Life and Conditions of the People of Hindustan (1200–1550 A.D.) c5.s1.86

c5.s1.86

In this connection, it may not be without some interest to note the reactions of these political conditions on some philosophic thought concerning the origins of political society and principles of political obligations, which was formulated on lines not very different from those taken by Hobbes, though much earlier in time.¹ Almost from the very beginning of the establishment of the Sultanate in Delhi, a tradition attributed to the Prophet, like so many others, came to be widely popular. The Prophet was reported to have said ‘If there be no Sultan, the people will devour one another’. Fakhr-ud-din Mubarak Shah mentions this in both of his books as a perfectly valid Tradition without examining its source.² Like other Traditions purporting to support the institution of Sultanate, probably this was also coined outside India and came to Hindustan with the invaders to serve a similar purpose. However, it soon became so popular that such careful chroniclers as Amir Khusrau and ‘Afif accepted it as an article of faith and in any case as a sound moral and political doctrine.³ Finally, Muhammad Tughluq inscribed it as a legend on his coin, which removed any suspicion as to its validity.⁴ When the governors and deputies of the Sultan succeeded in establishing independent kingdoms for themselves, they borrowed political theories like other royal equipment from Delhi, and this doctrine became equally popular in the provinces.⁵ The facts of contemporary social and political life fully vindicated the wisdom of this enunciation. The state appeared to be the only guarantee of peace, security and order. Curious as it may sound, the Hindu reformers pass over the question of Muslim domination in gloomy silence as the inevitable fruit of *Karma* without ever making suggestions for its overthrow or demanding the delegation of powers to the common people. They appear to have a supreme and deep suspicion of the incapacity of people to govern themselves.¹ The death, or even long absence or protracted illness of a monarch, was a source of universal anxiety. The sudden death of a monarch sometimes spelt dire confusion. In such eventualities clever ministers used to fabricate bulletins of the Sultan's perfect health, of his movements and even of his victories against his enemies, which only betrays the extreme sense of insecurity among the people in the absence of a visible head of the state, and consequently, the universal conviction that the Sultanate was indispensable, for it was the only agency that secured peace, order and security.² The prospect was not very cheerful of reverting to the pre-Muslim centuries of Rajput domination, with its constant civil wars and the repeated incursions of the chiefs into each other's territories, and finally the approach of a foreign invader.