THE 13tH AND 1l4ts CENTURIES 45
In any case, the reign of Ghiyasuddin was too short to
establish a new tradition, and its main interest lies rather
in the formulation of policy than in the results achieved.
The soldier-king was interested, first of all, in the welfare
of the troops, and, next to them, in the prosperity of the
peasants. His ideal was that his peasants should maintain
the existing cultivation, and should effect a steady, if
gradual, extension as their resources increased; and he
realised that progress in this direction depended very
largely on the quality of the administration. Sudden and
heavy enhancements were, in his judgment, disastrous:
“when kingdoms are obviously ruined, it is due to the op-
pressiveness of the revenue and the excessive royal demand;
and ruin proceeds from destructive governors and officials.”
Ghiyasuddin thus stands in the line of succession from
Balban: his son was in a few years’ time to furnish a striking
example of the danger of departing from his policy.
5. MUHAMMAD TUGHLAQ (1325-1351)
Ghiyasuddin was succeeded by his son, Muhammad
Tughlaq. The character and capacity of this King have
been frequently discussed, and, since Ziya Barni is the
principal contemporary authority for the reign,! the dis-
cussion has necessarily involved the question of his im-
partiality: on the one hand, Professor Dowson curtailed
his translation of what he called ‘“a long strain of eulogy,”
on the other hand, Mr. Ishwari Prasad writes of him as
“bitterly prejudiced” against the King. The truth is, 1
take it, that the chronicler found himself confronted with
a task which was beyond his capacity. He could under-
stand, and depict, kings like Alauddin or Ghiyasuddin,
strong, simple, men with obvious motives; but Muhammad
was a more complex character. his conduct was a mass of
! Barni’'s account of this reign begins on p. 454; his estimates of the
King are on pp. 496-7, 504. Dowson’s remark quoted in the text is on
p. 235 of Elliot, iii; Mr. Ishwari Prasad’s criticisms are in Ch. X of his
Medieval India, especially the notes on p. 238, 260. Ibn Batiita, the
other contemporary authority, gives much interesting information re-
garding some aspects of the reign, but he throws little light on the agrarian
system.
