The Nāṣirī Generations 182: SECTION XX. ACCOUNT OF THE MU’IZZIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
Tabakat-i-Nasiri 182
- Language
- English
SECTION XX. ACCOUNT OF THE MU’IZZIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
182.1
Thus saith the feeble servant of the Almighty, Abu ’Umr-i-’Usman, Minhaj-i-Saraj, Jurjani—the Almighty God preserve him from indiscretion!—that this Tabakat is devoted to the mention of those Sultans, who were the Slaves of the Court, and servants of the Sultan-i-Ghazi, Mu’izz-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Sam—on whom be peace!—and who, in the empire of Hindustan, sat upon the throne of sovereignty; to whom the throne of the kingdom of that contrary, a very sober one, as I shall show in as brief a manner as possible, with regard to those passages only which have led some conscientious writers to turn Turkish slaves, Khalj Turks, the descendants of Jats, low caste Hindus, and Sayyids, into Afghans or Patans. Passing over the numerous errors in the Preface of Dow’s translation to save space, I begin with his Introduction, which is taken from Firishtah’s, but a vast deal of the original is left out, for obvious reasons, and what has been retained is full of ridiculous mistakes. In the account of a Hindu king styled Kid Raj [page 8], he has: “The mountaineers of Cabul and Candahar, who are called Afgans [sic] or Patans, advanced against Keda-raja.” The words in italics are NOT in Firishtah.
182.2
At page 50, vol. i. Dow has: “In the following year, Mamood [Mahmud of Ghaznin is meant, but the translator ignores the letter h in his name] led his army towards Ghor. One native prince of that country, Mahommed of the Soar tribe of Afgans [sic], a principality in the mountains famous for giving birth to the Ghorian dynasty &c. Briggs, too, follows Dow closely, and often verbatim, in his version of Firishtah. This identical passage in his translation (vol. i. page 49) runs thus “In the following year Mahmood led an army into Ghoor. The native prince of that country, Mahomed of the Afghan tribe of Soor (the same race which gave birth to the dynasty that eventually succeeded in subverting the family of Subooktugeen) &c. There is not a word in Firishtah about “the Afghan tribe of Soor:” the whole of the passages in italics, in both translations, are not in Firishtah. From this particular passage it is, I suspect, that the monstrous error of making Patans or Afghans of all the rulers of Dihli, Turk, Khalj, Jat, or Sayyid, has arisen. Compilers of Indian History, no doubt, felt assured that this statement, from its being repeated by both translators, must be in Firishtah, and, being in Firishtah, that it must be true; but it is NOT in Firishtah, neither is such a statement correct, nor is such to be found in any Muhammadan history.
182.3
A few lines under the passage in question, thus incorrectly translated, added to, and altered from the original, Firishtah refers to the Kitab-i-Yamini, and quotes our author's work as his authority with reference to the conversion of the Ghurians to Islam, and says: “but the author of the Tabakat-i-Nasiri, and Fakhr-ud-Din, Mubarak Shah, Marw-ar-Rudi — i. e. of the town of Marw-ar-Rud — who composed a history,” &c. [which Firishtah never saw, but learnt of it from our author. See page 300]. Dow leaves this passage out entirely: but Briggs, who appears to have been equally smitten with “Afgan or Patan” monomania, translates [page 50], the last part of the sentence, “Fakhr-ood Deen Mubarick Lody who wrote a history,” &c. He read Marw-ar-Rudi — as Lody [Ludi], and so made a “Patan” of him too! At page 132, Dow has: “The generality of the kings of Ghor, according to the most authentic historians, could be traced up, by the names, for three-and-twenty, and DOWNWARDS nine generations, from Ali to MAMOOD, the son of Subuctagi,” &c.
182.4
There is not one word of this in Firishtah. He gives the names of their ancestors as our author [from whose work he copied them] and a few others give them, name by name, down to Zuhak the Tazi; but not understanding, apparently, what followed in the original, Dow concocted on his own monarch passed — in the same manner as his own august fertile imagination — the nine generations down to Mamood of Ghaznin, to whom the Ghuris were no more related than they were to Dow himself. I have not a copy of Briggs’s version by me now, that I might compare it with Dow’s, but I should not be surprised if, in this instance also, he had drawn his inspiration from Dow. It was from this identical passage, probably, that the author of a "Student's Manual of Indian History" was led to imagine that Mahmud of Ghaznin was "the great ancestor of Shahab-ood-Deen." As Sam was the name of Rustam’s family, the Tazik Ghuris might have been, with equal plausibility, made descendants of Rustam, son of Zal, the Sigizi, and moreover Sigistan or Sijistan is close to Ghur, and several of the Ghuri chiefs were called Sam. I now pass from the "Ghuzni Patans" and the Turkish slave "Patans" to the Tughlak dynasty or "Tuglick Patans."
182.5
Dow has, at page 295, vol. i. : "We have no true account of the pedigree of Tuglick. It is generally believed that his father, whose name was Tuglick, had been, in his youth, brought up as an imperial slave, by Balin. His mother was one of the tribe of Jits. But indeed the pedigrees of the Kings of the Patan empire make such a wretched figure in history," &c. Not one of the words in italics is in Firishtah : the whole sentence is his own concoction. Compare Briggs also. Under the reign of the Afghan ruler whom Dow styles "Shere" [vol. i. page 159], being more correct in his translation, he consequently contradicts some of his former assertions. He then describes Roh from Firishtah ["The Student's Manual of Indian History" however assures us that it is "only a town in the province of Peshawur"!!!], but makes several mistakes in doing so; but Firishtah himself blundered greatly when he said that the son of the Ghuri chief who took up his abode among the Afghans was called Muhammad-i-Suri, and that his posterity are known as the Sur Afghans. The Afghan tradition is very different. According to it, the chief's son was named Shah Husain, he was said to have been descended from the younger branch of the Ghurian race, while Muhammad-i-Suri, said to be the great-great grandfather of the two Sultans, Ghiyas-ud-Din and Mu’izz-ud-Din, was descended from the elder branch with whom the sovereignty lay.
182.6
This Shah Husain, by one of his Afghan wives, had three sons, Ghalzi, Ibrahim, surnamed Lodi and Ludi — but properly, Loe-daey — and Sarwani. Ludi had two sons, one of whom was named Siani, who had two sons, Pranki and Isma’il. Pranki is the ancestor in the eighth degree of the first Afghan or Patan that attained the sovereignty of Dihli, namely, Sultan Bah-lul, of the Shahu Khel tribe of Ludi, and founder of the Ludiah dynasty. He is the thirtieth ruler of Dihli counting from Kutb-ud-Din, the Turkish slave of Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, Ghuri; but, according to Mr. E. Thomas: "Chronicles of the Pathan Kings of Dehli," he, under the name of "Buhlul Lodi," is the thirty-second Patan ruler. The other sons, of whom Shah Husain is said to have been the father, formed separate tribes, one of which, the Ghalzis, I shall have to make a few remarks about, shortly.
182.7
Isma’il, brother of Pranki, and son of Siani, son of Ludi, had two sons, one of whom was named Sur, who is the founder, — not Muhammad, son of Suri the Ghurian — of the Afghan tribe, not of Suri, which here is a proper name, but of Sur. Sur, great grandson of Ludi, had four sons, from one of whom words had pronounced, and which have been previously in the ninth degree, sprung Farid, afterwards Sher Shah, and therefore, according to the Afghan mode of describing their peoples’ descent, he would be styled, Sher Khan, of the Shera Khel, of the Sur subdivision of the Ludi tribe of the Batani Afghans or Patans. The name of Suri occurring among the Ghuri Taziks, and Sur among the Afghans, immediately struck Firishtah probably, and he, at once, jumped at the conclusion that they were one and the same, and that the Ghuris were Afghans, and Afghans Ghuris. But, although Firishtah made this mistake—for he is the first who made it—he never turns Turkish slaves, Khalj Turks, Sayyids, and others into Patans, for, according to Firishtah’s statements also, Bah-lul, Ludi, is the first Patan sovereign of Dihli, as stated by other authors who preceded him. Under the reign of Salim [Islam] Shah, Sur, Dow has [at page 191, vol. ii.], when mentioning his death, "In this same year, Mahmood, the Patan King of Guzerat, and the Nizam of the Decan, who was of the same nation, died."
182.8
Here we have the descendant of a converted Rajput of the Tak sept, on the one hand, and the descendant of a Brahman of Bija-nagar [Bi-jaya-nagar], on the other, turned into Afghans; but I need scarcely add that the words in italics ARE not contained in Firishtah. Compare Briggs also here. One example more and I have done with these monstrous blunders; but there are scores unnoticed still. At page 197, vol. ii. Dow, under the reign of Ibrahim, Sur, has: "In the meantime, Mahommed of the Afghan family of Ghor, governour of Bengal, rebelled against Mahommed." The words in italics ARE NOT contained in Firishtah’s text; and what that author does state is perfectly correct. What Briggs has I am not aware. The last of the eight Afghan or Patan sovereigns of Dihli, as Bah-lul was the first, was Ahmad Khan, who, on ascending the throne, adopted the title of Sultan Sikandar. The renowned Afghan chief, the warrior and poet, Khush-hal Khan of the Khatak tribe, who was well versed in the history of his people, mentions the only two Patan dynasties—Ludiah and Sur, in one of his poems [See my "Poetry of the Afghans," page 197] in these words:—
182.9
"The whole of the deeds of the Patans are better than those of the Mughals; But they have no unity among them, and a great pity it is. The fame of Bah-lul, and Sher Shah too, resoundeth in my ears— Afghan emperors of India who swayed the sceptre effectually and well. For six or seven generations did they govern so wisely, That all their people were filled with admiration of them." He does not claim the Tazik Ghuris, Turks, Paranchahs, and Sayyids however.
182.10
I must mention before finishing this, I fear, tiresome note, that ELPHINSTONE does not perpetrate the monstrous blunder I have been dilating on. He very properly calls the Turkish slaves, the "Slave Dynasty;" and the others under their proper designations. I do not say slaves in a contemptuous sense, far from it, for they were most able rulers, and many of them were of as good descent as their master; but they were not Patans nor did they belong to a Patan dynasty. It was however left for the President of the Archaeological Section, at the late Oriental Congress [on the authority of Major-Gen. A. Cunningham probably] to crown this edifice of errors with "Ghori Pathans," "Khilji Pathans," "Tughlak Pathans," and "Afghans" recorded—who became the heirs of his dominion, and the august brows of whom became encircled with the imperial diadem of that sovereign; and through whose sway the signs of the lights of the Muhammadan faith remained on the records of the different parts and tracts of the territories of Hindustan: and may such evermore continue! The Almighty's mercy be on those passed away, and may He prolong the empire of the remainder!