Abraham Eraly - The Age of Wrath - A History of the Delhi Sultanate

The sultan in the early years of his reign was beset by a number of political and socio-economic problems, and that convinced him that there was something very wrong with the polity of the Sultanate, and that sweeping reforms were imperative. He therefore decided to investigate, together with his advisors, the causes of the problems he faced, and to find efficient solutions for them — not just to solve the problems as they arose, but to prevent such problems from ever again arising. And then, having determined the causes of the problems faced by the state, he took a number of sagacious policy decisions, and executed them with relentless resolve, so that not only did peace and security as never before prevail in the empire, but also his subjects by and large lived a more prosperous, contended and secure life than at any other time in the history of the Delhi Sultanate. ‘During the whole period of Sultan Ala-ud-din’s reign, the situation of the county was very good and prosperous,’ concedes Barani. ‘Administration was carried on efficiently and successfully.’

In all his policies and actions Ala-ud-din was entirely open-minded and pragmatic, unrestrained by political conventions and precedents, as well as by religious prescripts. ‘Oh, doctor, thou art a learned man, but thou has had no experience,’ he once told a kazi who presumed to advise him on politics. ‘I am an unlettered man, but I have seen a great deal.’ Practicality was the sole guide of Ala-ud-din. And he was entirely unsentimental in this, and would not allow even his tribal or blood relationships sway his judgements in any way.

ALA-UD-DIN WAS UTTERLY ruthless in the pursuit of his goals, and had no qualms whatever in slaughtering thousands of people in cold blood if that was necessary to consolidate his power and achieve his goals. Thus when a conspiracy of New Muslims against him was discovered, he unhesitatingly ordered the total extermination of the tribe. ‘Twenty or thirty thousand New Muslims were killed, of whom probably only a few had any knowledge [of the intended revolt],’ reports Barani. ‘Their houses were plundered, and their wives and children turned out.’

Riots were fairly common in Delhi at this time, but Ala-ud-din put an end to them by dealing with the rioters with deliberate ferocity. ‘By the sultan’s command every rioter was most tenaciously pursued, and put to death,’ reports Barani. ‘Their heads were sawn in two and their bodies divided.’ From Ala-ud-din’s point of view, this was the right and proper thing to do, for it produced the desired result. ‘After these punishments, breaches of peace were never heard of in the city,’ concedes Barani.

Muslim religious leaders generally condemned many of the policies and actions of Ala-ud-din as irreligious and fiendish. But the sultan was unmoved by such excoriations. He, according to Barani, ‘held that matters of administration have nothing to do with religious laws.’ Even in his personal life Ala-ud-din was hardly religious. ‘The sultan,’ censures Barani, ‘said no prayers, did not attend the Friday prayer in the mosque … He was not careful at all about prayers and religious fasting.’

Once when a kazi expounded to him what was lawful and unlawful according to Islamic conventions, Ala-ud-din told him, ‘When troopers do not appear at the muster, I order three years pay to be taken from them. I place wine-drinkers and wine-sellers in pits of incarceration. If a man debauches another man’s wife, I cut off his organ, and the woman I cause to be killed. Rebels … I slay; their wives and children I reduce to beggary and ruin. Extortion I punish with torture … and I keep the extortionist in prison, in chains and fetters, until every jital is restored. Political criminals I confine and chastise. Wilt thou say that all this is unlawful?’

The kazi then rose from his seat, and moved to the place reserved for suppliants in the durbar hall, and there placed his forehead on the ground in submission and said, ‘My liege! Whether you send me, your wretched servant, to prison, or whether you order me to be cut in two, all these are unlawful, and finds no support in the sayings of the Prophet, or in the exposition of the learned.’

‘The sultan,’ records Barani, ‘heard all this and said nothing, but put on his slippers and went into his harem.’ The kazi too then went home. ‘The next day he took the last farewell of all his people, made a propitiatory offering, and performed his ablutions. Thus prepared for death, he proceeded to the court.’ But contrary to general expectation, Ala-ud-din called the kazi forward and honoured him with a ceremonial robe, and presented to him a large sum of money. Strong himself, Ala-ud-din appreciated strength and candour in others. And he said to the kazi: ‘Although I have not studied the Science or the Book, I am a Mussulman of a Mussulman stock. To prevent rebellion, in which thousands perish, I issue such orders as I consider to be for the good of the state and the benefit of the people … I do not know whether this is lawful or unlawful. Whatever I think to be for the good of the state, or suitable for the emergency, that I decree.’

Self-willed, Ala-ud-din always made up his own mind on all matters, but he also took care to hold detailed consultations with his top officers on all important issues, and to ponder over their views before deciding on what he should do. And he encouraged his courtiers to speak to him frankly. ‘Rest assured that I will not harm you,’ he once told a kazi. ‘Only reply with truth and sincerity to whatever question I may put to you.’

Ala-ud-din was ruthless, but not thoughtless. And he applied himself unswervingly to the implementation of his policies — he was as meticulous in the execution of his plans, as he was in their conception. Because of all this, most of his reforms were successful, even though many of them were daringly innovative and way ahead of the times.

ONE OF THE immediate concerns of Ala-ud-din on his accession was to secure the integrity of the empire by effectively dealing with the perennial problem of insurgency plaguing the Sultanate, caused by his ambitious close relatives and top nobles aspiring to usurp the throne, and by provincial governors seeking to establish independent kingdoms. There was also the recurrent problem of subordinate Hindu rajas and chieftains seeking to regain their independence.

There were four successive insurrections in the early part of Ala-ud-din’s reign, one of which very nearly led to his overthrow and assassination. These crises prompted Ala-ud-din to ponder over what he needed to do to prevent the recurrence of rebellions and to ensure that his government ran smoothly.

Ala-ud-din then, as usual, held extensive discussions with his councillors—‘for several nights and days,’ according to Barani — to decide on how to deal with the problem of insurgency. He then concluded that there were four basic causes for insurrections: 1/ The sultan’s neglect of public affairs, and his inattention to the activities of his subjects. 2/ Convivial wine parties held by nobles, which were occasions for loose talk and the hatching of conspiracies. 3/ ‘The intimacy, affection, alliances, and intercourse of maliks (military commanders) and amirs (noblemen) with each other, so that if anything happens to one of them a hundred others get mixed up in it.’ 4/ ‘Money, which engenders evil and strife, and brings forth pride and disloyalty. If men had no money, they would attend to their own business, and would never think of riots and revolts, [and would not be able to win the support] of low and turbulent people.’

After thus deciding on the nature of the problems that the state faced, Ala-ud-din set about devising solutions to them. And these solutions, like much else that he did, were audaciously original and yet eminently practical, though also quite harsh. His first measure was to deprive the people of the material means and the leisure to hatch rebellions, by yoking them to the drudgery of earning their livelihood and preventing them from accumulating wealth. The sultan, reports Barani, ‘ordered that wherever there was a village held by proprietary right, in free gift, or as a religious endowment, it should … be brought back under the exchequer. People were pressed and amerced, money was exacted from them on every kind of pretence. Many were left without any money, till at length it came to pass that excepting maliks and amirs, officials, Multanis (moneylender-traders) and bankers, no one possessed even a trifle of cash. So vigorous was the confiscation that, beyond a few thousand tankas, all the pensions, grants of land and endowments in the country were appropriated [by the state]. The people were all then so absorbed in obtaining the means of living that the name of rebellion was never mentioned.’