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

Ghazi Malik remained on the battlefield for a week, to collect and distribute the spoils, and to rest and reorganise his army. He then advanced on Delhi. Meanwhile Khusrav organised another army, distributing largesse among the soldiers. Many soldiers, according Barani, ‘took the money of the wretched fellow, heaped hundreds of curses upon him, and then went to their homes.’ Even one of Khusrav’s top generals deserted him. But despite these setbacks, Khusrav confidently advanced to meet the army of Ghazi Malik. The ensuing battle, fought at Indarpat near Delhi in early September 1320, was closely contested, but in the end Khusrav was defeated. He then fled for his life, but was caught lurking in a garden, and was promptly beheaded. ‘The effeminate wretch could not bear the attack of men,’ comments Barani.

‘That night, while Ghazi Malik was at Indarpat, most of the nobles and chief men and officers came from the city (Delhi) to pay their respects to him, and the keys of the palace and of the city gates were brought to him,’ notes Barani. On the second day after the battle Ghazi Malik rode to the Palace of Thousand Pillars at Siri. And there, in the presence of the assembled nobles, he ‘wept over the unhappy fate which had befallen … the sons of Ala-ud-din, his patron.’ He then told the nobles: ‘If you know of any son of our patron’s blood, bring him forth immediately, and I will seat him on the throne, and will be the first to tender him my service and devotion. If the whole stock has been clean cut off, then do you bring forward some worthy and proper person and raise him to the throne; I will pay my allegiance to him. I have drawn my sword to avenge my patrons, not to gain power and ascend the throne.’

The nobles then told him that the entire family of Ala-ud-din had been wiped out by the usurpers. And they proclaimed: ‘All of us who are here present know no one besides thee who is worthy of royalty and fit to rule.’ They then took him by the hand and conducted him to the throne, ‘and everyone paid him due homage.’

On 8 September 1320 Ghazi Malik thus became the sultan of Delhi, and took the title Ghiyas-ud-din Tughluq Shah.

The accession of Ghiyas-ud-din Tughluq calmed the dreadful paroxysm that had afflicted the Sultanate since the closing years of Ala-ud-din Khalji’s reign. Ghiyas-ud-din was a sagacious ruler, wise and moderate, caring as much for the welfare of his subjects, as for the preservation of his power. And, although he had no spectacular achievements to his credit, he restored normalcy in the Sultanate, and that in itself was a major achievement. ‘In the course of one week the business of the state was brought to order, and the disorders and evils caused by Khusrav and his unholy followers were remedied,’ states Barani. ‘The people in all parts of the country were delighted at his accession. Rebellion and disaffection ceased, peace and obedience prevailed.’

According to Battuta, Ghiyas-ud din ‘belonged to a clan of Turks called Karauna inhabiting the mountains between Sind and the country of the Turks. He was in a very humble condition, and went to Sind as a servant of a certain merchant.’ Later he entered the service of the Khalji governor of Sind as a footman, and distinguished himself by his skill, bravery and devotion. After a while, he joined the royal service in Delhi, and there too won the appreciation and favour of his superiors, and rose rapidly in the official hierarchy, to eventually become one of the top nobles of the Sultanate. Ala-ud-din conferred on him the title Ghazi Malik, and appointed him as the governor of Punjab, a critically important post, responsible for the defence the empire against the depredations of Mongols. That appointment, and his commendable performance in the post, considerably enhanced his already high reputation, and made his accession to the throne of Delhi natural and inevitable after the overthrow of Khusrav.

Ghiyas-ud-din, according to Sirhindi, ‘was a kind and just person, chaste and pure … In ingenuity, thrift, knowledge and adroitness he was unequalled.’ He was not at all an overweening person, and his accession to the throne made hardly any change in his character or conduct. He never flaunted his power. His relationship with the nobles was more of camaraderie than of dominance; he led the nobles, but did not drive them. ‘His nobleness and generosity of character made him distinguish and reward all those whom he had known and been connected with, and those who in former days had showed him kindness or had rendered him service,’ notes Barani. ‘No act of kindness was ever passed over.’ Characteristically, on the very day of his accession, Ghiyas-ud-din had all the surviving relatives of Ala-ud-din and Mubarak brought to him, and he treated them ‘with all due respect and honour.’ He also took care to marry off the daughters of Ala-ud-din suitably. A pious Muslim, he lived a life of discipline and moderation, abjured wine drinking and all excesses. All his actions were marked by propriety. Sang poet Amir Khusrav:

PRUDENCE, JUSTICE AND concern for the commonweal characterised all the policies and actions of Ghiyas-ud-din. So, despite being ever loyal to the memory of Ala-ud-din, he reversed or modified many of the former sultan’s exacting regulations, so as to lighten the burden on people and to ease the pressure on administration. Having risen from among the common people, he knew their problems, sympathised with them, and did what he could to mitigate their sufferings, but without compromising the interests of the state. ‘In the generosity of his nature, he ordered that the land revenues of the country should be settled on just principles,’ and he substantially reduced the tax demand on farmers from what it was under Ala-ud-din, reports Barani. While Ala-ud-din had collected half the farm produce as tax, Ghiyas-ud-din limited it to one-tenth or one-eleventh of the gross produce. He also took care to remit taxes during drought years.

These sharp reductions in tax rates by the sultan would have notably reduced the revenues of the state, but they did not seriously impair its financial health, because the sultan prudently balanced them by stimulating the expansion of agriculture and trade, so that the reduction of the tax rates was offset, at least partly, by the expansion of the economy and the consequent widening of the sources of revenue of the state.

Ghiyas-ud-din held that the sensible means to increase the revenue of the state was to expand farm production, so he, according to Barani, sought to motivate farmers to increase the area under their cultivation by directing his revenue officers to ensure that ‘something was left [to farmers] over and above the tribute, so that the country might not be ruined by the weight of taxation, and the way to improvement be barred.’ He cautioned his officers that ‘countries are ruined and are kept in poverty by excessive taxation and the exorbitant demands of kings.’ The sultan also took some positive measures to facilitate the expansion of cultivation, such as digging irrigation canals, and building forts in the countryside to provide people security from brigands. On the whole Ghiyas-ud-din’s revenue measures benefited the people as well as the sultan.