History of the Khaljis, A.D. 1290–1320 c21.34

c21.34

According to Maulana Ziyāuddin, however, the accession of Khusrau ushered in a reign of untold misery for the true believers. On the fifth day of his accession, says he, idol worship was begun inside the palace. Khusrau Khan usurped the (chief) wife of Qutbuddin and the Barvārīs took possession of Muslim girls. Copies of the Quran were torn to pieces and used as seats for idols which were placed in the niches (*mehrābs*) of the mosques. In short infidelity was in the ascendant and the followers of the true faith were subjected to humiliations unprecedented in the history of the sultanate. The sultan thought of enhancing the power and dignity of the Hindus and a large number of them gathered round him.²⁴ Treasures were thrown open and money was freely distributed to them. All this the chronicler writes with the passion of a staunch Muslim who could not tolerate a convert ascending the throne; particularly one whose accession was accompanied by cruel punishments inflicted on Muslim women and children. But the narrative of Barani suffers from gross exaggerations. It is not surprising that some Barvārīs worshipped idols inside the palace and tore up copies of the Quran since they had known the Muslim conquerors breaking temples and burning religious books of the Hindus. In a spirit of revenge the Barvārīs did all this, and the sultan on account of his obligation to them for securing him the throne did not interfere with what they did. Yahya is quite correct when he says, "The Hindus (rather Barvārīs) confident of their position as the relations of Nāṣiruddin Khusrau Khan, subjected the Muslims to cruelty..."²⁵ But the assertion of Barani that Khusrau Shah tried to establish Hindu Raj is wholly incorrect. Khusrau had been converted when he was a mere boy, so that even his Hindu name has not come down to us. In the wars that he fought in the Deccan he was as cruel to the Hindu kings and inhabitants as any other Muslim conqueror. There he broke Hindu temples, and Amīr Khusrau graphically describes the humiliations to which the king of Telingana was subjected by him. Not only Khusrau, but his brother and a number of other relatives also had accepted Islam. These facts clearly show that Khusrau always regarded himself as a Musalman and there is not a single instance to prove that his behaviour or inclination was anti-Islamic. Barani nowhere says that Nāṣiruddīn persecuted Muslims simply because they were Muslims. On the other hand he admits that so long as Nāṣiruddīn reigned his *khuṭbah* was read from the pulpits of the mosques and the title of Amīrul Mauminīn was struck on his coins.²⁶