Life and Conditions of the People of Hindustan (1200–1550 A.D.) c6.s3.t1.9

c6.s3.t1.9

Let us now consider some items of extraordinary expenditure, which, however, were a regular feature of the Sultanat. Take, for instance, the expense incurred on royal gifts every year. Every Sultan gave away something to somebody for almost any excuse and almost every day. A royal gift, moreover, was distinguished by its quality and value. We will explain elsewhere the utility and the value of these royal gifts. Let us examine here certain characteristic cases. Sultan Ala-ud-din Khaiji is not particularly famous for his liberality, but his gifts, when he ascended the throne, were enormous. On other occasions too, he was not quite what one may call frugal or economizing³ The name of Muhammad Tughluq is a classic example for fabulous gifts of money. To put it in the figurative language of the contemporary chronicler, ‘he was anxious to bestow the treasures of Qarun, ‘the Oriental Korah’ on one and the hoards of the Kayanis, the Persian Emperors, on the other, all in a single gift. His indiscriminate liberality did not stop to differentiate between the deserving and the undeserving, between an acquaintance and a stranger, between a new and an old friend, between a citizen and a foreigner, or between the rich and the poor. All of them appeared to him just the same. Nay more, the gift of monarch preceded the request and the amount or the value of the donation exceeded the wildest expectations of the receiver; so that the latter was literally confounded. The recipients of the royal bounty numbered thousands and were scattered over many countries. In giving his gifts, it appears he did not take into consideration a lower unit than a *lac* (hundred thousand) and a *kror* (ten millions) of Tankas or a measure less than a maund of gold, silver or valuables. The chronicler then goes on to explain that the high-minded Sultan disdained to look upon gold, silver, pearls, and emeralds except as potsherds and stones.¹ Many of the administrative measures of this monarch can be better appreciated in the light of these propensities. It is true that an unfortunate successor of a great Sultan had to be content with some sort of economy as a virtue of necessity. But it was only just so long as the necessary funds were not forthcoming. These examples always left a glorious precedent for the successors to follow; and if their means did not permit them, the fault was not theirs.²