Administration of the Provinces
The direct influence of the Sultan was limited to the area within striking distance of his forts and outposts, and the distant provinces were placed in the charge of viceroys, who were called Naib Sultan. The number of provinces varied from twenty to twenty-five. A province was subdivided into smaller portions, which were in the charge of Muqtas or of Amils; and there were further smaller units under Shiqdars, whose jurisdiction did not extend over more than a few miles.
Each province was “a replica of the Empire”, and the Naib Sultan exercised executive, judicial, and military functions in his territory almost as a despot, subject only to the control of the central government, which varied according to the strength or weakness of the latter. Muhammad bin Tughluq’s failure to control the provinces encouraged his viceroys to declare independence. The viceroy was paid from the revenue of his province, and after meeting the cost of his administration he had to remit the surplus to the central exchequer. He maintained a local militia and had to render military aid, at times, to the Sultan. Thus his position was somewhat like that of a feudal baron of medieval Europe. The intrigues of the nobles, and lack of cooperation among the officers, usually hampered the good working of the provincial government; and consequently peace and order were not perfectly maintained. Besides the imperial provinces, large tracts of land had of necessity to be left in the hands of old Hindu chieftains, who were not interfered with in ruling their ancestral territories so long as they sent tributes and presents to Delhi. The village communities continued unaffected by the establishment of a new government in the country.
The Muslim Nobility
The nobility exercised a predominant influence in the State as generals, administrators and sometimes as king-makers. But it was not a hereditary, homogeneous and well-organised body as was the case with the nobles of France or of England. Though the Turks formed the majority in this class, there were in it also men of other nationalities, like Arabs, Afghans, Abyssinians, Egyptians, people of Java, and Indians. Such a heterogeneous class could hardly be expected to work with a common aim or principle and offer a healthy check to royal absolution. Naturally the nobles often occupied themselves with their mutual rivalries and pursued selfish interests at the cost of the welfare of the State. “The nobility,” remarks a modern writer, “was nothing more than a mere agglomeration of disintegrating atoms,” which failed to “evolve a workable constitution for the country.” The State might have derived some benefit from its aristocracy, but it suffered more from a gross caricature of debased feudalism, which was largely responsible for its dismemberment.
The Turko-Afghan machinery of administration, briefly outlined above, lacked the force of habit, derived from tradition, and of will, derived from national support, both of which are necessary for the security and long tenure of a government. Its military and feudal character, which was the inevitable result of the circumstances under which it grew, was opposed to the traditional ancient government of the land, though the medieval Rajput States might have afforded a parallel to it. By the nature of its growth, it could seldom be established on the goodwill and support of the people. As a matter of fact, a tie of mutual attachment between the rulers and the masses of the people was in many cases absent. The State grew on military strength, its rulers were in most cases, concerned with measures calculated to strengthen their own authority; and its aristocracy, without any consistent policy, pursued selfish interests. Its collapse was inevitable when the Sultans failed to command adequate force and the aristocracy grew more ambitious and turbulent.
Economic and Social Conditions
Economic
It is not easy to form an accurate idea of the economic condition of the vast numbers of the people of India, during the three centuries of Turko-Afghan rule. Some attempts have, however, been made recently to arrive at the facts of the matter by collecting incidental references from chronicles, the works of Amir Khusrav, folklore and fiction, poetry and ballads, the writings of Hindu as well as Muslim mystics, works on practical arts and treatises on law and ethics, the accounts left by foreign travellers, and some official and private correspondence. The country was then famous for her untold wealth. We know from Ferishta how Mahmud of Ghazni carried off a vast booty, and it is striking that even after the thoughtless extravagance of Muhammad bin Tughluq, and the chronic disorders of the later Tughluq period, Timur captured an enormous booty in Delhi. But the State did not pursue any comprehensive economic policy aiming at the improvement of the condition of the people; and the few experiments of the Khaljis or the Tughluqs did not produce permanent results. “On the whole,” remarks a modern Muslim writer, “any big improvement in the method of production, a more equitable distribution of the economic wealth, or a better adjustment of the economic position of the various social classes, was outside the policy of the State.”
India had, however, traditions of industrial organisation, through the guilds and crafts of the village communities and of the urban areas, and of widespread commerce, internal as well as external, which survived the shocks of political revolutions in spite of the absence of State guidance and support during the period under review. The Sultans of Delhi, or, in later times, some of the minor provincial rulers, encouraged industries and trade only for their own political and administrative needs. Thus the royal karkhanas or manufactories at Delhi sometimes employed 4,000 weavers of silk besides manufacturers of other stuffs to satisfy royal demands. There were no factories or large-scale industrial organizations such as we have to-day. In most cases the manufacturers dealt directly with the traders, though occasionally they disposed of their goods at fairs, and again sometimes a number of them were employed by some enterprising business men to manufacture goods under their supervision. Though agriculture formed the occupation of the bulk of the people, there were some important industries in the urban as well as rural areas of the country. These were the textile industry, including the manufacture of cotton cloth, woollen cloth and silks, the dyeing industry and calico-printing, the sugar industry, metal-work, stone and brick work, and the paper industry. The minor industries were cup-making, shoe-making, making of arms, especially bows and arrows, manufacture of scents, spirits and liquors, etc. Bengal and Gujarat were especially renowned for the manufacture and export of textile goods. The excellence of Bengal goods has been highly praised by Amir Khuasrav, and foreign travellers, like Mauhan, who visited Bengal in A.D. 1406, Barthema, who came to India during the early part of the sixteenth century (1503-1508), and Barbosa, who came here about A.D. 1518.
The volume of India’s internal trade during this period “was large except when thwarted by the monopoly of the State or rigid administrative control”. Her commercial relations with the outside world also deserve notice. The sea-route connected her commercially with the distant regions of Europe, the Malay Islands and China, and other countries on the Pacific Ocean; and she had intercourse through land routes with Central Asia, Afghanistan, Persia, Tibet and Bhutan. The author of Masalik-ul-absar writes: “Merchants of all countries never cease to carry pure gold into India, and to bring back in exchange commodities of herbs and gums.” The chief imports were articles of luxury for the richer classes and horses and mules; and the principal exports consisted of varieties of agricultural goods, and textile manufactures, the minor ones being tutenag, opium, indigo-cakes, etc. Some countries round the Persian Gulf were entirely dependent on India for their food supply. The ports of Bengal and Gujarat were then chiefly used for India’s export trade. Barthema considered Bengal to be “the richest country in the world for cotton, ginger, sugar, grain and flesh of every kind”.