Life and Conditions of the People of Hindustan (1200–1550 A.D.) c5.s2.t1: A. The Sultan as a Private Person

Life and Conditions of the People of Hindustan (1200–1550 A.D.) c5.s2.t1

Language: English

A. The Sultan as a Private Person

c5.s2.t1.1

After the analysis of the theory of sovereignty given in the preceding pages, it will be clear that the Sultan and the State were more or less coterminous. A division of the personality into private and public in relation to the Sultan is somewhat arbitrary. We have considered it convenient to make this division in order to emphasize the great influence of the monarch on the private life and the social behaviour of various classes of people. The example of the Sultan (or of the Raja in a Hindu State) was almost literally imitated by those under him, as far as their powers and resources permitted them. In a word the private person of the Sultan set the tone of society in general.¹

c5.s2.t1.2

¹ Compare the reflections of Barani : B., 575.

c5.s2.t1.3

The ambition of the Sultans of Delhi, as that of the Sassanian monarchs of Persia, was ‘to build lofty palaces; to hold grand levees and to enjoy the spectacle of a world prostrating itself before them; to accumulate vast hordes of treasure, and to concentrate all the financial power in their hands to bestow them on those they chose to favour; to appropriate all gold and jewels and then make a gift of them to a greedy and expectant crowd; to carry on incessant war to establish their supremacy; to maintain a large establishment of domestics and attendants and *harams*, and to enjoy the satisfaction of spending unlimited wealth on them—in a word the satisfaction of vanity and the acquirement of conspicuous distinction’. Without providing such paraphernalia of royalty, a monarch could hardly be considered a proper monarch, and the *Padishah* was hardly worthy of his exalted position. Such was the ideal of the Ghaznawids, as is summarized here in the words of a historian: and to this, as to the distinguished example of Sultan Mahmud, the Sultans of Delhi looked for inspiration and guidance²; in fact, it was the universal outlook of the age.

c5.s2.t1.4

² Compare F.J., 99, 110.

c5.s2.t1.5

*The Royal Establishments.*

c5.s2.t1.6

To make himself sufficiently worthy of his exalted position the Sultan therefore maintained the largest establishment in the kingdom. His palaces, his *haram*, his slaves and retainers, his staff of employees, and finally the crown lands, easily placed him above everybody else in his dominions.

c5.s2.t1.7

1. *Palaces.*—Building themselves palaces was an old and popular custom of the Persian Kings. Every king wanted a dwelling of his own and had no desire to use those bequeathed to him by a predecessor. He wanted his palaces to remain as a monument of his administration.³ The Hindu Kings similarly considered it inauspicious to live in a palace where somebody had breathed his last. The Sultans of Delhi followed the same tradition as far as possible, and began abandoning the old palaces along with their contents, and building their own palaces anew.¹ In the beginning of Muslim rule, two palaces are recorded, one for private residence, the *Daulat Khana* (or House of Fortune,) and the other for official use. They were named *Qasr-i-firuzi* (the Palace of Victory) and *Qasr-i-Safid* (the White Palace) respectively. By the time of Nasir-ud-din Mahmud a third, named *Kushk-i-sabz* (the Green Palace), had come into being.² Later, successive dynasties and even individual monarchs began laying the foundations of new royal cities, with royal palaces, markets, gardens, mosques, roads, and ramparts; so that Delhi, as it stands to-day, is composed of a dozen or so old royal cities of ancient times, for example Siri, Kilokhri, Shahr-i-nau, Tughluqabad, Firuzabad, Shahjahanabad, and others, *e.g.*, the capitals of the old Rajput dynasties. At a later date therefore, Firuz Tughluq assigned no less than three palaces for giving audience alone to various grades of people—for the nobles, the companions of the monarch, and for the common people. More will be said about the palaces and royal cities in a later chapter.

c5.s2.t1.8

³ Compare Huart, 96.

c5.s2.t1.9

¹ Compare K.R., II, 47.

c5.s2.t1.10

² Raverty, 661; also B. (MS.), 96.

c5.s2.t1.11

2. *Haram.*—The Sultans (as also the Hindu Rajas), on the whole, were extremely sensual. Women and concubines, as far as we can gather, occupied much of their time; some of them even maintained a regular department for the supply of choice beauties, without being very much satisfied in their sexual appetite.³ The monarchs, both Hindu and Muslim, had one chief queen whose children succeeded to the throne, or rather, to put it more correctly, had a prior right where a peaceful and undisputed succession was possible. She had other considerable privileges besides, for instance, the right of guardianship of a minor son who succeeded to the throne.¹ There was no fixed rule of choice among other queens, mistresses or concubines.² It is difficult to decide exactly how far female honour was safe from the approaches and the encroachments of a monarch within his kingdom. We might say on the whole that the Sultans considered it better policy not to offend delicate sentiments of the Hindu masses. All this, however, depended on the personal views of the monarch, for in cases of misbehaviour on the part of the monarch, there were no means of redress.³ The case of the women of a deposed monarch was on a different footing. The victor had a perfectly valid right of marrying the wives of the deposed Sultan, and there are records of such marriages against the express wishes of the wife or mistress in question.⁴ The Hindu Rajas probably followed the old and cherished traditions of paternal monarchs, though this can by no means be laid down as a rule of general application.⁵

c5.s2.t1.12

³ The extreme indulgence of the Hindu Rajas of the South and the thousands of their wives and slaves, are dealt with in the pages of almost all foreign travellers who visited the Deccan. For Hindu examples in Hindustan: compare the famous case of the Rajput Minister of Malwa who had 2,000 women including Muslim women also—C.H.I., III, 368. Compare the amusing instance of the Raja of Champanir who was so busy amusing himself with *Patars* that he did not realize that Afghan invaders had occupied the town—W.M., 39. For Muslim monarchs hardly any illustrations are required. Compare, however, the extreme indulgence of Mu'izz-ud-din Kaiqubad in all kinds of sexual indulgence and the magnanimous forgiveness of similar sins on the part of his subjects; in fact he thought that if he enjoyed and let others do the same, it was a source of glory in this world and of paradise in the next—B., 99. Consider also—W.M., 81, the wailings of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-din Khalji of Malwa who maintained a whole department for female supply but died in the grief that he never met a woman exactly to his liking.

c5.s2.t1.13

¹ Compare Tod, III, 1370 for the privileges of a chief queen in Rajputana: and how a *Patrani* or chief queen is publicly enthroned with the Rana of Mewar. Compare also the blundering guardian of her sons, the chief queen of Jalal-ud-din Khalji and her mistakes on the approach of Ala-ud-din towards Delhi, after killing the Sultan.

c5.s2.t1.14

² Compare Tod, I, 358 on the point : ‘The number of queens is determined only by state of necessity and the fancy of the prince. To have them equal in number to the days of the week is not unusual, while the number of handmaids is unlimited’.

c5.s2.t1.15

³ Compare the Hindu sentiment on the point in P. (hin) 223, 424—. Compare the remarks of Khusrau on helplessness in cases of misbehaviour — M.A., 199.

c5.s2.t1.16

⁴ Compare the statement of Haji Dabir in Z.W., III, 854, how Ghiyas-ud-din Tughluq had no objection to the usurper Khusrau Khan’s marrying Mubarak Khalji’s wives, but only to the want of compliance with the provisions of Muslim law regarding the interval between one marriage and another (or *Iddat*). Compare similarly Z.W., II, 842 ; for Mubarak Shah’s compulsion in marrying Dewalrani, the beloved wife of Khizr Khan which is also hinted at by Amir Khusrau in his work D.R.

c5.s2.t1.17

⁵ Compare the war of Vijayanagar and the Bahmani Sultan for a girl C.H.I., III, 391. Compare the designs of a neighbouring Raja to secure Padumavat in the absence of Ratan Sen at Delhi in P. (hin), also p.p., 72-3 for a similar story.

c5.s2.t1.18

It may be said in this connection that the inmates of a royal *haram* included other female persons besides the wives and concubines of a Sultan, for instance, the mother, the sisters and daughters, in fact all female relations. The mother of a monarch in particular (called *Ma-ji* among the Rajputs) was in some respects a person even more exalted than the chief wife of the Sultan. The Persian tradition and the Rajput custom had both allowed to the mother of the reigning prince a more domineering authority than she had ever exercised as a queen consort.¹

c5.s2.t1.19

¹ For Rajputs, compare Tod, III, 1370; for Persian tradition Rawlinson, Five monarchies, etc. III, 220. Compare the influence of the widow of Iltutmish named Shah Turkan after the death of her husband—Raverty, 632; compare also the separate charitable establishment of the mother of Muhammad Tughluq—K.R., II, 72.

c5.s2.t1.20

The life of a Sultan inside the *haram* is so much a matter for the personal concern of a monarch, that the chroniclers reveal to us little, if anything, about this aspect of his life. We can infer from the fact of Sultan Iltutmish suggesting Raziyya as his successor to the throne, that the monarch must have loved her tenderly, and looked after her education and training with great care and interest. The historians make a slight suggestion that Sultan ‘Ala-ud-din Khalji was not very happy with his wife which, according to them, accounts for his first raid into the distant Deccan, undertaken as a relief from his domestic miseries. Haji Dabir, however, narrates an amusing incident to prove that this inference was true.² Prince Khizr Khan, the son of ‘Ala-ud-din Khalji was extremely happy in the love of his second wife, Dewalrani. An autographed memoir of the Prince himself, giving the whole story of their romance and marriage, so Amir Khusrau tells us, is the basis of his famous poem *Dewalrani Khizr Khan*, which was published after the murder of the Prince and immortalises the love and tragic sufferings of the devoted couple. We get very little information on the subject until we come to the period of the Mughuls. Here we get a closer view of life inside the royal *haram*. The memoirs of Babur and Gulbadan, as others of later days, disclose to us a picture of happy domestic life with a strong tradition of affection and love which led many credulous travellers to believe in curious tales and scandals.¹

c5.s2.t1.21

² Compare Z.W., II, for the interesting story, how ‘Ala-ud-din Khalji loved a mistress named Mahak which could not long be kept a secret from his wife and mother-in-law. He loved this mistress too deeply to give her up on any account. It happened by chance that once when the lovers were together, the daughter and mother-in-law came upon them. An ugly scene then ensued. Probably the incomers belaboured Mahak which led ‘Ala-ud-din to rescue her forcibly from them. In doing so, he struck his wife, who, incidentally, was the daughter of Sultan Jalal-ud-din Khalji, the reigning monarch. As a result of this unpleasantness, ‘Ala-ud-din went to the Deccan.

c5.s2.t1.22

¹ Compare G., 46 for the feelings of Gulbadan towards her brother Humayun when for the sake of greater security and repose she was separated from him and put under the stewardship of Mirza Kamran. Compare numerous references in Gulbadan and Babur-nama.

c5.s2.t1.23

As regards the organization of the royal *haram*: the reigning Sultan was the head of the whole royal family in an intimate and personal sense. All the members of the royal family, including his queens, were subject to his commands.² The inmates of the *haram* and all members of the royal family submitted regular petitions, whenever they wanted to approach the monarch on business, and carried out his orders faithfully. The inmates of the royal *haram* were assigned enclosed and well-guarded lodgings inside the palace. Suitable care was taken that the requirements of the *pardah* were scrupulously carried out. Their care and attendance was assigned to a class of confidential maids and eunuchs, together with hundreds of male and female servants and slaves for domestic service.³ The royal *haram* was supervised from within by a regular *hakima* or governess born of a noble family, and from without by a *Khvaja-Sarai* (the chief eunuch) whose office was considered as one of great trust and responsibility.⁴ The *haram* of the Mughal emperor Akbar had a regular staff of female inspectors and guards with a female store-keeper (called *Ashraf*) who took charge of supplies and accounts. She annually submitted the audited account of the expenses incurred during the year and an estimate of expenditure for the next. At night, female guards took charge of the building and of the security of the inmates from within; the *Khvaja-Sarai* stationed himself with his staff at the entrance, and the faithful Rajput guard patrolled the building.¹ In the kingdom of Malwa the *haram* developed into a miniature government with regular armies, arts and tradeswomen and a great bazar; the King, the only male, decided disputes, and fixed salaries.²

c5.s2.t1.24

² Compare ‘Book of the Court’, p.65, for the legal position of an English queen consort: ‘But in general, unless where the law has expressly declared her exempted, she (the Queen) is upon the same footing with her subjects, being to all intents and purposes the King’s subject and not his equal’. Compare *ibid*, pp. 80-1, how the ‘care and approbation of His Majesty’s grand-children, when grown up’, was until 1718 a disputed question, when George I submitted it to the opinion of the Judges, which brought about the enactment of the Royal Marriage Act some time later. Compare numerous references to petitions in Gulbadan.

c5.s2.t1.25

³ G., 18.

c5.s2.t1.26

⁴ Compare E.D., III, 128, where the office is translated as ‘directress of female department’. Note the fact that a daughter of Fakhr-ud-din, the famous *Kotwal* of Delhi, was the supervisor of the *haram* of Sultan Mu’izz-ud-din Kaiqubad; for Khvaja-Sarai, see D.R., 101. Compare how the *haram* of ‘Ala-ud-din’ was guarded in B., 274.

c5.s2.t1.27

¹ A.A.I., 40; for parallel see Major, 32, the Vijayanagar *haram* arrangements.

c5.s2.t1.28

² C.H.I., III, 362. Compare Tod, I, 358, for Rajput *haram* (or *Rawala*) and the skill that is required on the part of the chiefs to manage it: ‘The government of the kingdom is but an amusement compared with such a task, for it is within the Rawala, that intrigue is enthroned’.

c5.s2.t1.29

3. *Royal Slaves (Bandagan-i-Khas).*—We shall discuss the position of the slaves in the next section. Let us, however, note here that slave-holding was time-honoured institution throughout the Muslim world during the period and until recently, and every nobleman and respectable person kept a few slaves. The royal slaves (or *Bandagan-i-Khas*) were considerable in number and international in their composition, bound together by the bond of service and allegiance to a common master. Having no local connections or interests of their own, the Sultan could always rely on their faithfulness and devotion more than on that of other State officials and nobles. The powers of the Sultan over them as master and king were absolute. He could kill them, give them away or dispose of them in any other way, as he thought fit.³ In practice, however, the relations between the Sultan and his slaves were anything but unpleasant and hardly gave an opportunity for the exercise of these extreme powers. On the other hand, the slaves were brought up almost as sons and confidantes, so that sometimes when the son of the Sultan was of doubtful capacity or was otherwise unfit to govern the kingdom, the slave of the monarch, who had struggled in the school of adversity and experience, successfully guided the ship of State through troubled waters.⁴ Qutb-ud-din Aibak, Iltutmish and Balban are three outstanding examples of royal slaves who rose to power and came to the throne.⁵

c5.s2.t1.30

³ Compare an instance, B., 273-4.

c5.s2.t1.31

⁴ Compare the feeling of Sultan Muhammad bin Sam of Ghur on the point—T.F., I, 110; he bequeathed his whole kingdom to his slaves, who succeeded to the throne of Delhi as well, where a whole dynasty of slaves ruled for more than 60 years.

c5.s2.t1.32

⁵ Compare T.M. (II), 95; Raverty, 603-4 and 802, for account.

c5.s2.t1.33

The number of royal slaves was usually very large. ‘Ala-ud-din Khalji had 50,000 slaves; those of Muhammad Tughluq were so many in number that the Sultan set apart a day of the week to manumit some of them and to confer them in marriage.¹ Firuz Tughluq was conspicuous for his solicitude towards his slaves. He encouraged the nobles of the realm to send slaves as annual tribute, for which a corresponding remission was made to them from the treasury. From 50,000 under ‘Ala-ud-din their number had risen to 200,000 under Firuz. The Sultan settled some of them in various towns and fixed their salaries; he employed others in useful arts and religious education; so that about 12,000 of them were craftsmen and masons, and about 40,000 followed the royal equipage.² Incidentally, the slaves added to the growing Muslim population of India.

c5.s2.t1.34

¹ A., 268-72. For the employment of royal slaves in various crafts, Havell finds the cause in the previous emigration of Hindu craftsmen, on account of Muslim invasion and the general insecurity of life (*vide* History of Aryan rule, 321). I have found no occasion to agree with this analysis. The number of craftsmen under ‘Ala-ud-din is estimated at 70,000, out of whom 7,000 were masons and stone-workers who are reported to be so skilful in their work that they carried out the construction of a building in a fortnight at the longest (*vide* T.F., I, 217). It is difficult to account for this sudden emigration of the Hindu craftsmen from Hindustan, especially when the north-west frontier was always menaced by Mongol raiders.

c5.s2.t1.35

² See above foot note.

c5.s2.t1.36

The influence of the royal slaves on the State, in these circumstances, was bound to be considerable. They were associated with the monarch, the source of all power and privilege, in a more intimate sense than other people, and as such, they were exposed as much to danger, as they stood to gain, from the royal association. As early as the reign of Sultan Raziyya the royal slaves made themselves felt. Under the successor of Firuz Tughluq their influence was decisive.³ They usually rose to the position of nobles, which will be treated in the next section.

c5.s2.t1.37

³ Compare Raverty, 635.

c5.s2.t1.38

4. *Astrologers, court-poets, musicians, etc.*—The appointment of astrologers at the court of ancient Hindu kings, and the credulity of Hindu monarchs are well known. The Muslim Sultans were not very different in this respect. Horoscopes were everywhere used, omens were taken, dreams were interpreted, charms were resorted to: in fact, the Qur’an was not infrequently used in divining the issue of an undertaking. In such circumstances even the minutest detail of royal life was regulated by the court astrologers and other masters of the occult and mysterious sciences. Hamayun, no mean student of the science of stars, was even contemplating the construction of an observatory, thus forestalling the work of the distinguished scholar and founder of the Jaipur City, Raja Jai Singh. Astrology is by no means neglected at the present day either in Hindu or Muslim society.¹

c5.s2.t1.39

¹ Compare an early reference in Raverty, 623, and B., 142; compare the many amusing stories of taking omens in the memoirs of Timur and Babur. Compare the diary of Sultan Tipu (in India Office collection) which records his dreams and their interpretations. The accounts of Humayun are full of amusing stories of superstitious beliefs of every variety.

c5.s2.t1.40

The court-poets and musicians were the brilliant assets of every court in India. Most of the Sultans could appreciate Persian poetry, and some of them could even improvise verses on occasion. The musicians were equally necessary to sing choice verses, and the Sultans, in this respect, were only following an old Persian tradition.² The court-poets and musicians were similarly necessary for the Hindu court. We shall revert to the subject later. Similarly, there were numerous jesters, tricksters, buffoons, and clowns in every court.³

c5.s2.t1.41

² Compare Huart, 145-6; for Persian tradition and musical instruments which were also used in Hindustan. Compare Hasan Nizami for an early description of flute, mandoline, oboe, and harp. Compare Varthema, 109.

c5.s2.t1.42

³ Compare a whole chapter in I.K.; also Tarikh-i-Ma'sumi, 64.

c5.s2.t1.43

It is difficult to classify the nondescript class of persons who were always to be found in a court. They may be conveniently termed royal favourites. The nature and composition of this class changed with every monarch; they could be low and uncultivated or, on the other hand, noble and refined according to the tastes of the monarch. For the time being their influence was supreme. The royal favourites were usually chosen from among the Muslims in the earlier period of the Sultanate, but as time advanced, Hindus began to rise gradually in the confidence of the monarch, until at last they changed the whole outlook of the Sultans.⁴ 5. Courtiers (Nadim).—By far the most important and interesting members of the staff of a Sultan were his *Nadim* or courtiers. Here we come across a class of refined and cultivated men which has left its mark on the manners and culture of the Indian nobility even to the present day. The term *Nadim*, strictly speaking, applies to the boon companions (*yar-i sharab*) of a monarch but may be rendered ‘courtiers’ for want of a better term. Their principal occupation was the entertainment of the Sultan in his leisure hours by adding to the liveliness of his gaiety and pleasures; some of them also accompanied the monarch almost everywhere as companions and attendants. As a rule, they had no official position in the State, and so far as appears from the records, unless they were asked to give their opinion or were especially attached to the courtiers for consultation, they could not speak to the Sultan on State affairs. Their proximity to the throne and the specially favourable opportunities of studying the humours and the personal weaknesses of the despot, together with their subtlety and craftiness in influencing the will of their royal master, had, however, given them considerable power and influence in the kingdom.¹

c5.s2.t1.44

⁴ Compare Raverty, 635, for an example of their influence; compare the efforts of Pancham the Hindu favourite of 'Ala-ud-din in capturing Dewalrani, D.R., 87; compare the influence of Khatris (a class distinct from Kshattriya caste) under the Sayyids— T.M.S., 556-7.

c5.s2.t1.45

¹ Compare the estimate of Abu’l Fazl in A.A.I., 5; how, if they deviated from the path of rectitude, they could bring disaster on the whole world. Compare how Sultan Jalal-ud-din Khalji used to discuss questions of State policy with his nephew and courtier Ahmad Chap, in many places in Barani; also the frank advice of Qazi Mughis-ud-din to ‘Ala-ud-din Khalji; similarly, the advice of Barani to Sultan Muhammad Tughluq, B. 395.

c5.s2.t1.46

The intellectual equipment of a *Nadim* was comprehensive. He combined in himself a variety of talent : he knew the niceties of sartorial equipment and personal decoration until it almost became a fine art; his conversation was in the choicest language; his intellectual culture covered a variety of knowledge, namely, the study of the chronicles, the Qur’an, poetry, folklore, together with some acquaintance with metaphysics and the occult and mystic elements of Islam. Finally, he was an accomplished player of chess and draughts and a fairly good player of some musical instruments. But above all these attainments, his great art consisted in putting the Sultan into good humour, by a careful study of his psychological reactions and his oddities and idiosyncrasies.² The Rajput *Bhats* do not come up to the same standard of refinement and elegance as the *Nadims* of the Sultan, although their stronger attachment to their masters, and their greater courage on occasions, cannot be disputed. In the course of time, the royal courtiers degenerated into vile and mean flatterers and became discredited even in the eyes of their employers.¹ At the present day the term *Nadim* (or *Musahib*) is in some way associated with sycophancy and a certain want of virile qualities.

c5.s2.t1.47

² Compare the remarks of Muhammad ‘Awfi on the point—J.H., 178.

c5.s2.t1.48

¹ Compare the contempt of Akbar for some of the class—A.N.I., 319.

c5.s2.t1.49

6. *Household Staff.*—Apart from his *haram*, his slaves and other attendants, and his courtiers, the Sultan employed a host of people to look after the protection of his person, his recreation and his domestic attendance in general. They were organized in separate departments under their own officers and supervisors who were all paid by the monarch from his personal funds and were directly responsible to him. Foremost among the needs of a monarch was that of personal protection.² Two separate officers, the *Sar-Jandar* and the *Sar-Silahdar*, were charged with this, the former being the first in rank. The *Sar-Jandar* was the commander of the Imperial Bodyguard. He was a prominent nobleman of the realm and was paid a huge salary.³ He commanded and supervised the life-guards, composed of the royal slaves, who were conspicuous for their devotion and efficiency.⁴ The *Sar-Jandar* was responsible for the security and protection of the royal person and had summary powers in the execution of his duties.⁵ The second officer, the *Sar-Silahdar*, was the head of the Imperial armour-bearers. The royal sword was in his keeping.⁶ His duties, on the whole, were of a ceremonial nature, not unlike those of the bow-bearers of the Sassanian monarchs.¹

c5.s2.t1.50

² Compare the remarks of Balban on the ‘vice, temptation, and greed’ of the people and the necessity of taking full precautions for the security of the monarch, B. 80.

c5.s2.t1.51

³ Compare Raverty, 730. Malik Saif-ud-din was assigned 300,000 Jitals for his maintenance allowance.

c5.s2.t1.52

⁴ Compare the remarks of F.J., 71, how of all the combatants on the day of battle, the royal slaves set the example of sacrifice and courage to the whole army and were ready to cast themselves in to ‘torrential rivers and flaming fires’ without hesitation.

c5.s2.t1.53

⁵ Compare Raverty, 730; for the association of *Sar-Jandar* wih bloodshed and torture.

c5.s2.t1.54

⁶ Compare I.K., III, 141.

c5.s2.t1.55

¹ Compare Rawlinson, Five, etc. III, 209 on the position of the bow-bearer of the ancient Sassanians who was privileged to stand immediately behind the monarch.

c5.s2.t1.56

Among other officials in charge of domestic attendance: The *Sar-abdar* (the predecessor of the *aftabchi* of the Mughals) looked after the washing and toilet arrangements of the Sultan, and followed him with his water keg (*karauti*) when the monarch went out²: the *Kharitadar* looked after the royal writing case; the *Tahwildar* after the purse³; the *Chashnigir* (the predecessor of the *Bakawal* of the Mughals) supervised the royal kitchen, and personally served and attended to the royal dinner, returning to the kitchen with the leavings⁴; the *Sar-Jamadar* took charge of the royal wardrobe and was responsible for the sartorial equipment of the monarch⁵; the *Tashtdar* attended the Sultan with ewer and washing-basin and the *Saqi-i-khas* with wines and other drinks; the *Mash'aldar* similarly supervised the lighting arrangements of the palace, and the provision of lamps, candlesticks, lamp-stands and candelabra, etc⁶. The number of the officials looking after every minute detail of domestic attendance is considerable, but these will suffice to give a fair idea⁷. All these functionaries had a regular staff of subordinates and menials to help them in the discharge of their duties.

c5.s2.t1.57

² Compare B. (M.S.), 15; compare Jauhar's description of his function, e.g. T.W., 130.

c5.s2.t1.58

³ Compare K.R., II, 63.

c5.s2.t1.59

⁴ For Mughal Comptroller of the royal kitchen, Beveridge, II, 5-11; a description of the duties of *Chashnigir* in K.R., II, 63.

c5.s2.t1.60

⁵ Compare *ibid.*, 82.

c5.s2.t1.61

⁶ Compare Raverty, 745, for a mention of these three officials.

c5.s2.t1.62

⁷ Compare A., 271-2, 338; B., 537; and Q.S., 145, for some other officials: the *Itr-dar* (Perfume keeper), the *Chatr-dar* (Royal parasol keeper), the *Sham'dar* (Keeper of candles), and the *Pardadar* (Keeper of the royal canopy or royal curtain).

c5.s2.t1.63

In enumerating the officials who looked after royal amusements, I will confine myself in this place to those who supervised the royal stables of horses and elephants and the river boats. A description of amusements will follow later. The horse stables came under the supervision of an eminent noble with the title of *Amir-i-akhur* or *Akhur-bak* (or, in plain Persian, *Amir-i-astaha-i-shahi*, Master of the royal stables); the elephant stables under that of a *Shahna-i-pil* (or Superintendent of the royal elephants). The salary of the latter under Muhammad Tughluq was equal to ‘the income of a big province like ‘Iraq’.¹ The number of animals in the stables may be judged from the fact that Sher Shah employed 3,400 horses for royal postal communications in the kingdom, and maintained about 5,000 elephants on an average.² There was a separate officer, with the title of *Shahna-i-bahr-o-kashti* (or Superintendent of rivers and royal boats) to look after river picnics and the passage of armies over the rivers, as the occasion demanded.³

c5.s2.t1.64

¹ Compare Q., 67; Raverty, 757. For the emoluments of the *Shahna-i-pil*, Notices, etc., 202.

c5.s2.t1.65

² Compare the account of T.S.S., 74.

c5.s2.t1.66

³ Compare Raverty, 757. Radhakumad Mukherji has understood duties connected with this officer to indicate maritime activity in the early Muslim period. I have, however, failed to trace any special significance of this officer to connect him with maritime activity during the period. He helped the conveyance of royal troops over the rivers and supervised the bridges. Both functions were subordinate to the military operations on land, and can hardly be interpreted to imply any maritime significance. See ‘A history of Indian Shipping and Maritime activity’, p.189. The original text of Barani (B., 86-68) says nothing of a naval expedition against Tughral. It only mentions the crossing of the river in ‘Bajaras’.

c5.s2.t1.67

7. *Karkhanas.*—The supplies of these officials and of their respective departments were provided by the royal stores or *karkhanas*, a system which was also probably borrowed from Persia.⁴ Besides the supplies for these and other officials, the *karkhanas* maintained separate sections for the supply of royal standards (the *alamkhana*) and the care of the royal library (*kitabkhana*) and the gong and chronometer (*ghariyal-khana*), the jewel house (*jawahirkhana*) and the royal pastures. The *karkhanas* looked after the provisioning of the royal stables and the supervision of the royal buildings, for which they maintained a whole army of masons and architects. Finally they undertook to supply the menial attendance and the domestic service for the palaces and other royal buildings. The enumeration, however, is by no means complete. These *karkhanas* were under the charge of a distinguished noble who was assisted by other subordinate superintendents (*mutasarrifs*), who were themselves nobles of rank and were appointed directly by the Sultan. All of them were paid very high salaries, and the charge of a store was considered quite as remunerative as the governorship of a big town like Multan.⁵ 8. *Crown lands (or Milk).* —To maintain all these establishments, the resources of the Sultan were almost unlimited. Apart from the treasures of gold and silver, the Sultan was the biggest landholder in the kingdom; in fact, the only one whose property had an undisputed legal basis. He could choose the most fertile tracts of land and employ the resources of the whole State to enhance their productive capacity. A separate staff of officers was employed to administer his private lands. We shall revert to this subject in another place.¹

c5.s2.t1.68

⁴ Compare Huart, 96; for ancient Persia.

c5.s2.t1.69

⁵ A., 271-272, 338-339.

c5.s2.t1.70

¹ Compare A., 130, for the anxiety of Firuz Tughluq in looking after his irrigation canals and the imposition of the new irrigation tax (*hasil-i-shurb*). The Sultan also colonized some waste lands in the kingdom, the taxes and revenues of which also went to swell the royal coffers and were partly spent on charitable endowments. For the increased produce, section IV.

c5.s2.t1.71

To form an opinion about the Sultan's private establishments and the nature of his occupations, let us see what the *Masalik-ul-absar* has to say about Muhammad Tughluq. 'At the cost of this prince', says the author, 'there are maintained 1,200 physicians : 10,000 falconers who ride on horseback and carry birds trained for hawking ; 300 beaters go in front and put up the game ; 3,000 dealers in articles required for hawking accompany him when he goes out hunting; 500 table companions dine with him. He supports 1,200 musicians excluding his slave musicians to the number of 1,000 who are more especially charged with the teaching of music, and 1,000 poets of the three languages, Arabic, Persian and Indian (meaning some Prakrit). A repast is served at which 20,000 men are present — Khans, Maliks, Amirs, Sipahsalars, and other officers. At his private meals, *i.e.*, at dinner and supper, the Sultan receives learned lawyers to the number of 200, who share meals with him and converse with him upon learned topics'. According to one informant who based his account on the report of the royal cook, 2,500 oxen, 2,000 sheep, and other animals and birds were daily slaughtered for the supplies of the royal kitchen.²

c5.s2.t1.72

² Compare E.D., III, 578-580; and Notices, etc., which translates *Malik* as 'le roi'.

c5.s2.t1.73

*B. The Sultan as a Public Person.*

c5.s2.t1.74

The dignity of a monarch has always been his first concern. The demands of royal dignity were immeasurably increased by its supposed divine origin and the new conception of the Sultanate. The monarch at Delhi scrupulously copied his Sassanian predecessors in Persia, whose love of luxury and ostentation was phenomenal.¹ It was all the more necessary in a foreign country where the State had no better sanction than the awe and fear it could inspire in the hearts of the people by the gorgeous display of its pomp and power and through the glorious surroundings of the Sultan. There are numerous examples on record, of the terror which the presence and appearance of a monarch inspired among his enemies. In fact, it was firmly believed that if the personality of a monarch did not succeed in inspiring people with awe and fear, he was better fitted to lead a Tuman (10,000 troops) or at best to govern a minor province, than to rule over a kingdom.² In veiw of these considerations, a number of prerogatives were reserved for the Sultan, namely, the Khutba, and the Sikka, and certain other symbols to distinguish him from all other people in the realm. He hardly ever appeared before the people except in court or when he gave audience to the public, or led an army or went out for the chase; in every case, he was accompanied by a grand procession and surrounded with splendour and glory.

c5.s2.t1.75

¹ Compare S., III, 499, for Occleve's advices on the 'dignitee of a kyng' in the "Perfect Prince": compare a description of Hormuzd IV by Theophylactus in Huart, 144-147: 'His tiara was of gold, adorned with precious stones. The carbuncles set in it gave off a dazzling brilliance, and the rows of pearls all round it mingled their shimmering light with the loveliness of the emeralds; so the eye was as it were petrified in wonder that could never have its fill'. Again, in the palace at Ctesiphon: 'The front adorned with notches, has no windows: there were a hundred and fifty openings in the roof, five or six inches in diameter, which allowed a mysterious light to filter in. The throne stood at the end of the hall and when the curtain was drawn back, the King splendidly clad, seated on his throne, wearing on his head the heavy bejewelled tiara, which was attached to a golden chain hanging from the ceiling to take the weight, presented such a marvellous spectacle that the man who saw it for the first time involuntarily fell on his knees'.

c5.s2.t1.76

² Compare B., 35. Compare also ibid., 33, for the public audience of Sultan Balban and how some of the envoys and Hindu vassals, who were conducted to the throne for the first time for presentation, trembled and fainted in the presence of the Sultan. The reports of these pageants had a salutary moral effect on the discontented elements in the kingdom. Compare also Ibn Batuta, K.R., II, 70; how a very large number of Afghan rebels fled away in terror and dismay when Muhammad Tughluq suddenly appeared with a small body of retainers. Compare also Macaulay, I, 20 for the view of Nanak. According to him a monarch was one who was guarded by lances, for whom bands played, who sat on a throne and was an object of salutation. Compare Arnold, 28: for the appearance of the executioner at the side of a Caliph after the transfer of the seat of government from Madina to Baghdad.

c5.s2.t1.77

1. *The Titles.*—The royal title which signified the full and undisputed powers of the monarch was that of *Sultan*. The Sayyids who established themselves after the invasion of Timur, assumed the titles of *Rayat-i-A‘la* and *Masnad-i-‘Ali*.¹ Sher Shah assumed the title of *Hazrat-i-A‘la* as soon as the various clans of Afghans in India submitted to his leadership; but when he felt himself powerful enough, he adopted the title of ‘Sultan’ to signify his assumption of full sovereign powers.² Apart from his royal title, the monarch adopted some other titles which indicated his religious leadership of the Muslim community, to which reference has been made earlier. When people conversed with him they used to address him as *Khudavand-i-‘Alam* (Master of the World), and prefaced their remarks with a short prayer for his long life or for the security of his kingdom.³

c5.s2.t1.78

¹ M.T., 285.

c5.s2.t1.79

² T.S.S., 34.

c5.s2.t1.80

³ Compare K.R., II, 9.

c5.s2.t1.81

2. *Khutba and Sikka.*—The overt acts of sovereignty, which announced the advent of a Sultan to the throne, included the recitation of the public sermon (*Khutba*) in the name of the aspirant to the throne, and the issue of money bearing his superscription, or what were commonly known as the ceremonies of *Khutba* and *Sikka* respectively.⁴ Numismatic announcements were also made to commemorate an important victory. Both of them were exclusively reserved for the monarch. The minor dynasties which broke away from Delhi followed the same tradition.⁵

c5.s2.t1.82

⁴ Compare E. Thomas, 1. Compare *ibid.*, 190, the amusing instance of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-din Tughluq issuing his coin with an obsolete reverse stamp for want of a suitable die for immediate use, which only indicates the supreme importance that was attached to the numismatic proclamation of a monarch. Compare *ibid.*, 73; for numismatic proclamation of a victory.

c5.s2.t1.83

⁵ Compare T.S.S., 3, for these ‘masters of *Khutba* and *Sikka*’; compare also Vambery, 53.

c5.s2.t1.84

3. *Symbols of Royalty.*
(a) *Crown and Throne.*—The crown of the Sultans of Delhi differed from that of the Persians and the Ghaznawids in as much as it was meant to be worn as head-gear, and was not a mere decoration. It was studded with jewels, was round in shape but loose and bulging out above the forehead.⁶ Prince Humayun made certain improvements in the form and design of the crown; he made models of his improved patterns and presented them to his father, the Mughal Emperor Babur.¹ No details are, however, given.

c5.s2.t1.85

⁶ Q.S., 142.

c5.s2.t1.86

¹ Compare A.N.I., 260-1.

c5.s2.t1.87

The throne was made of wood and plated with gold. It was square in shape, resting on four feet.² The traditional Hindu throne was nine-storeyed but the idea does not appear to have found favour with the Sultans. Instead of the additional storeys for enhancing the splendour of a throne, the Sultans surrounded it with rich canopies, which will be referred to later.

c5.s2.t1.88

² Compare Q.S., 143; compare Hindu throne, P. (hin), 623.

c5.s2.t1.89

(b) *Chatr and Durbash*.—Next in importance were the royal parasol (*Chatr*) and the royal baton (*Durbash*) which were also regarded as symbols of royal power.³ The colour and design of the royal parasol suited the personal taste of the monarch.⁴ Muhammad Tughluq followed the Abbasid example in using a black parasol. A large *huma*, ‘the protector of Persian kings’, was usually worked on a parasol in gold and shaded the monarch under its wings as an auspicious omen.⁵

c5.s2.t1.90

³ For example, Raverty, 607.

c5.s2.t1.91

⁴ Jalal-ud-din Khalji used red parasols for public audiences, but put away this ‘symbol of wrath’ on other occasions, when he preferred to use white parasols (*vide* D.R., 67; K.K., 883 : T.F.I., 154). Earlier, Sultan Mu‘izz-ud-din Kaiqubad used parasols of different colours on different occasions—black, red, white, green, and pink. His parasol was also fringed with pearls (*vide* Q.S., 20, 57). I may note in this connection that Raverty’s rendering of the term *chatr* as ‘canopy’ is incorrect. The original term ‘chatr’ occurs in many places, among others in *Tabaqat-i-Nasiri*, (M.S.), 178, and can hardly be rendered otherwise than as ‘parasol’. The term ‘canopy’ is more appropriate for *Sayaban*. ‘The parasol’, as Rawlinson remarks, ‘which has always been in the east a mark of dignity, seems in Persia, as in Assyria, to have been confined either by law or usage to the King (Five, etc. etc., III. 206). Compare also Temple’s note on p. 210 in ‘Lalla’ on the use of ‘Chowrie and Umbrella’ among Hindus. Compare also A.M., 76b.

c5.s2.t1.92

⁵ Compare K.F., 29; Q., 99; Q.S., 57; B.M. MS., 1858, 102, for *huma*. For the description of a *huma*, Huart, 8, ‘The Huma is a species of the Persian vulture (*gypo fulvus*) known as the bearded vulture or lammergeyer.’

c5.s2.t1.93

Nobody except the Sultan could use the *Chatr* as a matter of right unless so delegated or authorized by the reigning sovereign. Such distinguished favours were limited to very few persons, who were usually of royal blood and in most cases, heirs-apparent to the throne.¹ Even in such cases where more than one parasol was used by royal permission, a distinction was maintained between the parasol of the monarch and that of others, so that the possibility of confusion between the two parasols was removed.²

c5.s2.t1.94

¹ Compare B., 428, for Balban’s appointing prince Muhammad heir to the throne and permitting him the use of *Chatr* and *Durbash*. Bughra Khan succeeds to this privilege of his elder brother on the death of the latter. But when his own son Kaiqubad succeeds to the throne of Delhi, the father has to make a petition for the retention of the privilege of using the ‘white parasol’ which, as he admitted, belonged to his son in his capacity as the Sultan of Delhi. Kaiqubad acceded to the request of Bughra Khan which gave him peculiar satisfaction (*vide* Q.S., 146; B. 92). Compare K.F., 33, for the permission given to the Raja of Chitor to retain the use of the ‘blue parasol’ as a vassal of ‘Ala-ud-din Khalji. Compare also (*ibid.*) the gift of many royal symbols—parasol, *durbash*, elephants, and *‘alams* or royal standards to Khizr Khan, the eldest son of ‘Ala-ud-din Khalji, by his father on his appointment as the Viceroy of the Sultan of Delhi in Rajputana. But when the same Prince was in disgrace at a later date through the machinations of Malik Kafur, these distinctions were snatched away from him without ceremony (*vide* D.R., 240).

c5.s2.t1.95

² Compare the remark of ‘Afif’ A., 108.

c5.s2.t1.96

The Indian *durbash*, like its Persian predecessor, was a wooden staff branching at the top and plated with gold.³ It was used to keep common people at a distance from the monarch. The Hindu symbol was the *Morchal* (or Chauri) which was used to keep away the flies from the royal person. It appears that the *durbash* in Hindustan was modified to serve the purpose of the Hindu *morchal* also.⁴

c5.s2.t1.97

³ The *durbash*, according to Raverty, was a kind of spear with two horns and branches, the wooden staff of which used to be studded with jewels and ornamented with gold and silver. This used to be carried before the sovereign when he issued forth, in order that people perceiving it from a distance might know that the king was coming and that they might make way for him by standing on one side (Raverty, note, p.607).

c5.s2.t1.98

⁴ Compare Khusrau who describes the *‘durbash’* as a fly-eating monster (*vide* Q.S., 60).

c5.s2.t1.99

(c) *Sayaban, Naubat*, and *‘Alam*.—The use of a red canopy of state (or *sayaban*), of the triple band (*naubat*), and the royal standards (*‘alam*) was similarly the privilege of a monarch. Nobody could use them unless specially permitted by the Sultan as a conspicuous favour.⁵ This indulgence, too, was withdrawn at a later date when the Afghan nobles began to misuse the favours of the Sur Sultans. Salim Shah, for instance, made an explicit rule that the red canopy was not to be used by any noble under any circumstances.¹

c5.s2.t1.100

⁵ Compare, for instance, the permission to use a red canopy given by Sultan Iltutmish to Malik Nasir-ud-din on the latter’s appointment to the governorship of Bengal (*vide* Raverty, 630), the permission given to Malik Kafur to use the red canopy in the Deccan as the representative of the Sultan of Delhi (*vide* B., 334) and a similar permission to Prince Fath Khan by Sultan Firuz Shah Tughluq as his representative in Delhi during the latter’s absence in Bengal (*vide* T.M.S., 404).

c5.s2.t1.101

¹ Compare Elliot, 404.

c5.s2.t1.102

Similarly *naubat* (or the royal band) was an old Persian and Hindu tradition. The royal band was composed of a variety of instruments—trumpets, drums, flageolets, fifes, etc., and was played at stated times in the palace.² In exceptional cases the Sultan allowed others the use of kettle-drums, provided their use was limited only to occasions when the distinguished person so favoured was travelling in the country. He could not use them in the town.³

c5.s2.t1.103

² Compare the Persian tradition in Huart, 145-6; compare P. (hin), 196, for the Hindu tradition, which mentions a constant playing of the band at the palace. The Rajputs were specially fond of musical instruments being played when they were dining. The musical instruments mentioned are *naqqara, shahnai, turai,* and *jhanj* (*vide* P., Urdu edition, 421).

c5.s2.t1.104

³ Compare K.R., I, 107; for the amusing instance of the Naqib of Baghdad, who visited India and ignorant of this traditon, had his drums beaten in Delhi which annoyed Muhammad Tughluq a great deal.

c5.s2.t1.105

The *‘alams* or royal standards were carried with the royal procession on both sides of the monarch. They bore the emblem of *‘fish and crescent’*.⁴ Apart from standards, certain other *nishans* or royal emblems were also carried with the royal procession.⁵

c5.s2.t1.106

⁴ Compare Q.S., 63; for this emblem. Minhaj Siraj mentions the gift of ‘the morning fish’ (*Mahi-i-Subhi*) from the Sultan to the author (*vide* Raverty, 1294). The author of the *Masalik-ul-absar* was informed that the royal emblem was ‘a golden dragon’ (*vide* Notices, 188). I adhere to the version of Amir Khusrau in holding to the opinion that it was the emblem of the fish and the crescent.

c5.s2.t1.107

⁵ For *nishans*, compare the giant kettle-drums of Firuz Shah Tughluq which were carried on both sides of the royal procession and were visible from a distance (*vide* A., 369-70). For the *nishans* of his predecessor Muhammad Tughluq, compare K.R., II, 82.

c5.s2.t1.108

*(d) Elephants and hoards of bullion.*—The far-sightedness and wisdom of the Sultans is shown in making the possession of elephants and of hoards of gold and silver illegal unless they themselves allowed somebody their limited use, as a special favour. The elephants were most useful instruments in war and though the Muslims had shown their comparative ineffectiveness against well-trained horses, the elephants were by no means to be despised in warfare. No words are needed to explain the omnipotent power of gold and silver (which Barani aptly describes as *qazi-ul-hajat*, vide E.J., 78). Once a person secured the necessary number of elephants and a suitable quantity of gold, it did not take him very long to employ skilful soldiers, and to persuade the common people to accept him as their monarch, thus eventually superseding the reigning Sultan.¹ Elephants and gold were usually reserved for the sovereign among the Hindus as well as among the Muslims. It was only at a much later date that the gift of elephants became popular with the Sultans of Delhi.² The neighbourhood of Kalpi and the province of Orrisa were the favourite haunts of the wild elephants, and a number of villages near Manikpur (U.P.) followed the profession of catching and presenting them to the royal stables.³ The elephants were usually brought before the monarch every day to offer their salutations with ceremony.⁴

c5.s2.t1.109

¹ Compare the remarks of Barani, B., 83.

c5.s2.t1.110

² Compare, *ibid*., 92, how Balban after the suppression of the rebellion of Tughral in Bengal makes a gift of the whole of the rebels' property to his son (who succeeds him as the Governor of Bengal) except the elephants and the treasure of gold. Compare D.R., 54; for the fact that before Sultan 'Ala-ud-din Khalji no person of the rank of an *amir* had kept an elephant. The exceptional case of Malik Ikhtyar-ud-din, the deputy of Bahram Shah, who stationed an elephant at the entrance of his residence (*vide* Raverty, 650), does not come within the prohibition, and was resented by other nobles. Firuz Tughluq made a special gift of six elephants to his brother, the Naib Barbak, who was so delighted with the honour that whenever he called for a royal audience the animals used to come in front of him in a procession (*vide* A., 429). For the Hindu custom, compare T.F., I, 107; J.H. 340. The white elephant was a rare possession. Compare Barbosa, II, 115; for parallel.

c5.s2.t1.111

³ Compare Babur's observations, B.N., 250.

c5.s2.t1.112

⁴ Compare Barbosa, 109.

c5.s2.t1.113

The tradition of hoarding treasure was very old in India. Every Hindu ruler scrupulously preserved what his predecessor had bequeathed to him, accumulated treasures of his own during his reign, and left this added wealth to his successor, which grew into fabulous quantities and was usually expropriated by a foreign invader.⁵ These royal treasures and the hoards in the temples provided an irresistible temptation to the greedy and strong Muslim invader from the North-west. The tradition remained unaltered during the Muslim period and curiously enough was also scrupulously observed by the Muslim Sultans.¹ The reasons for hoarding gold were clear. The gold bullion was handy to convey anywhere in times of insecurity and danger, and useful in periods of famine or other national calamities. With the help of treasure a monarch could not only maintain his rule over people, but could also rescue himself and them from difficulties and disasters.² The only unfortunate monarch who showed indulgence in matters of hoarding treasures for himself and in prohibiting hoarding on the part of other, and permitted his nephew to appropriate part of the Deccan treasure, lost his life and throne by neglecting this commonsense rule of practice and hallowed royal tradition of ancient date.

First 113 of 117 passages. Read on

Linked texts (2)

Sīrī
Ṭabaqāt-i Nāṣirī — Minhāj al-Dīn Jūzjānī