Premium
This is an archive article published on December 10, 2011
Premium

Opinion Always a capital city

In 1911,Delhi was once again appointed the seat of empire — and it was as if nothing had changed

Sunil Kumar

December 10, 2011 12:15 AM IST First published on: Dec 10, 2011 at 12:15 AM IST

A hundred years ago,Delhi,a dusty relic of a city that had seen better days,was appointed the capital of India. This was not for the first time in the history of the city. About 900 years earlier,Dihli,as some people knew the city then,also emerged as the capital of the new state established by the Delhi Sultans. At the height of their power in the mid-14th century,the city’s rulers ruled over the larger part of the subcontinent. The making of such a state with pre-modern technologies was an incredible achievement. Equally,the creation of a capital that could house the ambitions of the ruling classes of such a vast dominion was no mean achievement.

Through the 13th and 14th centuries,the apogee of Sultanate authority,medieval Delhi had to communicate seemingly contradictory qualities: the capital had to suggest inclusiveness,a place where diverse social groups of contrasting backgrounds (separate ethnicities divided further by class distinctions) could find shelter and opportunity. The capital also had to be exclusive,a place where the ruling classes could introduce social distinctions and hierarchies through a monopoly of resources,careful patronage and judicious entitlement. The contradictory pulls and pressures of these conflicting goals are often obscured from the view of modern scholars who rely upon uncritical generalisations that suggest that the medieval state was “Islamic” because the capital’s ruling elites were by and large Muslim. These generalisations are problematic because they assume that Sultanate ruling elites were homogenous and that their adherence to the religion of Islam obscured all other differences amongst them. This was hardly the case.

Advertisement

When the 14th century historian,Isami,described the court of Sultan Iltutmish,he underlined how residents from all over the world were attracted to the city of Delhi. In the 1220s,when the rest of the world was facing the destructive campaigns of Chingiz Khan,Delhi was a safe haven for immigrating jurists,theologians,Sufis,artisans and soldiers. While Persian records underline how Delhi became the “sanctuary of Islam” at this point,the inclusive nature of Delhi’s social world was underlined in Sanskrit epigraphs — one that describes how a merchant family from Agrotaka,home of the modern Agrawalas,arrived and settled in a village near Raisina Hill. Sanskrit inscriptions vouch for the praise that merchants showered on the city. A trader placed an inscription in Naraina that praised Muhammad Tughluq (1324-51) and his capital of “Dhilli (which is) covered with innumerable jewels,whence sin is expelled through the chanting of the Vedas… (a city) which appears lovely with the tinkling of anklets of beautiful damsels even as the heavenly river with the noise of geese”.

The city was appointed with palaces,mosques,mausoleums,Sufi shrines,dams,reservoirs and wells. Most building materials were quarried from the Aravalli ridge,and local stonemasons and architects familiar with these building materials and the ecology of the region were employed. An inscription by one such mason on the Qutb Minar thanks his deity Vishwakarma for the successful completion of repairs. The prosperity and security of the capital was vouchsafed in another Sanskrit inscription at Palam. It noted “the earth being now supported by this sovereign (Sultan Balban 1266-87),Shesa naga altogether forsaking his duty of supporting the weight of the globe,has betaken himself to the great bed of Vishnu; and Vishnu himself… relinquishing all worries,sleeps in peace on the ocean of milk”.

Clearly,security and prosperity were interlinked ideas in the minds of the residents of the capital. As the capital of the Sultanate,Delhi was the fulcrum of politics. Sultans raised their servants to high office suddenly and discarded them as abruptly. There was a logic behind this seemingly despotic whimsy. The Delhi Sultans were extremely judicious in their patronage of a particular profile of servants,a systemic bias that cuts through the melee of court intrigue,coups and internecine conflicts.

Advertisement

On the one hand,the monarchs recruited all personnel with secretarial,administrative and accounting skills without much reservation. As a result,Delhi was a haven for the literati,the merchants and the administrators; they possessed the diplomatic skills to frame eulogies,the accounting skills to keep registers of finance and the statecraft to promote agriculture and trade.

On the other hand,the Delhi Sultans were far more careful in their recruitment of military commanders and soldiers. Defeated rulers were killed,imprisoned or exiled,but not their subordinates,who were frequently patronised as allies. The Delhi monarchs were extremely wary of giving military positions or governorships to people of high birth,individuals whose aristocratic backgrounds might prejudice their loyalties to the ruler. Instead,they recruited people of humble origins,provided them with military training and favour. The advice of a respected vizier encapsulated this logic: “Wise men have said that a worthy and experienced servant or slave is better than a son.” The vizier added that this was necessary because while the ambitions of the son led him to challenge his father,the loyal servant recognised that his prosperity was completely dependent upon the well being of his master.

As a result,a variety of military personnel of humble origin,whose high political positions were incongruous to their social backgrounds,populated the city of Delhi. The urbane litterateurs of the Delhi Sultans regarded the recruitment of these “social menials” in exaggerated,supercilious terms — one author described them as the “lowest and basest of the low and base-born”. For the humble to have the right to command,the right over life,liberty and property was doubly abhorrent. The Sufi saint,Nizam al-Din Auliya,juxtaposed the qualities of the city’s secretarial classes and its soldiers in a pithy verse: “Oh Hamid!” he asked. “Why do you stand before this soldier? You are a learned man and he is ignorant,you are a freeman and he is a slave,you are a pious man and he is an uncultured sinner.”

The direction of the Sultan’s patronage ennobled the socially humble and the weak,and in investing them with political authority,made of them powerful agents of authoritarian rule. But it also introduced within the city social cleavages that should not appear entirely foreign to us today. Each monarch tried to consolidate his rule by including individuals and groups like mahouts (Rukn al-Din),Afghans (Balban),“new-Muslim” Mongols (Kayqubad),a trader (Ala al-Din Khalaji),a wine-distiller,a barber,a cook,and gardeners (Muhammad Tughluq). But the infusion into the city of these new personnel meant that the older residents of the capital looked at the arrival of each new generation of recruits with horror. Gradually the capital acculturated them to its ways,a historical process that is still visible as Delhi’s residents continue to sneer at the arrival of “rustics” — Punjabis,Jats,Gujjars,Meos — to the capital! The contradictions between being inclusive as a capital and exclusive in retaining power and authority amongst a select few still echoes in Delhi.

The writer is a professor of history at the University of Delhi