The Administration of the Sultanate of Dehli c14.104

c14.104

No description of local government would be complete without a discussion of the position and powers of Hindu tributary chiefs. A large number of powerful hereditary lords existed under the Gurjāra-Pratīhāras of Kanauj whose sway extended from the Himalayas to the Narbada.² These chiefs really date back to an earlier era. “The administration of the Mauryan Empire,” says a modern writer, “was possible because it . . . aimed only at an elastic system of federalism or confederation.”³ Indeed the local chieftains had been left much to themselves by the various dynasties of Hindu India. The tributaries had never been particularly amenable to control; their intransigeance had, in places, been sanctified by tradition and a strange sense of honour, for instance, the Mowāssī and Grassī chiefs in Gujrāt “felt themselves bound in honour to withhold tribute till a body of soldiers appeared against them even under the British government.”⁴ The chiefs were mostly left in possession of their estates by Muslim conquerors.⁵ They were, however, always ready to withhold tribute and to create trouble: the slightest weakening of the government was a signal for revolt. ‘Alā-u’d-dīn broke their power; Muḥammad bin Tughluq advanced them to honour and position; Fīrūz pacified the chiefs by subduing them and then restoring their possessions and adding to their dignity: but all was in vain.⁶ The only conclusive argument in statecraft is force; the weakening of central control offered them an irresistible temptation. Even the khūts and muqaddams were not always docile; ‘Alā-u’d-dīn Khaljī reduced their power; when Sher Shāh took charge of his father's parganah, he had first to deal with the insubordination of the muqaddams and the zamīndārs. Some governors appointed Muslim headmen in a few places; this policy could only succeed where Muslim peasantry existed in substantial numbers.¹ A Muslim headman in a Hindu village would be useless. The Hindu chief played such an important rôle in the rural life of the period that, to many, he was the government, whereas the sultan was almost a mythical figure.