The Turko-Afghan Government
The Central Government
THE Muslim State in India was a theocracy, the existence of which was theoretically justified by the needs of religion. The Sultan was considered to be Caesar and Pope combined in one. In theory, indeed, his authority in religious matters was limited by the Holy Law of the Quran, and with the exception of ‘Ala-ud-din, no Sultan could clearly divorce religion from politics.
The autocracy of the Muslim Sultans of India was the inevitable result of the then circumstances. They had to be constantly on their guard against the hostility of the Hindu States, the Hindu fighting communities and the Mongol invaders. This required a strong centralized government, which gradually made itself despotic. Further, there was no hereditary Muslim aristocracy, conscious of its own rights and privileges and eager to assert these against royal despotism, although occasionally some nobles made their influence felt. There were no popular assemblies, keen about constitutional liberty, and no strong public opinion, competent enough to oppose autocracy. Even the Ulemas, who exercised much influence in the State, had not the courage to openly oppose the Sultans and depose an undesirable ruler in the same manner as Hildebrand deposed Henry IV. Succession to the Sultanate of Delhi was not determined by any recognised law, nor was there any definite principle. ” Broadly speaking, the choice was limited, as a matter of convenience, to the surviving members of the deceased Sultan’s family. The priority of birth, the question of efficiency, the nomination of the dead king these considerations sometimes received some attention, but the decisive voice seems to have been that of the nobles, who usually preferred personal convenience to the interests of the State.”
Even the most autocratic ruler cannot manage the task of administration single-handed. Thus the Sultans of Delhi had to devise, from the beginning of their rule, an administrative machinery with a regular hierarchy of officers in charge of various departments, who, however, did not in any way check their authority but rather carried out their respective duties according to the former’s orders. The Sultans had a council of friends and trusted officers called the Majlis-i-Khalwat, which they consulted when important affairs of State demanded attention. The councillors might express their opinions, which at times had some influence on the administration ; but these were not binding on the Sultan. The Sultan received all courtiers, Khans, Maliks, and Amirs, in a court called Bar-i-Khas. He sat as the supreme judge in the Bar-i-Am,
Justice was usually administered by the Qazi-ul-Qazat, or the Lord Chief Justice, who was aided by Muftis to expound the law, which was based on the injunctions of the Quran, though rulers like ‘Ala-ud-din and Muhammad bin Tughluq were guided by considerations of policy. The penal law was excessively severe, the penalties of mutilation and death being usually inflicted on the culprits. Force and torture were employed to extort confession. The judicial procedure does not seem to have been very regular. Cases were started without due enquiries and, on most occasions, received summary trials. The law of debt, as we know from Marco Polo, was severe; and the creditors often invoked royal assistance to realise their dues from the debtors. The Kotwal was the custodian of peace and order; and another officer of the municipal police was the Muhtasib, whose duties were to keep a strict watch over the conduct of the people, to control the markets and to regulate weights and measures. The Sultan kept himself informed of the movements of the people through a large number of spies. The old forts and castles were utilized as prisons. The prison “regulations were lax, and corruption prevailed among the officers”.
The fiscal policy of the Turkish Sultans of India was modelled on the theory of finance of the Hanafi school of Muslim Jurists, which the former borrowed from the Ghaznavids whom they had supplanted. Thus the principal sources of revenue of the Delhi Sultanate were the Kharaj or land tax from the Hindu chiefs and landlords; land revenue obtained from the Khalsa or crown-lands, iqta’s or lands granted to followers and officers (usually military) for certain years or for the lifetime of the grantee, who was known as the Muqta, and other classses of lands; Khams or one-fifth of the spoils of war; and religious tax. Besides these, abwabs or cesses and other kinds of taxes like the house tax, grazing tax, water tax, etc., were levied on the people. The State also derived some income from trade duties. The jizya was originally a sort of tax levied on the non-Muslims “in return for which they received protection of life and property and exemption from military service “. But in course of time, a religious motive was attached to it, and in India it was the only extra burden which the Hindus had to bear. Taxes were paid both in cash and kind. We have already given the important points regarding the revenue reforms of the Khaljis and the Tughluqs. It may be noted here that the revenue policy of the State, and the satisfactory working or otherwise of the revenue department, varied according to the personality of the rulers. While no important changes in revenue administration are recorded to have been effected by Iltutmish, and only a few attempts were made by Balban to make it orderly, ‘AIa-ud-din’s revenue policy was comprehensive, affecting all types of land tenures, and Muhammad bin Tughluq’s vigorous but ill-advised revenue policy also deeply influenced the condition of the State. The rate of assessment also varied, being excessively high since the time of ‘Ala-ud-din, who charged 50 per cent on the gross produce of the land. In spite of his general leniency, Ghiyas-ud-din Tughluq does not seem to have reduced the scale as fixed by ‘AIa-ud-din, and in the time of Muhammad bin Tughluq it was certainly not lower, if not higher, than this. The farming system was prevalent, and its lavish extensions in the time of Firuz Shah proved to be detrimental to the integrity of the State.
The standing army of the Sultanate consisted of the royal body-guard, and the troops of the capital, which were, in times of need, reinforced by the levies sent by the provincial viceroys and the Muqtas, and the contingents of Hindu troops. Men of different nationalities, such as Turks, Khataians, Persians and Indians, were enlisted in the army. The main branches of the army were the infantry, including numerous archers, the cavalry, and the elephants. There was nothing like artillery, which came to be used in later times; but rockets and naphtha balls, and a machine discharging balls by the force of gunpowder, were used, though not with much effect, as early as the reign of Iltutmish. Further, a sort of mechanical artillery, consisting of various crude machines, like manjaniqs, mangonels, mangons, through which fireballs, fire-arrows, pieces of rock, stones, earthen or iron balls, bottles full of naphtha, and scorpions and other poisonous reptiles, could be hurled against the enemy, were used in siege-craft in medieval India.
The Turkish Sultans of Delhi maintained a court,–though not so splendid as that of the Great Mughuls,–through which their majesty found expression. Harems, full of the wives and concubines of the Sultans and princes of the royal blood, were kept in the apartments of the royal palace. Culture of a rather limited type was patronised in these courts, but their maintenance must have caused a heavy drain on the economic resources of the country.
