Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India c6.s1: Contemporary Chronicles

The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India c6.s1

Language
English

Contemporary Chronicles

c6.s1.1

No wonder, a continuous chronological record of the major events of Islamic history in India is available in a series of works ranging from the seventh to the nineteenth century, and covering both dynasties and regions. There are a number of authentic historical works on the conquest of Sind by Muhammad bin Qasim and on the invasions of Mahmud of Ghazni and Muhammad Ghauri. With the establishment of Muslim rule in India official and non-official chroniclers produced works covering all the dynasties of the Central Sultanate of Delhi (C. 1200-1526) as well as the dynasties of the various Muslim kingdoms that arose on the ashes of the Sultanate. Some of the writers, though religious bigots like Ziyauddin Barani and Abdul Qadir Badaoni, were geniuses in their own way. Baranis contemporary Amir Khusrau too wrote historical works doing credit to his versatility. Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur, the founder of the Mughal empire in India (1526), wrote his own memoirs. His daughter Gulbadan Begum followed in his footsteps and produced an autobiographical sketch entitled *Humayun Nama*. Before them Amir Timur wrote his *Mulfuzat-i-Timuri* and after them emperor Jahangir (1605-1627) wrote his memoirs under the title of *Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri*. Nowhere else in the history of the world can a ruling dynasty boast of having four royal autobiographers as the Mughals of India. Of regular historical works, of course, there is no dearth. Scholars like Abul Fazl, Abdul Hamid Lahori and Khafi Khan wrote in a style and with the comprehension of Edward Gibbon, Thomas Babington Macaulay, Theodore Mommsen and Thomas Carlyle. Abdul Hamid Lahoris *Badshah Nama* and Khafi Khans *Muntakhab-ul-Lubab* were followed by works of Sujan Rai Bhandari, Ishwar Das Nagar, Bhim Sen, Ghulam Husain Salim and Ghulam Husain Tabatabai. These later writers, instead of merely chronicling events also sometimes showed concern for their causation. These are just a few names. There are scores and scores of contemporary Muslim chroniclers of medieval Muslim history. The information provided by them is supplemented by inscriptions carved on the Muslim monuments, both original or converted from Hindu shrines.

c6.s1.2

This historical material has certain peculiarities. Firstly, medieval Muslim chroniclers wrote with a strong religious bias. To some belief in the superiority of the Islamic faith was an obsession, to others it appeared as a patent fact. Therefore, whenever they referred to non-Muslims, they did not fail to use the most uncomplimentary epithets against them. It is sometimes argued that theirs was just a style of writing and no serious notice should be taken of their choice of words. But the manner of their writing surely reflects their psyche.

c6.s1.3

Secondly, Persian chroniclers, by and large, wrote at the command of kings and nobles. As panegyrists, they naturally extolled their patrons and the burden of their theme was that medieval monarchs left no stone unturned to destroy infidelity and establish the power of the people of the Islamic faith. Thus, almost all Persian writers have exaggerated the achievements of their contemporary rulers, especially in the spheres of conquest and crushing of infidelity. Even their acts of cruelty and atrocity have been painted as virtuous deeds.

c6.s1.4

Thirdly, even those who wrote independently suffered from racial pride and prejudice. While they write little about the life of the common people, their economic problems and social behaviour, they do not tire of portraying their rulers as champions of Islam and destroyers of disbelief Their words of hate have left a trail of bitter memories which it is difficult to erase. As an example, the language of some contemporary chroniclers may be quoted as samples. Nawasa Shah was a scion of the Hindu Shahiya dynasty and was converted to Islam by Mahmud of Ghazni. Such conversions were common. But return to ones original religion was considered apostasy punishable with death. Al Utbi, the author of *Tarikh-i-Yamini*, writes how Sultan Mahmud punished Nawasa Shah:

c6.s1.5

Satan had got the better of Nawasa Shah, for he was again apostatizing towards the pit of plural worship, and had thrown off the slough of Islam, and held conversation with the chiefs of idolatry respecting the casting off the firm rope of religion from his neck. So the Sultan went swifter than the wind in that direction, and made the sword reek with the blood of his enemies. He turned Nawasa Shah out of his government, took possession of all the treasures which he had accumulated, re-assumed the government, and then cut down the harvest of idolatry with the sickle of his sword and spear. After God had granted him this and the previous victory, which were tried witnesses as to his exalted state and proselytism, he returned without difficulty to Ghazna.¹

c6.s1.6

Hasan Nizami, author of *Taj-ul-Maasir*, thus wrote about the conquest of Ajmer by Muhammad Ghauri in 1192:

c6.s1.7

The victorious army on the right and on the left departed towards Ajmer When the crow-faced Hindus began to sound their white shells on the backs of the elephants, you would have said that a river of pitch was flowing impetuously down the face of a mountain of blue The army of Islam was completely victorious, and a hundred thousand grovelling Hindus swiftly departed to the fire of hell He destroyed (at Ajmer) the pillars and foundations of the idol temples, and built in their stead mosques and colleges, and the precepts of Islam, and the customs of the law were divulged and established.²

c6.s1.8

And here is Maulana Ziyauddin Barani. He writes: What is our defence of the faith, cried Sultan Jalaluddin Khalji, that we suffer these Hindus, who are the greatest enemies of God and of the religion of Mustafa, to live in comfort and do not flow streams of their blood.³

c6.s1.9

And again, Qazi Mughisuddin explained the legal status of the *Zimmis* (non-Muslims) in an Islamic state to Sultan Alauddin:

c6.s1.10

The Hindu should pay the taxes with meekness and humility coupled with the utmost respect and free from all reluctance. Should the collector choose to spit in his mouth, he should open the same without hesitation, so that the official may spit into it The purport of this extreme meekness and humility on his part is to show the extreme submissiveness incumbent upon the *Zimmis*. God Almighty Himself (in the Quran) commands their complete degradation⁴ in as much as these Hindus are the deadliest foes of the true prophet: Mustafa has given orders regarding the slaying, plundering and imprisoning of them, ordaining that they must either follow the true faith, or else be slain or imprisoned, and have all their wealth and property confiscated.⁵

c6.s1.11

Even after his conversion to Islam, the Hindu remained an object of abhorrence. In his *Fatawa-i-Jahandari*, Barani writes: Teachers are to be sternly ordered not to thrust precious stones (scriptures) down the throats of dogs (converts). To shopkeepers and the low born they are to teach nothing more than the rules about prayer, fasting, religious charity and the Hajj pilgrimage along with some chapters of the Quran They are to be instructed in nothing more The low born are capable of only vices⁶ Barani is so maliciously vituperative against Hindus that even many modem Muslim scholars feel embarrassed at his language and find it difficult to defend him.⁷ It must, however, be remembered that Barani belonged to the common run of Muslim theologians and chroniclers. He was a personal friend of men like Amir Khusrau and Ala Hasan Sijzi and was a disciple of no less a Sufi than Shaikh Nizamuddin Auliya. He possessed charming manners and was known for his wit and humour.⁸ But in the case of Hindus, his wit turned into rage. He is copiously quoted by future chroniclers like Nizamuddin Ahmad, Badaoni and Farishtah, who all praise him highly. Most of medieval Muslim chroniclers wrote in the idiom of Barani; only he excelled them all. All medieval chroniclers were scholars of Islamic scriptures and law. They often quote from these to defend or justify the actions of their kings in relation to their non-Muslim subjects.

c6.s1.12

It is sometimes argued that in the early years of Muslim rule Muslim chroniclers did not know much about the Hindus. Unlike the later historians like Abul Fazl, Badaoni and Khafi Khan, who tried to understand the social and cultural milieu of the country, chroniclers like Hasan Nizami and Ziyauddin Barani do not refer to the vast majority of the Hindus at all. Only rarely do they speak about them but then only in derogatory terms, which also shows their ignorance. But that is not always true. Even when times had changed in the sixteenth-seventeenth century, the attitude and language of the chroniclers did not change. For instance, Badaoni writes that His Majesty (Akbar), on hearing how much the people of the country prized their institutions, commenced to look upon them with affection.⁹ Similarly, he respected Brahmans who surpass other learned men in their treatises on morals.¹⁰ Then, The Hindus are, of course, indispensable; to them belongs half the army and half the land. Neither the Hindustanis (Indian Muslims) nor the Mughals can point to such grand lords as the Hindus have among themselves.¹¹ So also said Abul Fazl when he wrote that the king, in his wisdom, understood the spirit of the age, and shaped his plans accordingly.¹² And yet this very Badaoni sought an interview with Akbar, when the Kings troops started marching against Rana Pratap, begging the privilege of joining the campaign to soak his Islamic beard in Hindu, infidel blood. Akbar was so pleased at this expression of allegiance to his person and to the Islamic idea of *Jihad* that he bestowed a handful of gold coins on Badaoni as a token of his pleasure.¹³ This was in 1576. Akbar became more and more rational and tolerant as years passed by. His so-called infallibility decree was passed in 1579, his *Din-i-Ilahi* promulgated in 1582. And yet the language of the chroniclers about the non-Muslims did not change. For, in 1589, Badaoni thus wrote about the two greatest personalities of the Mughal Empire: In the year 998 (H./1589 C.E.) Raja Todarmal and Raja Bhagwandas who had remained behind at Lahore hastened to the abode of hell and torment (that is, died) and in the lowest pit became food of serpents and scorpions. May Allah scorch them both.¹⁴

c6.s1.13

Abdul Qadir Badaoni is not an exception. This style of writing, born out of the ingrained prejudice against non-Muslims, is found in all medieval chronicles in various shades of intensity. They denounce non-Muslims. They write with jubilation about the destruction of their temples, massacre of men, raising towers of skulls and such other achievements. They also write about the enslavement of women and children, and the licentious life of their captors, their polygamy and concubinage. There is a saying that no man is condemned save by his own mouth. By painting their heroes as cruel and atrocious destroyers of infidelity, Muslim chroniclers themselves have brought odium on the kings and conquerors of their own race and religion, all the while thinking that they were bringing a good name to them.

Cites (2)