Ala-ud-din Khalji: Why the ‘people’s king’ was made out to be a monster by 16th century chroniclers Hitskin_logo Hitskin.com

This is a Hitskin.com skin preview
Install the skinReturn to the skin page

Coffeehouse for desis
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Ala-ud-din Khalji: Why the ‘people’s king’ was made out to be a monster by 16th century chroniclers

Go down

 Ala-ud-din Khalji: Why the ‘people’s king’ was made out to be a monster by 16th century chroniclers Empty Ala-ud-din Khalji: Why the ‘people’s king’ was made out to be a monster by 16th century chroniclers

Post by Guest Sun Oct 29, 2017 12:01 am

But why did 16th century writers make a monster out of one of the greatest rulers to ever grace the throne of Delhi?
If a man’s greatness can truly be measured by his enemies, then Khalji more than made the cut. His policies, as the 14th century chronicler and author of Tarikh-i-Firozshahi Zia-ud-din Barani laments, helped the Ajlaf (men of low birth) rise to positions of power while the Ashraf (men of noble birth) lost their status and authority.


Khalji’s taxation system broke new ground by fixing the land tax at 50% of the produce for every cultivator, after carefully measuring their land.


Parallelly, Khalji dealt with contumacious and corrupt intermediaries involved in revenue collection by greatly reducing their privileges. Khots, Muqaddams, Chaudharis had been exempt from paying ghari (house tax) and charai (cattle grazing tax) from their own pockets. They would extract the amount from the cultivator over and above the state’s share. Khalji ordered them to pay on their own. Other taxes such as huquq-i-khoti and qismat-i-khoti, exacted from the cultivator by the intermediaries, were also abolished. This system, argues Barani, was put in place so that the “burden of the strong is not borne by the weak”. While this maybe an exaggeration, given Khalji’s taxation system was both heavy and regressive, abolishing additional cesses did provide minor relief to the cultivator. Khalji ensured these rules were followed by establishing an effective espionage system.


Interestingly, as the historian Ramya Sreenivasan points out, the intermediaries whose fortunes took a hit during Khalji’s reign belonged to the social group that came to be identified, 16th century onwards, as the “Rajput”. Another historian, Irfan Habib, quotes an 18th century source as noting that before the advent of Muslim rule in India, the rajas “whose descendants are called Rajputs” used to collect the land tax from cultivators, and that their lot changed drastically after Khalji established a new taxation system.


Although Khalji openly antagonised the ancestors of 16th century Rajputs, Barani recalls how the sultan’s military prowess ensured “no one dared make any babble or noise” against him. One can imagine Khalji’s adversaries being awed when he successfully repelled a series of Mongol invasions. Stemming the overwhelming tide of successful Mongol conquests from Iran to China required not only excellent military acumen but also a stable administration. After a close shave with the Mongols in 1303 AD at Siri, Khalji introduced price controls in the markets of Delhi that not only lowered prices but also brought down wages. Coupled with a steady flow of revenue to the imperial treasury, the sultan could now expand his army at a reasonable cost. This levelheaded approach worked, and he was able to defeat the Mongols in pitched battles of Amroha and Ravi.


Having saved his empire from one of the mightiest armies to have ever marched, Khalji would have been a force to reckon with in the subcontinent and beyond. Furthermore, he led a series of campaigns in the Deccan, Rajasthan and Gujarat, where kingdoms fell like ninepins before his formidable military. No Khot, Muqaddam or Chaudhari – ancestors of the Rajputs – stood a chance against Khalji while he lived.


However, in the 16th century, the Rajputs sought to salvage their hurt pride by maligning Khalji in fictional accounts – the general idea being to reduce his conquests as a madman’s pursuit of lust. Padmavat, patronised by the Rajput chieftain Raja Jagat Deva, and Chhitai Varta, funded by the Rajput warlord Silhadi Purbiya, distilled the Rajputs’ animosity for the sultan who had decimated the power of their ancestors.


https://scroll.in/article/854706/ala-ud-din-khalji-why-the-peoples-king-was-made-out-to-be-a-monster-by-16th-century-chroniclers

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

 Ala-ud-din Khalji: Why the ‘people’s king’ was made out to be a monster by 16th century chroniclers Empty Re: Ala-ud-din Khalji: Why the ‘people’s king’ was made out to be a monster by 16th century chroniclers

Post by Guest Sun Oct 29, 2017 12:14 am

Hats off to Khalji for saving India from the mongol invasions. the mongols had easily defeated the contemporary chinese kings and in fact had established a mongol empire in China.

-----

Although Khalji openly antagonised the ancestors of 16th century Rajputs, Barani recalls how the sultan’s military prowess ensured “no one dared make any babble or noise” against him. One can imagine Khalji’s adversaries being awed when he successfully repelled a series of Mongol invasions. Stemming the overwhelming tide of successful Mongol conquests from Iran to China required not only excellent military acumen but also a stable administration. After a close shave with the Mongols in 1303 AD at Siri, Khalji introduced price controls in the markets of Delhi that not only lowered prices but also brought down wages. Coupled with a steady flow of revenue to the imperial treasury, the sultan could now expand his army at a reasonable cost. This levelheaded approach worked, and he was able to defeat the Mongols in pitched battles of Amroha and Ravi.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

 Ala-ud-din Khalji: Why the ‘people’s king’ was made out to be a monster by 16th century chroniclers Empty Re: Ala-ud-din Khalji: Why the ‘people’s king’ was made out to be a monster by 16th century chroniclers

Post by Guest Sun Oct 29, 2017 12:17 am

i am saddened that due to these fictional accounts giving incorrect and false information the reputation of Khalji has taken a beating. in the minds of many contemporary Indians, Khalji was a monster.

----

However, in the 16th century, the Rajputs sought to salvage their hurt pride by maligning Khalji in fictional accounts – the general idea being to reduce his conquests as a madman’s pursuit of lust. Padmavat, patronised by the Rajput chieftain Raja Jagat Deva, and Chhitai Varta, funded by the Rajput warlord Silhadi Purbiya, distilled the Rajputs’ animosity for the sultan who had decimated the power of their ancestors.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

 Ala-ud-din Khalji: Why the ‘people’s king’ was made out to be a monster by 16th century chroniclers Empty Re: Ala-ud-din Khalji: Why the ‘people’s king’ was made out to be a monster by 16th century chroniclers

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum