Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Administration of the Sultanate of Dehli c16: Appendices

The Administration of the Sultanate of Dehlī c16

Language
English

Contents

Appendices

Appendix A: Oath of Allegiance to the Caliph

c16.s1.2

THE oath of allegiance signed by Mas‘ūd of Ghaznah runs as follows:—

c16.s1.3

“I render allegiance to my chief and sovereign, ‘Abd-u’llah ibn ‘Abd-u’llah Abū Ja‘far Imām Qā’im bi-amr-i’llah, Commander of the Faithful, and make a vow of being obedient to him . . . As he is our sovereign and lord . . . it is incumbent on us and all followers of Muḥammad to obey him, to follow his advice, to recognize his leadership and to cherish him . . . I will never doubt this; I will not fail him; I will not turn to any one except him; I will be a friend to his friends and an enemy to his foes . . . I will never consider it justifiable to turn against him in any circumstances and at any time and will do nothing which may go against this vow . . . And whereas this oath of allegiance is like a collar on my neck, . . . if I break it or a part of it . . . openly or secretly, explicitly, or on some pretext, explaining it away by ambiguous interpretations . . . let it amount to my not believing in the Holy Qur’ān, in Him Who has revealed it and in him through whom it has been revealed, and my turning away from Allah and His Apostle . . . Everything that I possess at the time of taking this oath or which may come into my possession during the rest of my life . . . shall no longer remain my (lawful) possession . . . If I do not fulfil this oath that I have taken, may Allah not accept my repentance or amends and may He punish me on the day when I have to look to Him . . . for His support . . .” (Baihaqī, pp. 370-374.)

Appendix B: The Sūrs and the Caliphate

c16.s2.2

DR. TRIPATHI (*Some Aspects of Muslim Administration*, p. 98) thinks that Sher Shāh claimed the caliphate for himself, this belief is based on the following numismatic evidence :—

c16.s2.3

(1) The phrase ‘*khalifat-u’z-zamān*’, ‘the Caliph of the Age,’ appears on some pieces (*N. Wright*, e.g., AE 1257-1281).

c16.s2.4

I do not think that the sultan refers to himself in this phrase; my impression is that this legend embodies conventional homage to the caliph; for instance, Buhlūl’s coins bear the title ‘*nā’ib-i-amīr-u’l-mu’minīn*,’ ‘the lieutenant of the Commander of the Faithful (e.g., *N. Wright*, AE 942-947); yet another of his pieces (*N. Wright*, AE 966 B) has the inscription *al-khalīfah, amīr-u’l-mu’minīn*, which is similar in nature to the legend on Sher Shāh’s pieces. There is one difficulty, however, with some of Sher Shāh’s pieces mentioned above. The word ‘Sultan’ appears on both sides of the coins; on the reverse it can be read as forming part of a continuous phrase meaning ‘the Sultan, the Caliph of the Age.’ However, I think that ‘Sultan’ has nothing to do with ‘the Caliph of the Age.’ Sher Shāh put the word ‘Sultan’ or ‘*as-sulṭān-u’l-‘ādil*’ on the obverse where it could not form part of the rest of the legend; for instance, on *N. Wright*, AR 1031 E-1041, 1052-1056, etc., the title ‘Sultan’ is quite independent. Similarly the legend on the reverse of coins like *N. Wright*, AE 1258-1261 etc. should not be taken to make one continuous phrase. This opinion finds considerable support from coins (*N. Wright*, AE Nos. 1483 C and 1483 D) struck by Sikandar Shāh Sūr where the obverse reads ‘*sulṭān-u’l-‘ādil, khalifat-u’z-zamān*’, though the sultan’s allegiance to the caliph is demonstrated on the obverse o coins 1482 A, 1483 etc.

c16.s2.5

(ii) More difficult to explain is the appearance of *khallada'llahu khilafatahu* on such pieces as N. Wright, AR 1069, AE 1151. This simply shows that the first period of Mughul rule had already seen a weakening in the meaning of *khilafat* and that the word was used indiscriminately for 'empire' as well as 'caliphate'. I do not take this inscription to mean that Sher Shāh wanted to proclaim his caliphate; the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. There are far too many coins bearing references to 'an amīr, supporter of the Faith' to justify the theory that Sher Shāh did not own theoretical allegiance to a caliph.

c16.s2.6

The same observations apply to Islām Shāh's attitude towards the caliphate.

Appendix C: Sher Shāh's Schedule

c16.s3.2

THE passage in Blochmann's edition of Ā'in-i-Akbarī (Book III, Ā'in XI) reads as follows:—

c16.s3.3

"در دوے نخستین گزیده و میانه و زبون هر جنس را فراهم آورند، سوم بخش آن محصول پندارند و سه یک آن دست مزد جهانبانی برستانند. وریعے که شیر خاں بر گرفته بود و امروز در همه صوبها ازو کمتر نشان ندهند پذیرش یافت و برائے آسودگی سپاه و رعیت ارج برسخته زر باز خواست نمایند."

c16.s3.4

The reading of the first sentence, in my opinion, is wrong. Blochmann translates the sentence as, "Of the first two kinds of land, there are three classes: good, middling and bad. They add together the produce of each sort and a third of this represents the medium produce, one-third of which is exacted as the royal dues." Abū-'l-Faḍl is speaking of the classification of land by Akbar into polaj, parautī, chāchar and banjar. Blochmann's reading would imply that the first two kinds of land were further subdivided into three classes to calculate an average. This is too complicated a system and does not seem to have been adopted. I think the text should be read without a stop after زبون as follows:—

c16.s3.5

در دوے نخستین گزیده و میانه و زبون هر جنس را فراهم آورند . . . . . .

c16.s3.6

which would translate as, "Of the first two kinds of land, the good, the middling and the bad produce should be added together and a third of this represents the medium produce . . ." To me this seems a more likely and easier method of finding the average produce.

c16.s3.7

The second part of this passage has been translated by Blochmann as follows :— “ The revenue levied by Sher Khān, which at the present day is represented in all provinces as the lowest rate of assessment, generally obtained; and for the convenience of the cultivators and the soldiery, the value was taken in ready money.”

c16.s3.8

This rendering would convey the sense fairly accurately, though not literally, but for the fact that the word ريع has been used which really means ‘produce’. Only recently in the Arabic-speaking countries the word has figuratively come to mean ‘revenue’; in Abū-l-Faḍl’s days it could only have meant ‘produce’. I am inclined to believe that the word is used in its original sense. Akbar accepted Sher Shāh’s figures regarding average produce only, and fixed his own demand. If ريع is taken to mean ‘produce’, the translation would be: “The (figures of mean) produce adopted by Sher Shāh, lower than which cannot be found throughout the provinces, were accepted, and for the convenience of etc. etc.”

Appendix D: Mahṣūl-i-Mu‘āmalatī

c16.s4.2

THE relevant sentence reads as :

c16.s4.3

" از محصول معاملتی که رعایا از دل و جان به کراهت و مشقتی و شدتی ادا نمایند کفایت کردند " .

c16.s4.4

(Baranī, p. 574.) (Agrarian System of Moslem India, p 231.)

c16.s4.5

Moreland translates it as: " And a reduction was made in the mahṣūl-i-mu‘āmalatī so that the peasants may pay willingly without difficulty or severity." In a footnote he adds that he has not found any parallel passage to indicate the meaning of mahṣūl-i-mu‘āmalatī. "From the context," he goes on to say, " it appears to denote some impost on the peasants, different from the kharāj or revenue, but its nature is a matter of conjecture." Moreland has been led away by the fact that this term has been used only once by Baranī. D. A., p. 36 uses the phrase māl-i-mu‘āmalatī which is obviously a synonym. The context makes it quite clear that kūfī is referring to kharāj. On p. 34 the same authority uses mu‘āmalat for the administration of affairs connected with kharāj. The sentence, therefore, simply means that the officers "limited themselves to a demand which the peasants might pay willingly without any hardship or difficulty." The following parallel passage in Inshā-i-Māhrū (Letter XXX) confirms this opinion :—

c16.s4.6

" خراج که قدیم الایام بود ، و در طبایع کافی رعایا و عامه برایا منطبع است و موجب تخریب نیست ' آن اختیار کنند " .

c16.s4.7

Translation: Adopt the kharāj which is traditional and has come down from old days, to which the cultivators and the people are accustomed and which will not lead to a decrease in cultivation.

Appendix E: Fīrūz Shāh’s Revenue Demand

c16.s5.2

THE passage is :

c16.s5.3

"مالی که از بیت المال جمع آید همان وجوهات که در شرع مصطفی صلی الله تعالی علیه و آله وسلم آمده است و کتب دینیه بدان ناطق است یکی خراج اراضی عشور و زکوة دیگر جزیه هذود و دیگر ترکات دیگر خمس غنایم و معادن و هر وجهی که جمع کردن آن بحکم کتاب درست نباشد به هیچ وجه در بیت المال جمع نکنند"

c16.s5.4

(Futūḥāt-i-Fīrūzshāhī, B.M, or. 2039, f. 300b. Printed text, p. 6).

c16.s5.5

The question is : what is the meaning of خراج اراضی عشور ? If the phrase were خراج اراضی و عشور, the meaning would have been ‘the kharāj from the lands and the tithes.’ The phrase as it stands can mean (i) the kharāj from tithe-paying lands or (ii) the land kharāj of tithes. The former is more idiomatic and should signify that the kharāj from the lands of the Sultanate was charged on the basis of tithes; the second, though unidiomatic, conveys the same idea. The phrase is translated in Elliot and Dowson, (iii, p. 377) as ‘kharāj or tenth’ which is very near the literal meaning but does not convey the true sense.

c16.s5.6

The kharāj based on a system of tithes would amount to a double ‘ushr or a fifth. Thus it is clear that Fīrūz Shāh did not change the demand. This view finds confirmation in the following parallel passage in Sīrat-i-Fīrūzshāhī, p. 124 :

c16.s5.7

تا همان وجوهات بر حکم شرع چنانکه خراج اراضی وجزیه هذود و عشور و زکوة و ترکات و خمس غنایم و معادن که باخذ آن از راه شرع بادشاه اسلام مامور است و بصرف در مصارف معینه ماجور

c16.s5.8

درجع آرند و بعوارض و قسمات محدثات هیچ کسے را از رعایا و برایا از دخام نہ نمایند۔

c16.s5.9

This makes it probable that the original reading in the Futūḥāt is خراج اراضی و عشور. Besides the Inshā-i-Māhrū, Letter XXX, says that the emperor's orders were to charge "the traditional kharāj." Unless we believe that the traditional proportion was a tenth of the produce, it is difficult to accept the translation in Elliot and Dowson. D. A., (p. 65) in explaining the meaning of kharāj-i-muqāsimah says that "it should be less than half, that is, a third, a fourth, a fifth, etc." I do not take this, in view of other evidence, to mean that these figures refer to Firūz Shāh's demand in general. 'A fifth' was the prevailing proportion and the other two figures are reminiscent of the level reached in the previous reign when the demand was increased in the Doāb. An addition of 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. to the normal 20 per cent. would give a fourth and very nearly a third.' It is significant that D. A. does not mention a tenth in connection with kharāj.

Appendix F: Iṭlāqs, Assignments and Other Methods of Payment

c16.s6.2

THIS is a controversial point: *vide* Moreland's *The Agrarian System in Moslem India*, p. 56, footnote. The passage in question runs as follows: (*‘Afīf, pp. 296-297.*)

c16.s6.3

"اگرچه شاه فیروز در عهد دولت خویش بقراست و کیاست بیش باندازۀ دارالملک اختصار کرده ما آن هم محصول بلاد ممالک که آن مقدار بود آن تمام حاصلات را به نسبت هر یکے قسمت کرده خانان را بر اندازۀ خانی و زمرۀ امرا و ملوک را بر اندازۀ کامرانی - معارف را بر اندازۀ راحت جانی - و حشم را دیههای در وجه بر اندازۀ تن آسانی - و غیر وجهی را ادای مال از خزانه سلطانی - باقی مایحتاج را اطلاق بحکم فرمان حضرت سلیمانی - چون اطلاق وجه داران در اقطاعات رفتے از هر یک اقطاع وجه یار نصف کامل بر دست آمدے - در آن ایام چندین کسان اطلاقات یاران بـراضی جانبین خریدند - و ثلث مرتب در شهر می دادند - ایشان را در اقطاعات نصف مسلم رسیدے و آن خریداران اطلاقات وجه اطلاقات از اقطاعات در سواد می انداختند"

c16.s6.4

The last few lines of the text are a little corrupt. The correct reading should obviously be as follows:

c16.s6.5

"در آن ایام چندین کسان اطلاقات یاران بتراضی جانبین خریدند - و ثلث مرتب در شهر می دادند - ایشان را در اقطاعات نصف مسلم رسیدے و آن خریداران اطلاقات وجه اطلاقات در سود می اندوختند - "

c16.s6.6

The first part of the passage is quite clear. We are told that in spite of his reduced dominions, Fīrūz Shāh gave large salaries and assignments to all in accordance with their rank.

c16.s6.7

The recipients are classified as (i) khāns, (ii) amīrs and maliks, (iii) men of fame and distinction, (iv) regular troops who were assigned villages in lieu of their salaries, and (v) irregular troops who were paid in cash from the sultan's treasury. The rest of the passage has given rise to controversy. The translation of the next few phrases runs as follows in Elliot and Dowson:

c16.s6.8

"The soldiers who do not receive their pay in this manner were, according to necessity, supplied with assignments (iṭlāk) upon the revenues. When these assignments of the soldiers (wajhadārs) arrived in the fiefs (ikṭā'āt), the holders used to get about half of the total amount from the fiefs . . ." (iii, p. 346)

c16.s6.9

This translation is a little too free; I am inclined to translate the relevant sentences as follows: ". . . The regular soldiers were given villages in lieu of their salary so that they might live in comfort. The irregulars were paid in cash from the royal treasury; the rest, for their (immediate) needs, were given iṭlāqs in accordance with His Majesty's orders. When the iṭlāqs of the regular soldiers reached the aqṭā'āt (the assigned villages), a full half of the soldier's pay was obtained from every aqṭā'.¹ In those days many men bought the iṭlāqs of the soldiers with mutual consent and paid a third of the salary in the city. They themselves received a full half in the aqṭā'āt . . ."

c16.s6.10

¹ D. A. (pp. 50-51) uses mashrūḥ as well for an assignment.

c16.s6.11

This passage can be analysed as follows:

c16.s6.12

(i) Fīrūz Shāh gave villages in assignment to regular soldiers.

c16.s6.13

(ii) Irregular soldiers were paid in cash. These soldiers were not permanent servants and were paid only for the period when they were on duty.

c16.s6.14

(iii) During their stay in the city, the regular soldiers (wajhadārs) also required cash which they could get only from their assignments. The sultan permitted them to draw a half of their salary; the other half was probably paid to the soldier's family living in the assigned area. This permission to draw half the salary while the soldier was away from his assignment was termed an iṭlāq : it was probably made out in the form of a payment order, which the soldier often discounted for a third of his salary to bankers who would ultimately get the full amount for which the voucher was made. The bankers thus got a sixth of the salary as commission.

c16.s6.15

Thus iṭlāq was simply a form of payment. There is nothing in ‘Afīf’s description of the difficulties of the soldiers with Fīrūz Shāh in Gujrāt (pp. 220-221) to militate against this view. The regular soldiers had no banking facilities in a distant province to cash their vouchers; whereas these facilities had been available in the capital. Fīrūz Shāh overcame this difficulty by advancing a loan from the Treasury.

c16.s6.16

These views find full confirmation in D. A., p. 50.

c16.s6.17

The system of iṭlāq envisages a system under which the assigned areas were managed by state officials and not by the assignees themselves. D. A. (pp. 47, 48) gives a list of some methods of payment in addition to those described above. The following are the more important:

c16.s6.18

Milk—literally, property, also applies to land granted in perpetuity. It became the property of the grantee and was inherited by his heirs. Such land was generally granted for pious purposes.

c16.s6.19

Tasuīgh—land granted, generally for pious purposes, on the understanding that it would be resumed at the death of the grantee.

c16.s6.20

Mawājib—salary.

c16.s6.21

Idrār—regularly recurring grants in cash to the learned and the pious.

c16.s6.22

Wazīfah—regular grants for day to day expenses.

c16.s6.23

Musānahat—an annual grant to dervishes.

c16.s6.24

‘Alūfah—rations given on active service.

c16.s6.25

Jāmgīnah—a grant for clothing or uniforms.

c16.s6.26

Mubarrat—a grant given to Sayyids.

c16.s6.27

In‘ām—a grant given as a reward or as a mark of favour.

c16.s6.28

Tashrīf—robes of honour.

c16.s6.29

Mushāhirah—a monthly salary.

c16.s6.30

Muhādāt—money given in lieu of daily rations.

c16.s6.31

Ijārat—wages.

Appendix G: Amlāk and Privy Purse

c16.s7.2

‘AFĪF (pp. 129-130) says that Fīrūz Shāh's canals brought a large area of waste land under cultivation; the sultan convened an assembly of lawyers, learned jurists and pious shaikhs and asked their opinion on the following question: “If a man, with personal and financial endeavour, digs irrigation channels from deep rivers and those canals flow into areas (of land), townships and villages, and the dwellers in these places get great profit out of it: is that man entitled to get something for his effort or not?” The jurists and others decided that such a man was entitled to “haqq-i-shirb, that is ten per cent.” “On this,” says ‘Afīf, “His Majesty Fīrūz Shāh brought the produce of that haqq-i-shirb entirely into his amlāk; similarly that pious monarch, like previous kings, populated many villages in ‘dead lands’ and put them into his amlāk. The produce of these areas was ear-marked for the learned and the pious and kept out of the bait-u’l-māl. Definite apportionments were made. During these days amlāk consisted of two items:—(i) the produce of haqq-i-shirb, (ii) the produce of newly populated villages. An amount of two lacs of tankahs was the revenue of His Majesty Fīrūz Shāh’s amlāk. Praise be to God! The extent of amlāk possessed by Sulṭān Fīrūz was so great that no other king of the Empire of Dehlī possessed so large amlāk. At last the amlāk became so extensive that a separate staff and a separate treasury were organized for them.”

c16.s7.3

The translation and summary are mine. Before dealing with the problem which this passage raises, the following technical terms require explanation:—

c16.s7.4

haqq-i-shirb = irrigation dues; water rate *bait-u'l-māl* = Public Treasury *amlāk* = (plural of *milk*) private property. Moreland in *The Agrarian System of Moslem India* (p. 60) thinks this passage too technical; he is not certain of its meaning. A careful analysis of the passage, however, removes the difficulties.

c16.s7.5

The jurists decided that the man who had constructed the canal was entitled to 10 per cent. It is significant that neither question nor finding mentions the state or the *imām* or the *bait-u'l-māl*. This I take to mean that Fīrūz had constructed these canals out of his own funds and wanted to levy *haqq-i-shirb* in his personal capacity. Hence an inquiry into the nature of private *amlāk* will prove useful. The state often gave tracts of uncultivated land to men of learning and piety so that they might bring it under cultivation. They had to pay only the *‘ushr* on it. If they did not cultivate the land themselves, they could induce peasants to settle in those areas and pay them the usual twenty per cent of the produce; out of this they paid the *‘ushr* (ten per cent of the produce) to the state (*Sirat-i-Fīrūzshāhī*, p. 147; *Inshā-i-Māhrū*, Letter XXVIII). Sometimes the state did not realize the *‘ushr*, but this concession was considered to be exceptional (*Inshā-i-Māhrū*, Letter XVI). If the grantees were rich, they, in certain instances, dug canals to reap greater benefit from their lands. They had, of course, to obtain permission from the state. Once a canal had been dug by a private individual, the state insisted that he should maintain it. The reason was that the state usually retained an interest in these *amlāk* and realized the *‘ushr* (*ibid.*). Besides a canal was a public asset. The fact that the state realized *‘ushr* is confirmed by Ibn Baṭṭūṭah (ii, p. 89) who says that when he was appointed as the guardian of Sulṭān Quṭb-u'd-dīn's tomb, he was ordered to buy thirty villages which would be attached to the tomb. He would get ten per cent of their produce for its maintenance. The traveller probably bought these villages from some *amlāk*.

c16.s7.6

Thus Fīrūz Shāh who brought waste land under cultivation with the permission of the state was the owner of the new villages. He realized twenty per cent of the produce from the peasants and paid ten per cent into the treasury for pious purposes.

c16.s7.7

Then remains the question of *haqq-i-shirb*, which, let it be noted, ‘Afīf puts in a different category from ‘the produce of new villages’. Thus the *haqq-i-shirb* would accrue only in areas which were already under cultivation when the canal was dug. The digger of the canal, therefore, could not claim that he had brought waste land under cultivation and, therefore, he could not claim to be its owner. In such instances, the jurists decided, he was entitled to a tenth of the produce as *haqq-i-shirb*. The net percentage which he received was the same as would accrue to him from the new villages, but the legal position was different. In this instance, he was not the owner paying *‘ushr* to the state, but the owner of irrigation works charging the state a tenth as his dues. To sum up, then, if the canal passed through an area already paying *kharāj*, the sultan charged ten per cent. as *haqq-i-shirb* and paid the rest into the state treasury; thus the sultan and the state each received ten per cent. of the produce. If new land was brought under cultivation on the banks of the royal canal, the peasant still paid twenty per cent. but the sultan claimed to be the owner of these villages and paid only half of what he realized as *‘ushr*. Thus the privy purse gained only by ten per cent.

c16.s7.8

Three facts stand out clearly from the passage :—

c16.s7.9

(i) the sultan had private property which was kept separate from state property;

c16.s7.10

(ii) Fīrūz Shāh was not the first sovereign to possess private property; other sultans of Dehlī before him had also their personal property;

c16.s7.11

(iii) private persons were permitted to dig canals.

Appendix H: Taxes Abolished by Fīrūz Shāh

c16.s8.2

(i) as mentioned by 'Afīf :—
1. dāngānah.
2. mustaghil.
3. jazzārī.
4. dūrī, suggested readings, rūzī, rorī. Dūrī = distance; rūzī, from rūz = day; rorī, a Hindī word meaning old bricks. It may be any of these words for the trader had to spend a day in bringing old bricks from a distance.

c16.s8.3

(ii) as mentioned in the Futūḥāt-i-Fīrūzshāhī [B.M. or 2039, f. 300a : Printed text, pp. 5, 6]:—
1. mandwī barg —mandwī = market, barg = leaf; but this cannot be a tax on vegetables, for the Sīrat mentions a tax called khuḍrāwāt which must have been a vegetable tax. Barg means 'leaves'; in all probability this was a tax on leaves sold in the state market. Leaves are used even now in Hindu homes and shops instead of utensils.
2. dalālat-i-bāzārhā = a tax on brokers (dallāl = broker).
3. jazzārī —vide Chapter VI.
4. amīrī-ṭ-ṭarab = amusement tax, probably paid to the amīr-i-ṭarab appointed by the state to control musicians, dancers and festive gatherings.

c16.s8.4

5. *gul-farūshī* = tax on the sale of flowers.
6. *darībah-i-tambūl* = tax on the sale of betel leaves sold in the state market. The printed text has *jiziyah-i-tambūl* which means 'a tax on betel leaves.' *Sīrat-i-Fīrūzshāhī* also has *darībah*.
7. *chungī-i-ghallah* = octroi on grain and cereals (*chungī* = handful).
8. *kitābī* = a tax on letter-writers, legal scribes, etc.
9. *nilgarī* = a tax on the manufacture of indigo. The printed text has *belgarī* which is unlikely. *Sīrat-i-Fīrūzshāhī* has *nilgarī*.
10. *māhī-farūshī* = a tax on the sale of fish.
11. *nadāfī* = a tax on the carders of cotton
12. *ṣābungarī* = a tax on soap-making.
13. *rīsmān-farūshī* = a tax on selling ropes.
14. *rūghangarī* = a tax on oil-making.
15. *nakhūd-i-biryān* = a tax on parched gram.
16. *tah-bāzārī* = a tax on stall-keepers on public land (used in this sense in parts of North India even to-day).
17. *jhabbah* = This is probably *chhappah*, meaning print. A tax on printed cloth. *Jhabbah* may mean a basket and the tax might be on petty hawkers of fruit and vegetables who carry their wares in baskets or it might have been levied from the makers of such baskets. The printed text has *chhattah* which means a covered passage. When a citizen owns property on either side of a lane, he may connect the two by building a roof like a bridge between the two. Such a structure is called a chhattah and this tax might be on such buildings. This reading is however unlikely.

c16.s8.5

18. qimār-khānah = a tax on gambling places.
19. dādbekī = court-fees.
20. kotwālī = police dues.
21. iḥtisābī = perquisites of the muḥtasib.
22. karhī = vide Appendix I.
23. charā’ī = grazing tax, vide Appendix I.
24. muṣādarāt = fines of various kinds.

c16.s8.6

[These names have been reproduced in accordance with the latest readings.]

c16.s8.7

The printed text (p. 5) adds the following :—

c16.s8.8

Qaṣṣābī a tax on butchers, this is the same as jazzārī, hence several manuscripts omit it.

c16.s8.9

Kūzah-i-khishtpuzī this should be kūzah-wa-khishtpuzī—a tax on potteries and brick kilns.

c16.s8.10

(iii) as mentioned in the Sīrat-i-Fīrūzshāhī :—

c16.s8.11

All the taxes mentioned in (ii) with the following exceptions :

c16.s8.12

kabābī instead of kitābī. In this case the tax would be on roast mince sausages.

c16.s8.13

khiḍrāwāt = a tax on vegetables.

c16.s8.14

dāngānah = mentioned in (i).

c16.s8.15

Most of the taxes mentioned in this appendix fall under the category mentioned in Inshā-i-Māhrū (Letter XXXI) as kharāj-i-muḥtarifah-i-Muslim, that is, the tax levied from Muslim artisans. This authority also mentions a few taxes peculiar to Multān.

c16.s8.16

It will be useful to compare this list with the taxes mentioned by Kautilya in his Arthaśāstra (pp. 63-65) :—

c16.s8.17

Sources of income.

c16.s8.18

1. mines.
2. buildings and gardens.
3. forests.
4. herds of cattle.
5. roads.
6. tolls.
7. fines.
8. weights and measures.

c16.s8.19

9. town clerk. 10. superintendent of coinage.
11. superintendent of seals and passports.
12. liquor. 13. slaughter of animals.
14. threads.
15. oils.
16. clarified butter.
17. sugar.
18. state goldsmiths.
19. warehouse of merchandise.
20. prostitutes.
21. gambling.
22. building sites.
23. corporation of artisans and handicraftsmen.
24. superintendent of gaols.
25. taxes collected at the gates.
26. produce from crown lands.
27. portion of produce payable to the state.
28. religious taxes.
29. kara (taxes paid in money).
30. merchants.
31. superintendent of rivers, ferries, boats and ships.
32. towns.
33. pasture land.
34. road cess.
35. ropes.
36. ropes to bind thieves.
37. all produce from mines.
38. corals, conch shells, etc.
39. gardens of flowers, fruit and vegetables.
40. fields.
41. forests for game, timber or elephants.
42. herds of cows, buffaloes, goats, sheep, asses, camels, horses and mules.
43. land and waterways.
44. compensation for damages.
45. property of men dying without heirs etc.

Appendix I: Charā’ī and Karhī

c16.s9.2

VARIOUS scholars have read karhī as gharī and called it a house tax. The word karhī occurs in Baranī on p. 288; Blochmann and Fuller suggest that the word گری after سکونت in the following passage should be read کرھی:

c16.s9.3

"دویم آنکه از گاو میش یا گوسپند هر چه شیر آور بود چراثی بستانند و چراثی تعیین شد و از پس هر خانه سکونت گری طلب نمایند تا هیچ غیتی و شتر گری درستدن خراج نماند و بار اقویا بر ضعفا ننهند و اقویا و ضعفا را در دادن خراج یک حکم باشد"

c16.s9.4

(Baranī, p. 287.)

c16.s9.5

گری is obviously a mistake; کرھی sounds more convincing. But it is difficult to agree with the suggestion that کرھی (karhī) was a house tax. It is mostly used with charā’ī and seems to be in some way connected with it. (Vide Baranī, p. 288; Sīrat-i-Fīrūzshāhī; Futūḥāt-i-Fīrūzshāhī.) Besides, the parallel passages in Ṭabaqāt-i-Akbarī (i, p. 153) and Firishta (i, p. 191) do not mention karhī. It may be argued that ‘Afīf mentions a house tax called mustaghil; but this was limited to the capital and was rent, not a tax. Besides the context makes it clear that charā’ī, karhī and kharāj are closely related. I think that کرھی comes from کره which means fresh butter; گری itself means a shed for cattle. The omission of this word from parallel passages in later authorities makes it probable that karhī and charā’ī were identical; if they were two different imposts, charā’ī was levied for the use of land paying kharāj for pasturing animals and karhī was a tax on the increase in cattle and would correspond to the ancient Hindu tax of an exactly similar nature. It is not impossible that the word was pronounced as *kurrahī*, *kurrah* being a colt or a calf. The fact that it was to be levied from every dwelling place should cause no difficulty, for the context shows that the measure was intended to avoid group assessment which enabled the influential chiefs to escape payment by an unjust distribution. Of course the same area could not pay both *charā'i* and *kharāj*.

c16.s9.6

We hear of *charā'i* under the Mughuls but *karhī* does not find mention; this confirms the opinion that *charā'i* and *karhī* were identical. D. A. (p. 34) uses the Arabic form *marā'i* for the Hindi *charā'i*. Like various other authorities it does not mention *karhī*. Is it possible that ignorant scribes have caused the confusion by transcribing کرھی as گری or مراعی ?

Appendix J

c16.s10.1

BARANĪ (p. 303) has a crabbed and difficult passage on this question :—

c16.s10.2

"دویدست سی و چهار تنکه بمرتب دهم و هفتاد و هشت تنکه بدو اسپه دهم و استعداد بر اندازه آن ازو مرتب طلبم و بک اسپه و استعداد بر اندازه یک اسپ ازو طلبم "

c16.s10.3

The text is obviously corrupt and does not make sense. The only information which this passage can be said to contain explicitly is that

c16.s10.4

(i) a class of cavalry-men was known as *murattab* and another as *do-aspah*;

c16.s10.5

(ii) the former were given 234 *tankahs* and the latter 78 *tankahs* as their salary.

c16.s10.6

These conclusions are confirmed by another passage on p. 319 :—

c16.s10.7

"از پس آنکه نرخهای اسباب ارزانی گرفت حشم مرتب بدویست سی چهار تنکه و دو اسپه بهفتاد و هشت تنکه بسیار شد و مستقیم گشت "

c16.s10.8

This leads us to believe that a *murattab* was superior to a *do-aspah*, a view which finds confirmation in the following statement by the same author (p. 320) :

c16.s10.9

" لشکر اسلام بر لشکر مغل چنان چیره گشت که یک دواسپه ده مغل را رشته در گردن انداخته می آورد و یک سوار مسلمان صد سوار مغل را پیش کرده می دوانید "

c16.s10.10

It is obvious that a *do-aspah* was inferior to a *sawār*, a cavalryman, hence a *sawār's* salary should be higher. Besides, these passages read together give us the following grades of service : a murattab, a sawār, a do-aspah. Now we know that a murattab was given 234 tankahs and a do-aspah 78 tankahs ; a sawār's salary should be a sum between these two figures. It seems to me that 156 tankahs was the sawār's pay for the following reasons :—

c16.s10.11

(i) the do-aspah was lower than the sawār ; the former term was in all probability applied to the man who was in charge of the led horse belonging to the murattab ; 78 tankahs was the salary of a man who had to maintain no animal ;

c16.s10.12

(ii) a sawār would get 78 tankahs for himself and 78 tankahs for the maintenance of a horse which was not supplied by the state ;

c16.s10.13

(iii) the murattab got 234 tankahs, 78 tankahs for himself and 78 tankahs each for his two horses.

c16.s10.14

These conclusions find support in Firishta which says that the salaries under 'Alā-u'd-dīn Khaljī were 234 tankahs for the best, 156 for the middling and 78 for the lowest class of cavalrymen (I, p. 199). These suggestions require a complete change in our ideas of the meaning of the word do-aspah in our period ; hitherto it has generally been understood to mean a horseman with two horses. The latter was the meaning attached to the word under the Mughuls, but the significance of the term obviously underwent a change.

c16.s10.15

Some scholars have taken exception to these conclusions. They argue that my interpretation (in which I am supported by Professor Hodivala in his Studies in Indo-Muslim History, p. 280) gives a meaning to the word do-aspah which is entirely different from its connotation under the Mughuls. They find it difficult to accept that such a drastic change could have taken place in the application of a term. I take the liberty of reproducing the interpretations of some of these learned scholars.

c16.s10.16

Professor Muḥammad Ḥabīb of the Muslim University, Aligarh, thinks that 'murattab' has been used for an officer commanding ten soldiers. This, he argues, was the sense in which the term was used under Tīmūr.

c16.s10.17

The context, I am afraid, does not justify this view, because the passages from Baranī quoted in this appendix obviously deal with the recruitment and salaries of ordinary cavalrymen and not of petty officers.

c16.s10.18

Shams-u’l-ʿulamā al-Ḥāj Maulawī ʿAbd-u’r-Raḥmān interprets the figures in Baranī in the following manner. He argues that Baranī’s figure for the salary of a murattab gives his annual pay and the figure for a do-aspah’s salary is for a month. In this way, the salary for a do-aspah can be explained easily :—

c16.s10.19

| Basic salary for a soldier = 234/12 = 19 1/2 | = tankahs per mensem. |
| Allowance for the upkeep of a horse | = 19 1/2 tankahs per mensem. |
| Allowance for an additional horse | = 19 1/2 tankahs per mensem. |
| Allowance for a servant to look after the horse | = 19 1/2 tankahs per mensem. |
| Total allowance for a soldier with two horses or a du-aspah | = 78 tankahs per mensem. |

c16.s10.20

There are several difficulties in accepting this view :—

c16.s10.21

(i) it seems odd that Baranī should, in the same sentence, give the annual salary of one class of soldiers and the monthly salary of another;

c16.s10.22

(ii) this analysis would lead us to believe that a murattab soldier had no horse, because the allowance of two horses has to be added to his salary to get the figure for a do-aspah’s salary;

c16.s10.23

(iii) the figures given by Firishtah become meaningless, though, according to my interpretation, they confirm Baranī’s figures.

c16.s10.24

Yet another explanation has been offered, which may be tabulated as follows :—

c16.s10.25

| Basic salary for a soldier maintaining one horse | = 234 tankahs, |
| Additional allowance for maintaining another horse | = 78 tankahs, |

c16.s10.26

Salary of a soldier with cavalry rank and no horse = 156 tankahs, [234-78=156]

c16.s10.27

Salary for an infantry man serving in cavalry = 78 tankahs.

c16.s10.28

This explanation has certain advantages, but it envisages four grades instead of three mentioned by Baranī as well as Firishtah and the difference in the status of a soldier with cavalry rank and one with infantry rank when both did not maintain horses is too great.

c16.s10.29

All these difficulties disappear if a do-aspah is taken to mean a groom looking after the second horse and not a soldier with two horses. There is no reason why Mughul notions should colour the interpretation of the institutions of the Sultanate. If we read از مرتب instead of از مرتب in the first Persian quotation in this appendix, a good part of our difficulty disappears.

Appendix K: The Ibāḥatiyahs

c16.s11.2

KHUSRAW mentions this sect in the *Khazā'in-u'l-futūḥ* (Text, p. 21) and gives a few details about them: "It was discovered that among these shameless wretches, mothers had cohabited with their own sons and aunts (mothers' sisters) with their nephews; that the father had taken his daughter for his bride and there had been connection between brothers and sisters" (Professor Muḥammad Ḥabīb's translation, p. 127).

c16.s11.3

Professor Ḥabīb says in a footnote: "By the 'fraternity of incest' is meant the Carmathians, Ismā'īlīs and other Shī'ah 'heretics' of the sect of seven imāms, whom the 'orthodox' Sunnīs accused of permitting marriages within prohibited degrees and of practising incest in their secret assemblies. The charge, whether right or wrong, was generally believed."

c16.s11.4

This sect is also mentioned by Fīrūz Shāh in his *Futūḥāt-i-Fīrūzshāhī* (pp. 7, 8) in the following words: "Besides a group of mulḥids and Ibāḥatiyahs had come together and persuaded people to accept ilḥād and ibāḥat. They gathered at a fixed place on a night where near relations and strangers met, ate food and drank intoxicating drinks in company and called this worship. They made an image and induced people to prostrate themselves before it. They brought together their wives, mothers and sisters during that night and (they drew lots of the garments of the assembled women and) whichsoever woman's garment a man drew, he cohabited with her. I beheaded their leaders who were Shī'ahs and imprisoned, exiled or punished others so that their mischief was completely eradicated from the dominions of Islam."

c16.s11.5

It is noteworthy that the phrase "who were Shi'ahs" does not occur in all the manuscripts (vide editor's note on p. 8). This phrase seems to be a later interpolation.

c16.s11.6

The reason why the sect has been identified by some scholars with the Ismā'īlīs is that they were accused of similar practices. They had adopted secret methods of propaganda from the Manicheans and Mazdakīs. They did not disclose the place or time of their assemblies to the uninitiated and an air of mystery surrounded all their activities. Hence they were very often unjustly confused with the Manicheans and the Mazdakīs (*Kitāb-u'l-milal wa'n-naḥl*, ed. Curéton, p. 147). The Mazdakīs believed in extreme communism which included the doctrine of sharing wives as well. There is no proof that the followers of Qarāmaṭ or any other section of the Ismā'īlīs believed in incest. Indeed there are reasons to believe that such accusations are baseless.

c16.s11.7

So far as the sect mentioned in the *Futūḥāt-i-Fīrūzshāhī* is concerned it could not have been any section of the Ismā'īlīs. Fīrūz Shāh treats the Shi'ahs in a separate paragraph. Besides, he mentions already that the Ibāḥatiyahs made an image and worshipped it. No one has ever accused the Ismā'īlīs of idolatry.

c16.s11.8

The parallel passage in *Sīrat-i-Fīrūzshāhī* (p. 146) adds to our information. It runs as follows: "The officials of the city stated before the imperial throne, may God make its dominion eternal, that a group of the mulḥids and Ibāḥatiyahs have appeared in the city and persuade people to join their false religion. They have an appointed day when they gather at a place fixed for the purpose. They plaster the ground with cowdung and, in accordance with the custom of idolaters, scatter rice and flower on it. They, then, ask the person whom they want to turn into a follower to prostrate himself on the ground, teach him formulas of infidelity, and ask him to repudiate Islam and to say that he has become their follower. That night they collect their daughters, wives, mothers and sisters and give them pork to eat and wine to drink. Then the lamp is put out and they take off the garments of the women. Every one then pulls out a garment and cohabits with the woman to whom the garment belongs, even though she may be his own mother, sister or daughter."

c16.s11.9

It is quite obvious that the customs of plastering the ground with cowdung and throwing rice and flowers on it are not Muslim. Nor does any section of the Muslims consider pork to be clean. There is a casual mention of this sect on p. 59 which shows clearly that the Ibāḥatiyahs were not Ismā‘īlis: "The inhabitants of the land of Jājnagar are all polytheists, eternal wine bibblers, great drunkards, idolaters, Ibāḥatī mulḥids. These mulḥids have taken images for their gods and in every city they have a temple. The more famous of these is Jagannāth." This reference makes it quite clear that the Ibāḥatiyahs were a sect of the Hindus. Professor Hodivala is right in identifying this sect with the Vāma-mārgī or Vāma-chārī section of the Shāktas. "The Tāntras constitute the scriptures of this sect and the essential requisites of Tantric worship are the five makāras, wine, flesh, fish, mystical gesticulations and sexual intercourse. These Vāma-mārgīs or Vāma-chārīs worship the female principle, not only symbolically but in actual woman and promiscuous intercourse is said to constitute a necessary part of the orgies. The garments mentioned by the sultan is the female devotee's cholī or kancholī, i.e., bodice (H. H. Wilson: Religious Sects of the Hindus, Works, ed. Rost, I, pp. 254-263). Mr. Crooks say that one division of the Vāma-mārgīs is known as Cholī-mārgīs because they make the women place in a jar their bodices, the owners of which are then allotted by chance to the male worshippers. The ceremony is called Bhairavī-chakra (Tribes and Castes, I, pp. 136-137)" (Studies in Indo-Muslim History, p. 342).

c16.s11.10

The followers of this sect still exist in various parts of India. They seem to have been particularly strong in Orissa (Jājnagar of Muslim historians) at the time of Fīrūz Shāh's invasion. That they were not unknown in other parts of India is also certain They find mention in the Dabistān-i-madhāhib as one of the religious sects of Shāh Jahān's time.

c16.s11.11

Professor Hodivala, however, curiously contradicts himself on p. 282 (Studies in Indo-Muslim History) where he is inclined to believe that the Ibāḥatiyahs were Ismā'īlīs. It is true that here he is discussing the Ibāḥatiyahs in the reign of 'Alā-u'd-dīn Khaljī, but it is unlikely that the term should have changed its significance in such a short time.

c16.s11.12

Barānī (p. 336) says that Ibāḥatiyahs and Bodhagan appeared in the city در شهر بود هکان و اباحتیان پدید آمدند. Professor Hodivala thinks that Lodhagan is a misprint for Borhagan (plural of Borah. The Bohras are a sect of the Ismā'īlīs). This conclusion is based on the assumption that the Ibāḥatiyahs were Ismā'īlīs, an assumption which the Professor himself discards in his comments on the translation of Futūḥat-i-Fīrūzshāhī in Elliot & Dowson (Studies in Indo-Muslim History, p. 342). There is no difficulty in understanding and interpreting the word Bodhagān. Blochmann (T. A. S. B., 1870, p. 51 note) did not have all the data before him. The Ibāḥatiyahs were a Tantric sect; Tantrism was a common feature of the later day Mahāyāna Buddhism in its debased form. The Muslim chronicler, therefore, considered the Vāma-chārīs to be Buddhists, hence Barānī uses the term Bodhagan (or Buddhists) for this sect. Ibāḥatiyah has been used as a synonym to convey some idea of the customs of this sect to Muslim readers.

Appendix L: Khūṭ

c16.s12.2

THE etymology of the word *khūṭ* is doubtful. It seems highly improbable that the rare Arabic word *khūṭ* meaning ‘a fine young man’ should have been applied to Hindu chiefs without any precedent. W. H. Moreland dismisses the theory that *khūṭ* is the arabicized form of *khot* which was in use in Gujrat and Konkan for two reasons :—

c16.s12.3

(i) the presence of two Arabic letters *kh* and *ṭ* in the words;

c16.s12.4

(ii) *khot* has not been traced further back than the sixteenth century. (*Moreland*, pp. 225-226.)

c16.s12.5

To take (ii) first, the word *khot* is probably a corruption of the word *kūta* in *grāmakūṭa*, a village official mentioned in *Kautilya's Arthashāstra*.

c16.s12.6

The existence of the Arabic *kh* (which is also Persian) and *ṭ* should cause no difficulty : the term was arabicized probably under the Ghaznavids whose *wazīr*s used Arabic (*‘Utbi*, pp. 366, 367). The nearest transliteration of *khot* would be *khūṭ* which can be read either as *khoṭ* or *khūṭ*. This would not be a solitary instance of such transliteration, e.g., Bahāṭiyah for Bhaṭiyah, which is common in *‘Utbī* and has been copied in other chronicles. These examples can be multiplied.

Appendix M: Sher Shāh's Local Administration

c16.s13.2

THE following are the names of the various *parganah* officials in accordance with the different texts :—

c16.s13.3

| *Tuḥfah-i-Akbar-shāhī* | *Dā'ūdī* | *Mushtāqī* Elliot text (B. M. 1929) | *Mushtāqī* (B. M. 11633) |
| 1 *shiqqdār* | 1 *shiqqdār* | 1 *shiqqdār* | 1 *shiqqdār* |
| 1 *amīn* | 1 *mushrif* | 1 *munṣif* | 1 *munṣif* |
| 1 *foṭaḥdār* | 1 *khazānchī* | 1 *khazānandār* | ... |
| ... | ... | 1 *munṣif-i-khazānah* | ... |
| 1 *kārkun Hindwī-nawīs* | 1 *kārkun Hindī-nawīs* | 1 *kārkun Hindī-nawīs* | 1 *kārkun* |
| 1 *kārkun Fārsī-nawīs* | 1 *kārkun Fārsī-nawīs* | 1 *kārkun Fārsī-nawīs* | ... |
| 1 *qānūngū* | ... | ... | ... |
| F. 69 (a) | F. 79 (b) | F. 50 (b) | F. 49 (a) |

c16.s13.4

The following points emerge from the above table :—
(i) *shiqqdār* was the head of the *parganah* ;
(ii) *amīn*, *mushrif* and *munṣif* are synonymous in the official jargon of the day ; literally, *amīn* = honest, keeper of a trust ; *mushrif* = inspector ; *munṣif* = judge.

c16.s13.5

'Abbās Sarwānī (B. M. or 164, f. 73b) says that an *amīn*'s duty was to assess the damage done to crops by movements of troops ; that is, he was the 'judge' of damage done to crops ; a *mushrif* assessed the produce of crops.

c16.s13.6

The two functions are closely related. It seems almost certain that this officer, known in different areas by different names, was responsible for assessment;
(iii) foṭah = purse¹; foṭahdār = treasurer; khazānchī, khazānahdār are more common words for a treasurer;
(iv) kārkun, literally 'a worker' was the same as nawisindah, a clerk;
(v) a munṣif-i-khazānah mentioned by Mushtāqī seems to be a mistake; if the officer existed at all he would be an inspector of treasuries and would belong to a bigger unit than a parganah;
(vi) a qānūngū was not exactly a member of the parganah staff; he was more a representative of the peasants; hence he is not mentioned by other authorities;
(vii) omissions in B. M. 11633 are probably a copyist's error or due to his desire for brevity.

c16.s13.7

¹ This is based on Francis Johnson's Dictionary, but Arabic scholars take exception to this meaning. The Ghiyāth-u'l-lughāt says that foṭah is in reality foṭah which means revenue. According to this interpretation the word foṭahdār would mean a keeper of revenue or a treasurer. If eht Ghiyāth is correct, foṭah is probably an Arabicized form of some Hindī word, most likely potah or a bag of corn.

c16.s13.8

The following officials are mentioned for a sarkār :—

c16.s13.9

| 'Abbās Sarwānī | Mushtāqī | Zubdat-u't-tawārīkh |
| (Sher Shāh) | (Sher Shāh) | (Islām Shāh) |
| shiqqdār-i-shiqqdārān | shiqqdār-i-shiqqdārān | shiqqdār |
| munṣif-i-munṣifān | munṣif-i-munṣifān | mushrif |
| ... | ... | kārkun |
| MS, or 164 f. 69 (b) | Elliot MS. or 1929 f. 52 (b) | B M. MS. 10580 ff. 123 (b) 124 (a) |

c16.s13.10

The chief shiqqdār and the chief assessment officer are common to these authorities; a kārkun and a treasurer were indispensable; they are not mentioned by some chronicles for they were probably looked upon as merely clerks.

Appendix N: Coinage

c16.s14.2

VERY little light is thrown by the chronicles on the working of mints or the numismatic history of the period; the relevant passages have been fully utilized by Mr. Nelson Wright. It will be superfluous to repeat here the views expressed in his work, *The Coinage and Metrology of the Sulṭāns of Dehli*. The evidence produced in favour of a forty-eight *jītal tankah* is conclusive. The pieces mentioned in the *Ṣubḥ-u'l-a'shā* as well as *‘Afīf* are multiples of 3 as well as 2, which cannot fit into a sixty-four *jītal tankah*. The only flaw in the argument—the explicit mention of a sixty-four *jītal tankah* in the *Masālik-u'l-abṣār*—is more than counterbalanced by incontrovertible evidence contained in another passage.¹ The fifty *jītal tankah* also became popular in the north; it first originated in the Deccan.² The numismatic evidence contained in Nelson Wright's book adds Fīrūz Shāh Ẓafar ibn Fīrūz Shāh, Fīrūz Shāh ibn Abū Bakr and Aḥmad bin Fīrūz to the list of Indian monarchs.³ There is no mention of these sultans in the chronicles; the date on the extant coins rules out the suggestion that Fīrūz Shāh Ẓafar was invested with authority during his father's life-time.⁴ He seems to have succeeded Ghiyāth-u'd-dīn Tughluq II. Fīrūz Shāh ibn Abū Bakr is capable of being distinct.⁵ It is difficult to make a concrete suggestion in view of the lack of proper evidence; these might have been read as Abū Bakr ibn Fīrūz Shāh; but Aḥmad is quite crowned monarchs or just pretenders during those days of turmoil. ‘Afīf mentions an interesting incident which shows how sensitive public opinion was regarding the purity of the coinage. The value of a *shashgānī* denomination having been questioned, the wazīr took spectacular, though fraudulent, measures to re-establish its reputation.¹ The coin was then restored to its full value. The wazīr’s remark on hearing the report of the suspicion regarding the value of the coin is significant. “The coins of the monarchs of the various countries of the world,” said the wazīr, “are like virgin daughters : if, God forbid, a virgin daughter’s reputation is injured and she rightly or wrongly gets a bad name, even though she be highly accomplished and beautiful, no one will desire her.”²

c16.s14.3

¹ N. Wright, pp. 395-396 *Mez* (p. 475) says about the *dirham*, "The smaller coinage was graded on the sexagesimal system: 1 *dirham*=6 *daniq* =12 *qirat*=24 *tassing*=48 *ḥabbah*."

c16.s14.4

² *‘Afīf*, p. 344; N. Wright, pp. 219-221.

c16.s14.5

³ *Numismatic Journal*, 1938, Part IV, p. 303.

c16.s14.6

⁴ Thomas, p. 297

c16.s14.7

⁵ N. Wright, Plate XXI, No. B812 B.

c16.s14.8

¹ For full story read ‘Afīf, pp. 344-349. The fraud consisted in the introduction of extra silver into the crucible used for melting the coin to examine its silver contents.

c16.s14.9

² ‘Afīf, p. 345.

Appendix O: Chronology of the Sultans

c16.s15.2

| | DATES OF ACCESSION | |
| | *Hijri era* | *Christian era* |
| **1. QUTBĪS** | | |
| 1. Qutb-u'd-dīn Aibak | ... 602 | 1206 |
| 2. Ārām Shāh | ... 607 | 1210 |
| 3. Shams-u'd-dīn Iltutmish | ... 607 | 1210 |
| 4. Rukn-u'd-dīn Fīrūz | ... 633 | 1235 |
| 5. Jalālat-u'd-dīn Raḍiyah | ... 634 | 1236 |
| 6. Mu'izz-u'd-dīn Bahrām | ... 637 | 1240 |
| 7. 'Alā-u'd-dīn Mas'ūd | ... 639 | 1242 |
| 8. Nāṣir-u'd-dīn Maḥmūd | ... 644 | 1246 |
| 9. Ghiyāth-u'd-dīn Balban | ... 664 | 1266 |
| 10. Mu'izz-u'd-dīn Kaiqubād | ... 686 | 1287 |
| 11. Shams-u'd-dīn Kaiyūmarth | ... 689 | 1290 |
| **2. KHALJĪS** | | |
| 12. Jalāl-u'd-dīn Fīrūz | ... 689 | 1290 |
| 13. Rukn-u'd-dīn Ibrāhīm | ... 695 | 1296 |
| 14. 'Alā-u'd-dīn Muḥammad | ... 695 | 1296 |
| 15. Shihāb-u'd-dīn 'Umar | ... 715 | 1316 |
| 16. Quṭb-u'd-dīn Mubārak Shāh | ... 716 | 1316 |
| Shams-u'd-dīn Maḥmūd (Pretender) | ... 718 | 1318 |
| 17. Nāṣir-u'd-dīn Khusraw | ... 720 | 1320 |
| **3. HOUSE OF TUGHLUQ** | | |
| 18. Ghiyāth-u'd-dīn Tughluq I | ... 720 | 1320 |
| 19. Muḥammad bin Tughluq | ... 725 | 1325 |
| 20. Fīrūz Shāh | ... 752 | 1351 |
| 21. Ghiyāth-u'd-dīn Tughluq II | ... 790 | 1388 |
| 22. Fīrūz Shāh Ẓafar | ... 791 | 1389 |
| 23. Abū Bakr | ... 791 | 1389 |
| 24. Muḥammad bin Fīrūz | ... 792 | 1390 |
| 25. Sikandar | ... 795 | 1393 |

c16.s15.3

| | | *Hijrī era* | *Christian era* |
| 26. Maḥmūd bin Muḥammad | ... | 795 | 1393 |
| 27. Nuṣrat (Interregnum) | ... | 797-802 ? | 1395 |
| 28. Daulat Khān Lodī | ... | 815 | 1413 |

4. Sayyids

c16.s15.t1.1

| 29. Khiḍr Khān | ... | 817 | 1414 |
| 30. Mubārak Shāh | ... | 824 | 1421 |
| 31. Muḥammad bin Farīd | ... | 837 | 1434 |
| 32. ‘Ālam Shāh | ... | 849 | 1445 |

5. Lodīs

c16.s15.t2.1

| 33. Buhlūl | ... | 855 | 1451 |
| 34. Sikandar | ... | 894 | 1489 |
| 35. Ibrāhīm | ... | 923 | 1517 |
| • [Mughul Emperors] | | | |
| Ẓahīr-u’d-dīn Muḥammad Bābur | ... | 932 | 1526 |
| Nāṣir-u’d-dīn Humāyūn | ... | 937 | 1530 |

6. Sūrs

c16.s15.t3.1

| 36. Sher Shāh | ... | 945 | 1538 |
| 37. Islām Shāh | ... | 952 | 1545 |
| 38. Muḥammad ‘Ādil Shāh | ... | 960 | 1552 |
| 39. Ibrāhīm Shāh | ... | 962 | 1554 |
| 40. Sikandar Shāh | ... | 962 | 1554 |
| Nāṣir-u’d-dīn Humāyūn (restored) | ... | 962 | 1555 |

c16.s15.t3.2

(Based on *N. Wright*)

Appendix P: A Select Bibliography

c16.s16.2

[Abbreviations :— B. M. =British Museum I. O. =India Office C. U. L. =Cambridge University Library Bod. =Bodleian Library Bib. Nat. =Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris Nat. Bib. =National Bibliothek in Wien Bib. Indica =Bibliotheca Indica.]

First 160 of 429 passages. Read on

Linked texts (26)