Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Twilight of the Sultanate c14.s7: Why Is Sikandar Lodī Known as a Bigot?

Twilight of the Sultanate c14.s7

Language
English

Why Is Sikandar Lodī Known as a Bigot?

c14.s7.1

Although a just monarch, Sikandar Lodī could not rise above his religious prejudices. Indeed he revived some of those instruments of tyranny which had lain dormant for many years past. After Tīmūr’s departure the Sultanate had got busy in recapturing and consolidating its lost ground. Here and there a Hindu might have been harshly treated or a temple broken, but by and large the fifteenth century Sultans of Delhi had not indulged in any senseless persecution. During this period the Sultanate was not so powerful as to be able to oppress the Hindus. It could not also antagonise the Hindu population in the interest of its own survival.

c14.s7.2

Sikandar Lodī had succeeded in re-establishing the authority of the Sultanate on quite a firm basis. He was thus in a position to deal with the Hindus in a stern manner, and he did so. Even as a youth he had expressed a desire to put an end to the Hindu bathing festival at Kurukshetra (Thanesar).¹⁶¹ Such a prince could not have made a tolerant king, and many incidents are related pointing to his uncompromising attitude. But they are mere incidents and they do not point to a definite and persistent policy of persecution. An instance is the oft-quoted case of Bodhan or Naudhan Brahman. Bodhan lived at Kaner, near Lakhnor in Sambhal. He had declared that "Islam was true, but his own religion was also true."¹⁶² Considering his views the Brahman seems to have been a disciple of Kabīr or Ramānand.¹⁶³ When the assertion of Bodhan became public there were protests from the 'Ulama. The Sultan summoned Qazi Piyārā and Shaikh Badr from Lakhnor and many other doctors from "all directions" to deliberate on Bodhan's claim. The discussions must have been exceedingly interesting, but the details are not known to us. All the learned men, however, gave the stereotyped verdict that the Brahman should either embrace Islam or die. Bodhan chose death.¹⁶⁴

c14.s7.3

¹⁶¹ W.M., 7 (b) and 8 (a).

c14.s7.4

¹⁶² *Makhzan*, 65 (b); Dorn, I, 65; Ferishta, I, 182.

c14.s7.5

¹⁶³ *Asiatic Researches*, XVI, 55. Also H. H. Wilson, *Religious Sects of the Hindus*, Ed. Rost, I, 53-56; Sir George Grierson in J.R.A.S., 1909, 642 n.

c14.s7.6

¹⁶⁴ T.A., I, 323; Ferishta, I, 182; Dorn, 65-66.

c14.s7.7

This happened, according to all annalists, after A. D. 1500, that is, after about twenty years of Sikandar's accession. Up to that time no incident of this kind has been mentioned. Even in this case Sikandar had acted judiciously; he had condemned Bodhan only after a long trial. But some other acts of his, which are boastfully mentioned by Persian chroniclers, do defy justification. These are not given chronologically and we have no context of circumstances to find an explanation for them. It is said that in Mathura "and other places" he turned temples into mosques, and established Muslim Sarais, colleges and bazārs in the Hindu places of worship.¹⁶⁵ The author of the *Tārīkh-i-Dāūdī* adds that idols were given to butchers who used them as meat-weights.¹⁶⁶ Mathura, one of the most venerable cities of the Hindus, associated with the life of Lord Krishna, had the strange fate of being situated between the two capitals of the Sultanate—Agra and Delhi. Time and again it suffered from the ravages of the iconoclasts right up to the time of Aurangzeb. That Sikandar's bigotry found expression there is not surprising. But what were the "other places"? Details given hint at Allahabad and Varanasi. It is mentioned that barbers were forbidden from shaving the Hindus at Mathura.¹⁶⁷ Even bathing at these holy places was discouraged. Today the Sultan's ordinances excite laughter rather than anger. To what extent they could have been enforced is difficult to say, but it is difficult to believe that all the Hindus of Mathura, Allahabad and Varanasi would have permitted themselves to look like chimpanzees because of the Sultan's orders. Similarly the assertion that Sultan Sikandar "levelled to the ground all the places of worship of the Kafirs and left neither their name nor any vestige of them"¹⁶⁸ is also highly exaggerated. Some other incidents of his bigotry relate to his releasing from jail and giving an important assignment to a Hindu prisoner who agreed to embrace Islam,¹⁶⁹ and punishing Ahmad Khan Lodī for showing consideration to the Hindus.¹⁷⁰

c14.s7.8

¹⁶⁵ *Makhzan*, 67 (a); T.A., I, 335-36; Dorn, 66; Ferishta, I, 186; T.D., 39.

c14.s7.9

¹⁶⁶ T.D., 39; Ahmad Yādgār and Rizqulla say the same thing about the idols of Nagarkot; T.S.A., 47; W.M., 31 (b).

c14.s7.10

¹⁶⁷ Dorn, 166; W.M. 7 (a); T.D. 96-99; T.S.A., 62-63. Sikandar himself shaved, against the tenets of Islam, and even treated rudely Hāji 'Abdul Wahāb who disapproved of the practice. But he seems to have been reluctant to have extended the comfort of a shave to the Hindus.

c14.s7.11

¹⁶⁸ T.A., I, 335.

c14.s7.12

¹⁶⁹ W.M. 13 (b), 14 (a).

c14.s7.13

¹⁷⁰ T.A.; I, 331, Ferishta, I, 185.

c14.s7.14

Indeed the few facts mentioned by the chroniclers about Sikandar's fanaticism are of the common type witnessed here and there throughout the Muslim rule in India. Besides, his acts of persecution were confined to those very regions of eastern and western Uttar Pradesh which had opposed the Sultanate relentlessly and for long, and the Sultan had retaliated with laying waste tracts from Kara to Dalmau, and the country around Kol and Dholpur. In other words his religious persecution was associated with political subjugation. Thus there does not seem to be anything extraordinary in the acts and policies of Sikandar Lodī. But, then, why does Nizāmuddīn Ahmad followed by most other chroniclers declare that "his (Sikandar's) bigotry in Islam was so great that in this regard he went beyond the bounds even of excess".¹⁷¹

c14.s7.15

¹⁷¹ T.A., I, 335. و تعصب اسلام بمرتبه داشتی که درین باب بسرحد افراط رسانیده بود.

c14.s7.16

The reason for this statement is not far to seek. It has been pointed out earlier that a silver lining in the dark invasion of Tīmūr was that it had helped to bring Hindus and Muslims nearer to each other. The process of unity not only continued but was augmented with the passage of time. In the political sphere Hindus and Muslims were collaborating fully. Raja Trilok Chand of Baksar (near Unnao) and Raja Pratap of Bhongaon sided with the Lodī kings while their Sharqī adversary was supported by Rajas of Baghelkhand and Gwalior. In the social sphere in Sikandar's days not only had the Hindus started learning Persian, but there were Hindus like Raja Mān Singh who held extremely cosmopolitan views. Writing about him Ni'āmatulla says: "Though Raja Mān professed himself to be a Hindu, he had inwardly accepted the nobility of the Islamic creed and owing to the sincerity of his belief in Islam, no Muslim ruler could gain an ascendancy over him".¹⁷² Similarly there were Muslims of the type of Ahmad Khan, son of Mubārak Khan Lodī, governor of Lakhnor near Sambhal,¹⁷³ who was associating with the Hindus to such an extent that it was believed that he had “turned from the religion of Islam” and “had adopted the practices of unbelief.¹⁷⁴ Even the attitude of the ‘Ulama was strikingly refreshing as is clear from the case of Miān ‘Abdulla of Ajodhan.¹⁷⁵ Indeed Indian society was undergoing a change. This change was also due to the teachings of the fifteenth century socio-religious reformers like Kabīr and Nānak, about whom we shall study in detail in the last chapter. In such an atmosphere the few acts of intolerance on the part of Sikandar Lodī appeared to be so much out of tune with the spirit of the age that they shocked even the Persian chroniclers. In the fourteenth century, Sikandar Lodī’s attitude would have caused no surprise. He would have been considered one among the common run of monarchs. But in the fifteenth century his bigotry was particularly noticeable. Hence the assertion of the chroniclers.¹⁷⁶

c14.s7.17

¹⁷² *Makhzan*, 78 (b). Also N.B. Roy's Trs., 159-60.

c14.s7.18

¹⁷³ Most of the MSS. and the text of T.A. have Lakhnauti while one MS. has لکھنو (*T.A.*, *De*, 379, n. 2). Ferishta I, 185, also has Lakhnauti. Ni'āmatulla, *Makhzan*, 64 (a), has Lucknow. I think that Lakhnauti is out of the question since Bengal was not a part of the Sultanate. Lucknow too is doubtful. We, however, know that Lakhnor (which a MS. of T.A. has, if the *Wau* may be a mistake for *Rē* ) is situated near Sambhal. Sambhal was held by Dariyā Khan Lodī when Bahlūl Lodī ascended the throne (T.A., I, 296) and after his death was conferred on his son, Mubārak Khan Lodī. In the list of the barons of Sultan Sikandar, Ahmad Khan and Sa'id Khan are mentioned as sons of Mubārak Khan Lodī (T.A., I, 314). In all probability Ahmad Khan succeeded Mubārak Khān Lodī to his fief, and when Sambhal was bestowed upon Āzam Humayūn, Ahmad Khan became a sort of deputy governor at Lakhnor. Sultan Sikandar was staying at Lakhnor when Bodhan Brahman was sent for trial by Āzam Humayūn from Sambhal. T.A., I, 323; Ferishta, I, 182-83; T.D., 67-68. Therefore, the place of Ahmad Khan was Lakhnor, now Shāhābād in Rampur. Lakhnor, Lakhnau and Lakhnauti are frequently confused in Persian chronicles. (see Mrs. Beveridge's note in B.N. (B), II, Appendix T). Also see note by Prof. Hodivala, 471-72.

c14.s7.19

¹⁷⁴ T.A., I, 331; *Makhzan*, 64 (a).

c14.s7.20

¹⁷⁵ W.M., 7 (b), 8 (a).

c14.s7.21

¹⁷⁶ Even Rizqulla Mushtāqī, who is all praise for the achievements of Sikandar Lodī’s reign, does not fail to make mention of the domination of the Muslims and the subordination of the Hindus.

c14.s7.22

عجب عهدی همه در کامرانی | ببر خانه نشاط و شادمانی
نه کس دادی کند کینه در تاب | نه کس دیدی خیال فتنه در خواب
مسلمان چیره دست و هندوان رام | ندانستی کسی از جنس مغل نام
شهی در دانش یزدان شکوهی | هم از سنگ و هم از گوهر چون کوهی

c14.s7.23

(W.M., 40 (a) ). “What an age of wonder: there is merriment and festivity in every house, Gone are the highwaymen and the twisters of noose round the neck, None can think of rebellion even in dream, The Muslims are domineering and the Hindus subordinate, Forgotten is the dread of Mughal inroad. Divine is the Sultan’s omniscience, Grandeur of a mountain, yielding pearl and ruby.” Also cf. the epithets in the bilingual inscription (Sanskrit and Persian) which is said to have been discovered at the village of Mubārakpur Kotla in Delhi and is dated 14 March, 1517 (20 Safar, 923 H).

c14.s7.24

بناء این عمارت چاه در عهد | و دولت شاه کفار شکن اسلام
پناه المجاهد فی سبیل الله | سکندر شاه بن بهلول شاه

c14.s7.25

“Foundation of the construction of this well (was laid) during the reign of the king, (who is) the conqueror of infidels, the Shelter of Islam. Warrior in the path of God, Sikandar Shāh, son of Bahlūl Shāh” Epi. Ind., Arabic and Persian Supplement, 1959-60, 8.

Cites (4)