The Administration of the Sultanate of Dehli c16.s10: Appendix J

The Administration of the Sultanate of Dehlī c16.s10

Language: English

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 "

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

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

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.

Linked texts (2)

Tārīkh-i Firishta — Muḥammad Qāsim Hindū Shāh Firishta 1606, Persian
Tārīkh-i Fīrūzshāhī — Shams-i Sirāj ʿAfīf