A History of Agriculture in India v2.c56.s2: Slavery
A History of Agriculture in India v2.c56.s2
- Language
- English
Contents
Slavery
v2.c56.s2.1
For securing a cheap rate for the purchase of horses, slaves, and cattle four Regulations were issued.
Regulation IV. Price of Slaves
v2.c56.s2.t1.1
The price of a serving girl was fixed from 5 to 12 *tankas*, of a concubine at 20, 30 or 40 *tankas*. The price for a male slave was 100 or 200 *tankas*, or less. If such a slave as could not in these days be bought for 1,000 or 2,000 *tankas* came into the market, he was sold for what he would fetch, in order to escape the reports of the informers. Handsome lads fetched from 20 to 30 *tankas*; the price of slave-labourers was 10 to 15 *tankas*, and of young domestic slaves 17 or 18 *tankas* ....
v2.c56.s2.t1.2
Great pains were taken to secure low prices for all things sold at the stalls in the markets, from caps to shoes, from combs to needles, etc., etc. Although the articles were of the most trifling value, the Sultan took the greatest trouble to fix the prices and settle the profit of the vendors.
v2.c56.s2.t1.3
The fourth Regulation for securing cheapness provided severe punishments; blows, and cutting off flesh from the haunches of those who gave short weight. The market people, however, could not refrain from giving short weight. They sold their goods according to the established rate, but they cheated the purchasers in the weight, especially ignorant people and children. When the Sultan turned his attention to the subject, he discovered that the market people, as usual, were acting dishonestly. He, therefore, used to send for some of the poor ignorant boys, who attended to his pigeon-houses, and to give them ten or twenty *dirams* to go into the market and buy bread and various other articles for him. When the boys had purchased the articles, and brought them to the Sultan, the inspector of the market was sent for, and he had to weigh the things in the presence of the Sultan. If the weight was less than required by the Sultan's scale of prices, the inspector took the lad and went to the shop of the dealer who had given short weight, and placed the purchased article before him. The inspector then took from his shop whatever was deficient, and afterwards cut from his haunches an equal weight of flesh, which was thrown down before his eyes. The certainty of this punishment kept the traders honest, and restrained them from giving short weight, and other knavish tricks. Nay, they gave such good weight that purchasers often got somewhat in excess.’
v2.c56.s2.t1.4
‘During the reign of Ala-ud-din, either through his agency or the beneficent ruling of Providence, there were several remarkable events and matters which had never been witnessed or heard of in any age or time, and probably never will again’, states Barni. ‘The cheapness of grain, clothes, and necessaries of life. The constant succession of victories. The destruction and rolling back of the Mongols. The maintenance of a large army at a small cost. The severe punishment and repression of rebels, and the general prevalence of loyalty. The safety of the roads in all directions. The honest dealings of the bazar people. The erection and repair of mosques, minarets, and forts, and the excavation of tanks. That during the last ten years of the reign the hearts of Musulmans in general were inclined to rectitude, truth, honesty, justice and temperance.’⁶
v2.c56.s2.t1.5
⁶ Zia-ud-din Barni. *Tarikh-i-Firoz Shahi*, in Elliot and Dowson, *The History of India*..., Vol. III, pp. 192 to 197,206,207
v2.c56.s2.t1.6
Ala-ud-din certainly succeeded in preserving an artificial cheapness in the markets of Delhi, but at the cost of savage oppression. Cheapness of foodgrains for the city people was achieved at the cost of the Hindu peasants.
v2.c56.s2.t1.7
Muhammed Habib gives the title of rural revolution to the revenue administrative measures of Ala-ud-din. He further equates Ala-ud-din with Mao Tse-Tung. To give such proceedings the name of rural revolution is inappropriate and misleading. The beneficiaries of these measures were the Sultan, his Turkish officials and army, not the cultivators of land. They had to give half the gross produce to the government instead of one-sixth provided by immemorial rule. Thus their standard of living which was already wretched, was further lowered.
Linked texts (1)
- Tārīkh-i Fīrūzshāhī — Shams-i Sirāj ʿAfīf