Causes for the downfall of the Delhi Sultanate

Responsibility of Muhamud Tughluq:  Muhammad Tughluq was somewhat responsible for the downfall of the Tughlaq Empire. His transfer of the capital from Delhi to Daulatabad brought a lot of misery to the people. His introduction of the token currency emptied the treasury .His attempt to conquer Khorasan cost him a good deal. His taxation of the Doab turned its inhabitants into enemies of the empire. His personal character also was responsible for creating a large number of enemies of the empire. No wonder, there were many revolts in many parts of the empire. It was during his time that the Bahmani kingdom was set up in the Deccan, Likewise, it was during his reign that the Vljayanagar empire was established. All his time was spent in crushing one rebellion or the other and even when he died in 1351, he was fighting against the nobles. There is no exaggeration in saying that even before the death of Muhammad Tughluq, the process of disintegration had already started. This disintegration could have been stopped, if Muhammad Tughluq had been, succeeded by a strong personality, but that was not to be. He was succeeded by Firuz Tughluq who was not and made himself popular with the people but the lack of martial qualities in him could not enable him to re-conquer those part of India which were once parts of the Delhi sultanate. He did not take any action at all against the Hindu empire at Vijayanagar and the Muslim state known as Bahmani Kingdom.

Responsibility of Firuz-Tughluq:  The condition worsened under the successors of Firuz Tughluq. Ghiyasud-din Tughluq, Shahil, thus Bakr shah, and Nasir-ud-din Muhammad, Ala-ud-din Sikandar shah and Nasir-ud-din Muhammad who ruled from 1388 to 1413 were too weak to conquer those parts of the empire which had become independent. As a matter of fact even those parts of India which were under Firuz Tughluq, had became independent during their reigns, The result was that he process of disintegration, instead of begin stopped, was accelerated during the reigns of the weak successors of Firuz Tughluq. Those rulers contented themselves with their personal pleasures. They spent time in mutual fights. They sent armies to plunder and massacre the people but they did nothing to give the people a good administration which alone could win their confidence and loyalty.

Economic cause: Firuz Tughluq made many mistakes which contributed to the down fall of the Tughluq dynasty. He revived the Jagir system. He gave large jagirs to his great nobles instead of giving them salaries. The jagirs often amounted to viceroyalties. Large districts and even provinces were assigned to eminent persons. Kara and Dalamau were granted to Mardan Daulat with the title of "king of the East". Oudh, Sandila and Zoli formed separate jagirs. Janpur and Zafrabad were given to antoher Amir. Gujarat was given to Sikandar khan and Bihar was given to Bir Afghan. All these nobles were expected to defend their frontiers and manage their internal affairs. In course of time, these Jagirs defied the authority of the Delhi Sultan and set up independent kingdoms at the cost of Tughluq empire. It was Firuz Tughluq who set in motion the centrifugal forces which ultimately led to the breakup of his empire. It was during the reign of the successors of Firuz that the province of Oudh and the country to the east of the Ganges as far as the borders of Bengal were formed into an independent kingdom of Jaunpur. The provinces of Gujurat, Malwa and khandesh cut off their connection with Delhi and became independent states. A Hindu principality was established in Gwalior. Muslim principalities were set up in Bauyana end Kalpi. Chiefs of Mewar were practically independent and they shifted their allegiance from one authority to another according to the circumstance. The Hindus of the Doab were almost continually in revolt and the rulers of Delhi had merely to content themselves with whatever they were able to realize with the help of their armed forces. Another mistake made by Firuz Tughluq was that he created a large army of salves which became a menace in the time of his successors. The number of slave in the reign of Firuz Tughluq was about 1,80,000 out of whom 40,000 were enlisted for service in the palace of the Sultan. lt is true that by increasing the number of slaves Firuz -Tughluq was able to add the number of converts to lslam and these slaves interfered with the administration of the country and ultimately became an important cause of the disintegration of Tughluq empire. We did not hear of eminent slaves like Qutb-ud-din Aibak, Iltutmish and Balban who were responsible for the greatness of the so called slave dynasty. The slaves of Firuz Tughluq were merely a negative force who did not bother to gain even at the cost of the empire. No wonder, the army of slaves recruited by Firuz Tughluq became a liability. Firuz Tughluq made another mistake which also contributed to the fall of the Tughluq dynasty. A majority of the army men in his reign were paid by transferable assignments on the royal revenues. Those assignments were purchased at Delhi by a professional class at about one-third of their value. Those were sold to the soldiers in the districts at one-half. This practice led to great abuse and the discipline of the army suffered. Firuz Tughluq also ordered that when a soldier became old, his son or son-inlaw or even his slave could succeed him. Service in the army was made hereditary and considerations of fitness and merit were ignored. Most of the army of Firuz Tughluq consisted of quotas supplied by the nobles. This army could not be, controlled by the central Government as their recruitment; promotion and discipline were in the hands of the nobles and not in the hands of the Sultan. The weakening of the military machine, on whom alone depended the integrity of the empire, was suicidal and Firuz Tughluq must be held responsible for the same.

Religious policy: His religious policy was also partly responsible for the fall of the Tughluq dynasty. Firuz Tughluq was a staunch Sunni Muslim. He took pleasure in persecuting the non-Muslims and the Hindus. The temples of the Hindus were destroyed and their idols were broken and insulted. Their books were burnt. The Hindus were converted to lslam by threats and temptations. Jizia was extracted from them with great strictness. Even the Brahmans were not spared. A Brahman was put to death on the charge that he was seducing the Muslims to give up their religion. To Sayyids were put to death in Katehar. Firuz Tughluq attacked katehar and under his orders thousands of Hindus were killed and 23,000 of them were taken prisoners and converted into slaves. This process was repeated for 5 years. That shows the bitterness of feeling which Firuz Tughluq had for the Hindus. Similar was the treatment given by Firuz Tughluq to the non sunni Muslims. The Mujhid and Abahtiyan were imprisoned and banished. The Mehdrins were punished. Their leader Rukh-ud-din was turn to pieces and Firuz tughluq took pride in the fact that God had made him the instrument of putting down such wickedness. He was also cruel towards the Shias. Their books were burnt in public and they themselves were killed. By following such a religious policy, Firuz Tughluq won over the good will of the Ulmas, Shaikhas, Sayyids and Muslim divines but by doing so he alienated an overwhelming majority of the people to such an extent that by his action he undermined the very foundations of his empire. Firuz Tughluq ignored altogether the fact that will and no force is the basis of the state. By his actions, he failed to win over the affection of the people. The basic principle of the Muslim state in the 14th century was force. The awe and fear in which the ruling class was held disappeared .Firuz Tughluq, it at all, was loved and not feared by his subjects. The result was that the people defied the authority of the state and became in dependent and the empire began to disintegrate.

Theocratic character of the state: The theocratic character of the state adversely affected its efficiency. The influence of the Mullahs and Muftis proved disastrous in the long run. A state where the bulk of the population was that of the non-Muslims could not be governed for long by a law which followed the precepts of the Quran. Moral Decay: After conquering lndia, the Muslims got everything. They got plenty of wealth, women and wine. They started living a life of ease. They lost their old grit and manliness. They behaved like a disorderly mob in the midst of a campaign. The qualities of generalship disappeared and an army consisting of such person could not keep down the Hindus or fight against the foreign invaders.

Hindu Revolt : Although the Hindus had been subjected to a foreign rule for a long time, they did not give up their effort to become free and independent. it took more than 150 years to conquer and annex Ranthambor. Although the Doab is situated very near to Delhi, it was never submissive. The Hindus always continued to revolt and the control of the Delhi sultanate was merely nominal. No wonder, as soon as the authority of the Delhi Sultanate became weak, they revolted and became independent in various parts of India.

Other factor: According to Dr. Lane Poole, inter-marriages with the Hindus was one of the causes of the fall of the Tughluq dynasty. However, this view is net accepted. It is pointed out that although Firuz Tughluq had a Hindu mother, he did not show any leniency towards the Hindus. even the subsequent events did not support the contention of Lane-poole. Akbar adopted the policy of matrimonial alliances with the Hindus in order to strengthen his empire and it cannot be denied that he succeeded in doing so. It is only when that policy was reversed by Aurangzeb that the down fall of the Mughal empire took place. However, it cannot be denied that the invasion of India by Timor gave a death blow to the Tughluq dynasty. Even at the time of invasion, there were two rulers, namely, Mahmud Shah and Nusrat khan, who claimed at the same time to be the rulers of Delhi. The manner in which the people of Delhi were massacred and plundered must have completely destroyed the very foundations of the Tughluq empire. We are told that for three months Delhi had no ruler at all. There was utter confusion and disorder in the country. The various provinces became completely independent and there was none to take any action against them. Even after his restoration, Mahmud shah did nothing to restore law and order within the territory under his control. He devoted all his time to pleasure and debauchery. Na wonder, such an empire disappeared. There was nothing left to justify its existence. The disintegration of the Delh sultanate gave a chance to the Hindu rulers to establish their power and revive their culture. It brought about a blending in Hindu Muslim culture.

Conclusion: The disintegration of the Delhi sultanate started during the reigns of Muhammad Tughluq and Firuz Tughluq and the process could not be checked by their incompetent successors. The situation was no better during the reign of the Sayyid and Lodi rulers and the result was that there came into existence a large number of independent dynasties in various parts of the erstwhile Delhi sultanate.

THE DECLINE OF THE MUGHAL EMPIRE

History proved beyond doubt that every Empire that evolved and flourished across centuries created its own grave-diggers. As is the case, the historians of all hues since the 18 Century have debated the causes of the decline of Mughal Empire. The notion of decline envisages a prior state of perfection, efflorescence, harmony, and cohesion, in contrast to corruption, moral degradation, and loss of ethical values, principles, and customs. Hence, historians wish to understand the phenomenon of change and its causes. For instance, social decay, deterioration of the previous order, and belief and long spells of chaos and disorder are considered the causes of such decline.

The OUP’s The Decline of the Mughal Empire, edited by Meena Bhargava provides a series of coherent answers to this question through a collage of ideas brought forth by many eminent historians as part of its Debates in Indian History and Society series. While there were divergent views and debates among historians about the withering of the “mammoth imperial banyan tree”, this collection attempts to focus on different paradigms or assumptions that have shaped interpretations on the decline of Mughal Empire.

According to the authors, the causes of the decline of the Mughal Empire can be grouped under the following heads: a) deterioration of land relations; b) emergence of regional powers as successor states; c) selfish struggle of nobles at the court; d) lack of initiative in modern weapons; e) lack of control over the bankers of the state and above all f) Aurangzeb’s Deccan campaign.

Unlike Emperor Akbar who preferred paying his officials’ salaries directly from the state treasury, his successors Shahjahan and Aurangzeb opted for jagirs(temporary allotment of lands to officials for their services – which may be according to the satisfaction of the Emperor) and Paibaqi (revenue from reserved lands which was sent to the central treasury). While the jagirdars tried to extract as much from the land by oppressing the peasants within a short period, the zamindars (who were given powers to manage the lands belongs to the state by managing the peasants and delivering the state’s prescribed share to the treasury) became a subordinate class within the ruling elite of the Mughal Empire. There was a constant clash of interest between the nobles at the Emperor’s court and zamindars. Consequently the main danger to law and order came from zamindars who refused to pay the revenue and had to be cowed down or destroyed by force.

The politics that emerged upon the collapse of the Mughal Empire was two kinds. In one class the ‘succession states’ like Hyderabad, Bengal and Awadh, which were really fragments of the Empire, had to stand on their own as the central government decayed and became powerless to assist or assert. In the second category were the Maratha confederacy, the Jats, the Sikhs and the Afghans. Their origins as polities were independent of Mughal Empire.

Mysore under Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan stood outside these two categories, and was in some ways most remarkable. It made a conscious attempt to implant Mughal administrative institutions in an area that had only been nominally a part of Mughal Empire. At the same time, it was the first state in India to make a beginning towards modernisation, first and foremost in the realm of the military and in the manufacture of weapons, but also in commerce, where the English East India Company’s practices were sought to be imitated.

The nobles found that their careers were not linked to talent and that loyal and useful service was ‘no security against capricious dismissal and degradation’. Their (selfish) struggle necessarily ranged them in factions, each group or bloc trying to push the fortunes of its members and hinder the success of its rivals. However, only some of them could establish their dominance . In order to sustain their power in court, these nobles had surreptitious relations with regional governors, zamindars and other chieftains. It is the case of Mushid Quli of Bengal who through his clout among the nobles at the court, effected reforms in revenue which ultimately led to the formation of a new, regional ruling group.

The period of imperial decline coincided with the increasing involvement of banking firms in revenue collections at regional and local levels. It brought bankers, more directly than before, into positions of political power all over India. In contrast to their earlier policies, the bankers extended trade and credit transactions to newcomers, the Dutch and the English. Ironically, the Jagat Seths (Imperial Treasurers) who helped the East India Company to overthrow Nawab Sirajuddaula, were cut to size by the same Robert Clive who stopped the allowance of Seths as ministers of the Nawab in 1770. Ultimately, they ceased to be Company Bankers by 1772.

In a sense, the Deccan Campaign became Aurangzeb’s Waterloo. In his eagerness for further expansion, Aurangzeb exposed to incessant raiding districts in the Deccan that were formerly secure from outside attack. Unlike Emperor Akbar, who assimilated Rajputs within his kingdom, Aurangzeb was unable to effectively assimilate the Maratha, Bedar, Gond or Telugu warrior chiefs formerly living in areas beyond the reach of direct administration by a Muslim state as imperial elites. Failure to sustain imperial officers in the province resulted in intensified disorder and defiance of imperial authority. Even though they were stationed in the Deccan, the Mughals failed to defeat the Marathas. It was these protracted wars that produced the signs of decline, namely an imbalance between the number of jagirdars and the jagirs available, peasant revolts and disloyal nobility. Together with the emergence of regional dynastic rulers who pioneered processes of growth and regeneration, the Mughal Empire did not fall -- it was simply swallowed by a larger political organism. The Company was waiting on the wings to gobble them up whole soon.

For students of history, this attempt is really an opportunity to understand the inherent contradictions that prevailed under the Mughal Empire, which ultimately led to the emergence of British colonial rule in India.

THE PRESIDENT OF INDIAN UNION

At the head of the Union Executive stands the President of India. The executive power of the Union including the Supreme command of Defence Forces is vested in him. But the executive power of the Union vested in the President must be exercised in accordance with the Constitution and the Constitution prescribes that there shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President in the exercise of his functions (Article 74).

Qualifications : In order to be qualified for election

as President, a person must

(a) be a citizen of India;

(b) have completed the age of 35 years;

(c) be qualified for election as a member of the

House of the People; and

(d) must not hold any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State or under any local or any other authority, subject to the control of any of the

said Governments (Article. 58).

Election of the President: The President of India is indirectly elected through an electoral college consisting of (a) the elected members of both the Houses of

Parliament; and (b) the elected members of the Legislative Assemblies of the State.

The election takes place on the basis of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote system. The voting is done by secret ballot. For ensuring uniformity in the scale of representation of different States at the elction of the President the formula used is as follows :

Population of State+100 Elected Members of the State Legislative Assembly

=No. of votes which each Member of State Legislative Assembly is entitled to cast..

The Constitution also says that parity shall also be maintained between the States as a whole and the Union. This condition is secured by the following formula:

Total number of votes of all the Legislative Assemblies

Total number of elected members of both Houses of Parliament = No. of votes which each elected member of Parliament is entiled to cast.

Terms of Office : The President holds office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office. However, this term may be cut short if he resigns from office before the expiry of five years by writing addressed to the Vice-President; or if he is removed from office through impeachment on grounds of violation of the Constitution. Similarly, his term stands automatically extended beyond the expiry date if his successor is not elected or does not assume office.

Under the Constitution, the President is eligible for re-election. Here it may be noted that the Constitution of U.S.A. imposes a ban on the re-election of the President for more than two full terms.

Impeachment of the President : The President of India can be removed from his office before the expiry of his normal term through the process of impeachment. He can be impeached only on grounds of violation of the Constitution.

An impeachment is a quasi-judicial procedure in Parliament. Either House may prefer the charge of violation of the Constitution before the other House which shall then either

investigate the charge itself or cause the charge to be investigated. But the charge cannot be preferred by a House unless —

(a) a resolution containing the proposal is moved after a 14 days’ notice in writing signed by not less than one-fourth of the total number of members of that House; and

(b) the resolution is then passed by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total

membership of the House.

The President shall have the right to appear and to be represented at such investigation. If, as a result of the investigation, a resolution is passed by not less than two-thirds of the total membership of the House before which the charge has been preferred declaring that it sustained,such resolution shall have the effect of removing the President from his office with effect from the date on which such resolution is passed.

Vacancy in the Office of the President: If the office of the President falls vacant due to death, resignation or removal of the President, fresh elections must be held within six months of the occurrence of the vacancy. The person elected to fill the vacancy is entitled to hold the office for the full term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office. During the interval between the date of vacancy and the date when the new President assumes office, the Vice- President of India acts as the President.

Similarly, if” the President is unable to discharge his functions owing to absence, illness or any other reason, the Vice-President discharges his functions until the date on which the President resumes his duties.

While the Vice-President acts as the President or discharges the functions of President, he enjoys all the powers and immunities of the President and is entitled to such emoluments, allowances and privileges as are enjoyed by the President.

It may be noted that if per chance the Vice-President is not available to discharge the duties of the President, the Chief Justice of India and in his absence the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court acts as President.

The Constitution of India provides for a Parliamentary Systemof Government in which the formal executive power of the Union is vested in the President. The ‘executive power’ primarily means the execution of the laws enacted by the Legislature. The executive power may, in short, be defined as ‘the power of carrying on the business of Government’ or ‘the administration of the affairs of the State’, excepting functions which are vested by the Constitution in any other authority. The ambit of the executive power has been explained by the Supreme Court as “the residue of Governmental functions that remain after legislative and judicial functions are taken away.”

The President of India enjoys vast administrative, legislative and various other powers.

However, the President exercises his executive powers under various Constitutional

limitations. The limitations may be, briefly, mentioned as follows :

(1) The Constitution explicitly requires that Ministers other than the Prime Minister

can be appointed by the President only on the advice of the Prime Minister.

(2) According to Article 74(1) the executive powers shall be exercised by the

President of India in accordance with the advice of the Council of Ministers.

Prior to 1976 there was no express provision in the Constitution that the President was bound to act in accordance with the advice tendered by the Council of Ministers. It was judicially established that the President of India was not a real executive, but a Constitutional head, who was bound to act according to the advice of Ministers, so long as they commanded the confidence of the majority in the House of People.

Refusal to act according to the advice given to the President by the Council of Ministers, headed by the Prime Minister, will render the President liable to impeachment.

The various powers included within the comprehensive expression ‘executive power’ can be classified under the following heads :

Administrative Powers : In the matter of administration, the Indian President is not a real head of the executive like the American President. However, though the various Departments of Government of the Union will be under the control and responsibility of the respective Ministers in charge, the President will remain the formal head of the administration. And so, all executive action of the Union is expected to be taken in the name of the President. All contracts and assurances of property made on behalf of the Government of India is expected to be made by the President and executed in the manner as per the direction of the President.

Again, though he may not be the ‘real’ head of the administration, all officers of the Union are considered to be his subordinates and the President has a right to be informed of the affairs of the Union.

The President’s administrative power includes the power to appoint and remove the high dignitaries of the State like the Prime Minister and other Ministers of the Union, the Attorney-

General, the Comptroller and Auditor-General and so on.

However, the Indian Constitution does not vest in the President any absolute power to appoint inferior officers of the Union as is to be found in the American Constitution. The Indian Constitution, thus, seeks to avoid the undesirable ‘spoils system’ of America under which about twenty per cent of the federal civil officers are filled in by the President without consulting the Civil Service Commission.

In the matter of removal of civil servants (who are serving under the Union and hold office during the President’s pleasure), the Constitution has provided certain conditions and procedures subject to which only the President’s pleasure may be exercised, (Article 311(2)).

Military Powers : The Supreme command of the Defence Forces is vested in the President of India, but the Constitution expressly lays down that the exercise of this power shall be regulated by law.

Diplomatic Powers : The President represents the nation in international affairs, appoints Indian representatives to other countries; receives diplomatic representatives of other States; and has the power of making treaties and implementing them, subject, of course, to ratification by Parliament.

Legislative Powers : Like the Crown of England, the President of India is a component part of

the Union Parliament. The legislative powers of the President, to be exercised according to

Ministerial advice, includes —

(i) Summoning, prorogation of both Houses of Parliament, and dissolution of the lower

House.

(ii) The right to address and to send messages to either House of Parliament either in regard

to any pending Bill or to any other matter.

(iii) Nomination of members to the Houses. The President nominates 12 members to the

Council of States from persons having special knowledge or practical experience in the

fields of literature, science, art and social service. He is also empowered to nominate not

more than two members to the House of People from the Anglo-Indian community, if he

is of opinion that the Anglo-Indian community is not adequately represented in that

House.

(iv) Laying reports, etc. before Parliament like the budget, report of the Auditor-General

relating to the accounts of the Government of India, recommendations of the Finance

Commission, reports of the UPSC, the Special Officer for SCs and STs, Commission

on backward classes, the Special Officer for linguistic minorities etc.

(v) Previous sanction of legislation relating to formation of new States or the alteration of

boundaries, a Money Bill, a bill involving expenditure from the Consolidated Fund of

India, a bill affecting taxation in which States are interested or affecting the principles

laid down for distributing moneys to the States and so on.

(vi) Assent to legislation and veto.

(vii) Disallowance of State legislation : There is no provision in the Constitution of

India for a direct disallowance of State legislation by the President, but there is

provision for disallowance of such bills as are reserved by the State Governor for the

assent of the President. The President may also direct the Governor to return the Bill to

the State Legislature for reconsideration; if the Legislature again passes the Bill by an

ordinary majority, the Bill shall be presented again to the President for his

reconsideration. But if he refuses his assent again, the Bill fails.

(viii) Ordinance-making power : The President enjoys the power to legislate by ordinance when Parliamentary enactment on the subject is not possible. An ordinance may relate to any subject in respect of which Parliament has the right to legislate and is subject to the same limitations as legislation by Parliament. Thus, an ordinance cannot contravene the Fundamental Rights any more than an Act of Parliament.

The ordinance must be laid before Parliament when it reassembles, and shall automatically cease to have effect at the expiration of six weeks from the date of re-assembly unless disapproved earlier by Parliament.

Judicial Powers, : Article 72( 1) of the Constitution of India states that the President shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence.

Emergency Powers : The President has extraordinary powers to deal with emergencies. He is given the power to make a proclamation of emergency on the ground of threat to the security of India or any part thereof, by war, external aggression or armed rebellion. He also has the power to make a proclamation that the Government of a State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution (i.e., breakdown of Constitutional machinery).

The President is empowered to declare that a situation has arisen whereby the financial stability or credit of India or of any part thereof is threatened (Article 360).

Discretionary Powers : There can be at least two situations in which the President may have to take a decision in his discretion, because the advice of the Ministers may not be available. Such a situation arose in 1979 after Morarji Desai’s resignation as Prime Minister. The President did not invite Jagjivan Ram. He accepted the advice of Charan Singh, and dissolved the Lok Sabha. The President took his action in his discretion.

There is no mention of the term ‘discretion’, in the Constitution, in connection with the powers of the President. However, eminent Constitutional experts like D.D. Basu, N.A. Palkhiwala,

T.K. Tope, H.M. Seervai and V.M. Tarkunde are of the opinion that like the Queen of England, the President of India has discretion in the appointment of Prime Minister, and dissolution of Lok Sabha. In normal times, the President acts according to well established customs.