History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c33.s5.20

v3.c33.s5.20

We have, therefore, no materials to say that Mahmud did not introduce or initiate new institutions of government or did not attempt the organisation of his provinces. On the contrary, we have every reason to believe that Mahmud’s civil and military administration was well-ordered and strong. The reason why his empire fell as soon as he passed away was, according to our view, the fact that Mahmud’s successors were incapable both as soldiers and administrators. This is the principal defect of all despotic systems of government. It is only rarely that we meet with a line of successive kings possessing vigour of body and mind like the Mogul line wherein from Babar to Aurangzeb we have six successive emperors of remarkable ability and even power. Shivaji like Mahmud again was unfortunate in his successors and if the Maratha kingdom prospered in the eighteenth century, it was due to the vigour of the Peishwas whose four generations were men of great power as statesmen and generals. Even the British empire was and is strong not because of its good system of administration but because of its peculiar home constitution. The government in England is not despotic and is a government consisting of King, Lords and Commons which makes it impossible for voluptuous or despotic kings to come to the throne or incapable or ambitious governors or generals to come to India and its provinces. Laws may be imperfect or even bad. It is the strict observance of laws, good or bad as they may be, which ensures strength and prosperity to a kingdom. The system of government in England ensures the observance of laws and therefore the continuous succession of efficient administrators and commanders. Under despotic government, kings who enjoy absolute power by mere birth and not by fitness often turn out voluptuaries and becoming incapable are unable to restrain the ambition of generals of armies or governors of provinces and thus provinces fall away and even the ruling dynasty is eventually destroyed. Then again under a limited monarchy and under republics the people develop a feeling of nationality which further guarantees the strength of the kingdom or the empire. For even if there appear ambitious governors or generals now and then, a strong national sentiment prevents soldiers or peoples from assisting rebels and traitors, thus making them powerless to do mischief. In fine, it is not true that the empire of Mahmud fell to pieces after him because of its imperfect system of administration, but it fell because of the despotic nature of its government which could not secure a continuity of capable rulers and of able and loyal governors; and because of the absence of the feeling of nationality in the people making it impossible for traitorous governors to assume independence.