26 THE AGRARIAN SYSTEM OF MOSLEM INDIA

revenue, the case was one for military force; and if rebellion
in this sense was widespread or serious, the King might lead,
or send, a punitive expedition! to put matters right. It is
reasonable to infer that rebellion was conditioned largely
by distance or accessibility, that it was comparatively rare
near the provincial capital, and comparatively common near
the boundaries; and that there might be areas where the
Chiefs were practically independent, because the Governor
was not in a position to reduce them to submission. In
any case, the relations between a Chief and his peasants
would not be affected by the establishment of Moslem rule,
except in so far as more money might have to be raised in
order to pay the revenue; inside the villages the established
agrarian svstem would continue to function.

2. THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY

There is no record of any large change in the agrarian
system of the Delhi kingdom earlier than that which was
effected by Alauddin Khalji about the year 1300, and the
question arises whether any inference can be drawn from
the silence of the chroniclers regarding the thirteenth
century. So far as the first half of the century is concerned,
I do not consider silence as necessarily significant. Minhajul
 Sirdj, the chronicler of this period, was an ecclesiastical
jurist, who for long periods was at the head of the qazis of
the kingdom; his chronicle shows no trace of interest in
economic or social matters; and I think it is quite possible
that he might have ignored changes of importance in the
agrarian system. He might indeed have noticed discussions
as to the legality of the system, if they had occurred in his
time, for in that case he would necessarily have taken part
in them; but he was courtier as well as qazi,? and it is easy

! For examples, see Barn, 57 ff. Balban did not dare to go on distant
wars of conquest owing toc the threat from the Mongols on the frontier,
but he spent much of his time in these punitive expeditions, to Mewit,
or Kanauj, or Badiiin, as necessity arose.
.* His praise of King Balban is extravagant, but he does not mention
the fact, recorded by Barni (p. 47), that this King paid no attention to
Islamic law in matters of government. The topic was certainry important
to a man in his position, but it was obvicusly an inconvenient one at a
time when Balban ruled the kingdom.