The wonder that was india

177

Some mansabddrs were paid in cash from the imperial treasury, but generally they were assigned a territory known as a jagir, whose estimated revenue (jama') was equal to the pay due for their zat and sawadr mansabs. The jagirs were the same as iqta's', sometimes these terms were interchangeable. The word tuyul was also used for jagirs. Those who were granted jagirs were known as jagirdars. The jagirs assigned in lieu of salary were known as tankhwah jagirs. The territorial chiefs were also granted mansabs, and their salary was equivalent to the jama' (revenue) from their dominions, known as the watan jagir. Beside the latter, some territorial chiefs were, also granted tankhwah jagirs in the imperial territory, depending upon their merit and service. The tankhwah jagir was one of the major inducements to the territorial chiefs to remain loyal to the Mughal throne.

Jagirs, like iqta's, were transferable, and ordinarily no mansabdar held a jagir in one place for more than three to four years. In fact, the jagirdars and their officers were generally not sure of keeping the same holding for more than one year. The jagirs did not correspond necessarily with the revenue divisions in the empire. These were administered by the imperial officers and not by the jagirdars' employees, and their tax collectors were not allowed to violate the emperor's revenue and tax regulations. In 1647 about 60 per cent of the estimated revenue (jama') of the empire was assigned to 445 mansabdars of 500 rank and above.53 This accounts for the concentration of the bulk of the country's wealth among less than five hundred families in the empire. A mansabdar's salary was calculated on the basis of very complex schedules, but even top commanders like 'Abdu'r-Rahim Khan-i Khanan in Akbar's reign, or princes such as Dara Shukoh under Shahjahan, were not satisfied with their respective grants and transfers. All the mansabddrs pressured the diwan-i kull to give them the most easily manageable villages as their jagirs, although it was government policy to assign them the jagirs nearest the stations where they were posted.

The trooper's salary varied according to the number and type of horses he possessed. Additionally, in 1595, by an imperial order, the Rajput soldiers drew a slightly lower wage than the Mughal, Afghan, and Indian Muslim troopers. It would seem that the supply of Rajput soldiers exceeded demand.54

Some particularly efficient troops were taken under the emperor's control by Akbar and his successors. They were ordinarily not placed under the mansabdars. They were named ahadis (from ahad or 'one'), as a reminder that Akbar believed in divine unity. Their equipment was of a very high standard, and their salary was 500 rupees. Each had to muster five horses. They were placed under a

178

separate diwan and bakhshi and were mustered every four months. When recruited they had to bring their own horses, but these were later on supplied by the government.55 In the Mughal decline of the eighteenth century the term ahadi came to mean 'idler'. The crack troops had lost their vitality and energy.

According to de Laet, Jahangir inherited from his father 2,941 mansabdars, ranging from the rank of 10 to 5,000. In the twentieth year of Shahjahan's reign there were 8,000 mansabdars and 7,000 ahadis and mounted artillerymen, paid by the imperial treasury.56

The Mughal infantry was also divided into several categories. These included the darbans (porters) and the khidmatiyyas (palace guards). According to Abu'1-Fazl, the khidmatiyya caste were originally notorious highway robbers whom the earlier sultans had been unable to control. Akbar, however, took them into his service and tamed them. He also recruited the natives of Mewat, known as mewras, who made excellent spies. Even several kinds of gladiator were incorporated into part of the infantry, while Irani and Turanl boxers and wrestlers, some of whom became celebrities in their day, were employed as infantrymen. Slaves were also included in the infantry. Akbar called them chelas or disciples because he disliked using the word 'slave'. He detested the custom of Muslims buying Hindus for slaves and vice versa. Palanquin bearers, and others who carried heavy loads on their shoulders, also belonged to the infantry.57

Some recent scholars, such as Abu Zafar Nadvi and Muhammad Akram Makhdoomee, assert that the Delhi sultans introduced artillery into India. It would seem, however, that they wrongly confused the naphtha- and missile-throwing engines such as mangonels with gunpowder and cannon. The literary evidence from the sultanate period suggests that it was in the mid-fourteenth century that gunpowder became known in northern India and explosive devices were introduced, possibly through Turkey. In the second half of the fifteenth century sultans such as Zaynu'l-'Abidin of Kashmir, Mahmud Begarha of Gujarat, and Mahmud Shah Bahmani are known to have possessed guns, and the last two used them on military expeditions.58

Babur was the first to use cannon effectively in battle and he gives a vivid description of making a cannon at Agra. In Humayun's reign the number of guns in the Emperor's arsenal increased considerably. According to Abu'1-Fazl, only Turkey could compete with India in the manufacture of guns. Babur's gunners were from Turkey. The number of Portuguese and other European gunners in India increased as a result of Akbar's conquest of Gujarat and Bengal, but Akbar himself remained the

179

major innovator in gun manufacture. Although firearms were mainly used in siege operations, Akbar made both light and very heavy guns. Those known as narnals could be carried by a single person; others, such as gajnals, were carried on elephants. Some guns could be taken to pieces for easy handling during marches and reassembled later.59 In Akbar's reign Hakim Fathu'llah Shirazi invented the multi-barrelled cannon.

At the end of the Thirty Years War in Europe (1618-48) many European adventurers with considerable experience of firearms came to India and obtained service under the Mughals. For example, Niccolao Manucci, an Italian boy of fourteen, reached India as a stowaway in 1646. Despite this, the cannon-manufacturing techniques did not improve. Thevenot says: 'They have Cannon also in their Towns, but since they melt the Metal in diverse Furnaces, so that some of it must needs be better melted than others when they mingle together, their Cannon is commonly good for nothing.'60

A matchlock contingent was also included in the infantry. According to Abu'1-Fazl, earlier matchlocks could not be filled for more than a quarter of the barrel without bursting when fired, but Akbar's matchlocks were so strong that they did not explode though filled to the top. Some of Akbar's guns were two yards long, others only nine inches in length. Improved barrels were submitted to Akbar for inspection, and the modifications he suggested were implemented in the design.61

Akbar also profitably used elephants on the battlefield, and there are many examples of his chivalry in controlling them when they were enraged.

Akbar had no navy and did not possess any sea-going ships. The A in-i Akbari suggests, however, that shipbuilding was not altogether neglected. Vessels were constructed on the west, south, and east coasts of India. Those ships built in Allahabad and Lahore were sent to the coast, while vessels for pilgrimage and commerce were constructed by the Mughal artisans. Larger boats, for the transport of troops and military stores, were built in Bengal, Kashmir, and Sind.

FINANCE

Charity in general and the payment of zakat (alms tax) in particular are obligatory duties for Muslims. As a rule the property assessable for z.akdt should have been in the owner's possession for at least one

180

year. This law, however, enabled some property owners to evade payment with impunity. For example, Makhdumu'1-Mulk used to transfer all his property to his wife towards the end of the year and then repossess it before the year had run out.62 Similar tricks are ascribed to several Muslim dignitaries. Zakat money is paid specifically to different categories of poor people and was not a source of revenue for the rulers. It was Flruz Shah Tughluq who included zakat on his list of regular state demands and established a separate treasury for it.

The 21/2 per cent zakat on Muslim traders' imports and exports was levied under both the sultans and the Mughals. Pious merchants conscientiously paid zakdt. Some of them believed that the blessings obtained from this payment protected them from the loss of their merchandise, although it was known that many dishonest Muslim merchants evaded paying it.

No records of customs rates under the Delhi sultans are available. Abu'1-Fazl confirms that 21/4 per cent was the maximum under Akbar. Finch says that the charges at Surat were 21/2 per cent on goods and 3 per cent on provisions. In Jahangir's reign customs duties were 31/2 per cent on all imports and exports of goods and 2 per cent on money, either gold or silver. According to Pelsaert, these duties were collected for the king by the governor of Gujarat but formerly 'they were assigned to various lords as salary'. In Thevenot's time, customs duties ranged from 4 to 5 per cent. Aurangzib fixed a higher rate for non-Muslims, but the order was not effective, because Muslim merchants smuggled goods belonging to Hindus, thus paying a lower rate of 21/2 per cent.64

Transit dues were also realized, although Akbar remitted them on at least two occasions. The river toll, however, was always levied under Akbar. Jahangir remitted both road and river dues. According to travellers such as Mundy, Thevenot, and Tavernier, transit dues were in force throughout large areas of the country. Father Manrique tells how the passport granted to him as an ecclesiastic to travel from Lahore to the mouth of the Indus was used by a merchant in his party to evade many demands during the journey.65

Innumerable articles, mainly vegetables, betel-leaves, meat, and fish, were subject to octroi levies. Cesses were imposed on trades such as cotton carding, soap-, rope-, oil- and brick-making, and maintaining gambling houses and centres of amusement, probably brothels. Sultan Flruz remitted these cesses, finding them not sanctioned by the shari'a. According to Father Monserrate, the low prices prevailing in Akbar's camp were due to goods being exempted from tax.66 Although after their accession Akbar's

181

successors also reissued orders to stop the cesses on merchandise and trades, they had become so deeply rooted in the normal trade practices of the times that the orders were never fully implemented.

Presents were often another source of income at court. The presentation of gifts to the court and noblemen was an important custom. The more valuable gifts were presented by foreign visitors and officials of all ranks. Under the Mughals the emperor received presents on all festive occasions, birthdays and accession anniversaries, and even after recovering from an illness. The mansabddrs also made gifts on occasions such as their promotion and reinstatement. The rulers reciprocated by giving robes of honour, precious jewels, and rare objects to show honour to their noblemen and visitors.

Foreign observers condemned the Mughal emperors for enriching their treasury by confiscating the property of their deceased mansabdars. For example, Pelsaert says:

Immediately on the death of a lord who has enjoyed the King's jagir, be he great or small, without any exception - even before the breath is out of the body — the King's officers are ready on the spot, and make an inventory of the entire estate, recording everything down to the value of a single pice, even to the dresses and jewels of the ladies, provided they have not concealed them. The King takes back the whole estate absolutely for himself, except in a case where the deceased has done good service in his lifetime, when the women and children are given enough to live on, but no more.67

The literature on the subject shows that the Mughal mansabdars in fact borrowed enormous sums from the state for their military expeditions and invariably died in debt. The Mughal confiscation system simply offered the state first claim on their estate. When disposing of the rest of the deceased's property, the Mughal emperors violated shari'a laws by granting larger shares to the elder sons or to their favourites.

In the early centuries of the Arab and Turkish conquests, booty (ghanima) was an important source of state finance. According to the shari'a one-fifth is set apart for the state, and the remaining four-fifths are distributed among the soldiers, although mounted troopers receive one or two shares more. On the other hand, the Indian sultans generally appropriated four-fifths themselves and distributed one-fifth to the soldiers. Since the army consisted of paid soldiers, the sultans did not consider this policy illegal. Firuz, however, restored the early Islamic rules, although the booty acquired in his reign was almost negligible. But for petty '

182

compaigns, the Mughals did not distribute booty to their soldiers, for their army was organized on a non-religious basis.

Jizya (poll-tax) formed an important source of the Muslim rulers' finances. It was sanctioned by the Qur'an.Jizya was levied on Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians, who were known as protected subjects (zimmis). Both taxes were prevalent in the Sassanian and Roman-Byzantine empires conquered by the Arabs. Those who embraced Islam were exempted from paying jizya but then became liable to pay Zakat. Islamicization neither undermined state finances nor helped the convert financially.

As mentioned earlier, Muhammad bin Qasim accorded both Hindus and Buddhists zimmi status and imposed jizya on them. According to Imam Malik, jizya could be collected from 'faithless Turks and Indians'. The same view was held by Imam Abu Hanifa. It would appear that the Ghaznavids and Delhi sultans collected jizya from Hindus according to the shari'a law.

Western historians such as Hardy,68 because of an incorrect interpretation of the historical texts, and some Muslim historians, in order to demonstrate Islamic liberalism, try to prove that under the Delhi sultans jizya meant land revenue. In fact, under the Delhi sultans the imposition of jizya was not disputed. The moot question was the legality of giving zimmi status to Hindus. A section of 'ulama' urged that Hindus should either be converted to Islam or be slaughtered. The sultans and their viziers had to perform the uphill task of convincing the unrealistic 'ulama' of the impracticability of their demand. The earlier Turkic sultans correctly exempted brahmans from the payment of jizya, but Sultan Firuz wrongly imposed it on them, blaming the earlier sultans for incorrectly interpreting the shari'a law. The brahmans protested and resorted to hunger strikes, but the Sultan did not relent. Ultimately, the rich Hindus offered to pay jizya on their behalf; as a concession the Sultan reduced the prevalent rate in the case of brahmans. Sultan Firuz could also boast that his orders to remit jizya made a deep impact upon the Hindus, and a large number of them embraced Islam.69 The collection of jizya from the Hindus in towns posed no problem, but in the villages, like early land-revenue collections, it was assessed as a collective tax.

In 1564 Akbar remitted the collection of jizya. According to Abu'1-Fazl, it was imposed both from contempt for the rival faith and to facilitate the accumulation of wealth by the rulers. Abu'l-Fazl goes on to say that Akbar found no justification for collecting jizya; for not only had men of all other religions become his devoted servants, but his treasury was already full.70 Although Akbar's advisers, the 'ulama', and the revenue experts opposed him, he

183

rejected their representations. For the rest of Akbar's reign and the reigns of Jahanglr and Shahjahan no jizya was collected.

Aurangzib also did not collect jizya during the first .twenty years of his reign but he reimposed this tax on non-Muslims in April 1679. According to a contemporary historian, the Emperor's principal aim was to spread the law of Islam and to overthrow infidel practices. Khafi Khan, another historian, says that the new law was designed to reduce the Hindus to poverty. The SatnamI rebellions of 1672 had already upset the Delhi Muslims, and the Emperor may have believed that Hindu affluence was the root cause of the local uprisings. For the imposition of jizya the population was divided into rich, middle, and poor classes. Those who owned property worth ten thousand dirhams or more were classed as rich, those with property valued at two hundred dirhams or more as the middle class, and those with property at less than two hundred dirhams as poor.72 Since the dirham was not current, the collection was made in silver. According to J. N. Sarkar's calculations, the rates for the three classes respectively were 13 1/3, 6%, and 3 1/3 rupees; i.e. 6 per cent of the gross income of the poor, 6'A per cent on the middle class and 2 1/2 per thousand on the rich. The tax naturally hit the poorest section. Government officials and the priestly classes were exempt. In commercial centres such as Gujarat, jizya yielded 3 1/2 per cent per annum of the total gross revenue of the province and was quite sufficient to provide the 'ulama' with a holy source of livelihood.73

The outcry and demonstrations by the Hindus of Delhi, particularly the artisans, money-lenders, and cloth merchants, were of no avail. Several Hindu demonstrators were trampled to death under the feet of the elephants and horses, and ultimately they surrendered. The literary evidence suggests that the Muslim jizya collectors were generally harsh, but it is difficult to believe Manucci's report that 'many Hindus who were unable to pay turned Muhammadan'.74

The principal financial source of both the Delhi sultans and the Mughals, was, however, land revenue (kharaj). The administrative framework of this tax before the thirteenth century is not known, but it would seem that in India the traditions from the Arab rulers of Sind and the Ghaznavid rulers were followed. The owners of cultivated land were not dispossessed, but any land, particularly that near the capital, whose owner had been killed in battle or was not traceable was allotted to Muslims. The Muslim owners paid one-tenth ('ushr) of their produce in tax on land watered by rain, but on land dependent for irrigation with buckets or wheels only one-twentieth of the produce was paid as a levy. These blocks of

184

land were known as 'ushri. The land left with its known Hindu owners and that allotted to Hindus was known as kharaji or khardj-paying (land-revenue-paying) land. Other terms used for kharaj, especially under the Mughals, were hasil or mal. In the thirteenth century a collective assessment of revenue was made on the .villages. Their chiefs, known as ranas, ra'is and rawats, paid revenue to the iqta' holders.

Those villages where revenue was reserved for the sultan's treasury were known as khdlisas. They also paid revenue on the basis of collective assessment. The sultan's muhassils (revenue collectors) realized the demands through the village headmen known as chawdhris, muqaddams, and khuts. These headmen were often very rich, for they did not themselves pay khardj, jizya, and other taxes but collected the perquisites due to them for working as a headman from their own villages. Sultan 'Ala'u'd-Din had all the land under cultivation measured, and the revenue was fixed on the basis of a standard yield. No concessions or perquisites were granted to the chiefs, who were assessed on a par with the balahars or ordinary peasants. The standard khardj (revenue demand) was fixed at one-half of the produce, and a tax was also imposed on the pastures. An army of revenue collectors ('amils), accountants, and auditors was recruited to collect the land revenue, which was realized in kind, although there was also cash payment in some areas. The collectors' vigilance made the chawdhris, muqaddams, and khuts subservient.75 The new system of taxation was enforced in all areas easily accessible from Delhi, but these did not include eastern Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, lower Panjab, and Gujarat.

The structure of 'Ala'u'd-Din's innovations crumbled before his death. His successor, Ghiyasu'd-Din Tughluq, was a moderate. He does not seem to have reduced the state demand for one-half of the produce but he prevented any further increases and removed the levy on pastures. He also replaced the crop-sharing system with the measurement system inaugurated by 'Ala'u'd-Din in the khdlisas. The headmen's perquisites were restored, but they were encouraged to co-operate with the government towards the improvement of cultivation and collection of revenue. The iqta' holders in charge of the khardj land had always been under pressure to remit more, but Ghiyasu'd-Din Tughluq fixed the increase between 10 and 11 per cent.

The next ruler, Sultan Muhammad bin Tughluq, enhanced revenue in the Gangetic doab. He also sought to increase the government's power by collecting revenue through his own collectors, or farming out the iqtd' revenue to the highest bidder.

His successor, Sultan Firuz, instituted a six-year survey of crop

185

production, enabling him to fix permanently the estimated revenue (jama') of the sultanate at 67,500,000 tankas. The entire revenue of the country was assigned to the army and civil officers, and these assignments were made hereditary. However, only 50 per pent of the amount mentioned in these orders was paid to the troopers or iqta' holders by the village officers; apparently the rest was appropriated as collection charges. These assignments could also be sold for 30 per cent of their face value to city brokers. Under the rebellious governors of Firuz's successor, however, it proved impossible for the assignment holders to collect anything at all.

The Lodis and Surs assigned hereditary iqta's to the Afghan tribal leaders. Sultan Sikandar Lodi introduced the gaz-i Sikandari (Sikandar's yard) of 32 digits for measuring cultivated fields, but the revenue based on this was confined to the khalisas. The principal iqtd' holders could assign parts of territory to their subordinates for raising troops. In Sher Shah's reign also the systems of crop sharing and imposition of fixed revenue demand were given up. Revenue was fixed on the basis of measurements; the only exceptions were those regions which were not completely subdued, such as Multan and Rajasthan. Schedules for crop rates were prepared on the basis of the quality of the land, but his reign was too short to crystallize the system.

In the early years of Akbar's reign the crop schedules and jama' (assessed revenue) schedules of the Sur rulers were made the basis of the revenue administration, although new experiments were constantly made to find a sound revenue policy. Between 1567 and 1571 the Sur schedules of crop rates were replaced by separate schedules for seasonal harvests. In 1575 the old method of measuring the land with hemp ropes was discarded, and a measure consisting of bamboo poles linked together with iron rings was adopted. By 1576 the empire was greatly expanded, and a new survey and assessment had to be undertaken. The year 1580 was a watershed in Akbar's revenue reforms because of the introduction of the a 'in-i dahsala. This did not mean the 'laws for ten years' as the term implies, but laid down the dasturs or annual demand rates in cash per area unit. Each area unit was a different assessment circle and consisted of smaller circles of the same type of soil fertility. The price, crop, and revenue over the previous ten years was the principal basis for the new assessment.76

In June 1588 the gaz-i Ilahi, or new yard for land measurement, consisting of forty-one digits (approximately 33 inches) was introduced. The gaz-i llahi helped to standardize the land survey. Farmers were allowed the option of paying their land tax through various systems such as the kankut (a rough estimate of the produce