Society and Economy Under the Delhi Sultanate 237

any of its provisions; they kept the state controlled mullahs disciplined
and satisfied; over the whole field of administration concerning which the
Shariat is silent or nearly silent, they made their own laws; if the
traditional customs of the people were against the Shariat, they allowed
them to override the Shariat under the designation, of Urf. Thus state
laws called Zawabit grew under the protection of the monarchy. If these
laws violated the Shariat the principle of necessity or of istihasan (the
public good) could be quoted in their favour. And the back of the Shariat
was broken for the primary reason that it had provided no means for its
own development’.12 Through these formal and informal channels, the
primary aim of the ulema was to spread the religious word, and uphold
the Islamic religio-moral order as far as was possible. This often brought
them into conflict with the Sultan. The ulema preached obedience to the
Word of God and to the dictates of the Sultan. Thus, theoretically
speaking, they were an important instrument of social control since the
message of obedience that they imposed on the Muslim subject population
worked towards formulating a political atmosphere favourable to the
Sultan.
However, later rulers, particularly after the consolidation of the Delhi
Sultanate, favoured politics over religion, more so because the majority
of the subject population was non-Muslim. This brought the interests of
the ulema and the Sultan in direct clash on frequent occasions. The reign
of Sultan Muhammad bin Tughluq is particularly significant in this regard.
Muhammad bin Tughluq had appointed a number of non-Muslims in
royal service because they were meritorious. Alims, like Ziauddin Barani,
expressed strong disapproval of the Sultan’s stance of religious tolerance
in their writings. It is also pertinent to take note of the fact that the Sultan
did not depend solely on the abstractions of religion for administrative,
control, but established his control over core areas through a number of
offices. In this sense of the term, the nobility featured as part of the ruling
elite, who came to play a lead role in the decision-making process of the
time.

REVENUE SYSTEM
Since the economy in medieval India was predominantly agrarian, the
primary source of income for the state was land revenue. The medieval
states would collect revenue from the farmers on their produce to sustain
the larger state structures. Before the arrival of the Turks in north India
the cultivators were required to pay a large number of cesses - like the
bhaga (land revenue), the bhog (cesses), and the kar (extra cesses) - to
the local landed elite. Peasants were required, according to the
 238 Interpreting Medieval India
SHS
Dharamashastras, to pay one-sixth of the produce as land revenue. The
early years of Turkish rule did not stand witness to too much change in
the structure of rural society. But gradually the collection mechanism of
land revenue became more systemized and institutionalised.
Irfan Habib says that the polities in Islamic Central Asia ‘rested on
the foundations of two elements of independent growth - the iqta and the
kharaj’.'3 The Iqta was a transferable revenue assignment by which
members of the ruling class obtained their income from a territory, though
without any permanent attachment to it. By providing for a policy of
rigorous centralization, which gave the Sultan’s government immense
power over society, the Iqta was clearly an important instrument through
which the state could demand a large share of the surplus. This share
preeminently took the form of kharaj, which had by now come to signify
the Sovereign’s claim to that part of the surplus which the peasant
produced above what he needed for his basic subsistence. Only the
possibility of the complete devastation of the peasantry could set a limit
on its magnitude. The Iqta assignees (the Muqtis and the Walis) collected
the kharaj and other taxes, maintained themselves and their troops, and
sent the surplus to the Sultan’s treasury. In the remaining areas (khalisa),
the Sultan’s officials directly collected the kharaj and other taxes. It was
out of the revenues so obtained that the Islamic principalities maintained
their armies and supported the existence of their large and numerous
towns.
With the Ghorian conquests, the Iqta system was immediately
established in northern India and in spite of all the vicissitudes of royal
power, the periodic transfer of Iqtas remained a marked feature of the
Sultanate in the thirteenth century. But the imposition of the kharaj in its
full-blown form took time. The Muqtis largely depended on the tribute
extorted from local potentates and on plunder ‘from the mawas or
unpacified areas’.14 It is to be assumed that the local potentates (the rais,
ranas or ranakas, rautas and others) continued to collect taxes and
perquisites inherited from the previous regime.
The predominance of agriculture meant that the village remained the
basic unit of administration in the Delhi sultanate. Irfan Habib, while
drawing up a scenario of the agrarian condition in the Delhi Sultanate
period, says that ‘there was little question of the peasants claiming
'property rights over any parcel of land. Land was abundant, and the
peasant could normally put up with a denial of his right over the land he
tilled. What he feared, on the contrary, was a claim of the superior classes
over his crop, and more still over his person’.15 The state held large tracts
of land (khalisa) which were tilled by farmers and from where all the
revenue came to the central treasury through the agency of officials called
 Society and Economy Under the Delhi Sultanate
1239

the Amits. But the largest part of the land was distributed as Iqta within
the Sultanate.
According to Barani, Balban advised Bughra Khan, his son, to tread
a middle path in terms of the collection of revenue. Revenue amounts
should not be extortionate enough to reduce peasants to a state of penury.
Likewise minimalist revenue amounts would only make peasants
rebellious. We have no idea of how this was implemented in practice. In
general, it was designed not to interfere with the existing village set up.
The taxation system followed by the Sultans of Delhi was to an
extent based on the Hanafi School of Muslim Law. The revenue was
broadly categorised into two by the Muslim Jurists: Fay and Zakat. Fay
was further subdivided into Kharns, Jizya and Kharaj. Zakat comprised
tax on flocks, herds, gold, silver, commercial capital, agricultural produce,
etc. Khams represented one fifth of the booty acquired in war or, mine or
treasure trove (found) to be handed over to the state. Jizya was imposed
on non-Muslims ‘in return for which they received protection of life and
property and exemption from military services’.16 Kharaj was the tax on
land. Initially this tax was not levied on Muslims however due to the need
of the state for revenue it was later not practical to give immunity to
Muslims from the payment of this tax. Theoretically, the holders of
Kharaj land were required to pay land tax whether or not the land was
cultivated by them. The Muslim law and state followed a liberal policy
towards the landholders and they could not be evicted easily. The state
tried to encourage cultivation by giving them loans. The Muslim theory
of taxation was adopted in India with modifications. We get proper
information about the taxation system from the period of Alauddin Khalji.
Barani, in his Tarikh-i-Firuzshahi, gives a description of Alauddin Khalji’s
agrarian policy in North India - ‘The Sultan decreed that 3 taxes were to
be levied on the peasants viz. the Kharaj (also called Kharaj- i-jizya) or
tax on cultivation; charai, a tax on milch cattle; and ghari, a tax on
houses. As for Kharaj, all who engaged in cultivation whether of lands of
large or of small extent were to be subject to (the procedure of)
measurement (masahat) and (the fixation of) the yield per biswa (wafa-i-
biswa) and were without any exception to pay half’.17 Alauddin Khalji
raised the land-revenue demand to half in the upper Doab region up to
Aligarh, and in some ai:eas of Rajasthan and Malwa. This area was made
khalisa, i.e. the land-revenue collected there went directly to the Imperial
treasury. He also imposed a house and cattle tax (ghari and charai).The
land-revenue demand was based how much land area was cultivated by
each cultivator. Further, except in the area around Delhi, the cultivators
were encouraged to pay land-revenue in cash. Alauddin tried to ensure
that the cultivators sold their grains to the banjaras, without transporting
 240' Interpreting Medieval India

them to their own stores so they could be sold later at more favourable
prices. However, this had to be modified in practice because many of
these cultivators themselves brought their grains for sale in the local
mandi..
There is no doubt that Alauddin Khalji’s agrarian measures amounted
to a massive intervention in the rural set up. His measures alienated the
khots, muqaddams and chaudhuris and, to some extent, the rich peasants
who had surplus food-grains to sell. The khots and muqaddams were
suspected of passing on their burden of work on to the weaker sections,
and not paying the ghari and charai taxes. Barani says that the khots and
muqaddams became so poof that they, could not wear costly clothes and
ride on Arabi and Iraqi horses any more, and their women were obliged
to work in the homes of Muslims. Although Barani seems to have
exaggerated the situation, it cannot be denied that Alauddin Khalji’s
agrarian measures aimed to strike hard at these other sharers of the
surplus. The attempt to replace the khots, the muqaddams or of the upper
sections of the landed nobility with an army of amils, most of whom
proved to be corrupt, was prone to breakdown. We are told that Alauddin’s
revenue measures collapsed with his death.
Ghiyasuddin Tughluq attempted to amend Alauddin Khalji’s system
by ‘giving certain concessions to khots and muqaddams’ The restoration
of privileges implies that the state was no longer trying to assess the land-
revenue on the basis of the holdings; instead revenue was now assessed
as a lump sum amount, leaving much to the discretion of the khots and the
muqaddams. Thus, the khots and muqaddams came to wield tremendous
power in the countryside. Ghiyasuddin also replaced the system of
measurement of Alauddin Khalji by introducing the concept of sharing in
the khalisa areas. This was considered a step towards providing relief to
the cultivators who bore the entire onus of blame for anything that went
wrong. Under the new dispensation, profit and loss were shared in equal
measure by both the cultivators and the state. Ghiyasuddin Tughluq also
ensured that in the Iqta territories, i.e. the territories located outside the
khalisa areas, the revenue demand was not be increased on the basis of
guess or computation, but ‘by degrees and gradually because the weight
of sudden enhancement would ruin the country and bar the way to
prosperity’.19 Barani informs us that Ghiyasuddin made sure that the
revenue demand in the Iqta areas was not raised by ‘one in ten or eleven’.20
Satish Chandra feels that the traditional demand in the areas outside the
khalisa areas remained one-third as before.21
Under Muhammad bin Tughluq the whole of India - including
Gujarat, Malwa, Deccan, South India and Bengal - was brought under a
monolithic and uniform system of taxation. Barani points out that abwab
(additional cesses) were also imposed on the peasants. The three taxes:
 Society and Economy Under the Delhi Sultanate 241

ghari, charai, and kharaj were strictly levied. There was thus increase in
agrarian taxation. Kharaj was now calculated on standard yield and not
actual yield of measured land for assessment in kind. Officially prescribed
prices were applied for obtaining the assessment. Thus the demand rose.
These measures resulted in agrarian distress. It is around this time only
that famine struck Delhi and the Doab.
Like Alauddin Khalji’s agrarian reforms, Muhammad bin Tughluq’s
measures were also designed to curtail the privileges of the more affluent
sections in village society, especially the khots and muqaddams. The
pressure on peasants beyond a point of endurance -was bound to have
serious repercussions. Under Muhammad bin Tughluq (1325-51), a
further increase in taxation led to a very serious and long-drawn-out
agrarian uprising in the Doab. Most peasants, especially the khots and
muqaddams, turned into rebels. The reason for this, it seems, was that in
assessing the land-revenue artificially fixed standard yields were applied
to the area under measurement. Further, when converting the produce into
cash, not the actual prices but official standard prices were applied. There
was also harshness in levying the tax on cattle and houses. Thus the
actual incidence of land-revenue demand rose considerably to half or
even more than half.
The rebellion, the subsequent famine, Muhammad bin Tughluq’s well-
known harsh measures, followed by ‘a grand palliative project (including
the first recorded instance of taccavi loans), were clearly the consequences
of the implantation of an entirely new kind of agrarian taxation in India’.21
Muhammad bin Tughluq tried to shift gears again. In the Doab, which
was a directly administered area (khalisa), he tried to improve cultivation
by changing the cropping pattern, and by replacing inferior crops by
superior crops. The main inducement for this was granting loans (sondhar)
for digging wells, etc. This policy could only have succeeded with the co-
operation of the richer cultivators, but the khots and muqaddams, who
had the largest land-holdings as well as the means, were interested only
in enriching themselves and had no real knowledge of the local conditions.
Firuz Shah Tughluq reversed Muhammad Tughluq’s policy and many
agrarian levies (abwab, ghari and charai) were discontinued. Afif says
that loans given to the peasantry as sondhar were ‘written off ’ by Firuz.23
Afif also informs that he ‘limited exactions above the kharaj to 4 per
cent’.23 However, the Jizya was imposed as a separate tax. Careful
examination tells us that the Jizya was closer to the ghari since it was a
levy on the head of the house. Firuz Tughluq also imposed a water tax on
the villages which made use of canals and it was one tenth of the produce.
.Firuz met with greater success by providing water to the peasants of
Haryana by his canal system, levying an extra charge of 10 per cent, and
leaving it to the peasants to cultivate what they wanted.
 242 Interpreting Medieval India
gw
On the basis of the available information in the contemporary
chronicles, Firuz Tughluq’s rule is generally considered a period of rural
prosperity. Barani and Afif tell us that, as result of the Sultan’s orders, the
provinces became cultivated, and tillage extended widely so that not a
single village in the Doab remained uncultivated. The canal system
extended tillage in Haryana. According to Afif, Tn the houses of the
raiyat (peasantry) so much grain, wealth, horses and goods accumulated
that one cannot speak of them’, He goes on to say how ‘none of the
women folk of the peasantry remained without ornaments, and that in
every peasant’s house there were clean bed-sheets, excellent bed-cots,
many articles and much wealth’. Obviously these remarks applied largely
to the richer sections among the peasants and other privileged sections
like the khots, muqaddams, etc. During the period of the Lodis, land tax
was collected in kind due to the declining price situation.
Thus overall, the land-revenue under the Sultans, especially during
the fourteenth century, remained heavy, hovering around fifty percent of
the produce. However, at the same time every effort was made to reduce
the power and privileges of the intermediaries, who took a major portion
of the cultivator’s production. This was the first time in several decades
that such a high amount of land-revenue was assessed and collected from
a large and highly fertile area. The land revenue system enabled the ruling
class of the Sultanate to appropriate a large part of the country’s surplus.
In essence, it meant the entire or partial replacement of rural superior
classes by an urban ruling class. The administrative methods of revenue
collection and the centralisation of such large liquid resources in the
hands of the ruling class had important consequences for urban
manufacturers, trade and commerce and urbanisation. It also enabled the
state to introduce an elaborate system of monetisation.

MONETISATION

The Turkish rule in Delhi, apart from the many other changes that it
introduced, also revitalised the economy by introducing major
transformations and the standardization of coinage. Before this the coins
of the Delhi region were known as dehliwal.15 Indian coinage assumed an
entirely new pattern under the Turks. The coins of ancient India, both in
the north and in the South, had pictorial or heraldic devices at least on
one side. During the Turkish rule coins carried inscriptions on both the
sides in Arabic or Persian script. In Islam, the inscribing of the ruler’s
name on the coins was invested with special importance. This privilege,
along with the reading of his name in the khutba (public prayer), implied
his legitimacy to rule. The rulers of the Islamic world had this tradition of