Twilight of the Sultanate c3: Preface
Twilight of the Sultanate c3
- Language
- English
Preface
c3.1
<mark>AS I SAID</mark> in my *History of the Khaljīs*,¹ the history of Pre-Mughal India has not received the attention it deserves, so that until now no monograph on the history of fifteenth century India has been brought out. The present work is an attempt to fill this long-felt gap in India's history.
c3.2
¹ Published by the Indian Press, Allahabad, 1950.
c3.3
However, while writing on the history of the Sultanate from Tīmūr to Bābur, one has to tread on difficult ground faced as one is with the glaring paucity of *contemporary* historical literature. The contemporary and nearly contemporary sources are indeed so few that it is necessary to study, howsoever briefly, their merits and defects to appreciate the difficulties of one who attempts to write on this period.
c3.4
There are three works on the history of Tīmūr—all written outside India—while Indian annalists deal with his invasion in a very casual manner. The three chronicles forming the chief sources of Tīmūr's history are :
c3.5
(1) *Malfūzāt-i-Tīmūrī*, also called *Tuzuk-i-Tīmūrī* or Memoirs of Tīmūr,
(2) *Zafar Nāmā* of Sharafuddīn Yazdī, and
(3) '*Ajāibul Maqdūr fī Akhbār-i-Tīmūr* of Ahmad bin Arabshāh.
c3.6
Tīmūr's Memoirs or *Malfūzāt* are considered to be apocryphal by many eminent authorities like Ethe,² Rieu,³ Beveridge,⁴ Browne,⁵ and M. Bouyat.⁶ No original copy of this work in Turki exists, while about its translation rendered in Persian by Abu Tālib Husainī in the reign of Shāhjahān, E. G. Browne says: "It appears much more likely that he (Abu Tālib) himself compiled the Persian work... with the aid of *Zafar Nāmā* and other histories of Tīmūr''.⁷ But this assertion is very unfair to the author who claims to have obtained an original copy of the *Mulfūzāt* in Turki in the library of the ruler of Yemen when he was in Haramen (Ka'abā) on pilgrimage.⁸ Moreover the narrative of the *Mulfūzāt* is so corroborative of the other histories of Tīmūr that its substance proves its authenticity. However, Sharafuddīn Yazdī's *Zafar Nāmā* is perhaps the best source of Tīmūr's history. Although Yazdī wrote twenty years after the conqueror's death during the time of his grandson Ibrāhīm, and although his work is "prolix, tedious, florid and fulsome", yet he was present with the conqueror on some of his last campaigns. Besides, he bases his narrative probably on Nizām Shāmī's history of the same name.⁹ Nizām-i-Shāmī of Baghdād, who joined Tīmūr's court at the end of 1400, kept a daily record of the events of his reign,¹⁰ and this compilation in all probability provided source-material for Yazdī's work. Ahmad bin 'Arabshāh, the author of '*Ajāibul Maqdūr fi Akhbār-i-Tīmūr*, was carried a prisoner to Samarqand by Tīmūr. Therefore he is not a flatterer. Better still he is a truthful narrator of events.
c3.7
² *India Office Catalogue of Persian MSS.*, Collection No. 84.
c3.8
³ *British Museum Catalogue of Persian MSS.*, I, 178.
c3.9
⁴ J.A.S.B., 1921, 201, 203.
c3.10
⁵ E. G. Browne, *Literary History of Persia*, III, 183.
c3.11
⁶ *Encyclopaedia of Islam*, IV, 779.
c3.12
⁷ Browne, *op. cit.*, 184.
c3.13
⁸ MS. belonging to Faujdār Muhammad Khan in the Azad Library, Bhopal, 2 (a).
c3.14
⁹ Browne, *op. cit.*, 184 ff; Hodivala, 289-90.
c3.15
¹⁰ The only copy of Shāmī's work, entitled *Zafar Nāmā* and completed in 1403-4 (806 H), is in the British Museum.
c3.16
Upon these three works, subsequent histories were written. Two of them, *Rauzatus Safā* by Mīr Khwānd (died 1498) and *Habībus Siyar* by his grandson Khwānd Mīr (died 1525), are important. All these works taken together, especially the *Mulfūzāt* and the *Zafar Nāmā* of Yazdī, form a good source of material for the history of the conqueror. However, in the absence of any detailed Indian version, the narrative of Tīmūr's invasion of Hindustan as given by these foreign writers presents only a one-sided picture.
c3.17
For the post-Tīmūr period, there is only one contemporary chronicle, the *Tārīkh-i-Mubārak Shāhī* written by Yahyā bin Sarhindī. It deals with the first thirty-five years of the Saiyyad dynasty. Although after the pattern of many other historians Yahyā starts with the foundations of Muslim rule in India, yet it is for the period of 1400 to 1435 that he "gives us what he himself witnessed or learnt from trustworthy observers from the time of Fīrōz Shāh to the accession of the third Saiyyad Sultan, Muhammad". Thus he is "our most original authority" for a period of thirty-five years, 1400-1435.¹¹ With this he also supplements the meagre information of Shams Sirāj from about 1380 onwards. His account of the troublous times which followed the invasion of Tīmūr is detailed and accurate.
c3.18
¹¹ J.N.Sarkar. Foreword to *Tārīkh-i-Mubārak Shāhī's* translation by K.K. Basu, Oriental Institute, Baroda, 1932.
c3.19
Yahyā is a conscientious and precise narrator of events.¹² Unlike other Persian historians, his style is exceedingly simple. His work abounds in dates. His chronology is correct. Although he wrote for a patron-king,¹³ he is no panegyrist. All later writers have been directly or indirectly indebted to him. The whole account of the Saiyyad period in Nizāmuddīn Ahmad's *Tabqāt-i-Akbarī* is a mere reproduction of the statements of *Tārīkh-i-Mubārak Shāhī*, very often copied verbatim. Badaonī follows it very closely. Ferishta often borrows its very words.
c3.20
¹² Thomas, *Chronicles*, 330.
c3.21
¹³ T.M.S., Bib. Ind. text (Calcutta 1931), Foreword, 1.
c3.22
Although a single contemporary work on a long period of thirty five years is hardly satisfying, yet at least it is there. For the next three generations, in fact till the coming of Bābur, very little seems to have been written; at least nothing has survived. It appears that Sikandar Lodi kept a diary in which his scribes wrote an account of daily occurrences¹⁴ but that is not extant now. Again, although Ferishta claims to have consulted a contemporary work known as *Farhang-i-Sikandarī*, yet his account seems to be only a reproduction of the *Tabqāt-i-Akbarī*, and for the history of the period from 1435 right up to 1526 one has to depend only on secondary sources.
c3.23
¹⁴ T.D., 99.
c3.24
There are, however, two writers who were almost contemporary with the Lodī rulers. One is Rizqulla who was born in the reign of Sikandar Lodī (1491) and was thirty-six years of age when Ibrāhīm Lodī died at Panipat.¹⁵ But his work, entitled *Waqi‘āt-i-Mushtāqī*, was written long after, in 980 H (*A. D.* 1572-73). Besides, it is frequently interrupted by digressions and anecdotes.
c3.25
¹⁵ He lived from *A. D.* 1491 to *A. D.* 1581 (897-989 H). *Akhbārul Akhyār*, 174.
c3.26
and, therefore, is not a first rate work. All the same it is almost a contemporary account. The other writer is the celebrated saint 'Abdul Haqq Dehelvī. He was a nephew of Rizqulla. His *Tārīkh-i-Haqqī* (1596) gives useful information about the Lodī dynasty. What he writes about the Lodīs, he learnt from actual eye witnesses or from hearsay.¹⁶
c3.27
¹⁶ For a note on the work see the British Museum *Catalogue of Persian MSS.*, I, 223. For a life sketch of the author see Badaonī, III, 113.
c3.28
Of the later writers the most important is Nizāmuddīn Ahmad, author of the *Tabqāt-i-Akbarī*,¹⁷ a history from the first appearance of Muhammadanism in India up to the date of its composition in 1002 H (A.D. 1593-94). It is a very important source-book for the history of the Saiyyad and Lodī rulers. Nizāmuddīn Ahmad must have consulted some contemporary works, not available now. Abdul Qādir Badaonī, Ferishta and Nihāwandī, the author of *Ma'āsir-i-Rahīmī*, also deal at length with the history of the Lodī period.
c3.29
¹⁷ For a notice of his life see *M'aāsirul 'Umarā* and *Muntakhab-ut-Tawārīkh*. For a notice of his work see *Catalogue of Persian Manuscripts in the British Museum*, I, 220 ff.
c3.30
Then there are works dealing particularly with the Lodī kings though written at a later date. One such is the *Tārīkh-i-Salātīn-i-Afghānā* also known as *Tārīkh-i-Shāhī* written by Ahmad Yādgār.¹⁸ Yādgār's father was Vazīr of the Mughal prince Mirza 'Askarī, and the author describes himself as an old servant of Sūr Kings. He commences his work with the accession of Bahlūl (1451) and the last chapter deals with the defeat and capture of Hēmū (1556). The work was written at the command of Sultan Dāūd Shāh of Bengal. The author shows scant regard for dates and "at the end of the reign of each Afghan king gives fanciful and sometimes absurd stories".¹⁹
c3.31
¹⁸ M. Hidāyat Husain editor of the Bibliotheca Indica text, Calcutta, 1939, prefers this name. Preface, v.
c3.32
¹⁹ *Ibid.*, vii-viii.
c3.33
Ni'āmatulla's *Makhzan-i-Afghānī* was written in the seventeenth century in Jahāngīr's reign. It is a general history of the Afghans from the time of Adam to the death of Khwājā 'Usmān (1612). A distinctive feature of this book is the geneological account of various Afghan tribes. The *Tārīkh* contains, in addition, a memoir on Khan-i-Jahān Lodī, one of the greatest generals of Jahāngīr from whom the book takes its name.²⁰ The author was a Waqia Nawīs at the court of Jahāngīr. He was a contemporary of Ferishta (though he does not mention this anywhere in his work), and commenced his work in the year in which Ferishta finished his, 1593 (1001-2 H). Ni'āmatulla was assisted in his work by one Haibat Khan of Samana. Like Ahmad Yādgār, Ni'āmatulla too has little regard for dates and is fond of marvellous stories.
c3.34
²⁰ For a note on the work see E & D, V, 68. Also *Islamic Culture*, XXII, 1948, 128-42; 280-94. I.H.C., 1941, 377-83.
c3.35
Another work of the seventeenth century is the *Tārīkh-i-Dāūdī* written by 'Abdullạ. It deals with the Lodī and Sūr dynasties.²¹ It is deficient in dates and gives many anecdotes. It bears no date but incidentally mentions Jahāngīr, who ascended the throne in 1605. The work is on the whole disjointed and fragmentary.
c3.36
²¹ E & D, V and British Museum Catalogue, I, 242-43.
c3.37
Such is the position of chief official histories. The Rajput accounts too are not rich in detail and freely mix fiction with fact. But the works of the religious reformers of the fifteenth century give a good insight into the social life of the period, and the itineraries of foreign travellers like Athnasius Nikitin, 'Abdur Razzāq, Nicolo Conti and Santo Stefano contain an instructive account of the social and economic life of the fifteenth century. The *Memoirs of Bābur* is a good source-book for the political and social conditions obtaining in the early sixteenth century.
c3.38
The absence of contemporary works is certainly a handicap. But the nearly coeval and later works, which must have been based on contemporary sources, fill up the gap to a good extent. Muslims were excellent chroniclers; the works of Nizāmuddīn and Ferishta would compare favourably even with modern histories. That being so, a judicious study of the material available does bring out the main currents of fifteenth century history.
c3.39
My study of the times has led me to certain conclusions. They have been discussed in detail in their proper places, and need not be reproduced here. Two points, however, may be emphasised. Firstly, Tīmūr's invasion, which is rightly regarded as a terrible calamity, was not without a silver lining. It taught the Hindus and the Muslims to stand together in the face of a foreign foe. The urge for unity grew as time advanced. It found its culmination in the teachings of the socio-religious reformers of the fifteenth-sixteenth century. The yearning for Hindu-Muslim rapprochement is the burden of the fifteenth century social history. Secondly, despite the political instability almost throughout the whole of this period of one century and a quarter, there was sustained progress in all spheres of social and cultural activity.
c3.40
I am indebted to the Director of Archaeology in India, New Delhi, for the facilities he provided for my study at the excellent library of the Archaeological Department. The Secretary, Oriental Public Library, Patna, was equally helpful. Dr. Raghuvir Sinh was kind enough to lend me the photo-print copies of the *Waqiʻāt-i-Mushtaqī* of the British Museum MS. Add. 11, 633 and of the *Tawārīkh-i-Majlis-Arāi* by Ibrāhīm Batani of the British Museum MS. Add. 21, 911. The latter is an enlarged version of 'Abbās Sherwānī's *Tārīkh-i-Sher Shāhī*, but so far as the Lodī period is concerned it is almost a verbatim reproduction of the genuine *Makhzan-i-Afghānī*. Therefore, wherever Batani's work is quoted in evidence for the Lodi Sultans, it is cited as *Makhzan*.
c3.41
I am extremely grateful to my revered professor Dr. Tara Chand for suggesting this topic for my study and never grudging to spare time to help and advise. Dr. B. P. Saksena, Head of the History Department, Allahabad University, was kind enough to go through the MS. and give valuable suggestions. I must also thank my colleagues, Mr. S. H. Jafri for typing out the MS., Mr. T. S. Bapna for helping me to check the proofs and Mr. Manazir Ahmad, Mr. Radhey Saran and Mr. M. H. Rizawi for preparing the Index.
c3.42
In the transliteration of Persian and Indian words, long vowels are indicated as ā ī ū. Well-known words like Khan and Sultan are not accented. Similarly where h in a final position is silent (as in Ferishtah) it has been dropped to help in the correct pronunciation of the word. Thus Ferishtah, Battūtah and Zilhijjāh have been written as Ferishta, Battūta and Zilhijjā.
c3.43
The title of the work has been adapted from Percival Spear's *Twilight of the Mughals* (Cambridge, 1951).
Cites (1)
- Tārīkh-i Mubārakshāhī — Yaḥyā b. Aḥmad Sirhindī