Get complete information on the fiscal policy of the Sultanate Period

The fiscal policy of the Sultanate period was based on the theory of finance of the Hanafi School of Sunni jurists. The Muslim state had two sources of revenue and those were religious and secular. The religious taxes could be demanded only from the Muslims and those were grouped under the name of Zakat.

It was an act of piety to pay Zakat. The Zakat was payable in gold or silver, herds and merchandise. The Zakat, when assessed on value or weight, was 1 /40th of the property. Zakat could be levied only on that property which was in the possession of the owner for at least one year. There is a mention of a separate treasury for Zakat.

The secular taxes were Kharaj, Jizya, the tax on non-Muslim traders and imposts on spoils of war, on mines and treasure-trove. Kharaj was the tax on land held by non-Muslims. According to Islamic law, its rate varied from 1/10th to one-half.

Jizya

Jizya was a poll-tax charged only from the non-Muslims. There is a difference of opinion among scholars regarding the nature of this tax. One view is that it was a religious tax levied on the non-Muslims “in return for which they received protection of life and property and exemption from military service, as non-Muslims were not entitled,” according to orthodox jurists, to live in a Muslim country.

The view of Dr. Qureshi is that Jizya was levied from the non-Muslims as the cash equivalent “of the assistance which they would be liable to give if they had not persisted in their unbelief, because living as they do in the Muslim state, they must be ready to defend it.” Military service was compulsory for all Muslims and the Sultan could call upon any Muslim to defend the state. This religious duty did not affect the non-Muslims. This shows that Jizya was not a payment for the privilege of living in a Muslim state.

Critics point out that whatever might have been the original intention with which Jizya was levied in Islamic lands outside India, there is no doubt that by the time the Arabs conquered Sind, Jizya had acquired a religious importance. Jizya was levied on the non-Muslims as the state gave them “protection of life and property and exemption from military service.” It was considered to be a religious duty by the Sultans to realise the Jizya with the entire rigor they could command.

It is pointed out that those who hold Jizya to be a secular tax ignore the fact that it was levied in lieu of the protection of life and property of the Zimmis and they put emphasis merely on exemption from military service. It is well known that even the vassal Hindu Rajas who rendered military service, were not exempted from the payment of Jizya.

Jizya was not levied on women, children, monks, beggars, the blind and the crippled. It was not levied even on the Brahmans. It was only during the reign of Firuz Shah that Jizya was levied on the Brahmanas. There was a lot of trouble and ultimately the rich Hindus of Delhi undertook to pay for the Brahmanas.

On a subsequent representation, the Sultan reduced the tax on the richer Brahmanas to 10 Tankas of 50 Jitals each. The entire Hindu population was divided into three grades for the purpose of Jizya. The first grade paid at the rate of 48 Dirhams, the second 24 Dirharms and the third 12 Dirhams.

The Zakat on imports was a fortieth of the value of the merchandise. It was 50% on horses. These charges were double in the case of non-Muslim traders. Sikandar Lodi abolished the Zakat on grain and it was not renewed by any subsequent Sultan. The spoils of war were known as Ghanimah. Legally, out of all the booty collected, one-fifth was to be kept for the state and the rest was to be distributed among the soldiers.

However, it was lawful for the Sultan or Commander- in-Chief to select an animal, a sword or some other article which particularly pleased him. The share of the state was known as Khams. Against the Islamic law, a practice grew up that only a fifth was distributed amongst the soldiers and four-fifths were kept by the state. The state was entitled to a fifth of all minerals provided those were solid and capable of being melted.

A fifth of the treasure-trove was to be given to the state and rest was to be kept by the finder. However, if the land did not belong to the finder, the land-owner was entitled to four-fifths of the treasure and the rest was to go to the state. The property of the Muslims dying intestate and without heirs belonged entirely to the state. However, the property of a Hindu dying in similar circumstances was handed over to his community.