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

Ala-ud-din was also strict in dealing with parasitic government tax officials, as he was in dealing with village headmen and traditional rural tax collectors. Royal officers who held land grants in lieu of pay were strictly forbidden to levy any additional cesses on their own. And ‘collectors, clerks, and other officers employed in revenue matters, who took bribes and acted dishonestly, were all dismissed,’ notes Barani. ‘There was no chance of a single tanka being taken dishonestly or as bribe from any Hindu or Mussulman. The revenue collectors and officers were so coerced and checked that for [cheating the government even] five hundred or a thousand tankas they were imprisoned and kept in chains for years … [Consequently] clerkship came to be considered … [a wretched profession], and no man would give his daughter to a clerk. Death was deemed preferable to revenue employment.’

THE MARKET AND revenue reforms of Ala-ud-din resulted in a substantial reduction in the prices of essential commodities. And this enabled the sultan, as he had planned, to regulate the salaries of soldiers, and to increase the size of his army. ‘At the present time the imperial army consists of 475,000 … warriors, whose names are recorded by the imperial muster-master, and whose pay and rations are entered in the regulations of the deputy-victualler,’ records Wassaf. There was also an increase in the number of war elephants in the Sultanate army at this time — according to Wassaf, there were as many as 400 elephants in the royal stables alone.

The army of Ala-ud-din was quite probably the largest, the best organised, and the best equipped army in the entire history of the Delhi Sultanate. The sultan took particular care to ensure that soldiers and their equipment met his quality specifications. ‘All the men were inspected by the muster-master. Those who were skilled in archery and the use of arms passed, and were paid the price of their horses. The horses were then branded,’ notes Barani. These soldiers were paid in cash, instead of with land assignments, as was usually done by the Delhi sultans. Ala-ud-din met the cash requirement for this by appropriating all the land near Delhi in the Doab as khalisa, royal estate, the revenue from which went directly into the royal treasury, rather than into provincial coffers.

And just as Ala-ud-din carefully monitored the recruitment of his soldiers, so also he kept a close watch on the operations of the army when it was in the field. ‘It was the practice of the sultan, when he sent an army on an expedition, to establish posts on the road,’ states Barani. ‘Relays of horses were stationed at every post, and at every half or quarter kos runners were posted, and officers and report writers were posted in every town or place where horses were stationed. Every day, or every two or three days, news used to come to the sultan reporting the progress of the army, and news about the health of the sovereign was carried back to the army. False news was thus prevented from being circulated in the city or in the army. This exchange of accurate information between the court and the army was of great public benefit.’

Another major concern of Ala-ud-din was the maintenance of law and order in the empire, for that was essential for the success of all his reforms. India was at this time infested with numerous wild bandit tribes, who disdained the authority of the state, and threatened to hamper the success of the socioeconomic reforms of the sultan. As in everything else, Ala-ud-din dealt with this problem decisively, so that, according to Barani, ‘dacoits and lawless men themselves turned into the guards of the roads. Not a single thread of travellers was ever reported to be lost. Peace and safety like this and to this extent were not found in any other period.’

ALA-UD-DIN IS SOMETIMES accused of unfair persecution of Hindus. Indeed, he was very severe in his treatment of them. But it was political expediency, not religious bigotry, that was the prime determinant of his policies and actions towards Hindus. He treated Hindus harshly not because of their religion, but because they, as a disaffected subject people, were a major source of disquiet in the kingdom.

Ala-ud-din believed that it was wealth that fomented disaffection and rebellion among Hindus, and he therefore decided that it was an imperative political necessity that they should be reduced to poverty. ‘I know that Hindus will never become submissive and obedient till they are reduced to poverty,’ he maintained. ‘I have therefore given orders that just sufficient shall be left to them from year to year, of corn, milk and curds, but that they shall not be allowed to accumulate wealth and property.’

Ala-ud-din’s measures to keep Hindus subservient were, according to Barani, so effective ‘that contumacy and rebellion, and riding on horses, carrying of weapons, wearing of fine clothes, and eating betel, entirely ceased among chaudharys (land owners) and other opulent men … It was in fact not possible for a Hindu to hold up his head, and in the houses of Hindus there was not a sign of gold and silver and articles of luxury … In consequence of their impoverished state, the wives of the landed proprietors and chief men even used to come to the houses of the Mussulmans and do [domestic] work there, and receive wages for it.’

There is no doubt considerable exaggeration in these reports of Barani; they quite probably reflect what the orthodox cleric would have liked to see, not the reality. This is equally true of an approbatory comment on the prevailing conditions of Hindus that Barani attributes to a kazi: ‘As soon as the revenue collector demands the sum due from him, [the Hindu] pays the same with meekness and humility, coupled with utmost respect, and free from reluctance, and he, should the collector chooses to spit into his mouth, opens the same without hesitation, so that the official may spit into it …’

ALA-UD-DIN WAS ONE of the most extraordinary rulers in Indian history, indeed in world history. He was a radical reformer, and was exceptionally successful in all that he did, though many of his reforms were several centuries ahead of his time.

This success of Ala-ud-din elicited admiration from even so adverse a critic as Barani — the sultan, he writes, was ‘brilliant … [in his] political and administrative measures … During his reign, 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 will never again be seen.’ Barani then goes on to list ten major achievements of Ala-ud-din’s reign: 1/ Cheapness of all the necessities of life; 2/ invariable success in military campaigns; 3/ rout of the Mongols; 4/ maintenance of a large army at a small cost; 5/ political stability resulting from the suppression and prevention of rebellions; 6/ safety on roads in all directions; 7/ honest dealings of the bazaar people; 8/ erection and repair of mosques, minarets, and forts, and the excavation of tanks; 9/ the prevalence of ‘rectitude, truth, honesty, justice, and temperance in the hearts of Muslims in general during the last ten years of his reign’; and 10/ the flourishing of many learned and great men ‘without the patronage of the sultan.’ Ala-ud-din, observes Ibn Battuta, ‘was one of the best of sultans, and people of India eulogise him highly.’

People by and large enjoyed peace and security, even prosperity, during the reign of Ala-ud-din. As a kazi once remarked, Ala-ud-din had driven criminals into ‘mice holes, and has taken cheating, lying and falsifying out of them … [And he] has managed the bazaar people as no king ever has done since the days of Adam.’ ‘None dared make any babble or noise,’ states Afif, a fourteenth century chronicler. ‘None dared to pick up [even] a fallen jewel from the street,’ claims Amir Khusrav.