The Age of Wrath: A History of the Delhi Sultanate (42 page)

Despite all these elaborate legal systems and hierarchy of courts, the treatment of criminals in early medieval India, in Hindu as well as in Muslim states, was usually arbitrary and often horribly barbarous. Suspects were invariably tortured to extract confession from them—and tortured so savagely that they often confessed even to the crimes they had not committed, preferring execution to torture. ‘People consider death a lighter affliction than torture,’ notes Battuta.

The punishment of rebels by the state in medieval India was particularly savage, and involved mutilation, impalement, flaying alive, hacking off limbs, trampling by elephants, being shot through a cannon, and so on. Sometimes an entire group of people was summarily executed, on suspicion of being rebels or thieving tribes. Thus Balban, when he was serving Sultan Nasir-ud-din Mahmud as the Lord Chamberlain, slaughtered the entire lot of hill tribes living in the environs of Delhi, because they were all, according to Siraj, a thirteenth-
century chronicler, ‘thieves, robbers, and highwaymen.’ This carnage went on for twenty days, butchering all who were caught. Balban, according to Siraj, offered his soldiers ‘a silver tanka for every [severed] head, and two tankas for every man brought in alive.’ Many of those captured were cast under the feet of elephants. ‘About a hundred met their death at the hands of flayers, being skinned from head to foot; their skins were all then stuffed with straw, and some of them were hung over every gate of the city.’

Battuta, who was in Delhi during the reign of Muhammad Tughluq, has left a vivid description of how elephants were used to execute rebels and criminals. ‘The elephants which execute men have their tusks covered with sharp irons, resembling the coulter of the plough … and with edges like those of knives … When a person is thrown in front [of the elephant], the animal winds its trunk round him, hurls him up into the air, and catching him on one of its tusks, dashes him to the ground … [And then it] places one of its feet on the breast of the victim’ and crushes him to death.

The punishments meted out to traitorous royal relatives and high nobles were particularly fiendish in the Delhi Sultanate, because they posed the greatest threat to the sultan. According to Battuta, Muhammad Tughluq once had a rebellious prince ‘skinned alive … His flesh was then cooked with rice, and some of it was sent to his children and his wife, and the remainder was put in a great dish and given to elephants to eat, but they would not touch it. The sultan ordered his skin to be stuffed with straw, and … exhibited throughout the country.’

THE DREAD OF such savage punishments by kings was the primary means for preserving law and order in early medieval India, as it was in ancient India, for, as the Hindu lawgiver Manu held, ‘the whole world is controlled by punishment, for a guiltless man is hard to find.’ This was acknowledged even by Firuz Tughluq, one of the most humane of the Delhi sultans. ‘In the reigns of former sultans the blood of many Mussulmans had been shed, and many varieties of torture employed,’ writes the sultan in his memoirs. ‘Amputation of hands and feet, ears and noses, tearing out the eyes, pouring molten led into the throat, crushing the bone of the hand and feet with mallets, burning the body with fire, driving iron nails into the hands, feet, and bosom, cutting the sinews, sawing men asunder; these and many similar tortures were practised … All these things were practised so that fear and dread might fall upon the hearts of man, and that the regulations of government might be duly maintained.’

Not only were the punishments savage, but its savagery was ostentatiously put on display to horrify people, and thus to deter them from committing offences. Thus when a top official in Ghazni, who had incurred the displeasure of Sultan Masud, was executed, his body was kept on the gibbet for seven
years, so ‘his feet dropped off and his corpse entirely dried up, so that not a remnant of him was left to be taken down and buried,’ records Baihaqi. And in Delhi, according to Battuta, ‘it is the custom with this people that whenever the sultan orders the execution of a person, he is despatched at the door of the hall of audience, and his body left there for three days … It was only rarely that the corpse of someone who had been executed was not seen at the gate of the palace.’ This was done even to the princes who were suspected of disaffection. Nor were royal ladies spared—thus during the reign of Muhammad Tughluq a princess, who was suspected of debauchery, was stoned in public at the entrance of the durbar hall. The only sultan of Delhi who abolished these barbaric practices was Firuz Tughluq. ‘Through the mercy which god has shown to me these severities and terrors have been exchanged for tenderness, kindness and mercy,’ he writes.

Vijayanagar and Bahmani kings also inflicted barbarous punishments similar to those inflicted by the Delhi sultans. ‘The punishments that they inflict in this kingdom are these: for a thief, whatever theft he commits, however little it be, they forthwith cut off a foot and a hand, and if his theft be a great one he is hanged with a hook under his chin,’ notes Nuniz about the practices in Vijayanagar. ‘If a man outrages a respectable woman or a virgin, he has the same punishment … Nobles who become traitors are sent to be impaled alive on wooden stakes thrust through the belly. And people of the lower orders, for whatever crime they commit, … [the raja] forthwith commands to cut off their heads in the market-place. And the same [is done] for a murder, unless the death was the result of a duel.’ In the Bahmani Sultanate during the reign of Nizam Shah, when a rebel noble was executed, ‘his body was hewn in pieces, which were affixed on different buildings,’ records Ferishta.

THE ROUTINE POLICING of their kingdoms was not an onerous burden for Indian kings, for Indian villages were self-administering, and they generally policed themselves. The main policing task of Indian states was therefore confined to the cities. In this, the scene varied considerably from city to city. According to a rather incredible report of Abdur Razzak, Kozhikode in north Kerala was a haven of peace and security in the mid-fifteenth century. ‘Security and justice are so firmly established in this city,’ he writes, ‘that the most wealthy merchants bring thither from maritime countries considerable cargoes, which they unload, and unhesitatingly send them into the market and bazaars, without thinking in the meantime of any necessity of checking the account, or of keeping watch over the goods.’

The scene in most other Indian cities was entirely different, and they required elaborate law enforcement setups to preserve order in them. The head of the town police in Muslim states was the kotwal, who worked in
tandem with the military officers in the town. His main responsibility was to maintain law and order in the city, but he was also responsible for the upkeep of public utilities and for the regulation of markets. He also had diverse social responsibilities, such as the prevention of the circumcision of boys under twelve years age, the prevention of forced sati, the expulsion of religious impostors and charlatans, and so on. At night the towns were patrolled by the police. ‘Throughout the night the town of Bidar is guarded by 1000 men … mounted on horses in full armour, each carrying a light,’ reports Nikitin. The town gates were usually closed at sunset for security reasons, and would not be opened again till morning; those who arrived at the town after its gates were closed had to spend the night outside the town walls, but there were inns there for their accommodation.

Protecting the frontiers of their kingdom was a major concern of Indian rulers, and the Delhi sultans paid special attention to this, particularly in guarding their ever-vulnerable north-west frontier. ‘When we reached this river called Panj-ab, which is the frontier of the territories of the sultan of India and Sind, the officials of the intelligence service came to us and sent a report about us to the governor of the city of Multan,’ reports Battuta about his experiences at the frontier. ‘When the intelligence officials write to the sultan informing him of those who arrive in his country, he studies the report very minutely. The reporters therefore take utmost care in this matter, telling the sultan that a certain man has arrived of such-and-such appearance and dress, and noting the number of his party, salves and servants and beasts, his behaviour both in action and at rest, and all his doings, omitting no detail. When the new arrival reaches the town of Multan, which is the capital of Sind, he stays there until an order is received from the sultan regarding his entry and the degree of hospitality to be extended to him. A man is honoured in that country according to what may be seen of his actions, conduct, and zeal, since no one knows anything about his family or lineage … On the road to Multan … [at a river crossing] the goods and baggage of all who pass are subjected to a rigorous examination. Their custom at the time of our arrival was to take a quarter of everything brought in by merchants, and exact a duty of seven dinars for every horse.’

GATHERING INTELLIGENCE AND maintaining an efficient communication network were matters of high priority for most Indian rulers. Battuta was greatly impressed by the intelligence network of the Delhi Sultanate, by which the sultan was kept regularly and speedily informed about all that was happening in the various parts of his empire. This system was initially set up by Ala-ud-din Khalji, but it fell into disuse after him, till it was restored by Ghiyas-ud-din Tughluq. According to Battuta, the postmaster (chief
intelligence officer) of a region ‘is the person who keeps the sultan informed of the affairs in his town and district and all that happens in it and all who come to it.’

‘In India the postal service is of two kinds,’ continues Battuta. ‘The mounted couriers travel on horses belonging to the sultan, with relays at every four miles. The service of couriers on foot is organised in the following manner. At every third of a mile there is an inhabited village, outside which there are three pavilions. In these sit men girded up and ready to move off, each of whom has a rod a yard and a half long with brass bells at the top. When a courier leaves the town he takes the letter in … one hand, and the rod with bells in the other, and runs with all his might. The men in the pavilions, on hearing the sound of bells, prepare to meet him, and when he reaches them one of them takes the letter in his hand and passes on, running with all his might and shaking his rod until he reaches the next station, and so the letter is passed on till it reaches its destination. This post is quicker than the mounted post. It is sometimes used to transport fruits from Khurasan which are highly valued in India; they are put in covered baskets and carried with great speed to the sultan. In the same way they transport notorious criminals; they are each placed on a wooden frame and the couriers run carrying it on their heads. The sultan’s drinking water is brought to him by the same means when he resides at Daulatabad, from the river Kank (Ganga) … which is at a distance of forty days’ journey from there.’

Apart from this government postal system, there seems to have been also a private postal system in medieval India, presumably maintained by prominent trade guilds. The carriers of this system stationed themselves at markets and announced the names of those for whom he was carrying mail, so they could go to him and collect their letters.

The Delhi sultans were warlords. And so were most Hindu rajas. For instance, Vijayanagar, as Sastri comments, was ‘a war state … and its political organization was dominated by its military needs.’ Waging wars was the normal mode of life of most early medieval kings, as hunting is for predatory animals. And their hunger for land was generally insatiable. As the medieval Persian poet Saadi puts it:

If a holy man eats half his loaf,

he will give the other half to a beggar.

But if a king conquers all the world,

he will still seek another world to conquer.>

Even if a king did not have any belligerent intentions, he had to be ever prepared for war, for his very survival depended on it, as medieval Indian kingdoms were all invariably bordered by potential aggressors. In that environment, it was inevitably the martial capabilities of a king that primarily defined his worth. This attitude is reflected in the Rajput custom of a newly enthroned king engaging in a battle, or at least in a mock battle, right after his accession, for him to prove his worthiness for the throne.

The incessant sweep of armies all across the subcontinent—invariably accompanied by ravaging, pillaging wild tribes—was fatally disruptive of normal life in India and was ruinous to its economy. Medieval Indian armies were all predatory by nature. Pillaging the enemy or rebel lands was part of their normal operations, and even their advance through their own kingdom was often devastating. Men in fact joined the army not so much for the salary they were
given, as for the opportunity it offered for plunder during campaigns. For kings too, plundering the enemy or rebel lands was a normal and legitimate means for filling their treasuries. According to Ni’matullah, during Sikandar Lodi’s campaign against a rebel in Bayana, ‘the whole army was employed in plundering, and all the groves which spread their shade for seven kos around Bayana were torn up from their roots … He butchered most of the people who had fled for refuge to the hills and forests, and the rest he pillaged and put in fetters.’

Waging war on non-Muslims was considered as holy war in Islam, and it had the sanction of religion. But in most cases the claims made by sultans of waging holy wars were mere pretexts to mask their essentially predatory purpose. Their wars, even their wars against Hindu kings, usually had little or nothing to do with religion. In fact, sultans often waged pillaging wars against fellow Muslim kingdoms, just as they waged such wars against Hindu kingdoms. And rajas too often waged pillaging wars against fellow Hindu kingdoms, just as they waged such wars against Muslim kingdoms. In both cases, the invocation of religious spirit by kings at best served to rouse the combative fervour of their soldiers.

Medieval Indian wars were often unspeakably savage orgies of violence. In the case of Turco-Afghans, a relatively small troop of men in military occupation of a vast country teeming with alien people, ferocity was an essential survival requirement, to instil terror in their adversaries and thus gain a critical psychological advantage over them.

This, however, was only a contributing factor in the savagery of medieval wars. Wars, at all times and among all people everywhere in the world were savage. And Hindu kings were not far behind Turks in bestial ferocity in wars. Thus Bukka, the mid-fourteenth century king of Vijayanagar, during his campaign in the Raichur Doab, ordered all the inhabitants of a town there—men and women and even children—to be slaughtered. And when Bahmani sultan Muhammad Shah heard of this outrage, he, according to Ferishta, took a solemn oath ‘that till he had put to death one hundred thousand infidels, as an expiation for the massacre of the faithful, he would never sheathe the sword of holy war nor refrain from slaughter.’

In the ensuing battle the sultan routed the Vijayanagar army, and then set about slaughtering Hindus en-masse, ‘putting all to death without any distinction,’ reports Ferishta. ‘It is said that the slaughter amounted to 70,000 men, women and children … Not even pregnant women, or even children at the breast, escaped the sword … The slaughter was terrible … The inhabitants of every place around Vijayanagar … [were] massacred without mercy.’ Similarly, sultan Jalal-ud-din Khalji of Delhi during one of his campaigns ‘made the blood of the infidels flow in streams, and formed bridges with their heads,’ writes medieval poet Amir Khusrav.

SO IT WENT on and on. Thus when Devaraya of Vijayanagar fought against the Bahmani sultan Firuz Shah, ‘Hindus made a general massacre of Muslims, and erected a platform with their heads on the field of battle,’ recounts Ferishta. ‘And they wasted [the land] with fire and sword … demolished many mosques and holy places, slaughtered people without mercy … seeming to discharge their treasured malice and resentment of ages.’ Even Krishnadeva, one of the most cultured rulers of the age, burnt down villages and pillaged the countryside during his campaigns in Orissa and Bijapur.

European armies in India also indulged in the barbaric slaughter of innocent civilians at this time. Thus Vasco da Gama, the Portuguese explorer, during his 1504 second Indian campaign, wantonly butchered several hundred people in a vessel he captured along the Kerala coast, and soon after, on reaching Kozhikode, immediately bombarded the city, and set about slaying in cold blood some 800 harmless fishermen at the port. Similarly, Albuquerque, the early sixteenth-century Portuguese governor of Goa, on being attacked by the Bahmani army once, decapitated 150 principal Muslims in the town, and also slaughtered their wives and children, before evacuating the port. And a few months later, when he recaptured the port, he had some 6000 Muslim men, women and children there mercilessly slain. On the whole the behaviour of Christian soldiers was no different from the behaviour of Hindu and Muslim soldiers. All were equally savage. As Sewell comments, ‘Europeans seemed to think that they had a divine right to pillage, rob, and massacre the natives of India … Their whole record is one of a series of atrocities.’

In Kerala the chieftains there had the odd custom of turning battles into duels, which, though a savage sport, had the advantage of minimising bloodshed. ‘When they are in battle, and one army is distant from the other two ranges of a crossbow, the king says to the Brahmins, “Go to the camp of the enemy, and tell the king to let one hundred of his Naeri come, and I will go with a hundred of mine.” And thus they both go to the middle of the space, and begin to fight in this manner,’ reports Varthema. ‘And when four or six on either side are killed, the Brahmins enter into the midst of them, and make both parties return to their camp. And the said Brahmins immediately go to the armies on both sides, and say, “
Nur manezar hanno
?” The king answers, “
Matile
?” That is, the Brahmins ask, “Do you wish for any more fight?” And the king answers, “Enough, no?” And the rival king does the same. In this manner they fight, one hundred against one hundred. This is their mode of fighting.’

THIS MODE OF battle was evidently feasible only in small kingdoms with small armies. Major Indian kingdoms, of Hindus as well as of Muslims, but particularly Hindu kingdoms, deployed immense armies in battle, sometimes as many as several hundred thousand soldiers.

These armies consisted of a number of permanent divisions, as well as a large number of temporary recruits. In the case of the permanent Delhi Sultanate army, its core was made up of a central elite corps, a major division of which was stationed in the royal capital and it always accompanied the sultan on his campaigns, and served as his bodyguards. The other divisions of this elite army were stationed in various provincial forts and along the frontiers of the empire. Apart from this central army, the Sultanate army had several other contingents, recruited and maintained in the provinces by the fief (
iqta
) holders of the empire, and these contingents made up the bulk of the Sultanate army. The overall command of the entire army of the Sultanate was with an officer titled Ariz-i-mumalik, who functioned directly under the sultan.

The soldiers of the central elite corps were recruited with great care, their strength and skill tested in various ways, and their salaries adjusted according to their merit. ‘When anyone comes desiring to be enrolled in the army as an archer, he is given one of the bows to draw,’ reports Battuta. ‘They differ in stiffness, and his pay is graduated according to the strength he shows in drawing them. Anyone desiring to be enrolled as a trooper sets off his horse at a canter or gallop, and tries to hit a target set up there with his lance. There is also a ring there, suspended from a low wall; the candidate sets off his horse at a canter until he comes level to the ring, and if he lifts it off with his lance he is considered a good horseman. For those wishing to be enrolled as mounted archers there is a ball placed on the ground, and their pay is proportioned to their accuracy in hitting it with an arrow while going at a canter or gallop.’ There were presumably similar procedures for the recruitment of soldiers in the provincial armies of the Sultanate as well.

All soldiers were required to keep themselves fighting fit always, but the rigour of the royal control of the army varied from sultan to sultan, Balban and Ala-ud-din being particularly strict about it. On the whole, the Indian armies of the age were usually in fine fettle, as they were almost continuously engaged in wars.

THE MAIN WEAKNESS of the Indian armies was that none of them were cohesive forces, but were made up of different groups of soldiers based on their race, language and religion. In addition to these, Hindu soldiers were further divided by inviolable sect and caste taboos. These Hindu social divisions affected the armies of Muslim kings also, for they all had a large number of Hindus in them, particularly in the infantry.

The custom of recruiting Hindus into Muslim armies began right from the very first Muslim military penetration into India, the Arab conquest of Sind in the early eighth century. The practice continued under the Ghazni and Ghuri sultans, and it became quite pronounced under the Delhi sultans. The
provincial armies of the Delhi Sultanate in particular had a large proportion of Hindus. The dependence of the sultans on Hindu recruits became even more pronounced when the migration of Turks into India dwindled soon after the founding of the Delhi Sultanate, because of the interposition of Mongols between India and Central Asia. Later a small number of Europeans, mainly the Portuguese, joined the Indian armies, particularly in the Bahmani and Vijayanagar kingdoms.

And just as a large number of Hindu soldiers served under sultans, so also a fair number of Muslim soldiers served under rajas. Both these practices began from the very beginning of the history of the Hindu-Muslim military engagements—while Muhammad Qasim, the commander of the very first Muslim army invading India, had a number of Hindus in his army, his adversary, Dahar, the raja of Sind, had some 500 Arabs in his army. Similarly, in the mid-twelfth century, half a century before the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate, a number of Muslim soldiers are known to have served in the army of the Hoysalas in peninsular India. Later, the rajas of Vijayanagar also recruited a good number of Muslims for their armies.

There was a general preference in India at this time, in Muslim as well as Hindu kingdoms, to recruit foreigners for the army, particularly as cavalrymen, cannoneers and musketeers. According to Ferishta, the sultan of Bijapur employed in his army a large number of foreign soldiers, such as Afghans, Abyssinians, Arabs, Persians, Turks, Uzbeks, and so on. And both Bahmani and Vijayanagar kingdoms had several European soldiers in their armies, serving as cannoneers and musketeers. A number of Portuguese marksmen are recorded to have served in the army of Krishnadeva of Vijayanagar during his campaign against Adil Shah of Bijapur, and were particularly effective in shooting down the defenders on the fort walls of Raichur.

THE OFFICERS OF the Delhi Sultanate were paid their salaries either in cash or by assigning to them the revenues of particular tracts of land. Of these two modes of payment, the land revenue assignment,
iqta
, was generally preferred by the Delhi sultans—as well as by most Hindu kings—as it substantially reduced the administrative burden of the state. The officers who were thus allotted lands were required to meet, from the revenue of the lands given to them, the administrative expenses of their fiefs, maintain the military contingent assigned to them, and take their own salary.

The revenue from
iqta
lands was however only a part of the income of army officers. A major part of their income, as well as of the income of common soldiers, came from their share of war booty. Even though they were in medieval Indian sultanates generally allowed to keep only one-fifth of the booty they collected—instead of the four-fifth they were originally allowed to keep under
the Sharia prescription—this restriction was probably more than compensated by the abundance of booty they could collect during the innumerable wars waged by their kings. Cavalrymen, who played the most decisive role in medieval wars, were usually paid double the salary of infantrymen, and those who showed high valour in battle received special bonuses from the king.

Most Indian kingdoms maintained incredibly large armies, but it is hard to believe some of the figures given in medieval chronicles. Muhammad Tughluq’s army, according to Barani, was ‘as numerous as a swarm of ants or locusts.’ Arabic sources claim that the sultan’s army, central and provincial forces together, had a total strength of 900,000 soldiers! And Afif states that when Firuz Tughluq campaigned in Bengal he led an army that ‘consisted of 70,000 cavalry, innumerable infantry, 470 warlike elephants, and many barrier-breaking boats,’ and that the army that he led into Sind ‘consisted of 90,000 cavalry and 480 elephants.’

According to Barbosa, the king of Vijayanagar had ‘more than a hundred thousand men of war continually in his pay.’ And Krishnadeva in his battle against Adil Shah of Bijapur is said to have led an army ‘of about a million men, if camp-followers are included,’ according to the report of Nuniz. And Ramaraya in the battle of Talikota is said to have deployed, according to one estimate given by Ferishta, 900,000 infantry, 45,000 cavalry, and 2000 elephants, besides a large number of auxiliaries.