The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India c8.s2: Fealty to Caliph

The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India c8.s2

Language: English

Fealty to Caliph

c8.s2.1

To maintain the Islamic character of the state, and to stabilize their own position as Muslim rulers, the Sultans of Delhi professed to be subservient to the Caliph. Just as the Prophet is the viceregent of God and the Caliph is the viceregent of the Prophet, says T.W. Arnold, the monarch is viceregent of the Caliph No king of the east and the west can hold the title of Sultan unless there be a covenant between him and the Caliph.⁴⁴

c8.s2.2

The Muslim Sultanate in Hindustan was carved out and maintained by the sword, but it derived sustenance also from some moral bases of political power. These consisted of the governments unqualified propagation of the Islamic religion, adherence to the *Shariat* law, regard for the Ulama and Sufis, and recognition of the supremacy of the Caliph. The sultans feigned to have trumped-up geneologies and on that basis claimed respect for the regime. The Ghaznavids and Ghaurids were plebians but to acquire legitimacy they sought high pedigrees, took grandiose titles, claimed divine origin for their kingship, and connected themselves with the old ruling families of Iran and Turan.⁴⁵ Balban sought his descent from Afrasiyab, the legendary hero of Persia, and gave to his sorts and grandsons names of old Persian princes. Every sultan took high-sounding titles, and the Ulama made him and the people believe that he was the shadow of God on earth. Fictitious geneologies counted in politics, high titles created awe, and divine right and religious fervour earned the respect of high and low.

c8.s2.3

Withal a very important moral basis for Muslim political power in Hindustan was the recognition the Indian sultan received from the Caliph, the respected head of the medieval Muslim world. The first four Caliphs were directly related to the Prophet. Muawiyah, the founder of the Ummayad Caliphate, was a cousin and Abbas, the founder of the Abbasid Caliphate, an uncle of Muhammad. There was therefore very great reverence for the Caliphs in the world of Islam. The Abbasids had built up a large empire with capital at Baghdad.⁴⁶ It is true that the Abbasid Caliphs did not enjoy any authority in the west. But the Muslim countries possessing an Islamic government and an Islamic civilization, were connected by such strong ties of common religion and common culture that their inhabitants felt themselves citizens of a vast empire of which Mecca was the religious, and Baghdad the cultural and political center⁴⁷ Its provinces were administered by their Turkish slave governors and Turkish mercenary troops. As the Caliphal empire disintegrated, in the third century of Islam, its provincial governors became independent.⁴⁸ But officially these were only slaves and their tenure of power was based on force and chance. They, therefore, thought it politic not to snap their connections with the Khalifa completely, to go on paying him tribute and seek from him recognition of their sovereignty. The Caliphs too were eager to secure such wealth as could be obtained from these self-manumitted, self-appointed rulers by granting investitures which cost the Caliphs nothing. Thus came into being a sort of an Islamic commonwealth under the aegis of the Khalifa.

c8.s2.4

The contacts of Muslim rulers of India with the Caliphs were of old. The Arab governors of Sind used to read the khutba in the name of the Ummayad Caliphs. Even in the distribution of the booty taken by the early Arab invaders, one-fifth was reserved for the Khalifa.⁴⁹ Under the jurisdiction of Saffah Abul Abbas, the first Abbasid Caliph, there were twelve provinces including Sind.⁵⁰ Even when Sind had reverted to a period of Hindu domination, the *khutba* continued to be read in mosques in the name of the Abbasid Caliph,⁵¹ which boosted the morale of the few Muslims living there.

c8.s2.5

Mahmud Ghaznavis campaigns in India had Caliphal blessings.⁵² The introduction of Muslim rule in India was accordingly directly obliged to the Khalifa. Like the Ghaznavids, the Ghaurids were also alive to the importance of obtaining the confirmation of their sovereignty from the Caliphs of Baghdad. The earliest Muslim rulers of Hindustan were originally slaves, and it was recognised in all quarters that their position as rulers would be buttressed if they could receive caliphal recognition.

c8.s2.6

Tajuddin Yilduz, the ruler of Ghazni, obtained the Caliphs sanction for his authority. After Yilduz and Qubacha had been destroyed by Iltutmish, the latter received the investiture from the Abbasid Caliph al-Mustansir Billah as a legal sanction of his monarchy.⁵³ It is not known if Iltutmish had requested the Khalifa for it and if so how much wealth and presents he had sent. However, he was overwhelmed with happiness and religiously bound himself to the rules of obedience and submission. Iltutmish inscribed the Caliphs name on his coins and called himself Nasir-i-Amirul-Mauminin (helper of the Islamic Caliph).⁵⁴ This fact fastened the fiction of Khalafat on the Sultanate of Delhi, and involved legally the recognition of the final sovereignty of the Khalifa, an authority outside the geographical limits of India, but inside the vague yet none the less real brotherhood of Islam (1229).⁵⁵ However, the interesting point is that the Caliph at the same time conferred a patent of investiture also on Ghiyasuddin of Bengal. What were his considerations for simultaneously recongnising two sultans in Hindustan, is not known. Perhaps whosoever sent presents and treasures was conferred with an investiture. But Iltutmish defeated Ghiyas and forced him to recognise him (Iltutmish) as a superior (Sultan-i-Azam).⁵⁶

c8.s2.7

Such was the moral support derived from the Caliphs recognition that even after the murder of the Baghdad Caliph Al-Mustasim by the Mongols in 1258, his name continued to appear on the coins of Indian sultans like Ghiyasuddin Balban, Muizuddin Kaiqubad and Jalaluddin Khalji. Jalaluddin even called himself Yaminul Khilafat (Right hand of the Caliphate), reminiscent of Al-Qadirs title to Mahmud Ghaznavi. The Abbasid Caliph of Baghdad was no more, but the association of his name was of such great import that it was not given up by the Delhi rulers.

c8.s2.8

Alauddin Khalji (C.E. 1296-1316) made a departure from the practice probably because he had built up a strong empire and also, because he had come to learn about the demise of the Abbasid Caliph. His son and successor Qutbuddin Mubarak Khalji went a step further. He himself assumed the title of Caliph. He had inherited a strong empire built up by Alauddin Khalji, and he was young. He might not have cared to pay homage to a dead Caliph, or even might have thought that if there could be Caliphs in Madinah, Dimishq (Damascus), Baghdad and Qurtubah (Cordova), and later on in Qahirah (Cairo) why not in India, which was, if Amir Khusraus *Nuh Sipehr* at all reflects Qutbuddins views, superior to all countries. But these are only conjectures; the real reasons for his assumption of Caliphal titles are not known. He appropriated to himself titles like Amir-ul-Mauminin and Imam-i-Azam, as well as the pseudo-Abbasid ruling name of Wasiq.⁵⁷ But this was an isolated case of assumption of Caliphal titles by an Indian sultan, and at that a profligate. Though not without some interest, it is hardly of any significance in the history of the Sultanate.

c8.s2.9

Nasiruddin Khusrau and Ghiyasuddin Tughlaq continued with the old pattern of loyalty to a universal Caliphate, while Muhammad Tughlaq did not rest content until he had made the discovery of the presence of the Abbasid Caliph Al-Mustakfi in exile at Cairo, and applied to him for investiture. His obvious motive was to strengthen his waning authority reflected in the recurrent rebellions in all parts of the country.⁵⁸ In such a situation he did not try to seek support in India from his (non-Muslim) people, but he attached such great importance to Caliphal recognition that he declared that all the sultans who had not applied for or received Caliphal investiture as usurpers (*Mutaghallib*). In 1343 he received the Caliphal edict and the robe of honour. His religious devotion to the Caliph and emotional behaviour towards the Caliphs envoys were so ludicrous as to call forth a contemptuous comment from the contemporary chronicler Ziyauddin Barani. So great was the faith of the Sultan in the Abbasid Khalifas, says he, that he would have sent all his treasures in Delhi to Egypt, had it not been for the fear of robbers.⁵⁹ But the Sultan must have sent a substantial amount, because when Ghiyasuddin, who was only a descendant of the extinct Caliphal house of Baghdad, visited India, Muhammads bounty knew no bounds. He gave him a million *tankahs* (400,000 *dinars*), the fief of Kanauj, and the fort of Siri, besides such valuable articles as gold and silver wares, pages and slave girls. Withal one thousand *dinars* were given for head-wash, a bath-tub of gold, and three robes on which in place of knots or buttons there were pearls as large as big hazel nuts.⁶⁰ If this was given to a scion of a house which had become defunct, how much more was sent to the living Caliph at Cairo can only be surmised. No wonder that because of the generosity of the Sultan, in his time the Caliphal investitures were received more than once.⁶¹ Muhammad Tughlaq included the names of Abbasid Al-Mustakfi and his successors Al-Wasiq I and Al-Hakim in his *khutba*, and inscribed on his coins their names to the exclusion of his own.⁶²

c8.s2.10

Such an attitude of subservience combined with munificence encouraged the Caliph to send to Muhammads successor Firoz Tughlaq, a patent of investiture, entrusting to him the territories of Hind.⁶³ Although the honour was unsolicited, yet Firoz felt extremely happy as he confesses in his *Futuhat-i-Firoz Shahi* that the greatest and best of honours that I obtained through Gods mercy was, that by my obedience and piety, and friendliness and submission to the Khalifa, the representative of the holy Prophet, my authority was confirmed; for it is by his (Caliphs) sanction that the power of the kings is assured, and no king is secure until he has submitted himself to the Khalifa, and has received a confirmation from the sacred throne.⁶⁴ Firoz Tughlaqs successors continued to inscribe the name of Al-Mutawakkil on their coins.

c8.s2.11

With the fall of the Tughlaq dynasty the name of the Caliph was dropped from Delhi coins. To the Saiyyad rulers, Timur and his successors were the real Caliphs. More than once, robe of honour and flag came from (Shah Rukh) to Delhi for Khizr Khan and Mubarak Khan. In return annual tribute was sent to Shah Rukh.⁶⁵ Sultan Muhammad Saiyyad also remained loyal to him.⁶⁶ Henceforward it was Timur who provided source of inspiration to the Indian Muslim regime. Muslim regime in India depended for sustenance and strength not on the Indian people but on foreign Muslim Caliphs and potentates. For, while the Saiyyad Sultans were obliged to Amir Timur for installing them on the Delhi throne, the Mughal emperors descended directly from him. Timur or Tamerlane had carried fire and sword into Hindustan (1398-99) and his name revived horrendous memories among the Indian people, but to the Mughal emperors his name provided as good an inspiration for their Islamic rule in India as that of the Caliphs for the Delhi Sultans. Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur as a conqueror and a descendant of Amir Timur, assumed the title of Ghazi. But so also did Jahangir, although a true Indian,⁶⁷ adopt the lofty title of Nuruddin Mohammad Jahangir Padshah Ghazi.⁶⁸ Shahjahan, who was more Indian than even Jahangir, took the title of Abul Muzaffar Shihabuddin Muhammad Sahib-i-Qiran-i-Sani (or Timur the Second).⁶⁹ Right up to the end of the Mughal empire in India, the Mughal kings took pride in calling themselves descendants of Amir Timur and in belonging to the Chaghtai Turk clan of the Mongols. The last Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar asked Mirza Ghalib to write a history of the Taimuria dynasty on a payment of rupees six hundred annually as noted by the poet in his *Dastanbuy*. Furthermore, after the collapse of Mughal power early in the nineteenth century, the name of the Sultan of Turkey began to be mentioned in *khutba* in Indian mosques.

c8.s2.12

While the Mughal kings sought inspiration from the name of Timur and the Turkish Sultan, the people of India considered them as foreigners for that very reason. Bernier did not fail to notice that the *Great Mogol* is a foreigner in *Hindustan*, a descendant of *Tamerlane*, chief of those Mogols from Tartary who, about the year 1401, overran and conquered the Indies, consequently he finds himself in a hostile country, or nearly So⁷⁰ In short, except for the confusion created by Indian-ness or foreignness of emperor Akbar,⁷¹ the state remained basically foreign in character throughout the medieval period. The aim of the Caliphs in inspiring the Sultans of Delhi and that of Timur in invading India was the same, to spread Islam in idolatrous Hindustan.⁷²

c8.s2.13

Before closing the discussion on the Caliphs status in the eyes of the Delhi Sultans, an often-asked question may be attempted to be answered. Did the Caliphal recognition make the Sultanate of Delhi subservient to the Caliphs? Although it would be difficult to subscribe to the view that by receiving a formal Caliphal investiture, Iltutmish had made the Delhi Sultanate a direct vassal of the Caliphate,⁷³ yet as Firoz Tughlaq admitted, the Indian sultans were convinced that it is by the Caliphs sanction that the power of the kings is assured; and no king is secure until he has submitted himself to the Khalifa. No wonder none of the sultans who ruled between Iltutmish and the later Tughlaqs repudiated this legal vassalage with the inexplicable exception of Mubarak Khalji. They all claimed to be the lieutenants of the Caliph, the supreme head of the world of Islam. Allegiance to the Caliph by Indias Muslim kings gave the Khalifa prestige and wealth. It gave the Indian Sultans, many of whom were originally slaves, a status of honour in the Muslim world and satisfied the formalities of Muslim law.⁷⁴ Moreover, inclusion of the Caliphs name in the *khutba*, endeared the sultan to his Muslim subjects.⁷⁵ Besides, the way in which Caliphal envoys and investitures were received, indicates that this was not just lip subservience, and the extra-territorial allegiance to the Caliph provided a very strong moral and legal basis of political power to the Muslim regime in India. Timurs name and *Institutes* provided similar legitimacy and strength to Mughal emperors.

c8.s2.14

So that, in the Islamic state, Delhi was not the capital of the empire; it was *Quwwat-ul-Islam*. The king was not the ruler of the people; he was *Amir-ul-Mauminin*, the conqueror of infidels and shelterer of Islam. The army was not the royal army; it was *Lashkar-i-Islam*. The soldier was not a cavalry man or infantry man; he was *Ahl-i-Jihad*. The law of the state was not any secular or humanitarian law; it was *Shariat*, the law of Islam. The state was not an end in itself, like the Creek state, but a means of subserving the interests of Islam. Conquests were made, shrines were broken, captives were taken, converts were made - all in the name of Islam. The *raison detre* of the regime was to disseminate the Islamic faith.⁷⁶

Cites (1)

Nuh sipihr — Amīr Khusraw Dihlavī