Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Administration of the Sultanate of Dehli c12: Chapter VII: The Army

The Administration of the Sultanate of Dehlī c12

Language
English

Contents

Chapter VII: The Army

c12.2

(THE sultanate of Dehlī was so situated that it could not The need. neglect its army.¹ It started as an armed camp in the midst of a partially subjugated and hostile population, and the establishment of authority as well as the reconciliation of the people took some time.) Besides, from 618 A.H. (1221 A.C.) when it first felt the repercussions of the expansion of the Mongol power, the sultanate had to defend itself against constant invasions from the north-west.² The armies of the sultans managed to keep the barbarians out, but fell before their Muslim descendants. Tīmūr poured in his hordes when anarchy had reduced the House of Tughluq to impotence; Bābur took advantage of the disaffection of the Lodī nobles; and Humāyūn came back to give the final blow when Afghān turbulence had once again plunged the state into civil war; so the worst enemies of the sultanate throughout were the Mongols and their descendants. Still the sultans were not content with standing on their guard; their armies penetrated far into the Deccan, and one of them had the ambition of conquering Khurāsān and ‘Irāq.³ The sultan was generally a capable military leader by training; legally he was the commander-inchief of the forces. His assistant in military affairs was the nā’ib-u’l-mulk.⁴ )

c12.3

¹ The need of an army was well recognised, e.g. Tāj, f. 9.

c12.4

² Invasion of Jalāl-u’d-dīn Khwārazm-shāh; Minhāj, p. 171.

c12.5

³ Muhammad bin Tughluq; Baranī, p. 476.

c12.6

⁴ Also called malik nā’ib, S.A., pp. 67, 68; Masālik-u’l-abṣār, pp. 30, 31, 33. These authorities call him amriyat.

c12.7

There was a ministry for war called *dīwān-i-'arḍ*. At its head was the *‘āriḍ-i-mumālik*; he was responsible for maintaining the army in a state of efficiency and for the entire administration of military affairs.¹ He acted as the chief recruiting officer and fixed the salary of each recruit; the candidates displayed their skill and prowess in his presence and were then put on the pay roll.² At least once a year he inspected the troops and examined the condition of each trooper's equipment and mount.³ The promotion and degradation of the soldiers depended on the *‘āriḍ* who kept the muster rolls and revised salaries at each annual review.⁴ His office was responsible for the recommendation of assignments to soldiers and for the payment of the troops.⁵ When a campaign was undertaken, the *‘āriḍ* was in charge of all preparations.⁶ The choice of troops was generally left to him, though the general was nominated by the sulṭān.⁷ In all important wars the *‘āriḍ* himself accompanied the army; sometimes he nominated a deputy.⁸ The *‘āriḍ* also saw to matters of supply and transport; the commissariat was under his control. After a victory the *‘āriḍ* supervised the collection of the booty which was divided in the presence of the commander-in-chief.⁹ The *Ādāb-u'l-mulūk* describes a review. The *‘āriḍ*, from a place of vantage, saw the left wing, the centre and then the right wing march past him, both cavalry and infantry. The *naqībs* stood by, and the *‘āriḍ* scrutinized each soldier, his arms and his horse. Every soldier had an appointed place; the *naqībs* had charts for arranging the soldiers in battle array.¹⁰ Fīrūz Shāh's unwise leniency undermined discipline; in spite of repeated postponements a number of soldiers failed to attend for examination.¹ Balban’s *‘āriḍ* treated the troops kindly and helped deserving men with money or material from his private resources, but he insisted on a high standard of efficiency.² He had a high sense of his responsibility and considered his post as “the guardianship of the empire.”³ The *dīwān-i-‘arḍ* was rightly called the ‘source of the livelihood of the fighters for the Faith’; more difficult to understand, however, is a statement by Baranī that ‘Alā-u’d-dīn Khaljī’s court poets received their salaries from this department.⁴ This implies that all salaries were disbursed by the *‘āriḍ*’s office; if so, one can see the beginnings in this system of the Mughul custom of putting all public servants on the army pay-list and giving them *manṣabs*. The *‘āriḍ* was assisted by a large clerical staff and had his lieutenants at the centre as well as in the provinces.⁵

c12.8

¹ *Khazā'in-u'l-futūḥ*, p 50; Baranī, pp. 60, 114, 170; *Fatāwā-i-jahāndārī* ff. 66b, 70b.

c12.9

² I.B., ii, 9; Baranī, p. 102; *‘Utbī*, pp. 104, 105, etc.

c12.10

³ *‘Afīf*, pp. 299, 300

c12.11

⁴ Baranī, pp. 62, 101, 102, etc.

c12.12

⁵ *‘Afīf*, p. 301.

c12.13

⁶ *Idem*, p. 60.

c12.14

⁷ *Khazā'in-u'l-futūḥ*, p. 50.

c12.15

⁸ Baranī, e.g., p. 326.

c12.16

⁹ *Dīwān-i-Farrukhī*, f. 26b; *Khazā'in-u'l-futūḥ*, pp. 118, 176.

c12.17

¹⁰ A.M., ff. 81b-82b.

c12.18

¹ *Afif*, pp. 299-301.

c12.19

² *Baranī*, p. 115.

c12.20

³ *Idem*, p. 116.

c12.21

⁴ *Idem*, p 360.

c12.22

⁵ *Idem*, p. 326

c12.23

The *dīwān-i-‘arḍ* kept a descriptive roll of every soldier which was called *ḥuliyah*. *Ḥuliyah* and *dāgh*. ‘Alā-u’d-dīn Khaljī is credited with the introduction of a systematic branding of the horses brought by the troopers so that an animal might not be presented twice or replaced by a worse one.⁶ This system, called *dāgh*, really dates back to the Umayyads.⁷ Fīrūz Shāh seems to have discontinued both *dāgh* and *ḥuliyah*, for he allowed soldiers to send substitutes to the musters.⁸ Sikandar Lodī insisted on the registration of *ḥuliyah*, which was now known as *chehrah*.⁹ *Dāgh* was revived by Sher Shāh, to whom the danger of a Mughul restoration was ever present.¹⁰ Both *dāgh* and ḥuliyah were intended to prevent fraud, not only on the part of the troopers themselves, but also by chiefs and nobles who drew the salaries of troops assigned to them and passed off hirelings on the day of muster.¹ The enrolment and inspection of the troops were considered so important that some sultans personally discharged these duties.²

c12.24

⁶ *Idem*, p. 319

c12.25

⁷ *J.Z.*, p. 130.

c12.26

⁸ *Afif*, p. 303. The system of *dāgh* was maintained by Muḥammad bin Tughluq, *Masālik-u’l-abṣār*, p. 27.

c12.27

⁹ *Mushtāqī*, ff. 32b-33a.

c12.28

¹⁰ *Sarwānī*, f. 68b; *Tārīkh-i-Khān Jahānī*, f. 167b; *Ma‘dan-i-Akhbār-i-Aḥmadī* f. 110a; *Sujān Rāi*, ff. 205, 206.

c12.29

¹ Sarwānī, f. 68b.

c12.30

² E.g., idem, f 69a.

c12.31

The army was distributed according to the need and the strategic importance of the area concerned. The difficulties in transport resulted in a very wide allocation. Naturally, if disorders broke out in any area, the local troops would first try to cope with the situation; only if they failed or proved inadequate, were reinforcements rushed from neighbouring areas. In the last resort the detachments stationed in the capital or its vicinity were sent. The troops at Dehlī were styled ḥashm-i-qalb, and consisted of the household brigade called khāṣah khail, comprising royal slaves and guards like the jāndārs, the afwāj-i-qalb or the troops directly under royal command, and other picked men under nobles kept at the capital. Garrisons in the provinces or at provincial headquarters were called ḥashm-i-aṭrāf.³ Great attention was paid to the north-west frontier where princes of royal blood or veteran generals with picked and reliable troops were stationed.⁴ The founders of the Khaljī and the Qarāwinah dynasties had laid the foundations of success by service as wardens of the north-west marches.⁵ The garrison system goes back to early times. The Ghaznavids as well as the Abbasids had a network of citadels; we hear of Quṭb-u’d-dīn Aibak establishing garrisons under kotwāls in India.¹ The chronicles mention kotwāls and garrisons throughout the period; ‘Alā-u’d-dīn Khaljī repaired old forts and built new ones; Sher Shāh attached great importance to the upkeep of forts and to providing them with artillery.² He built Rohtās to defend his dominions against the Mughuls, and created four strongholds in the Rājpūt country by garrisoning Chitor, Ranthambor, Biyānah and Jodhpūr.³ Similarly he stationed troops in Bengal, in Mālwah and in the Panjāb.⁴ Humāyūn had a fantastic scheme of establishing viceroys at various centres in his dominions where he would reside in turn.⁵

c12.32

³ Afwāj-i-qalb were also called ḥashm-i-qalb; Minhāj, p. 323; Baranī, p. 59. Raverty's note, pp. 634, 635, is due to the confusion caused by the word qalb, meaning 'heart', being used in two senses, 'the army kept in the centre of the dominions' and 'the part of the army forming the centre on the field of battle.'

c12.33

⁴ Balban and Jalāl-u’d-dīn Khaljī kept their most capable sons on the frontier; Baranī, pp. 109, 238.

c12.34

⁵ Baranī, pp. 196, 197, 422.

c12.35

¹ Tāj, f. 67b. Kotwāl, originally Kotpāl, is a word of Hindu derivation. Kot=fort; pāl=guardian. ² I.B., ii, p. 28; E. & D., iii, p. 576, for Muḥammad bin Tughluq’s garrisons; Khazā’in-u’l-futūḥ, p. 30. ³ Dā’ūdī, f. 79b ⁴ Ibid. ⁵ Akbar-nāmah, i, p. 356. ⁶ Baranī, pp. 320-323. ⁷ Thomas, pp. 78, 79.

c12.36

As in the feudal array of Europe, the cavalry arm was supreme and formed the backbone of the army. It was the cavalry of Dehlī which so successfully kept the Mongol hordes at bay and struck terror into their hearts.⁶ We are fortunate in having the likenesses of horsemen engraved on some coins of the earlier sultans; of special interest are the coins struck by Īltutmish “where the horse is seen at full charge, and the rider with upraised mace... The form of the saddle, the seat of the horseman, the chanfrein or head armour of the steed and his erect tail, all seem to point to Turki ideals.” The rider’s helmet has a flowing fall at the back.⁷ The Dehlī cavalryman must have resembled the horsemen whom Barbosa saw and admired in Gujrāt. “They are also very skilful horsemen,” he writes, “they sit on high pommelled saddles and carry strong round shields.” They were armed “with two swords, a dagger and a Turkish bow, with very good arrows”; others carried maces. Many of them wore coats of mail, and others jackets quilted with cotton. The horses were caparisoned with steel. Yet they were so light that they took part in the game of chogān.¹ A little later he says about the cavalry in the Deccan, " They carry maces and battle-axes and two swords (each with its dagger), two or three Turkish bows hanging from the saddle, with very long arrows, so that every man carries arms enough for two."² Barbosa omits to describe the Dehlī cavalry but praises their skill, fighting qualities and horses.³ The smartness of the soldiers of the sultanate was noted by other travellers as well.⁴ A necessary precaution in those days was to provide extra horses, so that the cavalry was divided into murattab, sawār and do-aspah, that is, men with two horses each, with single horses and with no horses of their own.⁵ Mu'izz-u'd-dīn Muḥammad Ghorī is reported to have invaded the Ghaznavid kingdom of Lāhor with twenty thousand do-aspah, sih-aspah cavalry.⁶ Murattab cavalry are mentioned in 'Alā-u'd-dīn Khaljī's reign. The sultans had to take care that their army did not run short of horses. There was a thriving trade in horses between India on the one hand and Arabia, Turkistān and Russia on the other.⁷ Nor did the sultans neglect the breeding of good animals in India itself. In the royal pāigāhs near the capital and in the provinces they bred large number of horses.⁸ Balban is reported to have boasted that he could maintain the necessary supplies even if animals from the Mongol territories did not reach India.⁹ Actually during the Mongol terror, the trade in horses had almost ceased; those of foreign breeds were found mostly in the capital.¹⁰ 'Alā-u'd-dīn Khaljī had seventy thousand horses in the city of Dehlī and its vicinity.¹¹ Even Fīrūz Shāh, whose neglect of the army is notorious, maintained extensive pāigāhs.¹² Large numbers of led horses accompanied every army so that those lost in battle might be replaced at the royal expense.¹

c12.37

¹ Barbosa, i, p. 119.

c12.38

² Idem, pp. 180-181.

c12.39

³ Idem, p. 232.

c12.40

⁴ Masālik-u'l-absār, p. 27.

c12.41

⁵ Vide Appendix J.

c12.42

⁶ Firishtah, 1, p. 90. There is no mention of sih-aspah cavalry under the sultans. This may be one of Firishtah's uncritical glosses.

c12.43

⁷ Vide Chapter IV.

c12.44

⁸ Ibid

c12.45

⁹ Baranī, p. 53.

c12.46

¹⁰ Ibid.

c12.47

¹¹ Baranī, p. 262.

c12.48

¹² Afif, pp. 339-340.

c12.49

¹ Baranī, p. 328. The horses were carefully graded; I.B. (ii, p. 81) mentions four grades.

c12.50

Elephants.

c12.51

A very effective section was that of the elephants; their size and strength struck the same dismay into the hearts of foreign warriors as did the first appearance of the tanks in the Great War. The Ghaznavīds as well as the Sassanids employed elephants; Baihaqī mentions that one thousand six hundred and seventy of these animals were present at a muster held by Mas'ūd at Kābul.² The sultans of Dehlī valued elephants highly; Balban considered a single elephant to be as effective in battle as five hundred horsemen.³ A big war elephant could carry several armed soldiers; they towered above the cavalry and rained death amongst the ranks of the enemy.⁴ Some of these animals carried on their backs small citadels full of soldiers.⁵ Barbosa gives a realistic picture in the following words: "They build wooden castles on the elephants' backs which will hold three or four men armed with bows, arrows, arquebuses and other weapons. From these castles they fight against their enemies, and the aforesaid elephants are so well trained to this that when they enter into a battle they strike both horses and warriors."⁶ These elephants were clad in plates of steel, and large scythes were attached to their trunks and tusks.⁷ Fīrūz Shāh used elephants to break the force of the current when his troops were crossing a river; ropes were tied to the animals to help the soldiers.⁸ Muḥammad bin Tughluq had three thousand elephants, which is not a large number when the extent of his dominions is taken into consideration.⁹ When Fīrūz Shāh marched against Bengal for the second time, he had four hundred and seventy elephants in his train.¹ Muḥammad Shāh Bahmanī had three thousand elephants in his stables, and Sulṭān Maḥmūd of the Sharqī dynasty marched against Dehlī with one thousand four hundred.² The sultans maintained a monopoly of elephants, for such a source of strength could be misused.³ A noble could possess an elephant only with royal permission.⁴ Great care was taken to maintain a good supply. Though the art of breeding elephants was known in contemporary India and practised successfully, it does not seem to have thrived at Dehlī itself.⁵ The main area of supply was Bengal; even its independent rulers were not in a position to stop sending elephants to Dehlī. Balban, in the course of advice to Bughrā Khān when installing him on the throne of Lakhnautī, said, "Send elephants occasionally to Dehlī, so that the emperor of Dehlī may not prevent the entry of horses into Bengal."⁶ South India and Gujrāt imported elephants from Ceylon; but it is not known if Ceylonese elephants ever reached Dehlī. In Gujrāt they fetched about Rs. 7,500 each; therefore their price in Dehlī would be prohibitive.⁷ The great number of elephants at Dehlī required a large establishment, and the *shahnah-i-fil* was an important officer of the realm. Generally, there were two *shahnahs*, one for the right wing and the other for the left.⁸ Sometimes, however, the commands were united in one man.⁹

c12.52

² Baihaqī, p. 349.

c12.53

³ Baranī, p. 53.

c12.54

⁴ I.B., ii, p. 35.

c12.55

⁵ India in the XVth Century (Nikitin), p. 12.

c12.56

⁶ Barbosa, i, p. 118; Masālik-u'l-abṣār (pp. 28, 48) and S.A. (p. 76) confirm this.

c12.57

⁷ India in the XVth Century (Nikitin), p. 12.

c12.58

⁸ 'Afīf, p. 111.

c12.59

⁹ E, & D., iii, pp. 576-577.

c12.60

¹ *Afif*, p. 144.

c12.61

² *Firishtah*, i, p. 563; *Da'ūdī*, f. 79a.

c12.62

³ *Baranī*, p. 594.

c12.63

⁴ *Vide* Chapter IV.

c12.64

⁵ *Maṭla'-u's-sa'dain*, ii, f. 244b.

c12.65

⁶ *Baranī*, p. 96.

c12.66

⁷ *Barbosa*, i, p. 119. *Barbosa* gives the price as 1500 cruzados. The editor (foot-note 2, p. 118) explains that one cruzado was roughly equal to 10 shillings. This would make 1500 cruzados=£750. If a rupee is reckoned at the value of 2 sh. this sum would represent Rs. 7500.

c12.67

⁸ *Baranī*, pp. 24, 126.

c12.68

⁹ *Idem*, p. 424.

c12.69

The sultanate also maintained infantry.¹⁰ The foot soldiers were called *pāyaks*. These men were mostly Hindus, slaves or other persons of a humble origin who wanted employment and could not afford horses. They were useful as personal guards and door-keepers, and, in spite of their humble position, sometimes took part in matters of great importance. It was by his pāyak bodyguard that ‘Alā-u’d-dīn Khaljī’s life was saved when Akat Khān’s men attacked him.¹ Quṭb-u’d-dīn Mubārak Shāh was placed on the throne of Dehlī as the result of the pāyak conspiracy against Malik Kāfūr.² They are mentioned as taking part in various battles, though it was difficult to transport them to distant places, and thus they could not very well be used in campaigns which required swift movement. The numerous archers were called dhānuks, a term which obviously comes from the Sanskrit word dhanush, meaning a bow.³ Barbosa thus describes the foot soldiers of the Deccan: “They carry swords and daggers, bows and arrows. They are right good archers and their bows are long like those of England.” They were mostly Hindus.⁴ The most famous pāyaks came from Bengal.⁵ Sher Shāh increased the effectiveness of the Baksariyahs by giving them matchlocks.⁶ Some authorities mention a class of soldiers called ‘pāyak-ba-asp’ which means ‘foot soldiers with horses.’⁷ The early sultans, in view of their limited man power, supplied some foot soldiers with horses for actual fighting; but because these men did not bring their own horses, they were treated as infantrymen for the purpose of salary and allowances.⁷

c12.70

¹⁰ *Khazā'in-u'l-futūḥ*, p. 103.

c12.71

¹ Barani, p. 273.

c12.72

² Idem, pp. 376, 377.

c12.73

³ Idem, p. 52.

c12.74

⁴ Barbosa, i, p. 181.

c12.75

⁵ Barani, p. 593.

c12.76

⁶ Dā’ūdī, f. 79a.

c12.77

⁷ Minhāj, p. 257; Khazā’in-u’l-futūḥ, p. 16.

c12.78

The use of naphtha and Greek fire was known from very early times; incendiary arrows and javelins as well as pots of combustibles were hurled against the enemy; the Dehlī army used grenades, fireworks and rockets against Tīmūr.⁸ The best defence against fire was provided by vinegar.⁹ The term Kushkanjīr finds mention in the thirteenth century; in accordance with a dictionary compiled in the fifteenth century it seems to have been a crude form of cannon.¹ The translation of *sang-i-maghribī* as *midfa‘* in the *Zafar-u’l-wālih* lends support to the idea that artillery was already in use under ‘Alā-u’d-dīn Khaljī; the sultanate, however, does not seem to have made much progress in this direction. It was in the provincial kingdoms of Gujrāt and the Deccan that this arm was properly developed.² Ibrāhīm Lodī had no fire arms at Pānīpat.³ Sher Khān fully recognized the importance of artillery, and when he became the master of Bengal, he overshadowed the Mughuls in the strength of his guns. Indeed so dependent were the Sūrs on their heavy artillery that Mīrzā Haidar Daghlāt advised Humāyūn to seize Kashmīr and entrench himself there, for Sher Shāh would never be able to take his guns into the mountains.⁴ Under the Mughul emperors, the chief engineer of the artillery, who was also a military commander, was called *mīr-ātish*. Sher Shāh and his successors made their own guns and some very large pieces were manufactured.⁵

c12.79

⁸ Khazā’in-u’l-futūḥ, p. 85.

c12.80

⁹ Journal, Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1876, pp. 30-34.

c12.81

¹ *Islamic Culture*, October 1937, p. 475; *Journal of Indian History*, 1936, p. 185; *Tāj*, f. 2b, for the history of Greek fire, *vide* Enān: *Decisive Moments in the History of Islam*, pp. 109-121.

c12.82

² Artillery finds mention at various places in the history of warfare in the Deccan in all the standard authorities.

c12.83

³ *Memoirs of Bābar*, ii, pp. 183-188.

c12.84

⁴ *Tārīkh-i-Rashīdī*, p 480.

c12.85

⁵ *Akbar-nāmah*, 1, p. 151; Sarwānī, f 28a.

c12.86

Of much greater antiquity were the various mechanical devices for battering the walls of fortresses, for throwing large balls, for projecting naphtha and fireworks. The different war engines used by the sultanate of Dehlī have been mentioned in the chronicles; but they have nowhere been described fully and it is difficult to distinguish one from the other. The *maghribī* was adopted from the Western Caliphate and may signify cannon.⁶ The *manjanīq* and the *arrādah* were used to throw stone balls or vessels containing Greek fire or a moving army.¹ Besides, so long as the army was within the frontiers of the sultanate, it could depend on large stores of grain belonging to the state.² Tributary chiefs showed their loyalty by bringing provisions when the army was in their dominions. In the enemy territory, it had to rely on the banjārās, the local population and sometimes on plunder; but the last was the extreme resort for it tended to frighten away the local merchants and the peasants, with the result that supplies would ultimately fail.

c12.87

⁶ *Vide supra*, also *Islamic Culture*, October 1938, pp. 405-418

c12.88

¹ Barani, p. 304. The banjārās are mentioned as kārwāniyān, i.e., nomads. This description applies to the banjārās who were nomads and traded in corn.

c12.89

² This was an old method, vide Siyāsat-nāmah, p. 91.

c12.90

The engineering department must have been well organized to construct all these forts, defensive works, redoubts and war engines. Pontoon bridges were thrown over rivers, and sometimes when the army was camping, it had to be protected with a ditch and even with palisades called katgharahs.³ When Islām Shāh Sūr marched against Humāyūn, he had 150,000 wood-cutters and another 150,000 men to dig ditches.⁴ Even if these numbers be exaggerated, the evidence shows that the department was well manned. There was an orthodox method of camping. The choice of the site was effected by the facilities for obtaining water, grass and firewood. The layout corresponded with the battle array. The position of the royal household was just behind the fighting forces; at the back of the royal tents were the armoury, the transport animals and the camp-followers.⁵ Thus the sultan and his family were in the middle of the entire encampment. If possible, the rear of the encampment was protected by a hill or a river.⁶ In case of actual danger, a ditch was dug round the army, or the camp might be defended by wagons or wooden palisades tied together by chains.¹

c12.91

³ ‘Afīf, p. 232; Khazā’in-u’l-futūḥ, p. 93.

c12.92

⁴ Dā’ūdī, f. 114a

c12.93

⁵ The royal tents were often wooden pavilions, spacious and commodious, which could be constructed and taken into pieces in a short while—Masālik-u’l-abṣār, p. 35; S. A., pp. 75, 76.

c12.94

⁶ A. M., f. 83.

c12.95

¹ A. M., f. 87b

c12.96

As regards strategy, due regard was paid to the terrain, wind and sun.² The arts of ambushing and surprise attacks were studied and skilfully applied.³ The disposition of the forces was traditional. The centre, the two wings, a vanguard, a rearguard were the divisions known in the days of the Prophet.⁴ To these should be added the two *jināḥ* or flanking parties; and the array known to the sultans of Dehlī is complete.⁵ The *Ṣubḥ-u'l-a'shā* mentions that the sultan stood in the centre surrounded by the *'ulamā*. Before and behind him were the archers. The wings were on either side. In front stood the elephants protected by iron plates, with towers on their backs carrying warriors. The elephants were preceded by armed slaves.⁶ This description, incomplete as it is, substantially agrees with the array suggested by the *Ādāb-u'l-mulūk*, which recommends four lines of infantry and archers in front with gaps for the cavalry to ride out and give battle to the enemy.⁷ These lines would make a solid block against sudden attacks; and being covered by the elephants and the archers in the towers, the formation should be practically unassailable. It is interesting to note that this plan contains the germs of the strategy which Bābur employed so effectively against Ibrāhīm Lodī and Rānā Sāngā.⁸ It is needless to add that troops were always arranged in serried ranks.⁹

c12.97

² *Idem*, ff. 92, 105.

c12.98

³ *Idem*, ff. 86b-88a.

c12.99

⁴ V. K., p. 91.

c12.100

⁵ A. M., f. 83b; *Tāj*, f. 51a. *Jināḥ* literally means 'wings', the right and left wings are however called *maimanah* and *maisarah*; hence, *jināḥ* really meant flanking parties

c12.101

⁶ S. A., p. 76; *Masālik-u'l-abṣār*, p. 48.

c12.102

⁷ A. M., f. 94a.

c12.103

⁸ *An Empire Builder of the XVIth Century*, pp. 129-132; 149-152

c12.104

⁹ A. M., f. 94a.

c12.105

The scouts, called ṭalai'ah or yazkīs, formed an important part of the army.¹ These were light troops specially trained to reconnoitre and bring news. They had instructions not to move in a body, yet to be within reach of one another; not to seek fight, yet to be able to defend themselves and beat a retreat if attacked. They were specially enjoined not to flee, for that might cause a general stampede.² The scouts are rightly compared to the eyes of an army; they should not be confused with the spies whose business it was to go and mix with the enemy and find out his secrets. The spies were not soldiers and moved about in various disguises to worm out secrets more easily.³ Muslim armies had ambulances and hospitals from very early times; the practice continued under the sultans of Dehli.⁴ Nor was the spectacular side neglected. Bands of music were an essential part of the equipment of an army.⁵ Fīrūz Shāh constructed immense drums which had to be carried on elephants.⁶ Large banners were carried with the army. The sultans had two main colours: on the right were black flags, of Abbasid colour; and on the left, they carried their own colour, red, which was derived from Ghūr.⁷ Quṭb-u’d-dīn Aibak’s standards bore the figures of the new moon, a dragon or a lion; Fīrūz Shāh’s flags also displayed a dragon.⁸ This sultan made his banners so big and heavy that they had to be carried on elephants, and could be seen at a distance of two or three krohs.¹ The nobles had their own standards, and Khusraw suggests that Ghiyāth-u'd-dīn Tughluq's flag bore the design of a fish when he fought the usurper Nāṣir-u'd-dīn Khusraw; this is one of the earliest mentions of māhī-marātib in the history of the sultanate.² Under Muḥammad bin Tughluq a khān was allowed to carry seven flags and an amīr three.³ When Fīrūz Shāh gave battle to Shams-u'd-dīn of Bengal, there were five hundred flags belonging to the sultan and his generals in the army.⁴ The generals were magnificently dressed. Their usual attire was a Tartar robe with gold brocade, with embroidered sleeves or shoulders; they wore a four-cornered head-dress inlaid with diamonds and rubies. Their hair was plaited in hanging locks with silk tassels. They had gold and silver belts wound tightly round their waists and they wore shoes and spurs⁵ The soldiers wore distinctive clothes which served as uniforms to distinguish between friend and foe.⁶ The zarrādkhānah supplied arrows and missiles and replaced broken weapons.⁷ The qūrkhānah was the repository of royal arms and the officer in charge of it was styled qūrbeg. Sometimes there were two qūrbegs, one for the right wing, another for the left.⁸ Attached to every army was a ṣāḥib-i-barīd-i-lashkar who was the official news-writer and sent all reports to the capital.⁹

c12.106

¹ Ṭalai'ah is Arabic; yazkī, Turkish. Minhāj (p. 288) uses the modified form ṭalāyah; Baranī uses yazak in his Fatāwā-i-jahāndārī, f. 180a.

c12.107

² A. M., ff. 84b-86b.

c12.108

³ Idem, f. 127a.

c12.109

⁴ History of the Saracens, p. 433; Tughluq-nāmah, p. 102.

c12.110

⁵ Khazā'in-u'l-futūḥ, pp. 101-102.

c12.111

⁶ ‘Afīf, p. 370.

c12.112

⁷ Minhāj, e.g., pp. 127, 179, 207, Tughluq-nāmah, p. 133; Masālik-u'l-abṣār, p. 35; S. A., p. 75; J. Z., p. 135. The Umayyad colour also was red.

c12.113

⁸ ‘Afīf, pp. 369, 370; also, Tāj at various places; e.g., f. 120b. The crescent continued to adorn the standards of the sultanate; e.g., Khusraw says in Dīwalrānī Khiḍr Khān, p. 52: فلک می خواست بدر عالم افروز هلال رایتش را روز تا روز Also, Kulliyāt-i-Ḥasan Sajzī, p. 506.

c12.114

¹ 'Afīf, pp. 369, 370

c12.115

² Tughluq-nāmah, p. 122 Later māhī-marātib became more common, Tārīkh-i-Mubārakshāhī, p. 237.

c12.116

³ S. A, p. 77. The Masālik-u'l-abṣār (p. 36) says they could carry nine.

c12.117

⁴ 'Afīf, p. 115.

c12.118

⁵ S A., p. 70. In actual battle they wore coats of mail or jackets quilted with cotton. Barbosa, i, p. 180.

c12.119

⁶ A. M., f. 128b

c12.120

⁷ Baihaqī, p. 6.

c12.121

⁸ Ibid., also Tārīkh-i-Mubārakshāhī, p 62.

c12.122

⁹ Baihaqī, p. 544

c12.123

It was considered politic in Muslim lands to prevent the predominance of any particular race in the army, so that the ruler might not be entirely dependent on any one section.¹⁰ From the very beginning, the tribal elements in the army were so well-balanced that any one of them, if capably led, could gain power. The Khaljīs established a semi-independent state in Bengal; later they were able to oust the House of Balban from the throne, and were themselves replaced by the Qarāwinah.¹ Under Muḥammad bin Tughluq the army consisted of Turks, Khiṭā'is, Persians, Indians and lesser elements.² Even Sher Shāh, who was such a patron of the Afghāns, did not exclude others from his army: he only treated Afghāns with greater consideration, for he had come to the throne as the leader of an Afghān revival.³ The Hindus very soon obtained military employment. The Ghaznavids gave important military posts to Hindus: there were few nobles with so much influence as Tilak, the son of a Hindu barber.⁴ Hindu soldiers fought for the Ghaznavids against the Saljūqs.⁵ Quṭb-u'd-dīn Aibak employed Hindu cavalry.⁶ Balban had such a large number of Hindu horsemen that his 'āriḍ was popularly called Rāwat 'Arḍ.⁷ Khusraw mentions Hindu cavalrymen under Kaiqubād.⁸ When Malik Chhajjū rebelled against Jalāl-u'd-dīn Khalji, large numbers of Hindu cavalrymen offered their services to him.⁹ Hindu soldiers fought not only for Nāṣir-u'd-dīn Khusraw but also for his opponent Ghiyāth-u'd-dīn Tughluq.¹⁰ His army on this occasion had Ghuzz, Turkish, Mongol, Greek, Russian, Persian, Tājik and Hindu soldiers.¹¹ While wrestling and archery were prized, great stress was laid on horsemanship, together with skill in the use of the lance, the sword and other weapons. The smartness of the soldier and the elegance of his personal appearance struck foreign observers.¹ The sultans always maintained large numbers of Hindu cavalry.²

c12.124

¹⁰ Qābūs-nāmah, pp. 171, 172

c12.125

¹ Baranī; Minhāj.

c12.126

² S. A., p 66, E & D., iii, p 576; Masālik-u'l-abṣār, p. 26.

c12.127

³ Sarwānī, f. 69a.

c12.128

⁴ Baihaqī, pp. 613. 756. etc.

c12.129

⁵ Idem, p. 756.

c12.130

⁶ Tārīkh-i-Fakhr-u'd-dīn Mubārakshāh, p. 33.

c12.131

⁷ 'Rāwat' means a Hindu cavalryman in contemporary literature, Khazā'in-u'l-futūḥ, pp. 91, 95.

c12.132

⁸ Qirān-u's-sa'dain, p. 36.

c12.133

⁹ Baranī, p. 182.

c12.134

¹⁰ Tughluq-nāmah, pp. 128, 131. 'Iṣāmī mentions Hindu generals, e.g., Gul Chandra on p. 378: Muḥammad bin Tughluq's Hindu generals are mentioned on pp. 422, 423.

c12.135

¹¹ Tughluq-nāmah, p. 84.

c12.136

¹ A. M., f 130; The Batiagarh stone inscription of 1328 mentions Hindu soldiers employed by the Muslim government; *Epigraphia Indica*, XII, pp. 44, 45; S. A., p. 66.

c12.137

² Baranī, e.g., p. 86. *Dhānuk*, *kahārs* are Hindu castes.

c12.138

From very early times the Muslim army was organized on a decimal basis.³ The system persisted under the Ghaznavids, through whom it descended to the sultans of Dehlī. Bughrā Khān, in his advice to his son, Kaiqubād, describes the military grades. A *sar-i-khail* had ten horsemen under him; a *sipah-sālār* directed ten *sar-i-khails*; an *amīr* commanded ten *sipah-sālārs*; a *malik* had authority over ten *amīrs* and a *khān*’s forces contained at least those of ten *maliks*.⁴ The existence of the decimal system is supported by the *Ṣubḥ-u’l-a‘shā*; according to this book, a *khān* had ten thousand horsemen or more, a *malik* had a thousand, an *amīr* a hundred, and a *sipah-sālār* less.⁵ Baranī repeatedly mentions *amīrān-i-panjāh*, *amīrān-i-ṣadah* and *amīrān-i-hazārah*.⁶ Khusraw tells us that in the reign of Kaiqubād ‘five thousand famous *maliks*,’ commanded more than a hundred thousand soldiers.⁷ The poet seems to have used the term *malik* loosely for a military officer. It appears that in practice an *amīr* commanded from fifty to a thousand soldiers, and the minimum force under a *malik* was a thousand soldiers. Khusraw also mentions the Mughal term *tūmān* which signifies 10,000 soldiers. A curious fact is that the title *sipah-sālār*, though later it denoted no more than a centurion, was, at one time, applied to the commander-in-chief and was proudly displayed by the great Quṭb-u’d-dīn Aibak on his buildings.⁸ Islām Shāh Sūr organized his army under commanders of 50, 150, 200 and 500. The higher officers were each given five, ten or twenty thousand.¹ Unattached soldiers were called *mufrads*.² Clerks were attached to each division for keeping accounts and registers. There were other officers whose duty was to marshal the troops for review or for battle; the *naqībs* shouted orders and the *chā’ūsh*es and the *sahm-u’l-ḥashm*s arranged the soldiers in lines³ Great attention was paid to the maintenance of discipline; every subordinate was expected to obey his superior promptly.⁴ Care was taken to prevent damage to cultivation or property even in hostile country, unless a place was given up to plunder.⁵

c12.139

³ J. Z., p. 130.

c12.140

⁴ Baranī, p. 145; also mentioned in *Fatāwā-i-jahāndārī*, f. 72. Khusraw says in *Qirān-u’s-sa‘dain* (p. 101) that Chhajjū Khān had several thousand soldiers under him.

c12.141

⁵ S. A., p. 67; E. & D., iii, pp. 576, 577; *Masālik-u’l-abṣār*, p. 29.

c12.142

⁶ Baranī, e.g., p. 495.

c12.143

⁷ *Qirān-u’s-sa‘dain*, p. 35.

c12.144

⁸ E.g., *Āthār-u’ṣ-ṣanādīd*, plate 17.

c12.145

¹ *Da’ūdī*, f. 103a.

c12.146

² *Vide* supra p. 147, f n 5. In some respects they corresponded to the *aḥadīs* under the Mughuls.

c12.147

³ *Tughluq-nāmah*, p. 92; *Fatāwā-i-jahāndārī*, f. 180a; *Qirān-u’s-sa‘dain*, p. 84; *Khazā’in-u’l-futūḥ*, p. 182.

c12.148

⁴ *Siyāsat-nāmah*, p. 112.

c12.149

⁵ *Sarwānī*, f. 73b.

c12.150

⁷ *Masālik-u’l-abṣār*, p. 29 The *Subḥ-u’l-a‘shā* (p 71) says that a *khān* drew two lakhs of *tankahs* and a soldier drew from one to ten thousand. This is less probable.

c12.151

The soldier’s pay must have varied at different times. Under ‘Alā-u’d-dīn Khaljī a fully equipped cavalryman drew two hundred and thirty-four *tankahs* per annum.⁶ This figure, however, should be interpreted in terms of normal prices; because, to get a soldier at that figure, the sultan had to regulate prices severely. The extravagant Muḥammad bin Tughluq paid about five hundred *tankahs* with food, dress and fodder. It is not clear if the soldier received dress and food only when he was on active service or in normal times as well; the difference would be immaterial towards the end of the reign when the army was constantly employed against rebels. The *Masālik-u’l-abṣār* also gives the salaries of the officers: a *khān* was paid a lakh of *tankahs*, a *malik* fifty to sixty thousand, an *amīr* thirty to forty thousand, a *sipah-sālār* twenty thousand or so, and petty officials received one to ten thousand a year.⁷ Soldiers were paid directly by the state.¹ The nobles were given assignments during the greater part of the period, but the soldiers usually received their pay in cash.² The systems of assignment and valuation resulted in profit to the noble who often got much more than their official salary.³ These assignments were for the personal salary of the officers and did not include the pay of the soldiers.⁴ The regular troops, called wajhīs, constituted a standing army; irregulars, called ghair-wajhīs, were employed for short periods. Sometimes payment was made by an order on some local treasury; this cheque was called an iṭlāq and its holder an iṭlāqdār. This was only a method of payment and had no bearing on the status of the soldier.⁵ Fīrūz Shāh revived the assignment system for the soldiers to such an extent that he made it almost hereditary.⁶ He even allowed the old and aged soldiers to send their relations to musters and campaigns.⁷ It was under the Lodīs that the army became tribal and was attached to the nobles instead of being under the direct control of the sultan.⁸

c12.152

⁶ *Vide* Appendix J.

c12.153

¹ Masālik-u'l-abṣār, p. 28.

c12.154

² Baranī, p. 442, E & D., iii, p. 579; Masālik-u'l-abṣār, p. 29.

c12.155

³ E. & D., iii, p. 577, Masālik-u'l-abṣār, p. 29.

c12.156

⁴ Masālik-u'l-abṣār, p. 28.

c12.157

⁵ 'Afīf, pp. 296, 297, 369, 370, etc. Vide Appendix F.

c12.158

⁶ 'Afīf, pp. 95, 96; Futūḥāt-i-Fīrūzshāhī, pp. 21, 22; Sīrat-i-Fīrūzshāhī, p. 151.

c12.159

⁷ Sarwānī, f. 8a.

c12.160

⁸ 'Afīf, p. 303.

c12.161

The size of the army varied much from time to time. 'Alā-u'd-dīn Khaljī commanded four hundred and seventy-five thousand horsemen.⁹ Muḥammad bin Tughluq's cavalry is said to have consisted of nine hundred thousand soldiers.¹⁰ Kaiqubād mustered a hundred thousand mounted soldiers at Dehlī when he made preparations to march against his father.¹¹ 'Afīf says that Fīrūz Shāh had ninety thousand soldiers excluding his slaves.¹² He recruited a

c12.162

⁹ Firishtah, 1, p. 200

c12.163

¹⁰ S A., p. 66; Masālik-u'l-abṣār, p. 26.

c12.164

¹¹ Qirān-u's-sa'dain, pp. 35, 47.

c12.165

¹² 'Afīf, p. 298 (footnote).

c12.166

Numbers and efficiency.

c12.167

hundred and eighty thousand slaves, but several thousand of these were employed in civil capacities. The number of his soldiers must, however, have been fairly large to permit the presence of eighty thousand in his camp when he advanced for the second time on Bengal.¹ Sher Shāh had twenty-five thousand artillerymen at the capital, and several thousand in important forts.² The sultans also possessed a fleet of river boats, called *bahr*, under an *amīr-i-bahr*, which was used mainly for police duties and transport.³ The efficiency of the army, so long as it was under central control, was beyond question. Even the nobles who fought Tīmūr at Dehlī fought well, and the great conqueror did not consider it an easy victory.⁴ The tribal hordes of the Lodīs were easily swept away by Bābur, but when properly led by Sher Shāh, the Afghān soldiers drove out the Mughuls, who could return only when anarchy had, once again, replaced central control.

c12.168

¹ *Idem*, p. 270.

c12.169

² *Afif*, pp. 144-145.

c12.170

³ *Mushtāqī*, f. 49a.

c12.171

⁴ *Afif*, p. 199.

c12.172

⁵ *Zafar-nāmah*, ii, p. 109.

c12.173

The ministry for religious affairs was under the ṣadr-u’ṣ-ṣudūr who, throughout the period, was also the qāḍi-i-mumālik, or the chief judge of the empire.¹ His activities as the ṣadr will be discussed later; it is necessary first to describe the organization of justice. The sultan as the chief enforcer of the Law and head of the state exercised three functions which touched the administration of justice in several respects. He was the defender of the Faith and the arbitrator in the disputes of his subjects: he was the head of the bureaucracy; he was the commander-in-chief of the forces.² In his first capacity he dispensed justice through the dīwān-i-qaḍā; in his second capacity through the dīwān-i-maẓālim; while he himself or his military commanders sat as a court-martial to try rebels, though it was considered necessary to obtain a ruling from qualified lawyers.³ Muḥammad bin Tughluq, who probably had more men executed than all the other sultans of Dehlī put together, had to organize a separate department called dīwān-i-siyāsat, for the number of cases was so large that special jurists had to be employed.⁴ It is significant that even he did not condemn a man to death until he had overcome the jurists with his arguments. The lawyers would have had a better chance against a less learned monarch.

c12.174

¹ S. A., p. 72; Masālik-u’l-abṣār, p. 32.

c12.175

² Vide Chapter II.

c12.176

³ This has given rise to a misunderstanding that the judicial, military and executive functions of the government were not well defined. Actually the sultan or his officers acted as a martial court in trying rebels.

c12.177

⁴ Barani, p. 497.

c12.178

This *dīwān* embraced officers of two kinds: the *muftī*, who gave the ruling, and the *mutafaḥḥiṣ*, who inquired into facts.¹ In addition, there were executive officers and clerks called *amīrs* and *mutaṣarrifs*.² It is not on record how far the military governors were empowered to punish acts of contumacy and rebellion. As prisoners of war and rebels were often sent to the capital, the governors do not seem to have possessed independent powers of inflicting capital punishment.³ Enemies and rebels, however, were sometimes executed in the provinces on receipt of instructions from headquarters⁴

c12.179

¹ Baranī, p. 497.

c12.180

² Ibid.

c12.181

³ E g. Baranī, p. 321.

c12.182

⁴ E.g., Idem, pp 322, 504. ‘Azīz Khummār seems to have been given a general authority to deal with suspected rebels by Muḥammad bin Tughluq.

c12.183

The *dīwān-i-maẓālim*, as an organized institution, dates back to the time of ‘Alī. The Abbasid caliphs either themselves gave audience or instructed their *wazīrs* to do so.⁵ The Hindus also considered it the duty of their monarchs to hear complaints in public audience.⁶ The *Ṭabaqāt-i-Nāṣirī* implies that the *dīwān-i-maẓālim* was presided over by the *amīr-i-dād*; this would be true only when the sultan was not present in person.⁷ Ibn Baṭṭūṭah says that Muḥammad bin Tughluq heard complaints every Monday and Thursday. First a suppliant would go to one of the *ḥājibs* who were entrusted with this duty; it is interesting to note that Fīrūz, who later succeeded to the throne, was one of them. If the suitor failed to gain redress, he could go to the *qāḍi-i-mumālik*. The last resort was the sultan, access to whom does not seem to have been too difficult.⁸ A complaint to the sultan seems to have been very effective, for creditors made a point of dunning defaulting debtors in front of the palace.⁹ The *Ṣubḥ-ul-a‘shā* gives a picturesque account of a court of *maẓālim*. The sultan sat on a high throne overlaid with gold, surrounded by his bodyguard and officers. The qāḍī-i-mumālik sat at the monarch's side to give him legal advice. When the ushers had announced the opening of the court, the suitors stepped forward and presented their complaints.¹ On days when the sultan did not sit in public, the ḥājibs received the complaints and passed them on to the chief ḥājib who submitted them to the sultan. Under Sikandar Lodī, the wazīr presided over the maẓālim court: the legal advice was given by the qāḍī who was assisted by twelve learned lawyers.² Suppliants could also present petitions when the sultan rode out; Ibn Baṭṭūṭah mentions the bell in the palace of Īltutmish with a chain so that any suppliant could ring it³ The governors were required to sit as courts of maẓālim. They were helped by the ṣāḥib-i-dīwān and the qāḍī. The courts of maẓālim heard complaints against officials. Sometimes disputes were settled by the executive; in such cases it was open to the parties to go to civil courts if they felt dissatisfied with the award.

c12.184

⁵ J. Z., pp. 187-189.

c12.185

⁶ Political Institutions of the Hindus, p. 176.

c12.186

⁷ Minhāj, pp. 274-276.

c12.187

⁸ Dīwān-i-Ḥasan Sajzī, p. 42; I. B., ii, p. 53.

c12.188

⁹ I. B., ii, p. 84.

c12.189

¹ S. A., p 73; Masālik-u’l-abṣār, pp. 34, 49-51.

c12.190

² Dā’ūdī, f. 26. The author here uses the word dār-u’l-‘adālat. The technical terms used by Afghān authors are often misleading, for they freely borrow new names for old institutions. The Majāmi‘-u’l-akhbār (f. 396a) uses the word maẓālim for the institution under Sher Shāh.

c12.191

³ I. B., 11, p 21.

c12.192

The dīwān-i-qaḍā had contacts with the departments of siyāsat and maẓālim; but its main concern was civil litigation. It may be said that qaḍā dealt with common law and siyāsat and maẓālim with droit administratif. The head of the dīwān-i-qaḍā was the qāḍī-i-mumālik, also known as qāḍī-i-quḍāt.⁴ Under the sultans he was almost invariably the ṣadr-u’s-ṣudūr as well, and was one of the most important officials. On account of the very heavy work arising from the nature of his duties, he was assisted by a nā’ib who also was an important dignitary.¹ The chief qāḍī enjoyed a salary of sixty thousand tankahs a year under Muḥammad bin Tughluq.² The whole legal system and the administration of religious affairs were in his charge. He heard appeals from the lower courts and appointed the local qāḍīs.³ In the beginning he also sat as a court of first instance in Dehlī, but later a separate qāḍī was appointed for the capital.⁴ Ibn Baṭṭūṭah was appointed to this subordinate office and was given a salary of twelve thousand tankahs a year. Since he followed Imām Mālik’s system of jurisprudence and as the people of Dehlī were Ḥanafīs, also because he did not know the language, he was assisted by two other qāḍīs. Great importance was attached to the qāḍī of the capital; the sultan himself invested Ibn Baṭṭūṭah with the office and addressed the new incumbent as 'our lord and master.'⁵

c12.193

⁴ The dīwān-i-qaḍā finds mention in the chronicles as well as in contemporary literature, e.g., Khazā’in-u’l-futūḥ, p. 7.

c12.194

¹ Baranī, p. 351.

c12.195

² E. & D., iii, p. 578.

c12.196

³ I'jāz-i-Khusrawī, ii, p. 13. An interesting parallel is found in Alp Arsalān's farmān appointing a chief qāḍī; Majmū'ah-i-murāsilāt, f. 8a.

c12.197

⁴ Minhāj, p. 220.

c12.198

⁵ I. B., ii, pp. 81, 82.

c12.199

It was considered so necessary to have a qāḍī in every town of any dimensions that the first administrative business always included his appointment.⁶ In the beginning of the Muslim empire, the qāḍī’s function was to settle disputes, but later his jurisdiction widened considerably and embraced the supervision and management of the property of orphans and lunatics, the execution of testamentary dispositions and the supervision of awqāf; he even helped destitute widows to find suitable husbands. He was ultimately responsible for street maintenance and the prevention of encroachments on public thoroughfares or on open spaces.⁷ All contested property was to be deposited with the qāḍī or his nominee.⁸ It was the duty of the local governors and officials to help the qāḍī in maintaining the dignity of the law and to co-operate with him in bringing wrongdoers to their senses.¹ The qāḍīs were directly appointed by the centre and were completely independent of the governors.² The qāḍī was to decide by the shar' and 'ādah, or in accordance with equity and reason depending on 'analogy.' Compromise of cases was permitted, provided it did not violate the law. All Muslims were reliable witnesses except those convicted of serious offences or perjury or suspected of partiality. The qāḍī could revise his own judgment on the basis of fresh evidence or even of reasoning on his own part.³

c12.200

⁶ Minhāj, p. 117.

c12.201

⁷ J. Z., pp. 183-187.

First 200 of 305 passages. Read on

Linked texts (9)