40 THE AGRARIAN SYSTEM OF MOSLEM INDIA 
the reign was characterised by vigorous, direct adminis- 
tration, and not by such expedients as F arming or Assign- 
ment. 
4. GHIYASUDDIN TUGHLAQ (1320-1325) 
Alauddin’s system did not survive its creator! His son 
and successor, Qutbuddin, a charming and popular lad, 
devoted himself entirely to pleasure. He formulated no 
agrarian policy of his own, but his father’s minute regulations 
were allowed to lapse in their entirety. The revenue- 
Demand was reduced, but in what manner is not recorded ; 
the work of the Revenue Ministry fell into disorder; specu- 
lative Farmers appeared; Grants and Assignments were 
made lavishly; and the capital, following the king’s example, 
indulged in a period of debauchery, during which the ad- 
ministration went to pieces. Qutbuddin was eventually 
murdered by a favourite, who ascended the throne and 
exterminated the royal family; but the favourite and his 
adherents were in turn exterminated by Ghiyasuddin 
Tughlaq, a Frontier veteran who, in the absence of any 
other candidate, became king with general consent. 
Ghiyasuddin reorganised the revenue administration of 
the kingdom. The proportion of produce which he claimed 
is uncertain, and the point is discussed later on ; he dis- 
carded Measurement in favour of Sharing; and he restored 
the Chiefs to something like the position they had lost. 
His reasons for changing the method of assessment are 
indicated in the phrase, “he relieved the peasants from the 
innovations and apportionments of crop-failure,” a phrase 
which is cryptic as it stands, but which can be interpreted 
from the later history of assessment by Measurement. 
Under this method, the peasant’s liability depended on the 
area sown, and consequently he was, in theory, bound to 
pay the full Demand even though the crop might be an 
entire failure. In practice, however, such a rule could not 
! Barni (pp. 381 ff.) is again the only contemporary authority for the 
reigns of Qutbuddin and Ghiyasuddin. It is clear that he was a great 
admirer of the latter's reforms, but his account is extremely crabbed and 
unsystematic; from the style, I judge it to be a compilation, from notes or 
from memory, of phrases which he had heard directly from the King. 
A transiation will be found in Appendix C.