The Delhi Sultanate and Theocracy: A Re-Appraisal of Sultan Allaudin Khalji
Imon
ul Hossain
Student of MA history/ Coochbehar Panchanan Barma university
Abstract:
One of the most controversial issue that surrounded with the Sultanate of Delhi was the notion of theocratic State which propounded a particular range of allegation against the nature of this state. By following the footsteps of British scholars, a group of nationalist historians had tried to disseminate the Delhi Sultanate for being a theocratic state based on the elements of Islam. However, later a new question initiated by several modern historians who critically assessed this theme and gradually such emphasis upon theocracy lost its rigidity. This paper is an analysis of religious attitudes of Sultan Allaudin Khalji towards his subjects. This study is based on the primary and secondary sources which are related with the respective offshoots of this medieval monarch. Initially, this paper focused on the blaming provided against Sultan Allaudin Khalji regarding his discriminatory policy against non Muslims, simultaneously, it also explained counter argument in contrary of allegations.
Keyword: Theocracy, Alauddin, Sultante, Zimmi
After the passing away of Slave or Mamuluk Sultanate through ‘Khalji revolution’ of 1290 a new dynasty came into prominence known as Khalji dynasty. With the emergence of Khaljis an era of divergent ethnical dynamism said to have thrived which reluctant the predominated sway of Turkish Sultans by providing opportunities towards the Indian nobilities in royal court of Sultanate. Sooth to say, Sultan Allaudin Khalji supposed to have championed this genuine achievement through his astute perception as an administrator. However, the controversy has centered round regarding his individual prospects and action towards the infidels. We have numerous allegations about the temple demolition that provoked under his different campaign. In 1292 at Bhilsa Alauddin destroyed many Hindu temples and presented the cart loads of Bronze idols before Sultan Jalaluddin Khalji as tribute1. Secondly, in the conquest of Gujrat (1299 AD) it is said that hundreds of temples were demolished under the campaign of Allaudin Khalji2. The author of Tarikh-i-Wassaf alluded “the Muhammadan forces began to kill and slaughter on the right and on the left unmercifully, throughout the impure land, for the sake of Islam and blood flowed in torrent … they took captive a great number of handsome and elegant maidens amounting to 20000, and children of both sexes more than pen can enumerate….in short, the Muhammadan army brought the country to utter ruin and destroyed the lives of the inhabitants and plundered the cities and captured their offspring’s, so that many temples were deserted and the idols were broken and trodden under the foot , the largest of which was one called Somnath….the fragments were conveyed to Delhi and entrance of Jami Masjid was paved with them , that people might remember and talk of a brilliant victory”. Alauddin in his invasion of Chittor(1303AD) said to have relegated Hindu genocide3.It was also stated by Amir Khusru that “thirty thousand Hindus were cut down like dry grass in a single day. In a fit of religious frenzy, the Muslims even destroyed ‘all the articles depicting cultural significance such as painting, sculpture, architecture etc’4. Elliot’s translation of Tarikh -I-Alai enumerated that Sultan ordered the genocide of all Hindu Chiefs of Hind out of the pale of Islam, by his infidels-smiting sword5.Again cited in the same book, in 1301 AD when Jhain was captured ‘the temple of Bahir Deo and the temples of other gods, were all razed to the ground’. Another allegation alluded by Prof S.A.A. Rizvi was on the demolition of Somnath temple by Alauddin’s army in spite of the reiterated request of the priest of the temple for protecting the deities in lieu of gold6. In this regard we have also reference from Tarikh-i-Alai which enunciated “he destroyed all the idols and temples of Somnath ….and in that ancient stronghold of idolatry the summons to prayers was pronounced so loud that they heard it in Misr and Madain”7.In context of his Malwa raids(1305AD) , Amir Khusru states “the blow of the sword then descended upon them, their heads were cut off , and the earth was moistened with Hindu blood”8. Mahavir temple of Sanchor was destructed by Alauddin, to commemorate the victory, he constructed a mosque known as ‘Imarat Topkhana’9. Sultan’s incursion of South Deogiri (1308), Warrangal (1309-10), Dwarsamudra (1310) and Mabar has been identified as destination to foment Islam as well as acquiring wealth according to some historian10. Amir Khusru writes “all these impurities of infidelity have been cleansed by the Sultan’s destruction of idol temple was carried out by Alauddin as systematically as it had been done in the north by his predecessor11. Prof.K.L Srivastava following an statement of Amir regarding Alauddin’s raid to warrangal have mentioned “The trees were cut with axes and felled….and the Hindus , who worship trees, could not at that time come to rescue of their idols , so that every cursed tree which was in the capital of idolatry was cut down to the roots…12. Again, Prof. Srivastava’s judgement about religious oppression of the local inhabitants of Dwarsamudra in accordance with Amir Khusru who said to have given an eye-witnessed account. To quote “suspended swords from the standards poles in orders that the day of resurrection had arrived amongst them and that all burnt Hindus would be dispatched by the sword to their brothers in hell, so that fire, the improper object of their worship might mete out proper punishment to them”13. In another incident of Allauddin’s genius commander Malik Kafur’s action who informed king Ballal Deo of Dwarsamudra that unless he surrendered “his idol temple which was likely to converted into a mosque ‘drastic measures would be taken against him’14. Malik kafur told him that he was sent (by Sultan Alauddin) with the object of converting him to Islam or making him a Zimmi and subject to pay tax, or of slaying him, if neither of these terms were assented to15. Most of the historian stated that Malik Kafur spared the lives of those who could repeat the Kalma16.
Historians
and scholars have so many dissentions regarding the collection of Jizya under
the Khaljis.In context of Alauddin
Khalji several allegations had remarked by Prof. K.L. Srivastava. Firstly, as
he pointed out that the conversation of
Alauddin with Qazi Mughisuddin reveals that the Sultan did not object to the
use of the term Zimmi for the Hindus by
the Qazis17. As they were treated Zimmi, that’s why, they had to pay this tax.
Simultaneously, Sultan said to have
concerned to curtail the privilege and higher status associated with the Hindus
of his empire18. Following Barani’s
account it has also been argued that the Sultan confronts with complexity in
controlling the Hindu employees of the
state, viz-Khuts and Muqaddams. The Sultan felt that they had become so
arrogant that they themselves did not
pay any of the taxes -Kharaj, Jizya, Kari and Charai”19. In this respect, prof.
Srivastava remarked that Jizya was taken
forcefully from the Hindus during Khalji period20.Alauddin seems not to have
been over harsh in using the state
machinery in degrading the Hindus and realizing the Jizya. One may get some
idea of the attitude of the bigoted
Ulema towards the Hindus in the reign of Alauddin from the following remark of
Qazi Mughisuddin “The Hindu should pay
the taxes with meekness and humility … should the collector choose to
spite in his mouth , he should open the
same without hesitation…the purport of this of this extreme meekness and humility on his part…is to show the extreme
submissiveness incumbent upon the Zimmi.God almighty himself commends their complete degradation in as
much as these Hindus are the deadliest foes of the true prophet. Mustafa has given orders regarding the
slaying, plundering and imprisoning of them, ordaining that they must either follow the true faith or else be slain
or imprisoned and have all their wealth and property confiscated”21. Alaudddin was prudent enough to keep the
Ulema in good humour by characterizing the annual tribute from the Hindu state in south as Jizya and thus
revealing to the Islamic world that he was the champion of faith22.
Another
remarkable allegation was ‘Jihad’. Its an Arabic term which simply means
‘Crusade’ against another religion,
infidels or idol worshippers. The author of Tarikh-i-Wassaf alluded Alauddin
Khalji’s raid on Gujrat as Jihad23.Even
Malik Kafur’s irruption to the South has been identified as Jihad 24.The Hindu
Rai of Dhur was treated by Kafur that
“he was sent with the object of converting him to Islam or of making him a
‘dhimmi’ and subject to the poll tax or
of slaying him if neither of these terms were assented to”25. The descriptions
of Amir Khusru marked as religious
hostility “when he advanced from the capital of Kara, the Hindus in alarm
descended into the earth like ants. He
departed towards the garden of Bihar to dye that soil with blood red as tulip.
He cleared the road to Ujjain of veil
wretches, and created concentration in Bhilsan. When he effected his conquests
in that country, he drew out of the river the idols, which had been concealed
in it”26. At Deogiri, he “destroyed the temples and erected pulpits and arches for mosques”.
Following
the above criticisms regarding Alauddin Khalji we must now disseminate counter
arguments which inversely delineated his
actions. As mentioned earlier, one of the most crucial blaming against Alauddin
was his hostile approach towards the
Hindus. He said to have forcefully imposed Jizya upon them. Tarikh- E- Firoz
Shahi elucidated that Alauddin sought to curtail the Financial prosperity of
Hindus for political reason. Probably, the
circumstances were in the context of gradual growth of Muslim power and
financial-political power of upper caste
Hindus which make him frighten, as he supposes to have in confusion that
these mighty classes could try to
overthrow him, hence, he was compelled to adopt this harsh decision. As
told by historian Ghulam Sarwar Khan
Niazi “there is nothing in the chronicles to support a modern view that
Alauddin Khalji neither exacted Jizia from
Hindus nor recognized them as Zimmis; a subject who was neither a Muslim
nor a Zimmi could not reside in a Muslim
state”27.Incidentally, Sultan enhanced the taxes as he had to prepare a strong
army to confronts with further Mongol
raids and the taxes were imposed upon Hindus and Muslims both. If the rising
taxes was a harsh step all were equally
its victims and there was no evidence that Hindus suffering more. Even, we have
no case of arms discontent from the
Hindu peasantry as like as Muhammed Bin Tughlaq’s reign. Sultan’s dealing with
Khuts, Muqaddams and Balhars was
provoked in accordance with circumstances when these groups became a threat
for misusing political position,
generating the weakness of central government and the internal turmoil of the
country. Here one condition is apparent
that Sultan gave his equal attention to check the illegal activities of both
Hindu upper middle class and Muslim
nobles. In Alai period the Hindus were appointed to all government departments and in the revenue department particularly
they had a dominance. As like as Sher Shah, and Aurangzeb, Alauddin did not provide responsibly to any Muslim as
a check over Hindu official.
Indeed,
In due circumstances Alauddin fully never disregarded the concept of ‘Zimmi’
which has been apparent from his
conversation with Qazi Mughisuddin he told him that Hindu Zamindards had become
so defiant of state’s authority that
they neither pay Jizya nor ‘Khiraj’ and when the Qazi used the word ‘Zimmi’ for
the Hindus, he did not contradict him28.
In accordance with the principle of Islamic state Dr. Niazi expounded that
Hindus were engaged with a life of
peace, prosperity, honor, and complete religious tolerance. In the capital
where the Sultan lived, they celebrated
their festivals such as Dushara and Diwali with great pomp. A book of Thakur
Pheru named ‘Wastusara’ which has been
published by Pandit Bhagwan Dass Jain at Jaipur, where various design of
temples constructed in this period have
been mentioned. Levy remarked “Alauddin refused to levy Jizia from the
Hindus because he refused to accord them
the status of Zimmis”29. The Ulemas were all united in their view as to
the treatment which was to be ascribed
upon the Zimmis.In spite of such opposition Sultan alone strategically challenged their orders which has been
revealed from a fact when Qazi Mughis , a learned scholar of this age , wanted to convince the Sultan to force the
Hindus to embrace in Islam, Sultan sternly rejected this counsel by saying “I do not know whether it is lawful or
unlawful , whatever I think to be for the goods of the state or suitable for emergency that I decree”. One thing we
must clarify here that during the reign of Alauddin Khalji infidel
subjects enjoyed the status of Zimmi
with all the various privileged associated with their position. But it is true
that being a prudent monarch he never
wished to have risked to threat his throne by directly countering fundamental
Islamic law. The necessity of practical
politics and threat of Mongol raids also demanded that he should not do
anything to turn the Hindu majority
against his rule.
We have another noticeable factor, as told by some scholars that Sultan only used Hindus as troops, but we have seen they were given promotion to the high rank in accordance with their merits. As instance, Malik Naik, Akhur Beg, a Hindu Raja of Chittor and a distinguished ‘Malik’, was the right-wing force of Sultan’s army. It is said that Sultan appointed thirty thousand army under him and sent him to fight against the Mongols30. Raja Deogir was given a designation Rai Raiyan (Raja of Rajas). An inscription of 1316 revealed that Sultan had appointed a Hindu named Sudharana as treasures. Sultan Alauddin had established new market known as “Serai-I-Adl”, here Hindu merchants had larger monopoly, moreover, the Hindu traders of Multan received advances from royal treasures to import the necessities of daily life from foreign countries31.
Before
the beginning of a critical assessment about Alauddin Khalji and his approach
towards religion we must have to be
familiar with a fact i.e. the shortcomings of earlier nationalist and
communalist historians (both Hindus and
Muslims).Romila Thapar rightly pointed out in the series of “communalism and
the writings of Indian history” that ‘an
examination of the ideology of modern communalism shows quite clearly that it
seeks its intellectual justification
from the historical past. Thus, Hindu communalists try and project an ideal
Hindu society in the ancient period and
attribute the ills of India to the coming of the ‘Muslims’. Equally, Muslim
communalists try and prove the roots of
separatism from the beginning of the medieval period onwards, i.e., from the
11th or 13th century AD32.
Simultaneously, in the treatment of Alauddin we have same contradiction
from both sides, therefore, we must
assess them carefully. Firstly, Reading the above analysis, it is not
very hard to generate a common assumption
that historians from two different sides remained in so many dissentions
in their opinions respectably. Another
thing I must remark here that they were pre-determined to prove their
own arguments. Secondly, Historians like
K.S.Lal and Kanhaiyalal Srivastava in all of their explanation
emphasized only on the wrongdoings of Sultan’s action through his temple destruction , concept of
Zimmi and collection of Jizya tax , wherein they have largely ignored other great achievements of Sultan which he
has initiated for the well-being of his Subjects, irrespective of caste , creeds and community bias. Thirdly, These
scholars picks up their sources from the translation work of Henry Elliot and Johnson Downson, in which they sometime
took irrelevant context by abstaining from the totality of interpretation, in fact, further we are more
familiar that colonial scholars and their explanation in source history writing reflected numerous deficiency by
which Indian history distorted its impartial importance. Moreover, Kanhaiyalal Srivastava while describing
Alauddin’s attitude and action towards the Hindus very strategically he enumerated the statements of Prof.Mohammed
Habib ,S.M.Jaffar, K.A.Nizami , I.H.Qureshi and K.S.Lal with an intention that their viewpoints too
supporting his arguments, but unfortunately his effort has proven wrong.Forthly, I have to point out here that
Prof.K.L.Srivastava while describing about Sultans different action he widely used selected sourcessuch as Amir
Khusrau’s ‘Mifta-ul-Futhu’, ‘Khazain-ul-Futuh’(he never used the praises which Khusrau wrote for Sultan) Barani’s
‘Tarikh-i-Firuzshahi’, but he avoids other notable contemporary account like Firishtah’s ‘Gulshan-i-Ibrahimi’ and
Isami’s ‘Fatuh-us-Salatin’.Looking at the next aspects where Dr.Ghulam Sarwar Khan Niazi opposed earlier arguments
showing a benevolent figure of Sultan. However, his exertion must not be disregarded, in fact, he had projected
Sultan’s diverse reforms in accordance with relevant sources. But despite, Dr. Niazi in several of his aspect
exaggerated Sultan’s icon, presumably in order to conceal his iniquities. As instance, he never focused on temple
destruction and alluded rather “there are no facts to indicate that Alauddin ever violated this spirit and forced
upon Hindus, a treatment that could be criticized on this ground. This background should suffice to vindicate the
Position of Alauddin in respect of his attitude towards the Hindus”. Moreover, cleverly he emphasized upon
economic and market reforms in which he sought to reveal that Sultan was in favor of Hindus to avoid
shortcomings.
The
chief locomotives of history is the ‘the ascertainment of truth of the past, so
far it can be ascertained, is the one
object, the one sanction, of all historical studies’, therefore, while
reconstructing any individual figure like
Alauddin Khalji ,we must be more scrupulous to deal with all of his
action to explore an impartial and unbiased
history. There is, in fact, no controversy of Alauddin’s reformative
measures which was more effective and
significant to restore a strong economic backbone or to subdue the
powerful sway of aristocrats. Moreover, we
must no reluctant the cultural amelioration of Alai period which
imparted both Hindu and Islamic elements in
context of literature, art and music, indeed, provided a new impetus in
the formation of medieval ‘composite
culture’. But The ill-treatments which he took up against the
non-Muslims, probably, not in a sense of antagonism because in medieval India a ruler was only a
power monger in order to maintain his throne, despite such wrongdoings harmed the minds of infidels.
However, in a true manner Alauddin’s objective was not based on any criteria of theocratic state, he was a
practical stateman of his age who had dream to hold a strong empire.
1.Elliot,
Tarikh-i-Firuzshahi, Vol-3, P.146
2.ibid,
Elliot, P.163
3.
ibid, Elliot, vol-3, p.43-44
4.Tod,
Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, p.311
5.Elliot,
Tarikh-i-Alai, vol-3, p.77
6.Rizvi,
S.A.A, Khalji Kalin Bharat, p.45
7.ibid,
Tarikh-i-Alai, p.74
8.ibid,
p.76
9.Lal,
K.S, History of Khaljis, p.138
10.ibid,
Tarikh-i-Alai, p.77-92
11.ibid,
p.85
12.ibid,
p.81
13.ibid,
p.86-87
14.ibid,
p.89
15.Srivastava,
K.L, The Position of Hindus under the Delhi Sultanate Publisher, p.106
16.ibid,
p.107
17.ibid.p.92
18.Ibid,
p.93
19.Barani.p.291
20.opcit,
Srivastava, p.92
21.Barani,
p.290
22.ibid,
Lal, K.S, p.309
23.Elliot,
vol-3, Tarikh-i-wassaf, p.43
24.ibid,
Srivastava, p.82
25.ibid,
Tarikh-i-wassaf, p-89
26.Niazi,
Ghulam Sarwar Khan, The life and Work of Sultan Alauddin Khalji, Atlantic,
p.108 27.Barani, Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi, p.290-91
28.Ikram,
S, M, History of Muslim Civilization in India and Pakistan, Institute of
Islamic Culture, Lahore,1961, p.135
29.Faristha,
Gulshan-i-Ibrahimi, P.114
30.Afif,
Tarikh-i-Firuz shahi,p.294
31.Thapar,
Romila. Chandra, Bipan. Mukhia, Harbans, edited book “Communalism and the
Writings of Indian History”, Peoples
Publishing House,1987, Delhi, p.1