The Administration of the Sultanate of Dehli c11.118

c11.118

The next monarch to interest himself in agrarian matters was Ghiyāth-u’d-dīn Tughluq, the description of whose measures by Baranī has produced a controversy.³ The relevant sentence has been considered to be ambiguous; it has been taken to mean either that the state demand was not to exceed a tenth of the produce or that it was not to be increased by more than ten per cent.³ The first view finds favour in the *Cambridge History*, and may now be supported by the arguments that Quṭb-u’d-dīn Aibak reduced the state demand on certain properties from a fifth to a tenth of the produce, that the double *‘ushr* is a fifth for some lands and a tenth for others, and that Fīrūz Shāh also mentions that he charged ‘*kharāj* on tithes paying lands’.⁴ But it should be remembered that Quṭb-u’d-dīn’s measure amounted to giving the Muslim residents of Lāhor, comparatively few in number at that period, the right of paying *ushr* instead of *kharāj*, which could not seriously affect the exchequer, but Ghiyāth-u’d-dīn’s instructions to the effect that the demand should be reduced to a tenth would greatly affect the income. There is no definite record of a double *nīm-ushr* being in force in India; Fīrūz Shāh’s statement will be discussed later to show that in his case also the demand was not one-tenth of the produce. The context of the sentence deals with the question of increasing the revenue and Baranī’s remark can refer only to a limit to such increase; a critical examination of the text confirms this.¹ Historical probability also is in favour of this opinion. Since the normal state demand hitherto had been a fifth of the produce, it seems incredible that Ghiyāth-u’d-dīn reduced it to a tenth and so diminished the state income by one-half. It can be argued that he preferred a low demand which could be easily collected to a higher demand which was not possible to realize in its entirety. This argument can hardly hold ground, for one-fifth was not too high a demand; it could only apply to the reduction of the demand when it was as high as fifty per cent. of the produce. It is also unlikely that the sultan should act against the ruling of the jurists that the minimum *kharāj* is, in normal conditions, a double *ushr* or a fifth of the produce. Muḥammad bin Tughluq did not disturb the proportion except in the Doāb; where he wanted to curb the rebellious activities of the prosperous population, whom he also suspected of collusion with Mongol invaders. Besides, as the result of his extravagance, he was hard pressed for money and increased the demand in the rich ‘river country’ with disastrous consequences. It is very difficult to determine the proportion of his demand, for in doing this we are again face to face with a controversial passage.¹ Moreland thinks that the demand was increased inordinately; the actual level of this increase, however, could not be very high.² The demand was, in all probability, increased by five to ten per cent. Probably he himself reduced the demand when he tried to rectify his mistake by