lessen his scale of demand of the State which continued to be one-half of the produce as before. In the first place, he recognised the principle of making due allowances for damages to the crops due to natural calamity or accident and remitted a proportionate revenue. Secondly, he allowed the *khuts*, *muqaddams* and *chaudharis* to enjoy exemption from the taxes on their land and on their grazing animals. Thirdly, he laid down that State demand from any *iqta* should not be enhanced more than one-tenth or one-eleventh of the standard assessment in a year. But Ghiyas-ud-din’s fiscal administration was marred by two defects, namely, the abandonment of measurement and reversion to the policy of assessing the revenue by guess or computation, and the resumption of the practice of granting assignment of land to civil and military officers.
c24.s5.9
Muhammad bin Tughluq, who followed him, was animated by the desire of systematising the fiscal administration of the realm. Under his instructions the department of revenue undertook the compilation of a comprehensive register of the income and expenditure of the Sultanate with a view to introduce a uniform standard of land revenue and to make sure that no village remained unassessed; but his necessary and useful work remained unfinished. His next experiment was to increase the scale of taxes, other than the land revenue which continued to be charged at 50 per cent, in the Ganga-Yamuna Doab. The measure was bitterly resented; but the Sultan continued to realise the taxes at the enhanced rate inspite of a famine due to the failure of rains. The result was a fearful rebellion. Yet he would not withdraw the ordinance. He advanced loans and sunk irrigation wells, but it was too late. The entire doab was ruined. The Sultan’s other reform was the establishment of the department of agriculture, called *diwan-i-kohi*, with a view to extending the area under cultivation. But, this, too, failed.
c24.s5.10
Firoz Tughluq's accession in 1351 marks a turning point in the agrarian policy of the Sultanate of Delhi. He paid great attention to the revenue affairs and sincerely desired to foster the material prosperity of the people. First of all, he healed the wounds inflicted by his late cousin and wrote off the *taqavi* loans, increased the salaries of the revenue staff and abolished the use of physical coercion to which the governors and revenue officers were subjected. Next he fixed the revenue of the entire *khalisa* land on a permanent basis after careful and laborious examination of local records. Thirdly, he abolished as many as twenty-four vexatious taxes, including the much-hated grazing and house taxes, and charged, in conformity with the Quranic law, only five taxes—*kharaj*, *khams*, *jizya*, *zakat* and irrigation tax. Fourthly, he constructed as many as five canals and sunk numerous wells for the irrigation of fields. Fifthly, he encouraged the cultivation of superior crops, such as, sugarcane, oil-seeds, poppy, etc. Sixthly, he planted many gardens and encouraged production of fruits. These wise measures greatly enhanced the royal revenues and brought about general material prosperity of the people.
c24.s5.11
Firoz's administration, however, suffered from three great defects, namely, (1) the application of the principle of farming out of land revenue, (2) the pernicious customs of granting assignments of land revenue and permitting the public sale of the assignment deeds, and (3) the extension of the scope and the rigorous realisation of *jizya*.
c24.s5.12
Although the just and generous rules of Firoz Tughluq's revenue administration fell into negligence during the weak days of his successors and the confusion following Timur's invasion, yet in essence they continued to be followed by the later Tughluqs and the Sayyids. When the Lodis came to power, they divided almost the entire land in their dominion among the important Afghan families. The *khalisa* land was greatly reduced in size and importance. Sikandar Lodi made an attempt to revive measurement, but otherwise, he made no important alteration in the revenue rules and regulations.
c24.s5.13
There is a controversy regarding the scale of revenue demanded by the Sultans of Delhi. According to a modern scholar it was one-fifth of the produce during most of the period. This conclusion is based on guess and seems to be erroneous. The Muslim law, as expounded by orthodox jurists, lays down that the rate of *kharaj* should vary from one-tenth to one-half of the produce. We know that in every Muslim land as well as in India, the State demanded one-tenth of the produce from the Muslim cultivator, if his land was not irrigated from the waters of the State canals or public tanks or wells. On the other hand, if his land was watered by State canals or wells, he had to pay a water tax as well. As throughout our period Hindu traders had to pay the excise tax at a rate which was double of that chargeable from the Muslims, it can be legitimately inferred from this that the Hindu cultivators must have been charged double the revenue of what the Muslim cultivators were required to pay, that is, the scale of land revenue in the case of Hindu peasants must have been one-fifth of the produce. If this rule was at all followed, it could have been so during the rule of the so-called Slave kings only. Ala-ud-din Khalji increased the scale of land revenue to one-half of the produce and all his successors on the throne of Delhi down to the extinction of the Sultanate continued to make the same demand. It has been established by modern research that Sher Shah charged one-third,² which was considered to be a legitimate and just demand during his time and which was later adopted by Akbar the Great. Considering these circumstances, it seems probable that even during the days of the so-called Slave kings the State demand was one-third of the gross produce of the soil. But throughout the period several other taxes besides the land revenue were levied upon the peasants. The chronicles tell us that Qutub-ud-din Aibak had abolished all un-Islamic taxes and that they had to be abolished again and again by several other Sultans. It is, therefore, clear that throughout the period of the Sultanate of Delhi the peasant was required to pay many taxes over and above the land revenue. It is irrelevant to enquire as to who was responsible for the continuance of these taxes and whether they went to fill the coffers of the Sultan or were appropriated by corrupt revenue officers, governors and ministers. The irresistible conclusion, however, is that the peasants were not allowed to enjoy more than one-third of the fruits of their labour.
c24.s5.14
² Refer to *Sher Shah And His Successors* by A. L. Srivastava, pp. 71-76.
c24.s5.15
The main items of expenditure were the Sultan’s household, civil and military services, religious endowments and charity, wars and rebellions and huge presents sent to the Khalifa and to the religious places outside India.