Iqta System: The territorial expansion and consolidation of the Sultanate was an ongoing process throughout the 13th and 14th centuries. This expansion involved different forms of control over territories, including those under direct administration and others that paid tribute while remaining semi-autonomous. The Sultanate’s growth and the challenges of managing regions distant from the central authority led to the development of various methods of governance. A significant issue during the Sultanate’s early years, and even later, was the need to consolidate the territories that had been conquered. The Turks introduced the institution of Iqtas, which played a crucial role in centralizing authority. As efforts toward greater centralization increased, the iqta system evolved accordingly.
The new rulers implemented the iqta system, which effectively combined the functions of revenue collection and distribution without immediately threatening the political structure’s unity. An iqta was a territorial assignment, and its holder was known as a muqti or wali.
Table of Contents
What were Iqtas?
The early 13th-century Turkish conquests led to the displacement of many local chiefs, referred to in contemporary sources as rai and rana. To consolidate their power, the Turkish rulers introduced the system of revenue assignments known as iqta, which were granted to their nobles, or umara, in place of cash payments. The recipients of these assignments, known as muqti or wali, were responsible for collecting revenue from the assigned territories. They used the collected revenue to cover their own expenses, maintain their troops, and send any surplus, known as fawazil, to the central government.
The term iqta is derived from Arabic, and the institution had already been in practice in the early Islamic world as a form of reward for services rendered to the state. In the Caliphate administration, the iqta system was used as a means of financing operations and compensating civil and military officers. However, the grant of an iqta did not confer ownership of the land, nor was it hereditary. Although, during Firuz Tughlaq’s reign, some iqta holders began to acquire hereditary rights, this was not the norm. Additionally, these revenue assignments were transferable, with iqta holders typically being reassigned from one region to another every three or four years.
Therefore, the iqta system should not be equated with the fief system of medieval feudal Europe, where land grants were hereditary and non-transferable. Iqta assignments could vary in size, ranging from a whole province to just a part of it. These assignments came with significant responsibilities, including administrative, military, and revenue-collecting duties. As such, provincial administration was typically headed by the muqti or wali, who was also tasked with maintaining an army composed of both horsemen and foot soldiers.
The classical definition of the iqta system is provided by Nizam-ul Mulk Tusi, a prominent Seljuq statesman of the 11th century. According to Tusi, muqtis (the holders of iqtas) were only entitled to collect the rightful amount of revenue or perquisites (mal-i haqq) from the subjects in a peaceful manner. They had no rights over the lives, property, or families of the subjects, who were to be protected from any harm. Additionally, if a subject wished to make a direct appeal to the Sultan, the muqti was not to obstruct them. Tusi emphasized that any muqti who violated these laws should be dismissed and punished. He also stated that muqtis and walis acted as superintendents over the territories they governed, much like the Sultan acted as a superintendent over them. To prevent muqtis from becoming too powerful, Tusi advocated for their transfer every three or four years.
This perspective from Tusi’s Siyasatnama highlights the iqta as a revenue assignment granted to the muqti by the Sultan. The muqti was responsible for collecting land taxes and other dues owed to the Sultan in a proper and lawful manner, with no additional claims on the personal lives, families, land, or possessions of the cultivators. The muqti also had obligations to the Sultan, the most important of which was maintaining troops and providing them when called upon by the Sultan. Furthermore, iqtas were transferable, and it was common practice to frequently transfer iqta holders to prevent them from consolidating too much power.
During the reign of Iltutmish (1210-1236), small iqtas in the Doab region were reportedly assigned to soldiers of the Sultan’s army (hashm qalb) as a form of compensation instead of regular salaries. Later, Sultan Balban (1266-1286) made an unsuccessful attempt to resume these iqtas. It was Alauddin Khalji (1296-1316) who firmly established the practice of paying soldiers in cash, moving away from the iqta system as a form of payment. However, this practice was once again altered during the reign of Firuz Tughlaq, who began assigning villages to soldiers in lieu of their salaries. These assignments were known as wajh, and the holders were called wajhdars. Unlike earlier iqtas, these assignments tended to become not only permanent but also hereditary.
Iqta System in Operation
In the early years of the Sultanate’s foundation, the revenue from assigned lands and the size of the military contingents of the assignees were not clearly defined. However, under Balban (1266-86), certain modifications were introduced to centralize control. He appointed a khwaja (accountant) to accompany each muqti (landholder), indicating an effort by the Sultanate to assess the actual income of the iqta (land assignment) and the expenditures of the muqti.
Significant changes to the iqta administration occurred under Alauddin Khalji. The central finance department (diwan-i wizarat) began preparing estimated revenue incomes for each iqta. The audits became stringent, punishments severe, transfers frequent, and the estimated revenue income of the iqta was often increased (taufir) under various pretexts.
Ghiyasuddin Tughlaq (1320-25) introduced moderation by capping the annual revenue enhancements by the central finance ministry to 1/10th or 1/11th. Muqtis were permitted to retain an excess amount ranging from 1/10th to 1/20th of their sanctioned salaries.
The central control reached its peak during Muhammad Tughlaq’s reign (1325-51). In some territories, both a wali (revenue collector) and an amir (military commander) were appointed. The wali collected the revenue, sent the remainder to the treasury after deducting his pay, while the amir had no role in revenue collection and was paid his salary and that of his troops in cash, likely from the local treasury. This policy of cash payments led to discontent among commanders and created political challenges for Muhammad Tughlaq. In response, Firuz Tughlaq increased the cash salaries of the nobles and prepared new revenue estimates, known as jama.
After Firuz, there was no significant attempt to restore central control. Under the Lodis (1451-1526), administrative roles and revenue assignments were merged, and the term iqta was replaced by sarkars and parganas. A system of sub-assignments became common, particularly under Sikandar Lodi (1489-1517), where primary assignees further distributed portions of their assignments to their subordinates, who, in turn, allocated parts to their soldiers.
Iqta and the Dispersal of Resources among the Ruling Class
The Sultanate’s income was primarily derived from land revenue. The term khalisa referred to land whose revenue was reserved exclusively for the Sultan, while the revenue from iqta lands was assigned by the state to the nobles. The muqtis or iqta-holders were responsible for providing military support to the Sultan during times of need, maintaining law and order, and collecting revenue from their iqta.
These revenue assignments were typically non-hereditary and transferable, allowing the Sultan to maintain control over the nobles. The muqti collected land revenue from the peasants in his territory and used it to pay his own salary and that of his soldiers. Any excess revenue (fawazil) was required to be sent to the diwan-i wizarat (finance department), reflecting a trend towards centralization. The muqti had to submit detailed accounts of his revenue collections and expenditures to the treasury, and audits were conducted rigorously to prevent fraud.
Alauddin Khalji took additional measures to control his nobility. He relied on regular reports from the barids (intelligence officers) to monitor the actions of the nobles, restricted their social interactions, and required them to obtain his permission before marrying. These measures were implemented against a backdrop of frequent rebellions, where muqtis often used the resources of their territories to rebel or to make a bid for the throne. This context also explains the policy of frequent transfers.
During Muhammad Tughlaq’s reign (1325-1351), iqtas were given to nobles in lieu of cash salaries, but unlike earlier periods, their troops were paid directly in cash by the treasury. These new fiscal policies and the increased control over assignments likely fueled conflicts between the Sultan and the nobles, who were deprived of the benefits they had previously gained from managing the iqtas.
However, during the reign of Firuz Tughlaq, there was a general retreat from the policy of centralized control over the iqtas. Firuz began granting iqtas to the sons and heirs of the iqta-holders, and his long reign saw fewer rebellions. Yet, this period also marked the beginning of disintegration and decentralization. By the time of the Lodis (1451-1526), the iqtadars (now called wajhdars) were no longer subject to frequent transfers.
Conclusion
The Iqta system was a cornerstone of the administrative and military framework of the Delhi Sultanate, serving as both a tool for revenue collection and a mechanism for exercising central control over the nobility. Initially designed to maintain a balance between central authority and local governance, the system allowed the Sultan to delegate responsibilities while retaining oversight through the non-hereditary and transferable nature of these assignments. However, over time, as successive rulers sought to strengthen or moderate central control, the system faced challenges, including corruption, rebellion, and conflicts between the Sultan and the nobles.
Under rulers like Alauddin Khalji and Muhammad Tughlaq, the Iqta system was marked by stricter audits, increased centralization, and direct oversight of military payments, which created tensions and, at times, instability. In contrast, Firuz Tughlaq’s more lenient approach marked a shift towards decentralization, leading to a decline in the Sultanate’s centralized authority. By the Lodi period, the system had evolved into a more static form, with less frequent transfers and greater autonomy for the nobles.
Ultimately, the Iqta system’s evolution from a highly controlled administrative tool to a more decentralized and hereditary arrangement reflects the broader trajectory of the Sultanate’s governance—from a centralized, expansionist state to one facing internal fragmentation and decline. Despite its eventual limitations, the Iqta system was crucial in shaping the political and economic landscape of medieval India, leaving a lasting impact on the region’s administrative practices.
