32 THE AGRARIAN SYSTEM OF MOSLEM INDIA Internal security was the first consideration, and, in or near the year 1300, the King took steps to bring his officers under closer control. His regulations issued with this object were numerous and varied, but the only measure which concerns us is the resumption of nearly all the existing Grants, which at his accession he had confirmed! to the holders, the idea being apparently that men of position should have no income independent of the King’s con- tinued favour. This measure is important as showing that Grants were in fact held merely at the King’s pleasure, and were liable to resumption at any time; but the area affected by it cannot have been large relatively to the extent of the kingdom, and the outstanding fact is the action which was taken about the same time to keep the Hindu Chiefs and rural leaders in subjection.? The view taken by Alauddin and his counsellors was that Chiefs and leaders would be rebellious so long as they had the resources necessary for rebellion; and a consideration of the actual position suggests that this view was probably sound. The Chiefs had behind them a long tradition of independence, maintained entirely by the sword: they cannot, in the mass, have had any particular reason for loyalty to the foreign rulers who had annexed the country by force, and who derived a large revenue from it; while the arrogance of individual Moslems? must have furnished on occasion a 1 Barni, 248, for confirmation; and 283, for resumption. The resump- tion extended to religious endowments as well as personal grants, and was effected summarily, ‘“ with one stroke of the pen,’”’ as Dowson rendered the passage. ? A translation of the passage dealing with this action is given in Appendix C. Barni speaks of ‘the Hindus,” but here, and in various other passages where the phrase occurs, the context makes it plain that he is thinking of the upper classes, not of the peasants. Taking his book as a whole, I would infer that he thought of the kingdom as consisting not of two elements but of three—Moslems, Hindus, and the “herds,” or peasants. In this passage, the details which follow show that the question really at issue was how to break the power of the rural leaders, the Chiefs and the headmen of parganas and villages; in point of fact, the regulation was favourable to the smaller peasants, in so far as it insisted on the leaders bearing their fair share of the burden—the weak were not to pay for the strong. 3 See Barni, 290, for an extreme instance of this arrogance. The Qazi of Bayana laid it down as Islamic law that Hindus must show the utmost reverence to the collector of revenue, so that ‘“if the collector spits into a Hindu’s mouth, the Hindu must open his mouth to receive it without objection ”’