The Administration of the Sultanate of Dehli c11.198

c11.198

The foregoing were the main items of income; but a number of local imposts are also mentioned which, in spite of repeated abolitions by the state, raised their head again and again in the history of Muslim India.⁶ For the origin of these taxes, one should turn to the Hindu period; for the Muslim conquerors could not have brought taxes with Hindu names from their homelands. But before doing so, it will be fruitful to examine the attitude of the shar‘ towards these imposts. Two Muslim monarchs in India, Fīrūz Shāh and Aurangzīb ‘Ālamgīr, both famous for their orthodoxy, took the view that they were illegal and abolished them. This attitude found favour in orthodox Muslim circles, yet it should not be imagined that there was no difference of opinion.¹ The author of *Daftar-i-muqtaṣid* thinks that taxes not recognized by *shar‘* can be levied provided they are not exorbitant.² This corroborates the view of those sultans who did not object to these extra taxes. The imposts abolished by Fīrūz Shāh and mentioned in his *Futūḥāt* are generally small cesses on articles sold in the towns and could not have brought much money to the exchequer; for instance, the vendors of fish, flowers, rope, oil, parched gram and betel leaves—petty shopkeepers or small stall-holders—could not have been taxed heavily.³ It is useless to discuss these taxes at length; they do not possess sufficient importance to find mention in the chronicles.⁴ The taxes actually mentioned by ‘Afīf deserve notice. Of these, *dāngānah* has already been described. *Jazzārī* was levied from butchers at twelve *jītals* per head on cows for slaughter; this was probably imposed to protect milch cattle. *Dūrī* can hardly be called a tax: it was more of the nature of forced labour. Already the older cities of Dehlī were falling into ruin and people were building houses near Fīrūzābād. Whenever traders brought goods to the capital on beasts of burden or in conveyances, they were required to carry bricks once from the old sites on their animals to the new city. Another tax was *mustaghil*, which the historian defines as "the rent of houses and shops", and seems to have been paid even by the poor. The tax was confined to the city of Dehlī and brought in a revenue of 150,000 *tankahs* per annum. It is definitely called rent, and was probably collected from houses and shops built on state land.⁵ These taxes were not levied in the rural areas. It is surprising that ‘Afīf does not mention *charā’ī* which Fīrūz includes in the list of taxes which he abolished. Grazing dues had been levied on animals since time immemorial. Sulṭān ‘Alā-u’d-dīn Khaljī gave orders that the tax should be strictly enforced.¹ Unfortunately Baranī does not give details of the impost, but Abū'l Faḍl has given a description of its nature. It was a tax on land liable to pay kharāj, but left uncultivated and enclosed for pasturage.² The rates mentioned are low, and if they had been heavy under the sultans and had brought a large amount of money into the exchequer, 'Afīf would not have completely ignored it. Another tax which finds mention with charā'ī is karhī, which some authors have taken to mean a house-tax, but which was more probably identical with charā'ī.³ There can be little doubt about the antiquity of some of these taxes. The Shukranīti mentions the rent on houses and shops; Manū speaks of taxes on meat, honey, ghī, perfumes, medicine, liquids, flowers, roots and fruits as well as on leaves, herbs, grass, hides, rattan work, earthen pots and stoneware.⁴ Similarly other minor taxes which Fīrūz Shāh abolished can be traced back to the days of Kautilya.⁵ Muslim rulers found it so difficult to eradicate them because the custom was too deeply ingrained in the traditions of the people and some of these imposts were revived by selfish officials and chiefs when the government was not vigilant.