The Rashīdī History 8.4
The Tarikh-i-Rashidi (Elias, Ross) 8.4
- Language
- English
8.4.1
Again, Major Raverty, in his translation of the Tabakat-i-Nasiri, notes the headings of the first four sections of Rashid-ud-Din's history, the second, third, and fourth of which contain the following: — "2nd Section, Account of the Turk tribes whom they designate by the name of Mughals, but every one of which, in ancient times, bore distinct and particular surnames. . . . 3rd Section. Account of the Turk tribes, every one of which have had Badshahs and chiefs, but who bore no relationship to the tribes mentioned in the preceding sections. . . . 4th Section. Account of the tribes of Turks, whose surname, from time immemorial, was Mughal. . . ." These brief extracts are sufficient to show the sense in which Rashid-ud-Din, one of the best of the Musulman authors of the Mongol period, used the word Turk, and how, though he was able to distinguish specifically between real Turks and other tribes, when ethnological considerations were in question, still used the word in a non-ethnic sense, to denote a group of tribes who had to be distinguished from the Tajiks.
8.4.2
Other Asiatic authors wrote on these subjects in the same way. Thus, Minhaj-ud-Din, the author of the Tabakat-i-Nasiri, frequently uses the word Turk to designate the nomadic group generally, and, like Rashid-ud-Din, even brings the name Tatar into the same category. The following is an instance taken from three consecutive paragraphs:—"In this same year the Chingiz Khan, the Mughal, rose up in the Kingdom of Chin and Tamghaj, and commenced to rebel; in all books it is written that the first signs of the end of time are the outbreak of the Turks. . . . The name of the father of this Chingiz Khan, the accursed, was the Tatar, Timurchi, and he was the mihtar [chief] of the Mughal tribes, and ruler over his people . . . . Among the tribes of the Mughal was another Turk of importance, a ruler and leader, and greatly venerated; and the whole of the tribes of the Mughals were under the rule of these two persons. . . . All the tracts of the Turk tribes, at the hand of their iniquity and sedition were reduced to misery. . . ."
8.4.3
Juvaini, the author of the Jahan Kushai, applies to the Mongols the passage from the Koran: "Beware of provoking the Turks, for they are formidable." Abul-feda quotes an Arab author to the effect that the Russians are a people of Turkish race, when pointing to them as belonging to the group of non-Musulman and non-Tajik inhabitants of what were regarded as civilised countries. Ibn Haukal, touching on the question from a geographical point of view, writes: "Tiraz [Taraz] is on the extreme frontier between the country of the Turks and that of the Musulmans"; yet the Musulmans, in this case, were, to a great degree, of Turki race. And, again, Minhaj-ud-Din mentions an invasion of Tibet (from Upper Bengal apparently) and says: "All the people [of Tibet] were Turks, archers, and [furnished with] long bows." Idrisi, also, in speaking of Tibet, says: "This is the country of the Tibetan Turks"; and afterwards: "This intervening space is covered with pastures, forests, and strong castles belonging to the Tibetan Turks." Further on again, he tells us: "There are Turks of very diverse races" (de races très diverses); and he proceeds to detail, among others, the Tibetans and the Kalmaks. The names of the remaining tribes he mentions in this passage, are spelled in so unintelligible a manner, that I can recognise none but the Kirghiz and Kipchaks, with whom he thus classes the Tibetans and the Kalmaks as, all alike, Turks!
8.4.4
The poet Khusru, in the passage cited above, calls the people he describes, by the name of Tatar, though a little lower down (on the same page) he says they were "Turks of Kai;" while elsewhere, he frequently speaks of the same people as Moghuls. Further, the late Mr. R. B. Shaw has explained, with regard to the word Tajik, that it stands in opposition to Turk, just as Arab stands to Ajam, and thus is not necessarily a race name. Many other instances might be given of this non-ethnic use of the word Turk, and with them might be included also some relating to a similar employment of the term Tatar. But the above will suffice to make it clear that, though the Moghuls of Moghulistan were often called Turks, during the period including the thirteenth to sixteenth centuries, it need not be assumed that they were actually of Turkish race, either by origin or by subsequent fusion of blood. There was, however, another and very important circumstance that complicated this question of nomenclature still further. It was, it seems, the desire of all the tribes and nations of Central Asia, to identify themselves with the race which happened to be in the ascendant at any particular time. They endeavoured to adopt its name, and to pass themselves off as members of the nation in supremacy, regardless of racial affinities.
8.4.5
Rashid-ud-Din has laid special stress on this point in his great work on the Mongols, and has explained the matter in one place as follows: "They [the Tatars] made themselves so powerful and formidable, that the other nations of Turks passed themselves off as Tatars, and regarded as an honour this name, under which they had become famous; just as at the present day the Jalair, Tatar, Uirat, Ungut, Karait, Naiman, Tangut, and others, find glory in the name of Mongol, made illustrious by that of Chingiz Khan and his descendants — a name which, at an earlier date, they would have disdained. The young people of all these nations believe, even now, that their ancestors have always borne the style of Mongol; but it was not so, for formerly the Mongols were only one of the nations of Turks. . . . This name has been extended to such a degree, that nowadays the people of Khitai (Northern China) and of Nan-gyass (Southern China), as well as the Churchi, the Uighur, the Kapchak, the Turkoman, and the Karluk; also the Captives and the Taziks (Muhammadans), who have been brought up among the Mongols are [all of them] called Mongols; and they are all interested in passing for Mongols, in order that they may gain consideration.
8.4.6
Previous to this period it was the same with the Tatars, on account of their power, and this is the reason why the Mongols are still called Tatars in China and in India, by the Kirghiz, the Bashgirds, in the Kapchak country, in the north of Asia, in Arabia, in Syria, in Egypt, and in Africa." It has been observed above, that in India the word Moghul was employed, subsequent to the days of Chingiz, in the same way as the word Turk in Central Asia, and Tatar in Europe, and on this subject Mr. H. G. Keene has come to conclusions which coincide with the teachings of Rashid-ud-Din. It denoted, in the first place, the group of tribes or nations who composed the armies of the northern invaders, with little or no reference to their racial origin; and secondly, at the time of Baber, it was regarded as something scarcely better than a term of contempt. But later, when the so-called Moghul dynasty came to be looked up to as the supreme power, the name assumed a different and more respectful significance. Mr. Keene writes: "Under Akbar, when the empire had become a firm result of successful war, the word [Moghul] recovered its prestige and—like the name of 'Goth' in Spain—came to indicate 'a noble conqueror,' or the descendant of one";
8.4.7
and in support of this view he cites a valuable passage from Khafi Khan (for which he acknowledges his indebtedness to the late Professor Blochmann, who may be inferred to have translated it), which runs as follows: "The flourishing condition of Mugholistan commenced with Mughol Khan, who was a great king. Although from the time of Akbar the word Mughol has been applied to the Turks and Tajiks of Irán (Persia) to such an extent that even the Sayyids of Khorasan were called Mughols, yet in reality the word is the proper term for those Turks who belong to the descendants and house of Mughol Khan; and it was used in this sense in the time of the earlier (Moslem) kings of Delhi...." Here Khafi Khan uses Turk in the same sociological sense as Rashid-ud-Din, Minhaj-ud-Din, Mirza Haidar, and the rest. Mr. Denzil Ibbetson, too, furnishes some instructive remarks, in his Report on the Punjab census, on the way the words Turk and Moghul have come to be used in modern times in the north of India. A Turk is there regarded as a native of Turkistan and a man of Mongolian race. "In the Delhi territory, indeed," writes Mr. Ibbetson, "the villagers, accustomed to describe the Mughals of the Empire as Turks, use the word as synonymous with 'official'; and I have heard my Hindu clerks, of Kayath caste, described as Turks merely because they were in Government employ. On the Biloch frontier, also, the word Turk is commonly used as synonymous with Mughal."