Expenditure
Expenditure
Expenditure
FINANCIAL HISTORY
Author(s): Shireen Moosvi
Source: Proceedings of the Indian History Congress , 1985, Vol. 46 (1985), pp. 285-299
Published by: Indian History Congress
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Indian History Congress is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Proceedings of the Indian History Congress
1.2 To make any attempt ata study of imperial finances during the
17th century one has to resort to indirect evidence or to build upon bits
and pieces. Though the related data for the 17th century are admitte-
dly scattered and scanty, certain information on imperial financial
expenditure can still be studied.
helpfully informs us that the Emperor had fixed the incöme of thè
khalisa at 60 crore dams. 150 lakhs) while khalisa expenditure
varied from 100 to 120 lakhs of rupees.®
1.4 This amount went, in part, to maintain the imperial military estab
lishment that included 7000 ahadis and mounted musketeers; 40,000 foot
soldiers, gunners musketééť^and árchérš6 as wei^as the animal stables,
arsenal and armoury. Part of additional expenditure on military
campaigns must also have formed part of the khalisa expenditure.7 Then
there' were expenses iricurred ón the hařem, wardťobe', kftchfenvand
numerous other departments ( karkhunas ) and buildings, all' comprised
under household expenditure ( bayutat ).
1.5 With the limited amonüt of data available 'to ils, it does' not setem
possible to work out the pattern òf imperial " expenditure' in ahy detail,
Nevertheless the surviving iriònumerìts of Shałijaftan give Usf the impťeš*
sion that the financial investment in thefti shbuld hávè> accounted for a
Very considerable ' proportion of the khatistí expenditure. ^Foftuna-
tel y the costs of construction of most of the major edifici ańd the
periods during which those were erected are recorded either by the
contemporary chronicles or are mentioned in sortie of the inscriptions
ort the buildings themselves. It thus seems possible to compute the
minimum expenditure on imperial buildings erected by Shahjahan and
its relative significance in the imperial budget. This máý alsó provide
archaeologists the possibility of relating the recorded estimates of^
expenditure to-the-su^viv ing. buildings thqugh the fací that portions of
Certain complexes disappeared such as Mumtazabad, must complicate
the task.
1.8 Construction on a large scale was undertaken in the very first year
of Shahjahan's reign.10 The new emperor did not find to his taste most
of the buildings in the Agra fort built by Akbar , with red sand stone at
a cost of Rs. 35 lakhs.11 Shahjahan, therefore, ordered a number of
buildings within therfort in marble.*2 Even the marble structures added
by Jahangir were demolished and rebuilt by 1636-7. 13 In his 10th regnal
year, 1636-7 Shahjahan planned to build a suitable mosque at Agra; a
site was selected and the land acquired. Lāhori and, following him,
Salih inform us that thè land of the site which was outside the kfidtisa
was bought at 50% enhanced prices, while some of the owners opted for
taking buildings in compensations elsewhere.14 However, Princes Jaha-
nařa sought permission from the Emperor to build the mosque and so
the construction work was handed over tö the officers of her establish-
ment.15
1.9 It seems that all the alterations in the Ágra fořt by Shahjahan
except the mosque in the fort that was built later on had been comple-
ted around 1937-38.16 While we have no separate estimateś !for the
cost of construction of väHousv buildings, Lahori as well ás 'Salih record
the total imperial expenditure on the buildings of Agra (excluding the
Taj Mahal and Mumtazabad complex) as 60 lakhs of rupees. This
amount includes the expenditure oř Rs. 3 laklis incurred on thë mosque
inside the fort.17 Perhaps we will not go far wrong in assuming that in
the first decade of ťhe reign Rs. 50 lakhs were spent on the erection of
buildings at Agra. It Was durinģ the same decade that a tomb was
erected on Jahangir's grave. According to Jahangir's will it should have
been a simple structure of mostly red stone and only partly of marble.
It tóok 10 lakhs of rupees and was completed within ten years.18
1. 1 1 The buildings within the Lahore fort too did not appeal to the
emperor and he ordered the rebuilding of the ghuslkhana , bedchamber
and the palace. Wazir Khan the Governor of Lahore was made respon-
sible for supervision and the buildings were renovated within 10 years
duration at an expense of Rs. 20 lakhs were renovated on the plan
drawn by Asaf Khan.23 Some structures were also erected at the bank
of the river Ravi at an expense of Rs. 1,40,000 in two years.24
and Safaidun was repaired and extended 30 karohs more to reach the
fort. This was carried out at an expense of Rs. 2 lakhs in four years
(1646-50).33
1.17 Shahjahanabad did not get its city-wall until the 24th year of
Shahjahan (1650-51). Before his departure for Kashmir the Emperor
gave an order for its immediate construction. Hurriedly a wall of mud
and stone was erected within four months at an expense of Rs. 1.5 lakhs.
But it gave way under heavy rains the very next year. Therefore
another order was given in the 26th year to build the wall a fresh with
stone and lime mortar. This long wall (6,364 dira or yards) with 6 big
and 5 small gates and seven towers was built at a further cost of Rs. 4
lakhs, but the material left of the previous wall worth Rs. 50 thousand
was reused thus the actual burden on the imperial treasury amounted to
Rs. 3,50,000 only.87
1.18 The Emperor kept on adding new buildings to his capital at least
until 1656, when he constructed an Idgah outside the city wall at a cost
of Rs. 50,000. This was built within one and a half year.*8
Thé palace Was built in about two years and /our months. He furtheř
informs us that Rs. 2 lakhs were granted to Prince Dara Shukoh and
ïls. 50,000 to Prince Sulaiman Shukoh to construct buildings at a place
Which the Emperor now named Faizabad.8*
1.20 Even after building Shahjahanabad, the Emperor did not lose his
interest in buildings at the Agra fort. In 1647 he decided to add a
hiosqüe at the fort. The work on the mosque was completed within
seven years, i. e. in 1063 A. H./ 1653. 40
1.23 Ift the 21st regnal yeąr Ghazi Beg the Mir-lnarat of Kabul was
ordered to rebuild the fort at Kabul. He carried out this order in two
Jrears and the expenditure amounted to Rs. 2 lakhs-48 A few years
«arlier in 1056/ 1-646-7 Shahjahan had completed the work on buildings
he erected in Kabul when a prince, by spending a further sum of Rs. 5
lakhs. Out of these Rs. 2j. lakh were spent on the palace and thè
balance went in laying out gardens particularly the Chahar Bagh and
repairs of Babur's mausoleum,46 In all Rs. 12 lakhs were spent on
buildings at Kabul.47
1 .24 Lahori and Salih also state that the buildings within suba Ajmer,
Ahmadabad and other places accounted for an expenditure of Rs. 12
lakhs. Shahjahan is reported to have built a marble mosque at Ajmer
in 1651-2.48 But the cost is not reported. Shaista Khan in 1651-52
received Rs. 29,000 for the repair of the fort at Ahmadabad.49 We are
told that Rs. 8 lakh were spent on the fort at Qandahar and
Zamindawar.50
1.25 At the close of his work under the 20th R. Y. (1647-8), Lahori
records that the total expenditure on buildings under Shahjahan amount-
ed to Rs. 2.5 crores.51 Salih, who gives an account of the entire reign
of Shahjahan, repeats the same figure at the end of the account of the
20th R. Y.52 This suggests that this expenditure was incurred by that
year only. This impression is further strengthened by the fact that
though Lahori mentions the construction of the Jama' mosque at Shah-
jahanabad (built between 1651-56), he does not give the expenses
incurred on it. A glance at the statement of expenditure on individual
buildings at Shahjahanabad offered by waris53 establishes beyond doubt
that Lahori's estimate includes only the costs of buildings constructed
down to the 2 J st R. Y.
(c) In converting the regnal and Hijra years into the Christian Calen-
der the Hijra year may be assigned to that Christian year in which
its larger portion falls.
TABLE I
TÀÉLÊ Í1
1.32 One rather obvious reason for the higher costs under Shahjahan
was the extensive use of marble instead of the red sand stone mainly
used under Akbar. Waris explicitly mentions that marble for the build-
ings of Shahjahanabad was brought from Makrana, over a distance of
100 kurohs (over 250 miles J. 57 The cost of transportation must have
added to the expense.58
Côst in another way as well. The Work being extremely specialised thè
remuneration of the craftmen and their supervisors was very high.
R. Nath has discovered two l9th Century MSS that give the wages of
the builders of the Tajmahal. The monthly salary öf a Ťughranaviš
(Writer of a decorative calligraphy inscribed on Walls) is set at Rs. lOOOj
that of a kushnavis (câllígraphist) at Rs. 500, and of a gultäräsh (sculptor)^
at Rs. 400.á9 These Were high salaries, since an ordinary unskilled
Workman's wage in 1637-39 Was Rs. 3 a month at Agra.60ř and the salary
of a māni obdar of 20 zat of Class III Was only Rs. 750 a month.61
1.35 Finally the rise in prices during the 1 7th century were also res*
ponsible for a part of the higher Cõsts of the buildings. The influx of
silver began a process of depreciation of the value of the rupee, which
led to a rise ín the price-lervel between the first and sixth dećades of
the century. Seen in terms of copper the increase by 1656 amounted
to about 79% to What it Was in 1609. 62
â distribution tíie revenus resources of the Mughal empire among the nobility
Proceedings of Indian History Congress * 27th session, pp. 237-42.
4 AbuM ťazl expressedly includes the amount alienated in Suyurghat in his jama k
figures, Aw-i Axbari , ed. Blochrfiann, Bib. Ind. Calcutta, 1864-% pp. 386-595.
S Qazwinì, fiadshahnama, transcript of the Rampur MS in the Library of the
Department of History, AMU, p. 423,
6 Lahori, II> Part 2, p. 715,
7 Qazwini states that in years when major expeditions tcOk place the khalisa expe-
nditure rose to Rs. 120 lakhs ( Badshahnama transcript, p. 423).
$ Qa swìni, p. 266.
9 Qazwini, p. 266, Lahori I, part 1, p. 149,
10 Lahori, I, part 1, p. 221.
Il Tuïuki Jahangiri% ed. Saiyid Ahmad, Ghazipur & Aligarh, 1863-64, p. 2. Badaum
gives the expenditure on the Agra fort by Akbar as 3 crores { tankas ) i.e. Rs. 15
lakhs Muntakhabut Tawarikh ed. Ali Ahmad & Lees, Bib. Ind., Calcutta, 1864-9,
II, p. 74. While Pelsaert gives an estimate of Rs. 25 lakhs, F. Pelsaert, A
Contemporary Cutch Chronicle of Mughal India , tr. Brij Narain & S. R. Sharma,
Calcutta, 1957, p* 21, The amount reported by Jahangir should be allowed
precedence over the other two estimates.
12 Lahori, I, part 1, p. 221,
13 Ibid.,1, part 2, pp, 237-41,
14 I, part 2, p, 252; Salih Kamboh, AmaUi SaltĶ II, ed, Ghülam Yażdani,
pp. 230-3L
15 Waris, p, 203,
16 Lahori, II, p. 405*
17 Lahori, II, p. 714; Salih* II, pp. 557-8. In the printed text of Lahori the expendi-
ture on the Agra fort mosque alone is wrongly given as 60 lakhs of rupees. The
figure is not only inconsistant with Lahori's own account but we have the correćt
figure of 3 lakhs in wars (p. 240) and Salih (Vol. Ill, p. 175), as well as the ins-
cription on the facade of the mosque, (personal reading)*
IB Qazwini, p. 36-7, Salih I, p. 11. Jahangir, following Babur> had Willed that nd
building should be erected on his grave*
23 Qazwini, p. 589, Salih, II, p. 8. Salih says that the buildings in fort were neglec-
ted for a long time.
24 Waris p. 109.
25 Labori, II, pp. 168-9; Salih, II, p. 312.
26 Ibid., p. 341.
27 Lahori, II, pp. 31 1 -15, Salih, II, pp. 373-6. But an inscription mentions the date
of foundation as 1637. S. Muhammad Latif, Lahore , Its History , Archaeological
Rema ns and Antiquities , Lahore, 1892, p. 142 and n.
30 Waris, p. 54.
31 Salih, III, p. 35. It is recorded under the account of A.H./1058/1647-8.
32 Waris, 351-2; 355-6: Salih III, p. 52. Waris compares it with Akbar's mosque at
Fatehpur Sikri and says that the domes of both the mosques are equal in size
while the area of Shahjahan's mosque is bigger, moreover, Akbar's mosque is of
red sand stone while Shahjahan's mosque has been built of marble.
33 Waris, p. 39, Salih, III, pp. 115-6.
3 4 Salih, III, p. 118.
35 Waris, p. 55; Salih, III, 56-72 & 181.
36 Waris, p. 250-1, Salih, III, p. 159.
37 Waris, p. 378; Salih III, p. 243. Badshahnama' s text here seems a little corrupt;
it says that the material of the old city wall was worth Rs. 1,50, C00, which seems
an error for Rs. 50,000. Salih, however, does not give this break-down.
39 Waris, pp. 373-8, Salih, III, pp. 90,237 & 241-3. AH these buildings were of
marble & a canal was built from the river Yamuna to these palaces. The river
was at a distance of one kur oh from the imperial palaci. Sie also A. Fuhrer,
The Monumental Antiquities & Inscriptions in the North Western Provinces & Oudhr
Allahabad, 1891, p. 17.
40 Waris, pp. 240,243; Salih, III, p. 175, The entire ntosque is built of marble and
the inscription on the gate of the mosque says : "Built within a period of 7 years
at the expense of Rs. 3 lakhs, and completed in 26th R.Y./A.H. 1063".
4.1 Waris, p. 243, Salih, III, p. 17&.
42 Qazwini, pp. 674-6, Lahori, Iy part 2, pp. 160-1.
43 Lahori, I, part 2» pp. 24-31 , 50-51 ; Salih, II, pp. 40„ 42-4.
49 Ibid., p. 208.
50 Lahori, II, p. 714 & Salih, II, pp, 557-8.
51 Lahori, II; p, 714,
52 Salih, II, pp, 557-8,
53 Waris, p. 39.
54 Qazwini records the annual income of the khalisa as Rs. 1*60,000 and the expen-
diture in normal years as Rs. 1,00,000 (p. 423).
55 Economy of the Mughal Empire- A Statistical Study * (being published by OUP*
Delhi).
56 The amount given by Pelsaert is Rs. 15*00,000 but it is no+ clear whether the cost
of the mosque is included in it or not. See Irfan Habib, 'Fatehpur Sikri-The
Economic and Social Sitting', paper presented at Fatehpur Sikri Symposium,
Cambridge MAss,, USA,
57 Waris* p. 39,
58 Imperial farmans relating to the construction of the Taj Mahal* Medieval India-a
Miscellany , Pp. 158*7. Also reproduced in R. Nath* The Tajmahal and its Incar-
nation, Jaipur, 1985.
R. Nath has reproduced two farmans of Shahjahan dated January and September
1632 addressed to Mirza Raja Jai Singh of Amber* it appears from these farmans
that an amount was sanctioned from the imperial treasury to meet the cost of
transport of marble to Agra for the building of Taj Mahal.
59 R. Nath, «Scrutiny of Persian date related to the builders of Taj Mahal' Indo*-
Iranica , XXXI, nos. 182, 1979, pp. 1*9, also reproduced in his Taj Mahal and Its
Incarnation , pp. 36-40,
$2 Cambridge Economic Hi¿tory of India , Vol. I, ed, Tapan Ray Chaudhury and
Irfan Habib, Cambridge* 19S2* p, 380,