Page 1 of 8
European Journal of Business &
Social Sciences
Available at https://ejbss.org/
ISSN: 2235-767X
Volume 07 Issue 02
February 2019
Available online: https://ejbss.org/ P a g e | 68
Agrarian System under Delhi Sultanate
Dr. Manish Tripathi
Department of Medieval/Modern History
University of Allahabad
ABSTRACT
The Turkish Sultans brought with them the ideas of an agrarian system of their own
which were in consonance with the Islamic law and not subject to alternation by the
kings. But in Indian environment the Delhi Sultans implemented the agrarian system in
accordance with the circumstances and situation prevailing in India during the thirteenth
century. There were aspects wherein the Islamic system differed or had inherent
implications for the non-Islamic subjects. In these cases, the Indianization of certain
Islamic norms on the subject took place. Land revenue was the main source of income of
the state; the Turkish rulers could not reorganize the agrarian system according to strict
Islamic principles without exposing their financial system to grave risks.
Through this paper I have tried my level best to discuss that what were the agrarian
changes accompanying the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate? What were the agrarian
measures introduced by the various Sultans for functioning of the land revenue
administration and to what extent did State policy influence agrarian prosperity or
decline.
Keywords: Kharaj, Iqta, Charai, Ghari, Khots, Muqaddams, Chaudharis, Qismat-I Khoti,
hasil, masahat.
Page 2 of 8
European Journal of Business &
Social Sciences
Available at https://ejbss.org/
ISSN: 2235-767X
Volume 07 Issue 02
February 2019
Available online: https://ejbss.org/ P a g e | 69
The establishment of the Delhi Sultanate came in the wake of a prolonged period of
political fragmentation and it signified fundamental changes in the region's economy as
well. The innovations which mark out the history of the Sultanate as a distinct phase in
India's economic evolution were : the successful creation of a military power sustained
by the regular extraction of resources from an extensive territory; the emergence of a
new ruling class with direct claims over shares of the produce; a proliferation of urban
centres; the growth of new manufactures like paper and lime mortar and the introduction
of some new technology.1
In the agrarian sector the iqta and the kharaj were the two
chief instruments of change. The iqta provided for rigorous centralization which gave the
Sultan’s government immense power over society. It was thus, an important factor in
enabling the state to demand a large share of the surplus product of society. This share
pre-eminently took the form of kharaj which had come to signify, in the form of a land
tax, the sovereign’s claim to the bulk of the surplus produced by the peasant above the
minimum needed for his subsistence.2
It was only the possibility of complete devastation
of the peasantry which set any limits to its magnitude.3
There was hardly any change in the structure of rural society during the thirteenth
century. There was no widespread dislocation of the old economic and social systems
and “the stream of life in the rural areas flowed smoothly and uninterruptedly even after
the establishment of Turkish rule”.4 The early Turkish rulers depended on the Hindu
chiefs to pay the land-revenue, leaving it to them to collect it from the peasants according
to the existing practices. The revenue from the rural areas could often only be realized at
the point of the sword. The imposition of kharaj in its full-blown form took time. The
economic basis of the Sultanate, thus, remained weak in the thirteenth century.5
The fourteenth century saw a number of new developments as seen in the course of our
study. The planned imperialistic economic policy of Alauddin Khalji was undoubtedly
“the outcome of an urgent and grave political situation which forced itself on the
attention of the king”.6 His pricing policy was abandoned by the later Sultans. But to him
goes the credit of establishing a uniform system of taxation throughout a large region of
northern India and firmly establishing the tradition of the realization of the three basic
agrarian taxes - kharaj, charai and ghari. Alauddin’s taxation system was probably the
one institution from his reign that lasted the longest, surviving into the nineteenth and
Page 3 of 8
European Journal of Business &
Social Sciences
Available at https://ejbss.org/
ISSN: 2235-767X
Volume 07 Issue 02
February 2019
Available online: https://ejbss.org/ P a g e | 70
even the twentieth century. Since the new land revenue system7
enabled the Sultanate
ruling class to approximate the bulk of the country’s surplus, the fiscal claims of the
previous aristocracy could not be permitted. Thus the khots and muqaddams were
prohibited from levying their own cesses (qismat-i khoti). Alauddin Khalji even taxed
the khots and muqaddams but Ghiyasuddin Tughluq modified Alauddin’s system by
giving certain concessions to the khots and muqaddams.
Two measures taken by Ghiyasuddin had a long term impact on the agrarian policy of
the Sultanate. Firstly, the system of crop-sharing (hash) was restored by him as opposed
to the system of measurement (masahat) of Alauddin Khalji which was considered as an
innovation. The method of measurement was not restored till the reign of Sher Shah.
Secondly, the restoration of the Hindu revenue-collectors became a permanent feature of
the agrarian system, for there is clear historical continuity between them and the later
zamindars of the Mughal and British periods. As Moreland points out, Barani and Afif
employ the term for any chief found outside, as well as inside, the Sultanate.8 But a
different sense, that of the holder of any superior right over land, and so not necessarily
implying possession of political authority, was already developing. During the Mughal
period the term zamindar was applied to revenue-collectors (successors of chaudharis,
khots and muqaddams) as also to payers of tribute, e.g., the Rajput princes.9
Muhammad Tughluq tried to revive the system of Alauddin Khalji but he could hardly
achieve any success and reverted back to the system of granting revenue assignments.
Firuz Shah’s reign witnessed several significant departures from the existing agrarian
policy. On coming to the throne, he granted a series of fiscal concessions to the people
who had suffered terribly from over-taxation, rigorous administration and natural
calamities. However, his policy of assigning away lands in iqtas, assigning villages even
to individual troopers, the further extension of the farming system, recognition of the
hereditary principle in the services rendered the administration hollow from within and
encouraged the provincial governors to defy the governmental authority and signal the
total disruption of the Sultanate. After the death of Firuz Tughluq decline set in, followed
by the invasion of Timur and founding of various kingdoms each taking away a large
chunk out of the territories of the empire.10 The circumstances, therefore, hardly left any
scope for implementation of any general agrarian measures.
