RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES AND MILITARY FEUDALISM6 The collection of revenue in kind and government procurement of grain
were to be done in the field so as to eliminate any private storage of grain.
7 Daily reports on market prices had to be submitted to the sultan. The
overseer of the markets and the spies had to report separately. If these
reports differed, the sultan would make further inquiries.
The passages of the Tarikh-i-Firoz Shahi where its author, Barani, describes
these measures are among the most fascinating accounts of pre-modern
administrative reforms in India. This is the only known systematic attempt by
a medieval Indian ruler to establish a centralised administration and to
interfere directly with market forces. Similar prescriptions are contained only
in the old Arthashastra and it is possible that Ala-ud-din knew about the
Arthashastra and tried to implement its suggestions. It is also interesting to
note in this context that Ala-ud-din, much like the author of the Arthashastra,
maintained that the interest of the state was the only norm which the ruler
should adopt. Ala-ud-din explicitly rejected the idea of following strict Islamic
injunctions in this respect. In the dialogue with a scholar he stated:
Although I have not studied the science or the Book, I am a
Musulman of Musulman stock. To prevent rebellion in which
thousands perish, I issue such orders as I conceive to be for the good
of the State and for the benefit of the people. Men are heedless,
disrespectful, and disobey my commands; I am then compelled to be
severe to bring them into obedience, 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.The famous chronicle of Kashmir, Rajatarangini, also provides some
evidence of the fact that Ala-ud-din’s measures were in keeping with earlier
Indian traditions and do not need to be attributed to West Asian
influences. Written in the twelfth century by the Brahmin Kalhana, this
chronicle attributes the following sentiments to King Lalitaditya, whose
exploits have been described earlier:
Those who wish to be powerful in the land must always guard
against internal dissension. Those who dwell there in the mountains
difficult of access, should be punished even if they give no offence,
because sheltered by their fastnesses, they are difficult to break up if
they have once accumulated wealth. Every care should be taken that
there should not be left with the villagers more food supply than
required for one year’s consumption, nor more oxen than wanted
for the tillage of their fields. Because if they keep more wealth, they
would become in a single year very formidable Damaras [chiefs] and
strong enough to neglect the demands of the king.^3