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.
