There is a common phrase to name anybody doing some foolish act to name him Mohammad Tughlaq. In fact, it is somehow the human psychology to blame someone who is not acting in one’s accord. Now the question arises as to what did Mohammad Tughlaq do to earn such a noble title for himself? In fact, he is blamed for the transfer of capital, introduction of the token currency and raising the revenue in the Gangetic Doab.
First of all, we take the transfer of capital. It is assumed that Mohammad Tughlaq transferred his capital from Delhi to Devgiri, giving it the new name of Daulatabad. Ibn Batuta, a Moorish traveller to his court, puts it as, “The Sultan was infuriated by his subjects of Delhi, who used to write abuses on a piece of paper and managed to throw the same in his palace. They were in fact annoyed by some of his policies, which had made their lives troublesome. The Sultan ultimately came to the conclusion to punish the ‘guilty’ people and he invented such a novel idea for the same.” It is also stated that the entire population of Delhi was ordered to shift to the new capital. While the entire Delhi submitted to the Sultan’s wishes, it was found that two persons dared to challenge the Sultan’s authority. They were brought forth to the Sultan and when enquired, they replied that as one was a lame and another a blind, it was not possible for them to move away from the city. On this, the Sultan ordered to kill the lame and the blind was ordered to move over to the new capital. It is strange to note that only one arm and a leg of his reached there. This theory has been accepted by one and all in India. Even the historians accept this story on the plea that it is narrated by the contemporary writers, e.g Batuta and Zia-ud-Din Barani. This story is taught to the students in India and filled in their minds that Mohd. Tughlaq was really a fool. Even those who don’t know the A,B,C of history authoritatively state that the Tughlaq Sultan was, in fact, a fool.Secondly, it is stated that he enhanced the revenue in the Doab at a time when famine broke out in the area. Instead of giving some relief to the peasants, he ordered to receive the new rate of revenue from them. The result was that a number of peasants were forced to leave their lands. However, when later on the Sultan announced grants for them, his officials grabbed a huge amount of it thus causing a huge loss to the State exchequer.
Thirdly, it is stated that the Sultan had issued token currency of copper. People in thousands, started preparing this money themselves and when later on the Sultan found that he had not issued so much the amount from his exchequer as was being circulated in the empire, he immediately ordered to cancel his previous orders regarding the token currency and re-issued the old currency.
Now the question arises as to how far was the Sultan responsible for the failure of his policies? If we go through his first plan, I don’t find him a fool. In history, we do depend on the contemporary evidences. I am teaching history for the last 22 years now. I on my part believe that we have to consider the contemporary evidences and there is no history without the evidences. But what if we get only the corrupted evidences? After all logic to any point is also to be considered. In fact, Mohd. Tughlaq was not the only ruler who transferred his capital and returned soon. Harsha Vardhana made Kannauj his capital in place of Thanesar, Iltutmish transferred his capital from Lahore to Delhi, Ala-ud-Din for a short span made Siri his capital, Akbar made Fatehpur Sikri his capital and later on even the British transferred their capital from Calcutta to Delhi. The only difference of change between the two can be said that the other rulers did not force their subjects to move to the new capital. Did Tughlaq really ordered his entire subjects of Delhi to shift to Devgiri? Here I depend more on my common sense than the unwise theory. The Sultan would never had ordered the transfer of his entire population to Delhi. Is it possible for the entire population to settle down immediately to the new environment? Where can they find accommodation? How can they manage their sources of income? It is all worth consideration. Moreover, the Sultan had not adopted any such policy which would have annoyed the common people and they were forced to send abuses to him. For the Sultan, it was not worth his personality to punish the people, though in those days he could award them serious punishments and even the death penalties for even petty crimes.
Regarding the other two problems, the Sultan himself was not as much responsible as the officials and the common masses themselves. The Sultan had issued the token currency taking in view the financial hazards he was facing. The common people thought that it was a novel method to make money for them. The only fault lay here on the part of the Sultan was that he did not keep a vigilant eye on the mints. He was in fact of the view that the common people were also a farsighted as he was; while the fact remains, that he was thinking almost two centuries in advance. Even if we compare the developments in today’s light I doubt if the people worry for the nation. They even today prefer to fulfil their personal motives. Why to blame those who did the same thing almost seven centuries back.
So far the enhancement of revenue, the Sultan was not informed for what was happening at a place situated at a good distance from Delhi. Even his officers preferred to remain mum at any unhappy development, as it would “worry the Sultan”. Those were the times when there was no development in the field of communication. Today thousands of peasants are giving up their lives in the wake of their problems. The government, which happens to be “of ourselves, by ourselves and for ourselves”, is a meek spectator to all these deaths. Daily we are listening to the news, reading them. Do our leaders have something for them? After the death of a person, a leader would come at his funeral, and announce a grant of one lakh or two lakhs of rupees to the next kin of the dead. And more strangely, rarely would they get this amount.
I think Mohammad Tughlaq was not a fool. He was a great idealist, who thought for the best results, but failed due to the lack of common support from his bureaucrats as well as his subjects. However, for his failures, and I repeat for which he was not solely responsible, he has earned a bad name. It is a common saying, give the dog a bad name and kill him. So has been the case with Mohammad Tughlaq.
