The Administration of the Sultanate of Dehli c11.91

c11.91

and the cultivator.¹ The state could realize its share of the average produce either in kind or in money. The demand could be fixed in grain and then the state could ask for money at the current level of prices; or the share of the state could be defined in money on the basis of prices prevailing over a certain period in the past.² The ancient Hindu system seems to have been a combination of the two systems; the state demanded part of the revenue in kind called *bhāga* and part of it in cash called *hirānya*, or some paid the one and some the other.³ The sultanate does not seem to have fixed a cash demand. There were two periods when measurement was in force in the greater part of the empire: in ‘Alā-u’d-dīn Khaljī’s reign, the peasants were encouraged to pay in kind, and Sher Shāh’s schedule mentions no cash basis for grain.⁴ Fīrūz Shāh persuaded peasants in certain areas to pay a half of the demand in cash and the other half in kind.⁵ In one instance, however, there must have been fixed or standard cash demands for different administrative units. It is quite obvious that the state could never accept its share of perishable products in kind; and by their very nature, perishable articles had to be sold at widely varying prices in different localities. To work out the share of the state in a precise sum of money would involve too much work and the result would not justify the trouble. It was here that the state share was probably fixed in cash on the basis of average prices and a margin must have been left in favour of the peasant.⁶ Similarly when sharing was adopted, the revenue could be paid either in cash or kind. The state sometimes preferred the one, sometimes the other in view of its own needs or the facilities of the peasant. When ‘Alā-u’d-dīn demanded the revenue in kind, he wanted to have a liberal supply of foodstuffs for his economic planning; when the Lodīs did the same, it was because of the scarcity of specie and the inability of the peasant to obtain a reasonable cash price for his produce.¹ Generally, however, it must have been a question of convenience and adjustment. A natural consequence of payment in kind was that the state had to maintain granaries in various parts of the empire.²