Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Administration of the Sultanate of Dehli c16.s7: Appendix G: Amlāk and Privy Purse

The Administration of the Sultanate of Dehlī c16.s7

Language
English

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.

Linked texts (2)