Assess the achievements of Firoz Shah Tughlaq in the light of assessments made by contemporary historians.
The reign of Firoz Shah Tughlaq is characterised by a unique duality. On the one hand, he is the last Sultan under whom the Sultanate flourishes. On the other, it is under him that we witness the first signs of disintegration of the Sultanate. The contemporary sources for his reigns are full of praise for him since his conciliatory and compromising attitude appealed to them. The regard he shows for the religious classes appeals to Barani.
The principal source for Firoz Shah Tughlaq’s reign is Afif. Afif held an important position in the Diwan-i-Wirasat. His work is divided into 19 muqqadima or chapters. He not only discusses the political history of the period but also provides an insight into the socio-cultural life of the people. Although Afif was sympathetic to the cause of the orthodoxy, he does not lament the adoption of local customs and the celebration of religious festivals by the non-Muslims, a sharp contrast to Barani’s attitude.
Afif presents Firoz Shah Tughlaq’s reign as a golden era of peace and stability. Through lavish praises he tries to cover up for some of Firoz’s failings. For instance, his suspect abilities as a military commander were sought to be disguised by presenting him as a generous ruler who abhorred bloodshed.
Afif is also a witness to the havoc wreaked by Timur’s invasion of 1398 and the disintegration of the Sultanate that followed. Thus, when he looks back at Firoz Shah Tughlaq’s reign, he does so with a feeling of nostalgia. When he recalls the vast territorial limit over which the Sultanate extended, and which had subsequently reduced to a small region between Delhi and Palam, he naturally presents the era as a golden age.
Other sources for the period include the Futuhat-i-Firoz Shahi. It is an inscription on the Jama Masjid at Firozabad. It contains a brief summary of Firoz Shah Tughlaq’s reign. It is an interesting piece of evidence because it refers to the regulations that Firoz abolished for not being in accordance with the Shariat, a clear attempt to portray himself as an orthodox Muslim ruler. Another source for this period is the Sirat-Firoz Shahi, possibly the work of a courtier, detailing the agrarian policy of Firoz Shah Tughlaq. A later source is Yahya bin Sirhindi’s Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi.
Firoz Shah Tughlaq is associated with a policy of benevolence or people’s welfare. The state was to be based on the willing acceptance of the people, rather than fear of threats of violence. This had wider implications, especially in a country where the vast majority of the people were non-Muslim.
However, certain historians have seen these policies in the light of his weak and conciliatory attitude.
Firoz’s first step was to publicly destroy all documents on the basis of which two crore tankas had been advanced by Mohammad bin Tughlaq in order to expand and improve cultivation in the Doab. The waqf and inam lands that had been cancelled by Mohammad bin Tughlaq were re-installed. A number of new grants were also given. To show due respect to the Caliphate, he presented himself as a naib of the Khalifa. Those who had been tortured under Mohammad bin Tughlaq were compensated. Taxes that were not in accordance with the Shariat were abolished.
A good example of this was the Khums or war booty, 4/5ths of which had to be given to the soldiers and 1/5th to the state. Over time, sultans had begun to retain a larger share of the booty. This practice was abolished for not being in accordance with the Shariat, but it resulted in a loss of 30 lakh tankas for the state.
It also seems that Firoz Shah Tughlaq also gave up the policy of Siyasat, or death penalty for political crimes, again for not being in accordance with the Shariat. He writes that while some of his predecessors used the Siyasat as an instrument of State, he was more inclined to mercy and forgiveness.
This is also the first time that we have a clear reference to the imposition of jaziya. Scholars like Mahdi Husain and AL Srivastava believe that the jaziya was imposed to appease the religious classes. Certain medieval sources mention jaziya but do not provide details as to how it was collected. Certain sources also confuse the kharaj and jaziya. In this period, it is mentioned as a tax independent of kharaj. It has been pointed out by Habib and Nizami that only a small amount of revenue could have been collected through this. Since the local chieftains who collected revenue were largely non-Muslims themselves, a separate set of administrative machinery would have been required. Moreover, there is little evidence of the actual collection of the tax.
The military campaigns of Firoz had very limited success. The two Bengal campaigns of 1353-54 and 1359-60 were aimed at recovering Bengal, which had declared independence from Delhi. On both occasions, Firoz had a large army, which was joined by the local rais of Gorakhpur and Champaran. On the first occasion Haji Ilyas, and in the second his son Sikandar, had taken refuge in the fort of Ikdala and Firoz had been unable to storm the fort. After an exchange of costly presents, status quo was agreed upon. The official explanation for the failure as put forth by Afif was that Firoz refused to attach the fort fearing further bloodshed.
On his return journey from Bengal, Firoz halted at Jajnagar in Orissa. Again, a truce was patched up and the ruler agreed to pay an annual tribute. Firoz also besieged Nagarkot in Kangra. After six months of siege, the two sides entered into negotiations and the Rai ultimately accepted the Sultan’s overlordship as before.
His last campaign was in Thatta, where the local rulers were believed to be colluding with the Mongols. The first foray was a disaster – 3/4ths of the horses died in an epidemic and there was an acute shortage of food. Firoz retreated (in the course of which he lost his way in the Rann of Kutch) and spent two crore tankas re-equipping his army. His second expedition was more successful and the two local rulers submitted.
In Firoz’s dealings with the ulema, he gave up the spirit of ijitihad and gave importance to fiqh or traditions. He followed a policy of appeasement, and attempted to present himself as a champion of the religious orthodoxy.
Firoz was keen to conciliate all sections of the nobility. He wanted a nobility that was both stable and cohesive. Firoz retained the nobility that had remained loyal to Mohammad bin Tughlaq. He appointed Khan-i-Jahan Maqbul who had been trained by Mohammad bin Tughlaq as wazir. Other senior nobles, such as Talai Khan were honoured. He also did not induct into the nobility, men from the lower classes.
Firoz awarded extremely high salaries to his nobles. He gave his Khans and Maliks, salaries of four, six and eight lakh tankas. His wazir received a salary of 13 lakh tankas. These salaries were given in lieu of grants of iqtas. He fixed the estimate of the State (jama or mahoul) from these grants at 6,75,00,000 tankas. The muqta was not to be subject to a sudden enhancement of the fawazil. There was a laxity in the maintenance of accounts and the punishment of recalcitrant muqtas. The muqtas could thus amass huge sums of money and build up a local power base for themselves. He also tried to give the nobility a hereditary character. On the death of Khan-i-Jahan Maqbul, his son Jauna Khan succeeded him as wazir. When Zafar Khan, the governor of Gujarat died in 1370/1371, the post and title was given to his son.
Firoz Shah Tughlaq re-introduced the practice of paying soldiers in the form of iqtas through wajh grants. The land under the state (khalisa) was thus effectively reduced, reducing the state’s income. Iqtas were assignment orders given to the wajhdars, in which the amount to be collected was stated. The revenue was collected by the state; half was given to the wajhdars and the rest to the state.
Military service was made hereditary. If a wajhdar died, he was succeeded by his son, son-in-law or slave (in that order of preference). Similarly, if a soldier could not render military service, he could send his son/son-in-law/slave. The practices of dagh and chehra were given up. If a soldier failed to bring his horse for inspection, he was given an extension of 52 days to do so.
Over a period, the state had become lax in the collection of revenue. The wajhdars began to sell their title deeds to brokers who paid then one-third of the amount stated in the itlaq. These brokers had a military base through which they could enforce collection.
Firoz Shah Tughlaq also took a keen interest in promoting agriculture. He abolished several unpopular taxes like the charai and gharai. The kharaj ranged from one-forth to one-fifth of the produce. Allegedly with the consent of the ‘learned men’ and mullahs of the area (Satish Chandra), a tax called the haqq-i-sharb that was one-tenth of the produce was collected from the areas where the state had built irrigation projects. The practice of ijara or revenue farming became common.
Firoz founded the city of Hissar and decided to dig two canals to bring water to the city from the Sutlej and the Yamuna rivers. Through the irrigation projects that were introduced, peasants could cultivate both the rabi and kharif crops. Besides canals, Firoz also built many dams (bunds) for the purpose of irrigation. He is also said to have planted 1200 orchards around Delhi.
Firoz was a great builder. He set up a public works department that repaired many old buildings and mausoleums. He repaired the Qutub Minar and restored the mosque and the tombs of Iltutmish and Alauddin near it. He also repaired the Shamsi Tank and the Hauz-i-Alai.
While surveying the available evidence, one can safely conclude that no individual sultan can be held responsible for the downfall of the Delhi Sultanate. However, in assessing the achievements of Firoz Shah Tughlaq, it is important to remember that he was the last Sultan of the pre-disintegration Delhi Sultanate. One can point to various failures of Firoz. His attempts to build a small nobility based to a large extent on the principle of heredity failed. The hereditary soldiers he employed in the army proved to be inefficient, and the corp of slaves was selfish and disloyal. Each of these groups were also antagonistic to each other. Firoz failed to check the perennial problem of succession, the trouble starting in fact during his own reign. He also reversed the trend towards a composite ruling class, consisting of Hindus and Muslims.
However, as pointed out by historians like Peter Jackson and others, some of Firoz Shah Tughlaq’s military campaigns were quite successful (as seen above). Besides, there were already tendencies towards decentralisation present in the empire. Furthermore, Firoz’s measure show that he tried to respond to the Sultanate’s complex problems at various levels besides military expeditions – pacifying the orthodox classes, rehabilitating agriculture by providing irrigation technology and a stable atmosphere, etc. In conclusion, thus, the various policies of Firoz Shah Tughlaq are best understood as responses to problems, not problems in themselves. One must ultimately move beyond his policies and measures to understand the subsequent process of the decline of the Delhi Sultanate.