The Administration of the Sultanate of Dehli c8.72

c8.72

Co-operation. The sovereignty of a single man is a legal myth. No man can impose his will upon a large population without considerable support, which assumes two forms. A small group of influential men give him active support by putting their energies, capabilities and even lives at his disposal. The greater portion of the populace give their passive support by obeying orders and paying taxes. The Dehli sultan had to rely on the active support of the nobles who, for one reason or another, were willing to make common cause with him.¹ The monarch had also to ensure the co-operation of a fairly large number of ‘ulamā; the learned theologians and lawyers, on account of their influence with the Muslim populace.² Then there were the many public servants in various branches of the administration who put their experience and technical knowledge at the service of the state. Nor could the ruler forget the cultivators of the soil, the Hindu peasants and their representatives—the village headmen, the local chiefs and tribal heads.³ The ultimate force of the state consisted of the Muslim fighters who shed their blood for the glory of the sultan. No monarch has alienated any of these elements with impunity or succeeded in his projects without their support. The hostility of the people seldom proved fruitless.⁴ The limitations of royal power were recognized by contemporary writers. In discussing the reasons for Muḥammad bin Tughluq’s difficulties and failures, Baranī¹ twice says that his executions had created widespread disaffection.¹ ‘Alā-u’d-dīn Khaljī’s measures succeeded because he had a very good technical staff at his disposal who efficiently co-operated with him.² Muḥammad bin Tughluq’s excesssive demands drove the peasantry of the Doāb into rebellion and the result was almost complete loss of revenue.³ Actually there is no sanction for unbridled tyranny except the timidity of the people, and the Indian populace during the Middle Ages was by no means timid or forbearing; on the other hand, the people were mostly warlike, refractory and rebellious. Besides, those were the days of dense forests and limited means of communication; and the difference between an army and armed rabble was proverbially very little.