The Role of Tax Remission in Zia-Ul-Barani’s Just Rule

When a famine strikes or a drought ruins the harvest, what should a ruler do about the taxes owed by struggling farmers? For Ziauddin Barani, the fourteenth-century political thinker of the Delhi Sultanate, the answer was clear: in times of calamity, the Sultan should remit or reduce taxes. But Barani’s reasoning was not rooted in charity or compassion alone. His advice on tax remission reveals a hard-headed, practical mind that understood a simple truth of statecraft-an impoverished and desperate population is a threat to the very survival of the state. This idea sits at the heart of his vision of “just rule” and shows why he is often compared to thinkers like Kautilya and Machiavelli.

Who was Ziauddin Barani?
Understanding Barani’s idea of just rule
The difference between Shariat and Zawabit
What Barani said about remission of taxes
Why the timing of remission mattered
Pragmatism over philanthropy
The realist tradition in political thought
A nuanced thinker, not a simple conservative
Why Barani’s ideas still resonate

Who was Ziauddin Barani?

Ziauddin Barani (1285-1357) was a historian and political thinker who served as a nadim, or companion, to Sultan Muhammad bin Tughluq. Born into a family of scholars and administrators, he had close access to the royal court and watched the workings of power from the inside. This firsthand experience shaped his writing in a way that pure theorists could never match.

His two most important works are the Tarikh-i-Firoz Shahi, a historical chronicle of the Delhi Sultans, and the Fatawa-i-Jahandari, a treatise on governance. The Fatawa-i-Jahandari was written after Barani lost his position at court following the death of Muhammad bin Tughluq. It takes the form of nasihat, or advice, offered to Muslim rulers on how to govern wisely and effectively. It is within this body of advice that his thoughts on taxation and remission appear.

Understanding Barani’s idea of just rule

To understand why Barani recommended tax remission, you first need to understand what he meant by justice. For Barani, justice was not an abstract moral ideal floating above politics. It was a tool of governance-a means to keep the Sultanate stable, ordered, and obedient.

Barani believed the Sultan held a divine mandate, which meant that the ruler’s commands carried religious weight and disobedience was treated as a sin against God. Yet this divine authority came with heavy responsibility. The Sultan was not above the law; he was its chief protector and enforcer. A ruler who governed justly earned both religious merit and the gratitude of his subjects.

Importantly, Barani’s justice was not evenly distributed. Scholars note that his conception of justice leaned heavily in favour of the noble-born and the ruling elite, and that he used the idea of justice as an instrument to expand political obligation and strengthen the monarchy. This matters because it tells us that, for Barani, even welfare measures served a larger political purpose.

The difference between Shariat and Zawabit

Barani recognised a key practical problem. Islamic law, or Shariat, could not address every administrative situation a ruler faced in a diverse empire like the Delhi Sultanate. To fill these gaps, he supported the use of Zawabit-state laws framed by the Sultan to handle matters that religious law left unresolved. Tax policy fell largely into this practical, state-made category. This distinction gave the Sultan room to adapt his economic decisions to circumstances on the ground, including the decision to grant relief in hard times.

What Barani said about remission of taxes

Barani’s central recommendation on this subject is direct. During periods of natural disasters, he advised that tax relief should be provided to prevent excessive hardship among the people. When famine, drought, flood, or other calamity struck, the Sultan was expected to step in and ease the burden of taxation rather than demand the usual share.

This sits alongside his other economic recommendations. Barani argued that the state should regulate market prices to prevent inflation and public unrest, a concern that connected directly to the welfare of the army and the stability of the realm. Tax remission and price control were two sides of the same coin: both were tools to keep the population from sliding into desperation that could destabilise the state.

Why the timing of remission mattered

The crucial detail in Barani’s thinking is the condition attached to remission. He did not advocate permanently low taxes or a soft approach to revenue collection in normal times. In fact, the revenue practices Barani documented under rulers like Alauddin Khalji were extremely harsh. He recorded that revenue collectors were ordered to demand the tax so rigorously that peasants were forced to sell their produce immediately in the fields.

So remission was not a general policy of generosity. It was a targeted, emergency measure. In ordinary years, the state extracted its full share. In years of crisis, the Sultan loosened his grip-not to be kind, but to be wise. This selective approach is exactly what makes Barani’s advice so revealing about his political philosophy.

Pragmatism over philanthropy

Here lies the most important point about Barani’s view of tax remission. His motivation was the security of the state, not the comfort of the poor for its own sake. Barani understood the cause-and-effect chain that connected over-taxation to the collapse of order.

The historical record he himself left behind illustrates this chain vividly. When revenue demands became crushing under Muhammad bin Tughluq, the consequences were catastrophic. An unprecedented peasant rebellion broke out in the Doab region as a result of rigorously realised taxes and cesses. The over-extraction of revenue led directly to a contraction in cultivated land, the flight of the peasantry, and a devastating famine.

Barani saw this dynamic clearly. A peasant pushed past the breaking point does not quietly suffer. He abandons his land, joins a band of rebels, or flees into the jungle. When that happens on a large scale, the state loses its tax base, its food supply, and its political control all at once. Barani noted that these severe agrarian measures were ultimately almost a complete failure. Tax remission during a calamity, therefore, was a preventive investment in stability. By easing the burden when people were most vulnerable, the Sultan kept them on their land, kept the fields productive, and kept rebellion at bay.

The realist tradition in political thought

This pragmatic outlook places Barani firmly within the realist tradition of political thought. His Fatawa-i-Jahandari is frequently compared with Kautilya’s Arthashastra, and the comparison is apt. Like Kautilya, Barani treated the state as an entity with its own survival imperative, and he judged policies by their practical consequences rather than by sentiment alone.

Interestingly, even earlier rulers in Barani’s chronicles understood a version of this logic. He recorded that Balban advised his sons that revenue should be set so that it neither impoverished the peasants nor left them wealthy enough to become rebellious. This balancing act-extracting enough to fund the state but not so much as to provoke revolt-is the same calculation that underlies Barani’s case for remission.

A nuanced thinker, not a simple conservative

Barani is often labelled a conservative and orthodox thinker because of his emphasis on Islamic principles and his bias towards the elite. Yet his advice on practical matters like taxation shows a more complex picture. Scholars have observed that his vision of kingly justice was hardly orthodox, combining tact, compromise, and even the acceptance of unIslamic practices where necessary.

Tax remission is a perfect example of this flexibility. A strictly rigid ruler might insist on collecting his due regardless of circumstances. Barani, drawing on his close observation of how the Sultanate actually functioned, recommended bending the rule when bending it served the larger goal of state security. This willingness to prioritise outcomes over rigid principle is what gives his political thought its enduring interest.

Why Barani’s ideas still resonate

The logic behind Barani’s advice has not aged. Modern governments routinely offer tax relief, loan waivers, and subsidies to farmers during droughts, floods, and crop failures. The justification often blends genuine welfare with a clear-eyed recognition that rural distress can quickly turn into political instability. Whether it is a debt waiver before an election or emergency relief after a natural disaster, the underlying calculation echoes what Barani articulated nearly seven centuries ago.

His central insight remains powerful: the prosperity of the people and the security of the state are linked. A ruler who ignores the suffering of his subjects in pursuit of short-term revenue ultimately weakens his own position. Relief in times of crisis is not merely a moral gesture; it is sound statecraft.

Barani’s treatment of tax remission, then, is a window into his entire political philosophy-one that prized realism, stability, and the long-term survival of authority over rigid ideology or pure sentiment.

What do you think? If a ruler grants tax relief mainly to prevent rebellion rather than out of genuine concern for the poor, does that make the policy any less “just”? And do you see the same blend of pragmatism and welfare in how modern governments respond to agrarian distress today?

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating 0 / 5. Vote count: 0

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

References

PDF 📄

Table of Contents

Who was Ziauddin Barani? 🔗

Understanding Barani’s idea of just rule 🔗

The difference between Shariat and Zawabit 🔗

What Barani said about remission of taxes 🔗

Why the timing of remission mattered 🔗

Pragmatism over philanthropy 🔗

The realist tradition in political thought 🔗

A nuanced thinker, not a simple conservative 🔗

Why Barani’s ideas still resonate 🔗