Islamic convention allowed only four lawful wives to a man, whatever be his status, but among Hindus there was no such restriction. Achyutadevaraya, the king of Vijayanagar, according to a probably exaggerated account of Nuniz, had as many as 500 wives. ‘And when he journeys to any place he takes with him twenty-five or thirty of his most favourite wives … each one in her palanquin with poles. The palanquin of the principal wife is all covered with scarlet cloth tasselled with large and heavy work in seed-pearls and pearls, and the pole itself is ornamented with gold.’ More credible is what Domingos Paes, an early sixteenth-century Portuguese traveller, says about Krishnadeva. ‘This king,’ he reports, ‘has twelve lawful wives, of whom there are three principal ones … [The three] are in all respects treated and provided for equally,] so that there may never be any discord or ill feeling between them. All of them are great friends, and each one lives by herself … The king [too] lives by himself inside the palace, and when he wishes to have with him one of his wives, he orders a eunuch to go and call her.’
The queens of Vijayanagar, particularly the three chief queens, were sumptuously provided with all luxuries. ‘Each one of these wives has her house to herself, with her maidens and women of the chamber, and women guards, and all other women servants necessary; all these are women, and no man enters where they are, save only the eunuchs, who guard them,’ continues Paes. ‘These women are never seen by any man except perhaps by some old man of high rank by favour of the king. When they wish to go out they are carried in litters shut up and closed, so that they cannot be seen.’
This evidently was a practice that spread to the Hindu royal families under Turko-Afghan influence, for previously there was no such seclusion of the royal women in Hindu kingdoms. ‘Most of the princes of India, when they hold court allow their women to be seen by the men who attend it, whether they be natives or foreigners,’ writes Abu Zaid, an early medieval Arab historian. ‘No veil conceals them from the eyes of the visitors.’ However, whether the royal women remained in the zenana and behind the veil, or appeared openly in public, they usually played an important role in public affairs, through their influence on kings.
Apart from the queens, a large number of women, including several foreigners, lived in the royal harem. Some of them served as royal concubines—there was no restriction on the number of concubines a raja or a sultan could have—while the others provided various routine services in the palace. All the king’s female relatives, such as his mother, unmarried aunts, sisters and daughters, as well as his young sons, lived in the harem. His adult sons lived apart. There were also several female entertainers in the harem. According to Nuniz, the raja of Vijayanagar had ‘within his gates more than 4000 women, all of whom live in the palace; some are dancing girls, and others are bearers … He has also women who wrestle, and others who are astrologers and soothsayers; and he has women who write all the accounts of expenses that are incurred inside the gates, and others whose duty it is to write all the affairs of the kingdom … He has women also for music, who play instruments and sing. Even the wives of the king are well versed in music.’ Paes reports that Krishnadeva had 12,000 women in his harem, some of whom ‘handle sword and shield, others wrestle, and yet others blow trumpets and others pipes, and [various] other instruments … [There were also there] women bearers and washing-folk …’ The sultans too maintained huge harems. Portuguese sources report that sultan Ghiyas-ud-din Mahmud Shah of the mid-sixteenth century Bengal, had 10,000 women in his harem.
THE APPEARANCE AND lifestyle of some of the medieval Indian kings were odd beyond belief. Such was the case of Sultan Mahmud Shah Begarha of Gujarat. ‘The said sultan has mustachios under his nose so long that he ties them over his head as a woman would tie her tresses, and he has a white beard which reaches to his girdle,’ writes the early sixteenth-century Italian traveller Varthema, who was in Gujarat during Begarha’s reign. ‘Every day he eats poison. Do not, however, imagine that he fills his stomach with it; but he eats a certain quantity, so that when he wishes to destroy any great personage he makes him come before him stripped and naked, [and he spits on him the juice of the various fruits and leaves he has masticated, so that, because of the highly poisonous quality of spittle,] the man falls dead to the ground in the space of half an hour.
‘This sultan has also three or four thousand women [in his harem], and every night he sleeps with one, and she is found dead in the morning. Every time that he takes off his shirt, that shirt is never again touched by any one; and so also his other garments; and every day he chooses new garments … [The sultan could consume poison daily, because] his father had fed him upon poison from his childhood.’ This portrait, bizarre though it might seem, is at least partly confirmed by Barbosa, who visited Gujarat around this time. ‘I have heard that he was brought up from childhood to take poison, for his father, fearing that, in accordance with the usage of the country, he might be killed by that means, took this precaution against such a catastrophe,’ writes Barbosa. ‘He began to make him eat of it in small doses, gradually increasing them, until he could take a large quantity, whereby he became so poisonous, that if a fly lighted on his hand, it swelled and died at once, and many of the women with whom he slept died from the same cause.’
Begarha had other strange practices too. ‘In the morning, when he rises, there come to his palace fifty elephants, on each of which a man sits astride; and the said elephants do reverence to the sultan, and they have nothing else to do,’ reports Varthema. ‘And when he eats, fifty or sixty kinds of [musical] instruments play, namely, trumpets, drums of several sorts, and flageolets, and fifes, with many others, which for the sake of brevity I forbear mentioning. When the sultan eats, the said elephants again do reverence to him.’ Curiously, the raja of Vijayanagar also had a custom of being greeted by an elephant in the morning. ‘The king has a white elephant, exceedingly large,’ reports Razzak, ‘Every morning this animal is brought into the presence of the monarch, for to cast eye upon him is thought a favourable omen.’
IN CONTRAST TO the rigid and grandiose formality of the court customs of most kings of the middle and late Sultanate period, court customs in the early Sultanate period were quite simple. But they became rigidly formal during the reign of Balban, who had a very lofty concept of kingship and considered it an imperative practical necessity, for good governance, to elevate the sultan to a status far above the nobles, and thus create an unbridgeable psychological distance between him and the nobles, so that royal diktats would be unquestioningly obeyed by all. Balban therefore enforced in Delhi a court etiquette somewhat similar to that of the pre-Islamic Sassanian monarchy of Persia, such as requiring courtiers to prostrate before the sultan, and kiss his throne or his feet.
To match his exalted concept of kingship, Balban always maintained a sternly regal demeanour in public, and took every care to be impeccably ceremonious in all he did. And he demanded that his courtiers also should behave becomingly in his presence. He permitted absolutely no frivolity, even loud laughter, in the court. The later sultans were not quite as stern as Balban, but most of them did maintain a fair amount of formality in the court. The only sultan who notably relaxed the court practices was Khizr Khan, the founder of the Sayyid dynasty, who reverted to the simplicity and camaraderie in the relationship between the courtiers and the sultan that had existed in the early Sultanate period.
There was usually a master of the ceremonies at the court, to regulate the people who entered the court and to ensure that proper order was maintained there, and that all observed the formalities required of them. All strangers presenting themselves to the sultan were required to make an offering to him as a homage. ‘No stranger admitted to court can avoid offering a present [to the sultan] as a kind of introduction, which the sultan repays by one of much greater value,’ states Battuta. And the sultan when he wanted to honour a courtier or a visitor invested him with a khilat, a ceremonial robe.
Court etiquette was fairly elaborate in Vijayanagar als
o. There, as Paes notes, those attending the court, ‘as soon as they enter make their salaam to him (the raja), and place themselves along the wall far off from him. They do not speak to one another, nor do they chew betel before him, but they place their hands in the sleeves of their tunics and cast their eyes on the ground. And if the king desires to speak to anyone, it is done through a second person … The salaam, which is the greatest courtesy that exists among them, is that they put their hands joined above their head as high as they can.’ And all men respectfully removed their footwear before entering the royal court.
Most courtiers were servile sycophants, and were obsequious towards the king, and they passively conformed to the abject subservience required of them in the royal court, for their career depended on the whim and pleasure of the sultan. It was very rarely that anyone spoke out in the court; usually when the king asked his nobles for some advice, they in turn asked him what was in his mind, and they generally agreed with whatever he suggested.
THE CUSTOMS AND practices observed in the Delhi court are described in detail by Battuta. ‘The sultan’s palace in Delhi is called Dar Sara, and has many doors. At the first door there are a number of guards … trumpeters and flute-players,’ states Battuta. ‘When any amir or person of note arrives, they sound their instruments and announce, “So-and-so has come! So-and-so has come!” The same takes place also at the second and third doors.
‘Outside the first door are platforms on which executioners sit, for the custom amongst them is that when the sultan orders a man to be executed, the sentence is carried out at the door of the audience hall, and the body lies there for three nights.
‘Between the first and second doors there is a large vestibule with platforms along both sides, on which sit those whose turn of duty it is to guard the doors. Between the second and third doors there is a large platform on which the principal naqib (chief usher) sits … [He holds a gold mace in his hand] and on his head he wears a jewelled tiara of gold, surmounted by peacock feathers. The second door leads to an extensive audience hall in which the people sit.
‘At the third door there are platforms occupied by scribes … One of their customs is that none may pass through this door except those whom the sultan has authorized, and for each such person he assigns a number of his staff to enter [the court] along with him. Whenever any person comes to this door the scribes write down “So-and-so came at the first hour”, or the second [hour], and so on, and the sultan receives a report of this after the evening prayer. Another of their customs is that anyone who absents himself from the palace for three days or more, with or without excuse, may not enter this door thereafter except by the sultan’s permission. If he has an excuse of illness or otherwise, he presents the sultan with a gift suitable to his rank. The third door opens into an immense audience hall called Hazar Uslun, which means “a thousand pillars”. The pillars are of wood and support a wooden roof, admirably carved. The people sit under this, and it is in this hall that the sultan holds public audiences.’ According to Nikitin, a Russian traveller in India in the fifteenth century, ‘the sultan’s palace has seven gates, and at each gate are seated 100 guards and 100 Muhammadan scribes, who enter the names of all persons going in and out.’
IT WAS AN indispensable duty of the sultan to hold a durbar every day, sometimes even twice a day, morning and afternoon. ‘As a rule his audiences are held in the afternoon, though he often holds them early in the day [also],’ reports Battuta about the practice of Muhammad Tughluq. ‘He sits cross-legged on a throne placed on a dais carpeted in white, with a large cushion behind him and two other as armrests, on his right and left. When he takes his seat, the vizier stands in front of him, the secretaries behind the vizier, then the chamberlains, and so on in the order of precedence. As the sultan sits down the chamberlains and naqibs say in their loudest voice: Bismillah!
‘[Behind the sultan stands a man] with a fly-whisk in his hand to drive off flies. A hundred armour-bearers stand on his right, and a like number on his left, carrying shields, swords, and bows. The other functionaries and notables stand along the hall to the right and the left. Then they bring in sixty horses with royal harness, half of which are arranged on the right and half on the left, where the sultan can see them. Next fifty elephants are brought in, which are adorned with silken cloths, and have their tusks shod with iron for greater efficacy in killing criminals. On the neck of each elephant sits its mahout, who carries a sort of iron axe with which he punishes it and directs it to do what is required of it. Each elephant has on its back a sort of large chest capable of holding twenty warriors or more or less, according to the size of the beast.
‘These elephants are trained to make obeisance to the sultan and incline their heads, and when they do so the chamberlains cry in a loud voice: Bismillah! The elephants are also arranged half on the right and half on the left, behind the persons standing. As each person enters … he makes an obeisance on reaching the station of the chamberlains, and the chamberlains say Bismillah, regulating the loudness of their utterance to the rank of the person concerned; he then goes to his appointed place, beyond which he never passes. If it is one of the infidel Hindus who makes obeisance, the chamberlains say to him, “May god guide thee”.
‘If there should be anyone at the door who has come to offer the sultan a gift, the chamberlains enter the sultan’s presence in their order of precedence, make obeisance in three places, and inform the sultan of the person at the door. If he commands them to bring him in, they place the gift in the hands of the men who stand … in front of the sultan, so he can see it. He then calls in the donor, who makes obeisance three times before reaching the sultan and makes another obeisance at the station of the chamberlains. The sultan then addresses him in person with the greatest courtesy and bids him welcome. If he is a person who is worthy of honour, the sultan takes him by the hand or embraces him, and asks for some part of his present. It is then placed before him, and if it consists of a weapon or fabric he turns it this way and that with his hand and expresses his approval, to set the donor at ease and encourage him. He then gives him a robe of honour and assigns him a sum of money … proportionate to his merit.’
Similar formalities were observed when the sultan went on tour, and great precautions were taken for his safety—he was, in the case of Balban, always accompanied by a commando force of 1000 soldiers. And the return of the sultan to the capital was invariably a grand celebratory occasion. ‘When the sultan returns from a journey, the elephants are decorated, and on sixteen of them are placed sixteen parasols, some brocaded and some set with jewels,’ continues Battuta. ‘Wooden pavilions are built several storeys high and covered with silk cloths, and in each story there are singing girls wearing magnificent dresses and ornaments, with dancing girls amongst them. At the centre of each pavilion is a large tank made of skins and filled with syrup-water, from which all the people, natives or strangers, may drink, receiving at the same time betel leaves and areca nuts. The space between the pavilions is carpeted with silk cloths, on which the sultan’s horse treads. The walls of the street along which he passes from the gate of the city to the gate of the palace are hung with silk cloths. In front of him march footmen from his own slaves, several thousands in number, and behind him come the mob and soldiers. On one of his entries into the capital I saw three or four small catapults placed on elephants throwing gold and silver coins amongst the people from the moment he entered the city till he reached the palace.’
The Bahmani sultans also maintained a grand style when they appeared in public. ‘The Sultan, riding on a golden saddle, wears a habit embroidered with sapphires, and on his pointed headdress a large diamond,’ notes Nikitin. ‘He also carries a suit of gold armour inlaid with sapphires, and three swords mounted in gold.’ The sultan’s way through the crowd was cleared for him by a huge armoured elephant. And the sultan was accompanied by a large troupe of armoured soldiers, as well as by several hundred women singers and dancers. The rear of the procession wa
s made up of 300 armoured elephants, each of which held heavy chains in its trunk, and carried several soldiers on a platform fitted to its back. Similar pomp was displayed by the rajas of Vijayanagar also when they appeared in public. The horse on which the raja rode, according to Varthema, was ‘worth more than some of our cities on account of the ornaments which it wears.’
{2}
By the King, For the King
The Delhi Sultanate, at the peak of its territorial expansion during the reign of Muhammad Tughluq, was the largest empire in the history of India in the two-millennium-long period between the Mauryan empire at its zenith under Asoka in the mid-third century BCE and the Mughal empire at its zenith under Aurangzeb in the late seventeenth century CE, and it covered virtually the entire Indian subcontinent, except Kerala in the far south, Kashmir in the far north, and a few pockets here and there in between.
But bulk did not mean stability. Or even strength. The Delhi Sultanate was in fact the least stable of all the great empires in Indian history, and was ever roiling with rebellions and usurpations. Nor did it have the administrative capacity needed to effectively govern its vast and diverse realm. The only notable exception to this dismal state of affairs was the reign of Ala-ud-din Khalji, whose empire was extensive, and his government administratively and militarily strong.
Waging wars was the primary occupation of medieval Indian sultans and rajas, to suppress rebellions, to defend or expand their kingdom, and to seize plunder. Civil administration, except revenue collection, had only a low priority for most of them. With very rare exceptions, providing good government and caring for the welfare of the people hardly concerned the sultans or the rajas.
Most kings in medieval India were just warlords. In the entire history of the Delhi Sultanate, there were no notable periods of stability and peace, except for a time during the reigns of Ala-ud-din Khalji and Firuz Tughluq. Normal life in the Delhi Sultanate was hardly normal. Everything there was ever in a turbulent state, ever seething with violence. This was true of all political relationships in the Sultanate, such as the relationship between the sultan and his nobles and provincial governors, between the sultan and the Hindu chieftains, even between the sultan and his family members. Anyone at any time could be anyone’s adversary. No loyalty could be ever taken for granted.
The Age of Wrath: A History of the Delhi Sultanate Page 37
