Muslim state. The Muslim state was a theocracy; in theory, all political institutions were based on and sanctioned by Islam. In practice, however, this theory had to undergo many changes, especially in a country like India, where non-Muslims constituted the vast majority of the population and where the political conditions were very different from those from which the Muslim jurists proceeded.

According to orthodox Muslim theory, the ruler was to be elected by the faithful. This theory proved untenable even in the homeland of Islam, and Mawardi, the famous jurist, was forced to conclude that the sovereign could appoint his successor. With regard to the Delhi Sultanate, it is difficult to trace the source of sovereignty. There was no universally recognized order of succession to the throne, just as there was no recognized procedure for resolving disputes. Generally speaking, for convenience, the ruler was chosen only from among the family members of the deceased sultan. As regards the primogeniture and abilities of the chosen one, as well as the will of the late Sultan, all this was sometimes considered, but the decisive vote, apparently, belonged to the nobility, who usually thought more about their own conveniences than about the interests of the state.

Turkic rulers of India and the Caliphate. TO XIII century the idea that the entire Muslim world is united under the religious and political authority of the caliph ceased to correspond to the actual situation. But this was a politically convenient fiction; the vast majority of the faithful began to read the khutba1 with the mention of the name of the Muslim rulers who held an independent position. Under the Abassids, “the Muslim world... split into many parts, which were not always dependent on the Caliphate; each of them had its own history. In 1258, the great Mongol leader Hulagu occupied Baghdad and killed the caliph. The caliphate ceased to exist. "However, his shadow was preserved in Egypt - a kind of caliphs who formally had power, but in reality were deprived of it - a ghostly reflection of the past." The uncle of the last Caliph of Baghdad took refuge in Egypt and was recognized by the Mamluk sultans of the Nile Valley as the spiritual ruler of the Muslims. This dynasty of Egyptian caliphs lasted until the sixteenth century, when the last of them renounced his nominal rights in favor of Suleiman II, the Ottoman sultan of Constantinople.

1 Khutbo is a sermon that is read on Fridays during Zuhra (noon prayer). “According to the best authorities, the name of the ruling caliph should have been mentioned in the khutba; the fact that in the independent Mohammedan states it is not mentioned, but replaced by the name of the sultan or emir, has its own significance.

Tradition, especially if it is associated with religion, does not die easily. The caliphs lost political power after the fall of Baghdad, but they did not lose their political prestige. No true believer could ever forget that he was obligated to obey the successor of the Prophet. “The Prophet's successor was the source of all political power; rulers and tribal leaders obeyed him, and only his sanction could be the legal basis of their power. This should be kept in mind when analyzing the relations between the Delhi sultans and the caliphs of Baghdad and Egypt.

When Sultan Mahmud of Ghaznevi ended the Samanid dynasty and declared his independence, his authority was recognized by the Abbasid caliph of Baghdad. It is not clear whether Mahmud himself wanted to sanctify and strengthen his power by gaining formal recognition as the Prophet's successor, or whether the declining Abassid dynasty saw fit to use the situation to remind the world that the caliph's prestige is not a ghost of the past. Mohammed Ghuri put the Caliph's name on his early coins issued in Delhi. Iltutmish was the first Sultan of Delhi to receive formal recognition from the caliph. In 1229, the envoys of Caliph al-Mustansir arrived in Delhi and recognized Iltutmish as the Sultan of Delhi. The name of the last Caliph of Baghdad, al-Mustasim, appeared on Delhi coins for almost four decades after his death (1258). The flattering court poet Amir Khusrow calls Ala-ud-din and Qutb-ud-din Mubarak Khilji caliphs, but we do not have numismatic and epigraphic data on the assignment of this title by Ala-ud-din, although his son openly declared himself "the great imam, caliph ". At the end of his reign, Muhammad Tughlaq, when his power was threatened by uprisings and general discontent in the empire, again resorted to the tried and tested method of strengthening the power of the ruler, gaining the recognition of the caliph. In 1343, a messenger from the Egyptian caliph al-Hakim II arrived in Delhi. Barani describes the position of the Sultan as follows: “He ordered that henceforth his name and title should not be put on coins and replaced with the name of the Caliph; his flattery in relation to the caliph was so rude that it is not even worth writing about it. Firuz Tughlaq writes in his autobiography: “The greatest and highest honor received by me by the grace of God is that thanks to my humility and piety, obedience and respect for the caliph - the representative of the holy prophet - my power was strengthened, for only his approval ensures the power of the ruler ; the position of the ruler will not be strong until he submits to the caliph and receives the recognition of the holy throne. Not a single successor of Firuz gave such of great importance"receiving the recognition of the holy throne" and not a single messenger from Egypt appeared in Delhi after the death of this pious monarch.

Hindus in a Muslim state. Non-Muslim subjects of a Muslim state are called dhimmis (protected people). When conquering a non-Muslim country, Muslims offered the conquered people a choice of three options: conversion to Islam, payment of jiziya, and death. Naturally, those who cherished their own faith entered into an agreement with the winners by paying jiziya. A Muslim jurist says: "The one who pays the jiziya and submits to the Muslim state is called a dhimmi." Monks, hermits, beggars and slaves were exempted from paying jiziya. Paying jiziya is associated with humiliation. Firuz Tughlaq forced the Brahmins to pay jiziya, who for centuries were exempted from paying it.

Some learned Muslim theologians have sought to reduce the Hindus to the status of lumberjacks and water carriers. The point of view of the execution of Mugis-ud-din was given above. One Muslim jurist from Egypt wrote to Ala-ud-din during his stay in India: “I heard that you have brought the Ndus to such a state that their wives and children ask for bread at the doors of the Muslims. In doing so, you have done a great service to religion. All your sins will be forgiven for this merit alone..."

It would be a mistake to think that these extreme views were always reflected in legislation and domestic politics. Under Ala-ud-din, the economic situation of the Hindus worsened; Under Firuz Tughlaq and Sikandar Lodi, religious persecution continued. There was, however, no permanent, premeditated system of oppression or systematic attempts to exterminate the Hindus. The greatest charge that can be brought against the sultans is their refusal to try to get the Hindus to take part in the conduct of public affairs.

Monarchy. According to Muslim religious ideas and law, everything is subject to the Law (shar"), which is ultimately based on the Koran. The ruler was the supreme interpreter of the Law. One of the most important factors that restrained the despotism of Muslim rulers was that they could not neglect the Law with impunity. The Sultans of Delhi, Ala-ud-din Khilji and Muhammad Tughlaq, attempted to free themselves from the Law and its traditional interpreters, the Sunni theologians, with some success.

Another important factor that limited the power of the ruler was the privileged position of the nobility. "From the point of view of the development of statehood, the greatest interest in the history of the Iltutmish dynasty is the struggle between the crown and the nobility for the possession of real power." So, in the time of Nasir-ud-din Mahmud, the nobility won the victory. Balban, being a sultan, raised the prestige of the monarchy by curbing the claims of the nobility. This continued until the time of Muhammad Tughlaq, who reminded his subjects with the inscription on his coins that "the sultan is the shadow of God." The situation changed under the weak ruler Firuz Tughlaq, who catered to the Muslim clergy by ostentatious adherence to the Law, and allowed military leaders to freely exercise their privileges. Under Lodi, the nobility claimed an equal position with the ruler himself. The arrogant Ibrahim tried to challenge the claims of the nobility and paid for it with his life.

There was no recognized system of state organs to guide, assist or restrain the actions of the Delhi sultans. Everything depended on the personality of the ruler. There was no permanent council of ministers, no government in the modern sense. The Sultan managed the affairs of state with the help of those advisers or officials whom he considered necessary to appoint. If the sultan was strong, these people were “mere executors of the will of the ruler; they could influence their master's policy only by the art of gentle persuasion or veiled warning." However, if the sultan was weak, they used him as a puppet.

Some important government posts. The chief minister of the sultanate was called the wazir, and his department was called the divan-i-wazirat. This department dealt mainly with finance. The department, called divan-i-rasalat, which dealt with religious affairs and awards to the clergy, and the judicial department, divan-i-kaza, were under the control of the sadr-us-sudur. The post of ariz-i-mamalik (head of the military department) belonged to dabir-i-arz. The divan-i-insha institution (in charge of the ruler's correspondence) was controlled by dabir-i-khas. Of the persons in charge of court affairs, we should mention the vakil-i-dar (head of this department) and the emir-i-hajib, or barbek (chief chamberlain).

Finance. The main sources of state income were: I) land tax, 2) zakat, or religious taxes, 3) jiziya, 4) military production, 5) mines and mines (diamond, etc.), 6) escheated property.

The main article of the land tax was kharaj. The Sultans of Delhi, Ala-ud-din Khilji and Ghiyas-ud-din Tughlaq, reformed the land tax system. The first, apparently, introduced a rule for measuring land, which ensured a fairer relationship between the state and the farmer. In the time of Ala-ud-din, the peasants had to pay tax in kind, although, apparently, money was also accepted. In the thirteenth century, the share of the state was perhaps one-fifth of the harvest. Ala-ud-din raised it to half the harvest. These heavy tax rates were reduced during his son's reign. Ghiyas-ud-din Tughlaq ordered that the land tax could not be increased by more than ten percent.

Justice. Sadr-us-sudur was the chief judge (kazi-i-mamalik) of the empire. He accepted appeals against decisions of lower instances and appointed local qazis. Every big city, including Delhi, had its own /sszm (judge) who ruled the court. A high official, amir-i-dad, carried out the sentences passed by the qazi. Matters that concerned only the Hindus were usually decided by the panchayat [five elders. – Ed.]. Cases between Hindus and Muslims were decided by the qazis. Kotwal was the head of the police in the cities, but he was also the mayor. Criminal law was very harsh, torture and mutilation were common. Firuz Tughlaq has abolished some of the most inhuman methods of punishment.

Provincial administration. A large empire was to be divided into provinces for ease of administration. The sources mention 23 provinces that existed under Muhammad Tughlaq: 1) Delhi, 2) Devagiri, 3) Multan, 4) Kuhram, 5) Samana, 6) Sevan, 7) Uch, 8) Khansi, 9) Sirsuti, 10) Ma "bar, 11) Telang, 12) Gujarat, 13) Badaun, 14) Oud, 15) Kanauj, 16) Lucknauti, 17) Bihar, 18) Kara, 19) Malwa, 20) Lahore, 21) Kalanor, 22) Jajnagar 23) Dorasamudra Some of the provinces were apparently no larger than a modern district (district), but others, like Lucknowti, were apparently very large and difficult to govern.

In Persian annals, the governor of a province is usually called a wali or a mukta. It is difficult to say whether these terms were synonyms. Some researchers believe that the term wali meant a governor with extraordinary powers. It is possible that the larger provinces were divided into shikki, which were ruled by officials called shikdars. The next smaller administrative unit was the parghana, which included a number of villages. Apparently, in the parganas and villages, the Hindu chiefs and petty officials enjoyed considerable power and influence; in the provincial capital, however, Muslims enjoyed a monopoly of government and power. In the Delhi Sultanate, no Hindu was appointed governor of a province.

In addition to the provinces, which were more or less directly under the rule of the Sultan, there were also vassal principalities, which were ruled by Hindu princes, whose subordination to the central government was usually formal.

Army. The presence of a large and efficient army was at that time the first condition for the existence of a stable government. The cavalry was the main force of the army. Horses were in great demand. Like the Hindus, elephants were highly valued. Foot soldiers, the so-called payacs. were less important in the army. Some types of primitive firearms were widespread. The general management of affairs related to the army was entrusted to the ariz-i-mamalik. In his department was a list (hulia) of all the soldiers. Ala-ud-din Khilji introduced a branding system for war horses so that military leaders could not replace a good horse with a bad one. In addition to the regular army, which was maintained by the central government, there were also provincial contingents under the control of the governors of the provinces.

abstract

INDIA V XIII -X V centuries DELHI SULTANATE IN THE SECOND HALF XIV v.

Plan:

1. Delhi Sultanate in the second half of the XIV century. and its temporary decay

2. Revival of the Delhi Sultanate

3. State of Bahmani

4. Vijayanagar State

Bibliography

1. Delhi Sultanate in the second half XIV v. and its temporary decay

The new sultan Firuz Shah Tughlaq (1351-1388) got a devastated country. Although his predecessor eventually began to understand that the communities were not able to bear the burden of state taxation in the amount prescribed by him, and reduced taxes somewhat, it was clear that decisive and extensive measures were needed to restore the economic basis of the state - Agriculture.

Firuz Shah significantly reduced the taxes of the community members and took measures to restore abandoned crop areas. Obviously, the disappearance of many villages and the extinction of their population was caused by the appearance state lease when farmers were invited on favorable terms and even received loans from the treasury. Firuz Shah was also the first North Indian sovereign known to us who built irrigation works of national importance - two canals that provided water to an entire region north and northwest of Delhi. In a reconstructed form, these irrigation canals are still operating today. The length of one of these channels exceeds 200 km. The result of moderate taxation was a gradual restoration of agricultural production and an increase in population. Hiding from tax collectors and punitive squads, surviving despite hunger and epidemics, people returned to the ashes, and the old communities were reborn in their original places with all their orders, under the same name.

Firuz Shah was also concerned about the restoration and development of urban handicraft production and trade. In the panegyric work "The Victory of Firuz Shah" many taxes and extortions from the urban population were canceled by him.

Such economic policy created Firuz Shah the glory of the benefactor of the people. Indeed, life was clearly entering a normal rut. As for the merits of the Sultan as the "father of subjects", they consist primarily in the fact that he submitted to necessity, his policy of encouraging the economic activity of the population was forced.

In general, Firuz Shah remained a typical medieval ruler who fully shared the class views and predatory psychology of the group of feudal lords he headed. Moreover, he was a worthy successor to Muhammad Tughlaq, brutally cracking down on popular unrest and sectarian movements that apparently arose even in the reign of Muhammad. As it always happened in medieval society, popular discontent took the form not only of direct actions - uprisings, but of various kinds of deviations from the religious orders accepted by the ruling strata - heretical and sectarian teachings appeared that gave ideological expression to discontent, which was based on a social, class character.

With regard to the feudal lords, Firuz Shah had to pursue a policy of relaxation in terms of their official duties and recognition of the rights that they appropriated to themselves without prior notice. So, he allowed to significantly reduce the deductions coming to the treasury from the income of iqta. Branding of horses was no longer carried out, which clearly indicates that the Iktadars were reducing the number of their units. Since the government still could not ensure that the owners of the iqta performed their military service, there was no point in antagonizing them with the strictness of control. The state recognized the Iktadars' right to the legal immunity of their possessions, but in fact they have already become full masters in their Ikta. The inheritance of iqta was widespread. The term inam acquired a new meaning: this was the name given to large hereditary office holdings that grew out of large iqta as a result of the usurpation of the rights of a private feudal owner by the mukta, whose performance of vassal duties to the sovereign was practically not regulated. Thus, the centrifugal trend in the evolution of forms of feudal property clearly took over. The role of the state uniting the feudal lords is reduced to a minimum.

The authority of Firuz Shah made it possible to maintain at least the appearance of a stable state order, but after his death, the sultanate began to quickly disintegrate. Cliques of Muslim feudal lords put forward their pretenders to the throne of Delhi, pretenders fought for the inheritance of the great sultans, and the state was rapidly shrinking in size. The possessions of the Delhi sultans were reduced to the Delhi region and part of the Eastern Punjab.

Just at the moment of the greatest weakness of the Delhi Sultanate, now a small state torn apart by strife, Timur's troops invaded India through Afghanistan. The famous conqueror created a huge empire. He, of course, was well aware of the situation in India and took advantage of it for an easy and promising robbery. All his calculations were brilliantly justified. True, the sultan, who was on the throne at that time, bravely gave battle to Timur, but he could not resist this skillful commander and his numerous experienced army. Delhi was sacked; in retaliation for the resistance, Timur ordered the entire population of the city to be exterminated, and towers to be built from the severed heads. He issued similar orders wherever he encountered even the slightest resistance along the way of the army. According to the historian of this campaign, who accompanied Timur, "the towers built from the heads of the Indians reached great heights." True, Timur saved the lives of those who could be useful to the victors. It was taken to Samarkand big number Indian artisans, destined by their art to increase the glory of the capital of the "Iron Lame".

2. Revival of the Delhi Sultanate

Looted and burned territories, Delhi full of decomposing corpses, outbreaks of epidemics and famine - this is what Timur left behind when he left India at the beginning of 1399. Torn apart by internal unrest, the Delhi state temporarily collapsed. More than a decade passed before the process of consolidation began again, pushing a new Sayyid dynasty (1414-1451) into the political arena. The revived sultanate united only the Delhi region and the Eastern Punjab. However, the advantageous strategic and economic position of this territory, the convenience of communications with the outside world contributed to the growth of the importance of the Delhi Sultanate. In particular, he turned out to be an intermediary in trade relations between the interior regions of India and the countries of the Middle and Near East through caravan routes. Proximity to neighboring Muslim countries was also of considerable importance in the sense that the politically dominant feudal stratum received replenishment of its ranks due to the influx of warriors, groups and entire tribes of migrants who wanted to find a better life in India. The influx of immigrants from Afghanistan especially increased during this period. Ordinary warriors were in military service, their leaders competed with the old Muslim settlers who had been natives of India for many generations and became Indians in many of the features of life they learned, as a result of marriages in Indian women, even in language (it began to form on the basis of the new Indian language Hindustani, equipped with Persian-Arabic vocabulary and grammatical forms of the "language of the horde" - a military camp, understandable to both Muslims and Hindus, future language Urdu). In the middle of the XV century. power in Delhi was seized by the leader of the Afghan clan, Lodi Bahlul, who settled north of this city. His ancestors settled in India at the end of the 14th century. In the possession of Bahlul was a large area between the river. Sutlej and Delhi and Lahore. His army, which exceeded 20 thousand people, consisted of Afghans, among whom many were his fellow tribesmen, and Central Asian Turks. Such a large dominion within the Delhi Sultanate at the end of Sayyid rule was not exceptional. There were a number of similar semi-independent feudal estates. Even in external manifestations, the claims of such powerful feudal lords to royal dignity were revealed, for example, on solemn occasions they rode elephants, kept war elephants in their army, which, under the former Delhi sultans, was considered the privilege of only the supreme ruler.

Bahlul Lodi (1451-1489), seeking to create a social base for his power, invited Afghan tribes to military service in India, giving away, of course, inhabited territories for their settlement. In this way, a new supercommunal stratum of feudal lords arose (similar to the Rajputs), distinguished by a primitive level of social development, the dominance of tribal orders and the corresponding psychology. The leaders of these tribes were included in the ranks of the feudal nobility, received additional significant service awards, and often also became major rulers. Sultan Bahlul Lodi managed to subjugate the feudal nobility to his will, conquered the state of Jaunpur and restored the Delhi Sultanate as the most extensive and powerful state of Northern India. The possessions of Lodi included at the end of the 15th century. Punjab and the Ganges valley to the borders of Bengal.

The Lodi dynasty ruled in Delhi until 1526. By this time, the sultans had not managed to turn things around in such a way that, by limiting the property rights of the feudal lords, they could suppress their separatist aspirations. In his attempts to strengthen the central power, the last sultan of the Afghan dynasty, Ibrahim Lodi, established a strict court etiquette, designed to show that all nobles are only obedient servants of the great sovereign. He was especially annoyed by the influential Afghan feudal lords, who occupied a privileged position under the previous rulers. The court humiliations and repressions against some Afghan commanders aroused deep dissatisfaction with the very part of the ruling stratum that most supported the Lodi sultans. Other groups of nobility were also not inclined to meekly give up their positions. In the last years of his reign, this sultan was forced to wage a fierce struggle against the feudal lords. The weakened state was on the verge of collapse when it was conquered by Babur, who founded the new dynasty of the Great Moghuls (1526-1858).

3. State of Bahmani

The state of Bahmani, which arose in 1347 on the Deccan, was based on the dominance of a very small military-feudal stratum of Muslims over huge masses of the newly conquered population, and the princes and smaller Hindu feudal lords had not yet lost influence and strength. Muslims had to reckon with them, and in no small number they became part of the Bahmanid aristocracy, although they were constantly pushed aside by the Muslim nobility. These feudal lords retained hereditary possessions and, in case of need, came out with their military detachments to help the Bahmanid sultan when he went on a campaign. The Muslim military leaders held possessions as iqta, but the control of the state over them, apparently, was not too strict. In any case, the feudal lords began to determine the number of their military detachments, which consisted of hired soldiers, at their own discretion. It was more difficult to transport horses to the Deccan than to North India, and they were much more expensive, so the infantry played an important role in the Bahmanid army, and war elephants were also actively used. Some Muslim feudal lords and Hindu princes owned very large territories and were able to equip an army so strong that they dared to rebel against the Sultan. For the convenience of administration, the state was divided into four military governorships - tarafs. The governors - tarafdars had great independence, kept their own armies and accumulated significant wealth. Although the history of the Bahmanid state gives many examples of the despotism and cruelty of the sultans, their real participation in the affairs of government was small, and the highest officials were usually involved in current state affairs.

A feature of the political situation in the sultanate was also the sharp rivalry between the two groups of the ruling feudal stratum: the descendants of the first Muslim Sunni invaders and later settlers to the Deccan, who entered the service of the Bahmani sultans. the period of the long reign of the chief minister - the "viceroy of the state" Mahmoud Gavan. Arriving in the state of Bahmani as a merchant from Iran, in the late 50s of the XV century. became close to the Sultan and quickly took all the threads of control into his own hands. He proved himself not only as an outstanding statesman, but also as a capable commander.

From the time of its formation, the Bahmani state waged wars mainly with the one that arose in 1336 south of the river. Krishna by the state of Vijayanagar. These wars were bloody and devastating, but the results were unimpressive. In general, the struggle went on with varying success for the fertile and rich in diamond mines between the two rivers of Krishna and Tungabhadra - Raichur. Significant military successes of the Bahmanids were associated with the name of Mahmud Gavan. He managed to inflict a severe defeat on the strengthened northern neighbor - the sultanate in Malwa and thereby upset the hostile alliance of Malwa, Orissa and Telengana (Andhra). As a result of the campaigns he led, most of Apdhra was annexed, and the possessions of the Bahmanids reached the Coromandel coast of the Bay of Bengal in the region of the mouths of the Krishna and Godavari rivers. Mahmud Gavan also defeated the state of Vijayanagar and captured the important port of Goa on the Malabar coast, through which horses were imported to Vijayanagar and there was a brisk trade with the Near East.

To reduce the influence of the governors, Mahmud Gavan divided the country into eight governorships and took away from them the right to appoint the heads of the fortresses - now they were his proteges. A very important step towards strengthening the state was the streamlining of the feudal possession of the iqta. Mahmud Gavan began to demand that a certain ratio be observed between the size of the property and the strength of the military detachment of the feudal lord. In this regard, regular reviews began to be arranged. The feudal lords, who deployed detachments of a smaller number than expected, were obliged to deduct the corresponding shortfall in the share of income to the state. The new order, of course, could not but arouse the discontent of the feudal lords, who were accustomed to feeling like masters in their possessions.

The power and greatness of Mahmud Gavan are colorfully described by the first Russian traveler to India, Athanasius Nikitin (1471-1474). In particular, Afanasy Nikitin says that the actual ruler of the state had his own magnificent courtyard, where the nobility flocked. The first minister owned huge wealth, kept his own army. Under him, the Bahmanid state reached its peak. However, his end was tragic. Several nobles from the dean's party hostile to Mahmud Gavan went to the trick and accused him of high treason, presenting the sultan with a forged letter with the seal of Mahmud Gavan. The Sultan was furious and ordered the minister to be killed, which was immediately executed. This happened in 1481. The Sultan, accustomed to spending all his time in entertainment in a harem and incapable of any state activity, found himself in the center of a fierce struggle between feudal groups and major dignitaries. The Bahmani state began to disintegrate. The governors began to proclaim themselves independent sultans. In 1489-1490. independent sultanates were formed in Bijapur, Berar and Ahmadnagar, in 1512 Golconda became independent. Sultans from the Bahmani dynasty, who sat in the city of Bidar, which was in the 15th century. the capital of their state, actually played no role in the management of the remaining part of their nominal possessions, and their power was limited to the palace and harem. In 1525 the last Bahmanid fled from Bidar. A new dynasty began to rule there. This formally ended the history of the Bahmanid state.

Afanasy Nikitin tells about the luxury that struck him that surrounded the Bahmanid high nobility, and the terrible poverty of the common people. He sympathetically draws the life of the poor people and emphasizes the arbitrariness and omnipotence of dignitaries. His work is the most detailed and valuable historical source on the history of the Bahmanid state, giving us a variety of information. In particular, we learn that about 20,000 horses were imported to the Deccan every year. Afanasy Nikitin himself made a profitable trade operation, bringing a first-class horse from the port of Hormuz (in Iran) by ship. Foreign trade was of great importance for the Bahmanid state. An indirect, but very interesting confirmation of this is the fact that the traveler calls the rulers of the state of Mahmud Havana “melik-tuchar”, i.e. “malik-ut-tujar” (prince or head of merchants), and does not magnify him in accordance with his the main title of "viceroy of the state". Obviously, the title of “head of the merchants” was honorary and it was not by chance that Mahmud Gavan retained, who probably had a direct relationship with trade affairs.

The Bahmanid state was not a backwater outskirts of the Muslim world. In basic terms, it is in many ways reminiscent of the Delhi Sultanate. Such a military-technical innovation as firearms appeared here even earlier than in northern India. This time was the beginning of the mass spread of Islam in the Deccan. Compared with North India, there is less noticeable desire to suppress Hindu culture, and greater tolerance towards Hinduism was manifested.

From the Bahmanid state and the dean sultanates of the 16th century. (Bijapura, Berara, Ahmadnagar, Golconda, Bidar) preserved architectural monuments - the remnants of the medieval Indo-Muslim culture: fortifications, religious and civil buildings.

4. Vijayanagar State

This state arose as a result of the rebellion of two feudal lords from South India, brothers Bukka and Harihara, who entered the service of Muhammad Tughlaq and converted to Islam. So in 1336, the entire south of India beyond the river fell away from the empire of Muhammad Tughlaq. Krishna (a year earlier, another Muslim governor in South Tamil Nadu created the short-lived Madura Sultanate). The current political situation allowed the brothers to fortify themselves, build a powerful Vidjayanagar fortress, which became the capital and gave the name to the state they created, and gradually expand their possessions. By the end of the XIV century. the rulers of Vijayanagara subjugated almost the entire south of India and entered into a struggle with the Bahmani sultans for border lands, mainly for the Raichur interfluve. The Vijayanagara emperors also fought with the Oris state for the part of Andhra adjoining the Bay of Bengal. In fact, Kerala, protected by almost impenetrable mountains - the Western Ghats - remained independent. The capital of the empire turned into a huge, rich and well-fortified city. Its very location near the northern border of the state demonstrated the importance of the adjacent territory, both in the interior and in foreign policy empire.

With all its apparent power, Vijayanagar was a rather loose formation. Many of the lands that were part of the state were under the rule of vassal princes. The princes had great independence and often even fought with each other, they raised rebellions against the central government. But most of the territory was under the control of the Vijayanagara government and was divided into provinces, the governors of which exercised their power locally and collected taxes and taxes, deductions from the income of the feudal lords and tribute from the princes. The duties of the governors included the military defense of the territory and the suppression of rebellions of vassals. Their rights were great, but the government tried not to leave the governors in one place for more than two or three years, so that they themselves could not strengthen themselves and use their power for separatist purposes.

The main form of feudal possessions was amaram. It was a conditional temporary possession, reminiscent of iqta. The owner of the amaram - amaranayak - was obliged to maintain a military detachment and appear at the call of the sovereign to serve in the army. Part of the taxes collected (about a third of the income) he had to deduct in favor of the treasury. Possession was considered lifelong and non-hereditary, but in fact usually passed to the son of a feudal lord when he asked to transfer his father's amara to him and took the vassal oath. A significant difference from the Muslim order was that the rate of taxation was determined not by government officials, but by the Amaranayak himself. He also enjoyed administrative and legal immunities. Over time, the evolution of this type of feudal possession went in the direction of an even greater expansion of feudal liberties. Inheritance began to be considered the rule, and deductions to the treasury were sharply reduced or not paid at all. The Amaranayakas increasingly shied away from their military duties. Especially common was the maintenance of a smaller military detachment than was supposed to be, especially cavalry, since the cost of buying horses was the most sensitive item of expenditure for the feudal lords. At the beginning of the XVI century. most of the Amaranayaks brought to the service of the sovereign half the number of cavalry units than they were obliged to. But such violation of vassalage or non-payment of a share of the treasury and other similar violations, as far as is known, was not punishable by confiscation of possessions. This happened only in case of rebellion. The large Amaranayaks, like the Muktas, gave part of their possessions on terms of military service to their own vassals.

Part of the territory of the state, mainly adjacent to the capital, was a state property, like the lands of the khalisa in the Muslim sultanates. Taxes from the villages located on these lands went to the maintenance of the army, the state apparatus. State possessions were replenished through conquests, confiscations from rebellious feudal lords, from escheated possessions, etc., they were used as a fund for feudal awards. Thus, the category of state holdings was not stable.

Quite significant were the fiefs of temples and brahmins. Some famous temples owned dozens of villages. Such temples were usually considered as vassals of the sovereign, smaller temples were considered vassals of either the sovereign, or those feudal lords in whose possessions they were located, and part of the income was given to the seigneurs. This category of feudal estates also includes religious grants to individual Brahmins or Brahmin communities. It was considered a great sin to take away the possessions received by temples and brahmins as a religious gift.

The Vijayanagara army consisted of the mercenary troops of the emperor himself, the military detachments of the Amaranayakas and vassal princes. It included three types of troops: infantry, cavalry and war elephants. The foot army was numerous, while the cavalry was inferior in number and fighting qualities to the Bahmanid army. According to some reports, Vijayanagar annually imported about 13 thousand horses, but they were not enough, and the warriors often did not have the skills of equestrian fighters. Therefore, the Vijayanagara emperors hired large Muslim cavalry detachments or invited Muslim feudal lords to vassal service. Let us recall that military detachments of vassal Hindu princes acted in the Bahmanid army as well.

On state lands, the Vijayanagara sovereigns sought to regulate the collection of tax. From irrigated, most fertile lands, the share of the state could apparently reach half of the crop, but on the whole, taking into account all categories of land, the rate of taxation approximately corresponded to the North Indian one (about 1/4, then 1/3). During this period, the calculation of taxes in money became widespread, which indicates the growing role of money circulation. Apparently, after all, in most of the regions of South India, the main land tax was usually taken in kind, and the calculation in money had a formal character. In general, during the existence of the Vijayanagar state, the tax pressure of the state and feudal lords on the communities increased markedly. Just as in Northern India, this affected, first of all, the position of full-fledged community taxpayers. Therefore, clashes between the communities and the royal officials and individual feudal lords due to excessive taxation took place under the leadership of this particular layer that dominated the communities, to which the castes that depended on it joined. However, such a confrontation very rarely escalated into any kind of mass uprising.

Community leaders, primarily the leaders of the regional communities of South India, in many cases forced their way into the ruling feudal stratum, entering the service of the state or the feudal lord. But during this period, another phenomenon was also noticeable: the rulers of Vijayanagara sought to subjugate the communities, turning their elders and scribes into their officials, if possible, to nullify communal self-government in order to weaken the resistance of the communities to tax oppression. Individual feudal lords also acted in the same direction.

In the second half of the XV century. there is a strengthening of the feudal lords and a weakening of the leading role of the state. This is based on the undermining of the power of the central government due to the failure of the Amaranayaks to perform feudal service, but this natural tendency in a feudal society of representatives of the ruling stratum to strengthen their own independence to the detriment of the central government was supplemented in this case by a subjective factor: the emperors of the degenerating dynasty gave all their strength to palace entertainment withdrawing from public affairs. Just at this time, Mahmoud Gavan, using the situation in Virjayanagar, waged victorious wars against him and took away a number of important areas.

Political instability, the change of dynasties led to a further weakening of the integrity of the empire, but under Krishnadevaraya (1509-1529), Vijayanagar again turned into a mighty power. A talented commander and firm politician, Krishnadevaraya managed to subdue the willful feudal lords and win them over to his side with the prospect of rich military booty, to force the Amaranayaks to pay him arrears for the share of income that they were obliged to deduct in favor of the treasury. In addition, the Amaranayaks did not contain the required number of troops. In repayment of their debt, the Amaranayaks agreed to hand over the war elephants and horses to the ruler. Krishnadevaraya subjugated the fallen vassal princes, restored the unity of the empire, conquered the interfluve of Krishna and Tungabhadra (Raichur) from the dean sultans, over whom he won a number of brilliant victories, and defeated the state of Orissa, which had grown stronger by that time.

Vijayanagara's policy towards the Deccan Sultans was to pit them against each other and not allow them to unite or over-empower anyone. And this policy by means of diplomacy and with the help of military force successfully implemented. But in 1565, the dean sultans unexpectedly managed to come to an agreement and set out on a joint campaign against Vijayanagara. Huge armies of opponents met on the river. Krishna (this battle is also called the Battle of Talikot). The Vijayanagara army was defeated and almost completely destroyed, the capital was captured without a fight, completely looted and destroyed.

The state of Vijayanagar after this catastrophe existed for almost a century, but lost its former political significance, and its territory gradually narrowed to a small area. In place of the collapsed empire, many small states arose, created former princes and governors.

Bibliography

History of Asia and Africa in the Middle Ages. Part 1. Moscow: Moscow University Publishing House. 1987.