Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of the Qaraunah Turks in India c13: Chapter VIII. Personality of Muhammad Tughluq

History of the Qaraunah Turks in India c13

Language
English

Chapter VIII. Personality of Muhammad Tughluq

c13.2

The Sultan was a man of handsome appearance and well-built physique. He was a dexterous polo-player, an excellent shot and thoroughly skilled in horsemanship.¹ He was a keen sportsman, and though not so fond of hunting expeditions as Firuz, he took a great interest in all kinds of manly exercises. Ibn Batūṭah and the author of the Masālik give eloquent descriptions of his marches when he went out for hunting. He was as famous for his gallantry in the field as for those accomplishments which render a man the ornament of private society. His generosity knew no bounds. All writers including Barani are lost in astonishment at his amazing hospitality and liberal gifts. To the foreigners he was especially generous, and Barani writes that every year hundreds of amirs of Tuman (ten thousand) and Hazārah (one thousand) and ladies of rank came to Dihli and were loaded with gifts. The same chronicler observes that the recipients were astonished at the Sultan's gifts and adds in a vein of exaggeration that what Hātim and others gave in a year he gave away at one time.² Learned and pious men came from Khorasan, Iraq, Transoxiana, Khwarizm, Seistan, Hareva, Egypt and Damascus and received rich rewards. According to Barani, the Sultan on his return from Saragdwāri in 741 A.H. (1340 A.D.) found time to do nothing else except entertaining the foreign visitors who were feasted on a lavish scale at the royal expense.³ It would be wearisome to enumerate all the instances of lavish generosity that have been recorded by contemporary writers. Barani mentions the Sultan's generosity as if it were a fault or a vice, because his class was opposed to him. The royal marches from and to the capital were accompanied by showers of gold and silver coins among the populace, and yet we come across no evidence of financial bankruptcy. On the contrary, we gather from the Fatūḥāt, the Sīrat and 'Afif's Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi that soon after his accession to the throne Firuz abolished a number of taxes confining himself rigorously to those prescribed in the Law.

c13.3

¹ The Sultan's accomplishments.

c13.4

¹ Barani, Calcutta Text, p. 464.

c13.5

² Ibid., p. 411.

c13.6

³ Ibid., p. 499.

c13.7

Though a man of charitable disposition, he discouraged beggary and granted allowances to the needy and the indigent. According to the author of the Masālik forty thousand beggars were fed every day at the public kitchens, and every one of them was given one dirham and 5 ritals of bread of wheat flour or rice. He endowed large monasteries (Khānqāhs) for the benefit of the poor where food was distributed under the supervision of state officials.⁴ The mutwallis were properly controlled and cases of defalcation were severely punished. The public and private dinners of the Sultan have already been mentioned. Though magnificent on public occasions, he was personally a man of simple and abstemious habits. He abstained from drink, shunned the society of men given to unlawful acts and forbade the use of intoxicating liquor among his nobles and subjects.⁵ A breach of this rule was followed by heavy penalties and the author of the Masālik records the instance of a Khan of Dihli who was punished with confiscation of property when he persisted in this bad habit after he had received a warning from the Sultan. Barani who cannot be accused of partiality towards the Sultan highly praises his private character and dwells enthusiastically on his personal purity. In an age of drunkenness and licentiousness he was singularly free from unnatural lust and had no fondness for women.⁶ Ibn Batūtah and the author of the Masālik make no mention of any vice in the Sultan, although they write that he witnessed the performances of musicians and dancing girls which were a necessary concomitant of all state ceremonies in those days. Neither in his speech nor in his acts he was profane or vulgar and in private as well as in public he always observed the highest decorum. Though not a Puritan like Aurangzeb nor an ascetic like Nāsir-al-Din Mahmud, the Sultan was highly punctilious in matters of conduct. Decency was enforced in the palace, and when the Sultan went into the seraglio he used to send his eunuchs in advance so that women might seclude themselves behind the screens.⁷ So strict was he in these matters that during the revolt of 'Ain-al-Mulk Multani he issued an order that no woman should be permitted to stay in the camp, and himself set an example by removing the ladies of the royal haram to the fort of Kampil with a view to preserve the morale of the army.⁸

c13.8

⁴ Barani, pp. 432-34.

c13.9

⁵ Masālik, Paris MS.

c13.10

⁶ Barani, Calcutta Text, p. 460.

c13.11

⁷ Ibid., p. 505.

c13.12

⁸ Ibn Batūṭah, III, p. 346.

c13.13

The Sultan's humility was unsurpassed. Though guilty of parricide he wished to atone for the crime, for immediately after his accession to the throne he caused his father's name to be inscribed on the coins.⁹ This was probably the expression of a deep feeling of remorse. He tendered sincere respect and obedience to his mother Makhdūm-i-Jahan, the dowager queen, who enjoyed her regal state throughout her life. Barani and Ibn Batūṭah both are unanimous in praising the exalted lady and the Sultan's devotion to her. So respectful was he that he allowed her to exercise influence in matters of state and it appears that she enjoyed precedence over the queens of the Sultan, for no mention is made of any one of them by contemporary writers. She gave magnificent receptions to visitors to the capital and sanctioned large and valuable gifts. On one occasion she went on a tour with the Sultan, but he returned earlier and when she came back, he received her with great ceremony and alighted from his horse and kissed her feet. She was allowed to receive presents like the Sultan and to keep a regular staff of scribes and clerks to register her gifts and presents. Towards his brothers the Sultan behaved with great generosity and Mubarak Khan was appointed to one of the highest posts in the administration. His old tutor Qutlugh Khan was always treated with consideration and when he came to pay a visit to the Sultan, he rose from his seat to signify his regard for him. Even Barani feels constrained to admire these traits of the Sultan and remarks that there were two basic principles of his character—worship of God and respect for elders.¹⁰ He was fond of the society of faqirs and learned men and extended his patronage to them.

c13.14

⁹ Nelson Wright, Catalogue of coins, II, p. 50. Coin No. 300 dated 726 A.H. It bears on it only the name of Sultan Tughluq Shah. There is another in Thomas' collection (Chronicles, p. 212, No. 178) which is struck in the name of the late Sultan. Brown, The Coins of India, p. 73.

c13.15

¹⁰ Barani, Calcutta, Text, p. 506.

c13.16

Of all the Sultans who had hitherto occupied the throne of Dihli he was the most learned and accomplished. Nature had endowed him with a marvellous memory, a keen and penetrating intellect and an enormous capacity for assimilating knowledge of different kinds. The versatility of his genius surprised those who came in contact with him. A lover of the fine arts, a cultured scholar and an accomplished poet, he was equally at home in logic, astronomy, philosophy, mathematics and the physical sciences. He was thoroughly acquainted with literary works like the Sikandar-namah, Bu-Musalim-namah and the Tarikh-i-Mahmudi and in his epistles he frequently quoted from them with great facility and appositeness. Among later writers, Firishta, who consulted copiously, adds the Shahnamah and the stories of Amir Hamzah.¹¹ No one could excel the Sultan in composition; he had at his ready command a good deal of Persian poetry of which he made a large use in his writings and speeches. He was an adept in the use of similes and metaphors, and his literary discourses, saturated with the influence of Persian classics, extorted admiration from the professed litterateurs of the age. Even the most practised rhetoricians found it difficult to rival the richness of imagination, the elegance of taste and the ready command over the instrument of language, which he displayed in his literary productions. He was a charming conversationalist and was gifted with extraordinary powers of speech to which were added uncommon powers of reasoning. He was well-versed in Aristotelian logic and philosophy so that divines and logicians feared to argue with him. He could hold his own in debate against the most eminent scientists, poets and wits. Barani who is no apologist of the Sultan describes him as eloquent, sweet-tongued, an expert calligraphist whose abilities would have taken by surprise such men as Aristotle, ‘Asaf, Ahmad Hasan and Nizam-al-mulk Tūsi and he is corroborated by Ibn Batūtah and the author of the Masālik. The author of the Masālik writes: “The Sultan is highly learned. He knows the Holy Book by heart and also the Hedayah. He has mastered philosophy and logic and is a fine calligraphist. Himself no mean poet, he appreciates the excellences of poetry and holds converse with Persian poets and criticises their productions.” His mastery over philosophical subjects was so great that he successfully worsted in argument the ‘Ulama. Every night the Sadr-i-Jahan used to invite learned discussions wherein the Sultan joined without any formality or reserve. Hajjī-ad-Dabīr’s statement that he carried on correspondence with Shaikh Sādi is incorrect for the latter died in 690 A.H., (1291 A.D.). The Sultan's fondness for discussion led him to cross swords with S'ād, the logician, ‘Ubaid,¹² the poet, Maulana ‘Alim-al-Din, the philosopher and Nizām-al-Din Intishār and others whom the orthodox historian describes as ‘atheists and apostates’ and to whose sinister influence he attributes the Sultan's violations of the canon law and his unjust treatment of the true believers.¹³ All rational philosophy was anathema to the orthodox, and the advocacy of reason and its application to the dogmas of theology was looked upon as a gross outrage upon scriptural sanctity. A knowledge of medicine was looked upon as a valued accomplishment in the east in the middle ages and the Sultan who had acquired considerable proficiency in these subjects held discussions with physicians, diagnosed diseases and prescribed suitable remedies for them. Men who were noted for their learning and piety attended his court and he freely extended his patronage to them.¹⁴

c13.17

¹¹ Firishta, Lucknow Text, p. 133.

c13.18

¹² ‘Ubaid was dead at this time. He was slain by Ghiyas-al-Din Tughluq for spreading the rumour of his death in Telingana. Barani has probably forgotten that, Mr. Gardner Brown charges Barani with deliberate falsehood on the ground of this statement, but I think it is hardly fair to that mediaeval chronicler to be so severe in our judgment. J. U. P. Historical Society, Vol. I, pt. II, p. 9.

c13.19

¹³ Hājji-ad-Dabīr writes that a man was posted at the royal gate who persuaded people to follow the principles of rationalistic philosophy.

c13.20

¹⁴ ‘Abd-al-Haq Dihlwi in a treatise containing the memoirs of certain famous philosophers and poets of Dihli written in the time of emperor Jahangir says that one of the most learned men of the age was Maulana Muaiyyan-al-Din ‘Umrani, the author of commentaries on the Kanz, Minān, Husami, Talkhīs and Miftah. Sultan Muhammad sent him to Shiraz with an invitation for Qazi ‘Azd-al-Millat-wal-Din Ālichi with the request that the latter would write a book dedicated to the Sultan. The Qazi was persuaded, but when the ruler of the place heard of this (Cont. on p. 427) he offered him his whole kingdom. Under this pressure the Qazi gave up all idea of paying a visit to Hindustan. Hājji-ad-Dabīr probably refers to this invitation but he confounds Ālichi with Shaikh Sādi.

c13.21

But notwithstanding these versatile gifts and accomplishments the contemporary chronicler tells us that the Sultan was a cruel tyrant who wantonly shed the blood of innocent Musalmans, so much so indeed, that a stream of blood was always seen flowing before the

c13.22

The charge of Wanton cruelty.

c13.23

threshold of his palace.¹⁵ He is described as a man of imagination, who asked his subjects to carry his fantastic schemes into effect, and when they failed to do so, he punished them without ruth. Failure to carry out the royal behests was interpreted into disobedience, hostility and wickedness and thousands of men were involved in trouble on this account.¹⁶ In the course of his narrative, while lauding the Sultan's generosity and character and intellect in hyperbolical terms, Barani mentions his expedition to Baran, his own native district, where, he says, men were hunted like wild beasts.¹⁷ He speaks of similar punishments near Kanauj on a subsequent occasion when the whole country from Kanauj to Dalamau was laid waste, and every person who was captured was killed.¹⁸ The tone of his narrative leads to the inference that the Sultan was a habitual slayer of men, utterly devoid of compassion, and a seeker after the impossible. Among Barani's immediate successors there are two who make mention of the cruelties of Sultan Muhammad. Firuz in his Fatuhāt takes credit for giving full compensation to those who had been executed in the reign of his late master and patron Sultan Muhammad and those who had been deprived of a limb, nose, eye, hand, or foot. He went so far as to obtain certificates of satisfaction, duly attested by witnesses, which were put into a chest and placed at the head of the tomb of the Sultan in the hope that God would show clemency to him.¹⁹ The author of the Sirat who wrote during Firuz's reign speaks of unjust confiscations of land in the last regime and endorses Firuz's statement regarding the mutilation of victims and the acquisition of certificates of conciliation obtained from their heirs and survivors.²⁰ The same authority writes that the executioners complained to the Sultan that their occupation was gone and adds that in former times men were strangled and burnt and thousands of Muslims were slain simply for

c13.24

¹⁵ Barani, Calcutta Text, p. 466. India Office MS. f. 295. This is what he writes :—

c13.25

¹⁶ Ibid., p. 466. India Office MS. f. 295.

c13.26

¹⁷ Calcutta, Text, pp. 479-80.

c13.27

¹⁸ Ibid., p. 480.

c13.28

¹⁹ Fatuhāt, Elliot III, pp. 385-86.

c13.29

²⁰ Sirat, Bankipore MS. F. 40

c13.30

روزي و هفته نمي گذشت مه که خون چندین مسلمان نمی ریختند و جوئي خون پیش
the Sultan and th

c13.31

the love of cruelty. But this statement of the Fatūhat and the Sirat is not corroborated by Shams-i-Siraj ‘Afif, the official historian of Firuz, who must have heard much about Muhammad’s reign from eyewitnesses. He describes Sultan Muhammad as a great king, adept in everything, a wise man of sound understanding who displayed in the kingdom of Dihli great wisdom and excellence to the world.²¹ Firuz was a priest-ridden monarch and the author of the Sirat, a member of the clerical order, who approved of every orthodox act of his patron, rejoiced at the special favour shown to the heirs of the malcontents of his own class, whom Sultan Muhammad had tried to suppress during his reign. Assuming for the sake of argument that compensation was granted to the injured persons or their survivors, how was it possible to meet the claims of the heirs of those who had perished in the wholesale massacres which, according to Barani, occurred at Baran and in the neighbourhood of Kanauj and to obtain letters of satisfaction from them? The inevitable inference is that it was the members of the clerical order who were conciliated by the state in this manner. The influence of the ‘Ulama who asserted themselves immediately after the death of the masterful Muhammad is clearly manifest in the attempts made by Firuz to appease them by gifts and allowances and to restore them to their former position in the state.

c13.32

²¹ Firuz was a priest-ridden monarch and the author of the Sirat, a member of the clerical order, who approved of every orthodox act of his patron, rejoiced at the special favour shown to the heirs of the malcontents of his own class, whom Sultan Muhammad had tried to suppress during his reign.

c13.33

Following Barani’s example, later Muhammadan writers have painted Muhammad’s character in a most lurid light. It is perfectly obvious that excepting the author of the Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi none of our later historians seems to have utilised much fresh material. The author of the Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi does not give a full list of the books he consulted in preparing his history, but it is evident that he must have utilised certain works other than Barani’s Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi for much of the information he supplies is not to be found in Barani’s pages. Those who came after him largely drew upon Barani and reproduced his charges against the Sultan. He describes the Sultan as ‘bloody’ (خونی) and being of the same the author of the Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi does not care to examine the truth of the charge Sultan Muhammad sent implied.²² Abul Fazl, though he dwells upon the the Sultan. The Qazi’s justice, accepts the opprobrious title ‘bloody’ which this (Cont. on p. 427) he on his day the Sultan had a reputation for cruelty.²³ Qazi gave up all idea of pa refers to this invitation but he Calcutta Text, p. 42.

c13.34

²² The author of the Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi does not give a full list of the books he consulted in preparing his history, but it is evident that he must have utilised certain works other than Barani’s Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi for much of the information he supplies is not to be found in Barani’s pages.

c13.35

²³ Those who came after him largely drew upon Barani and reproduced his charges against the Sultan. He describes the Sultan as ‘bloody’ (خونی) and being of the same the author of the Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi does not care to examine the truth of the charge Sultan Muhammad sent implied. Abul Fazl, though he dwells upon the the Sultan. The Qazi’s justice, accepts the opprobrious title ‘bloody’ which this (Cont. on p. 427) he on his day the Sultan had a reputation for cruelty. Qazi gave up all idea of pa refers to this invitation but he Calcutta Text, p. 42.

c13.36

Elliot, VI, p. 486.

c13.37

p. 270.

c13.38

Nizam-al-Din Ahmad's list given in his preface contains among his authorities the *Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi* of Zia Barani, the *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi*, the *Tarikh-i-Bahadur Shahi* and the *Tarikh-i-Fatuh-i-Salatin*, but it appears from his narrative that he principally relied upon Barani for his account of Muhammad's reign.²⁴ Nizam-al-Din bestows lavish praise upon the Sultan for his intellectual attainments and munificence and writes: ‘ He was so severe in his punishments and in unjustly shedding blood and in troubling and tormenting the creatures of God that he appeared to be bent upon emptying the world of all human beings.’²⁵ Badāoni closely following the *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi* also speaks of the blood-thirstiness of the Sultan and his system of government which made Sayyids, ‘Ulama, Shaikhs, ragamuffins and scoundrels, artisans, peasants and soldiers all alike in his eyes. Moreover there was constantly in front of his royal pavilion and his civil court a mound of dead bodies and a heap of corpses, while the sweepers and executioners were wearied out with their work of dragging and putting to death crowds of men.²⁶ Having a stronger clerical bias than others he tries to aggravate the effect produced by Barani's tirade against the Sultan. Firishta who has utilised these authorities, after passing a eulogy upon the Sultan for his varied accomplishments, which even his avowed enemies dared not conceal, records an unfavourable verdict in these words :—

c13.39

²⁴ Tabqat-i-Akbari, Biblioth. Ind. Introduction, pp. 3-4.

c13.40

²⁵ Ibid., p. 199.

c13.41

²⁶ Ranking, Al-Badāoni, I, pp. 316-17.

c13.42

‘ He acted freely in the matter of punishment and the shedding of blood of the servants of God. It seemed as if he was desirous of emptying the world of God's creatures. Not a week passed when he did not punish the true believers, saints, Sayyids, Sufis, Qalandars, writers and soldiers and when he did not shed the blood of human beings.’²⁷

c13.43

²⁷ Firishta, Lucknow Text, p. 133.

c13.44

Like his predecessor Barani, he also reiterates the story of the Sultan's excursion to Baran where he went ‘ not to hunt beasts, but men and without any reason began to massacre the inhabitants.’ Thousands of human heads were brought and hung over the city walls. On another occasion the whole tract of land from Kanauj to Dalamau was laid waste. Some writers have highly embellished the picture drawn by Barani of the Sultan's atrocities. The author of the *Zubd-ut-tawarikh* speaks of man-hunts of the Sultan and the display of human heads from the battlements of the fort of Baran and writes: ‘In this way he utterly depopulated whole tracts of his kingdom and inflicted such vigorous punishment that the whole world stood aghast. In short the cruelties of this tyrant whom some men call the just pass all belief.’²⁸ This is a close paraphrase of Barani’s description of the Sultan’s character, which has been adopted by all later writers. None of these writers seems to have had a knowledge of independent contemporary writers like Ibn Batūṭah and the author of the Masālik, for they are not even incidentally mentioned by them. Even Ḥājji-ad-Dabīr who sometimes throws a new light upon vexed questions reproduces Barani’s account of the Sultan’s cruelties. We have to decide whether the Sultan was really a monster of cruelty, a blood-thirsty tyrant whose reckless disregard of human life bordered on insanity. Modern writers have all re-echoed the views of Barani and Firishta and in this jumble of truths and half-truths it is difficult to paint the Sultan as he really was without extenuating or setting down aught in malice.

c13.45

²⁸ Zabd-ut-tawarikh, Elliot, VI, pp. 184-85.

c13.46

But in explaining the charge of habitual and wanton cruelty we must critically examine the accounts furnished by contemporary writers. These are besides Barani, Ibn Batūṭah, Shihab-al-Din, Badr-i-Chāch and ‘Ain-al-mulk Multani. We may leave out the last two, for Badr-i-Chāch was a court poet who would not point out the faults of his patron and ‘Ain-al-mulk Multani owed a debt of gratitude to the Sultan who had pardoned him when he rebelled against his authority. But Ibn Batūṭah and Shihab-al-Din are valuable authorities who have no reason to conceal the truth. The Masālik contains information gathered from the most reliable persons. It says nothing about the fiendish barbarities of Muhammad. But it may be argued that the author of the Masālik derived his information from foreigners who were liberally treated by the Sultan, although it seems improbable that none of the numerous visitors among whom were included nobles as well as Shaikhs and the ‘Ulama should have spoken of the atrocities which the Sultan, according to Barani, practised upon the ‘innocent believers.’ He does not mention even a wanton slaughter of the Hindus, a thing which would have greatly pleased a fourteenth century Muslim divine. ‘Ala-al-Din Khilji’s persecution of the Hindus was extolled as an act of great religious merit by the Egyptian master of the Hadis, Shams-al-Din Turk when he came to India, but among the numerous suppliants who came to Muhammad's court none makes even a casual mention of his alleged extermination of the human species. The informants of Shihab-al-Din sometimes gave him minute details about the Sultan's character, policy and administration, but strangely enough they omitted all mention of the Sultan's barbarities. Even if we ignore the testimony of the Masālik, we cannot set aside the observations of Ibn Batūṭah who was in close contact with the Sultan for a number of years and about whose general veracity there can be no doubt. Here is an exact translation of Ibn Batūṭah's passage relating to the Sultan's character.

c13.47

"This king of all others is fond of granting gifts and shedding blood. At all times there is seen at his gate some poor person who is enriched or some living one condemned to death. The stories of his bounties, courage, the shedding of blood and the severe chastisement of criminals are well-known among the people. But in spite of this fact he is the most humble of men and one who is most inclined towards doing what is right and just. He is very punctilious in matters of prayer and severely punishes those who fail to perform it in the prescribed manner. He is one of those who possess good luck in abundance. The most prominent of his qualities is generosity and we shall shortly relate some of the events of his reign, the like of which have never been heard about those who have preceded him."²⁹ Ibn Batūṭah does not speak of the shedding of blood of innocent believers nor of the Sultan's desire to exterminate the human species. He adds to his portrait of the Sultan that he punished all offences great and small with equal severity without any distinction. No man was excused on the ground of birth, rank, learning or piety and every day hundreds of men were brought into the Hall of Audience to receive the punishments which their guilt merited. It will be borne in mind that the Sultan administered impartial and stern justice. He deprived the clericals of their long-enjoyed monopoly and constituted himself into the supreme court of appeal. All authorities are unanimous in praising his love of justice and his readiness to alter, revise or reverse the judgments of the Muftis.³⁰ He was no believer in the infallibility of the priestly order; he went a step further and invested his lay

c13.48

²⁹ Ibn Batūṭah, III, pp. 216-17.

c13.49

³⁰ Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi, MS.

c13.50

officers with the function of administering justice.³¹ In view of these facts it is not difficult to understand Barani's indictment which is based on a few particular cases in which the men of his own order were concerned. His account is different from that of Ibn Batūṭah who emphasises the severity of the Sultan's punishments, but does not say that the guilty and the innocent were indiscriminately punished. On the contrary, he gives credit to the Sultan for doing what was right and just. Barani cites no specific instances; he only indulges in vague generalisations, and his narrative creates the impression that the Sultan was a monster who loved cruelty for its own sake. Though a court historian writing his history for presentation to Firuz, he could never forgive Muhammad for his disregard of the ‘Ulama and described each case of punishment as an instance of a most wanton cruelty. On the basis of the two expeditions to Baran and Kanauj which were intended for punitive purposes he constructs the theory of ‘man-hunt,’ implying a serious charge which requires much more definite evidence to justify it than he places before us. Happily Ibn Batūṭah has left us a list of the cul- whom the Sultan punished and an examination of his detailed account will furnish us with a refutation of the commonly accepted view. In seven cases out of the ten mentioned by the Moor, the culprits are members of the class of ‘Ulama who were either hostile to the Sultan or had embezzled public funds or taken part in disloyal proceedings. Shaikh Shihab-al-Din, Faqiah ‘Afi-al-Din Kāshāni, the two Sindhi Maulvis, Shaikh Hūd, Shaikh Shams-al-Din bin Taj-al-ārfin, Shaikh ‘Ali Haidri, and the Khatīb-al-Khutbah (the chief preacher) of Dihli were all punished for charges of a serious nature ranging from wilful dereliction of duty to seditious conspiracy.³²

c13.51

³¹ As has been mentioned before, the Sultan had appointed his brother Mubarak Khan to assist the Qazi in administering justice.

c13.52

³² (a) Shaikh Shihab-al-Din was punished for calling the Sultan a tyrant, I. B. III, pp. 293—98.
(b) Faqiah ‘Afi-al-Din also called the Sultan a tyrant. The Faqiah had expressed his disapproval of the Sultan's measures to promote agriculture. I. B. III, pp. 299-300.
(c) No definite charge was proved against the two Sindhi Maulvis. The Sultan asked them to accompany a certain amir who had been entrusted with the charge of a district. They were to communicate to the Sultan whatever the amir did. All of a sudden the Sultan told them that their intentions were dishonest. He proceeded to punish them without proof. I. B. III, pp. 300—302.

c13.53

Some punishments were doubtless disproportionate to the offences committed and some were brutally severe as was the punishment inflicted on Shaikh Shihāb-al-Din for calling the Sultan a tyrant. It was the Shaikh's persistent defiance of royal authority in spite of the kindness which the Sultan had shown him that was also to some extent responsible for the severity with which he was treated. The charge of tyranny was a serious matter in an age governed by theocratic influences, for a Muslim ruler who oppresses his subjects, forfeits his title to the allegiance of the ‘faithful.’ The Shaikh was given a chance to retract his word, but when he proved incorrigible the Sultan handed him over to the Sadr-i-Jahan and gave him an opportunity of proving the charge of tyranny which he had brought against him. Ibn Batūṭah is remarkably corroborated by the *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi* in this respect. The accused who probably wished to figure as a martyr in the eyes of the orthodox obstinately refused to recant and was finally beheaded.33 The Sultan had no aversion for the ‘Ulama; on the contrary he loved the society of learned men, entertained them at his table and extended his patronage to them.

c13.54

(d) Shaikh Hūd was in charge of a Khānqāh. He was accused of embezzlement of public funds. I. B. III, pp. 302-6.

c13.55

(e) Shaikh Shams-al-Din was on one occasion summoned by the Sultan to appear before him but he refused to come. He was afterwards charged with praising a rebellious amir in the presence of several persons. I. B. III, pp. 307-9.

c13.56

(f) Shaikh Haidri was a native of Kambhāyat. His offence was that he had given help and encouragement to Qazi Jalāl who had rebelled against the Sultan's authority. I. B. III, pp. 309-11.

c13.57

(g) The *Khatib-al-Khutbah* was once placed in charge of a store of jewels by the Sultan during a journey. One night the thieves came and stole away some of the jewels. The Sultan ordered the preacher to be beaten so that he died I. B. III, pp. 313-14.

c13.58

These are the seven cases mentioned by Ibn Batūṭah in which severe punishments were inflicted upon the offenders.

c13.59

33 Ibn Batūṭah, III, pp. 297-98.

c13.60

The *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi* relates the story of the Shaikh's confinement and ultimate execution. The Shaikh called the Sultan a tyrant whereupon he went to the Sadr-i-Jahan and asked him to call upon the Shaikh to prove the charge of tyranny. The Shaikh repeated the charge and justified it on the ground that the Sultan handed over to the executioners the wives and children of the culprits who were punished by him. The Sultan became very angry and ordered the arrest of the Shaikh.

c13.61

This statement is not supported by any other contemporary writer. Barani and Ibn Batūṭah do not say that he ordered the slaughter of women and children. What wonder if the Sultan flew into a rage at this wild imputation?

c13.62

But he was strong-minded enough not to condone their offences which implied an encroachment upon his authority or interfered with the efficient administration of justice which he desired above everything else. Barani gives us no hint why the members of the sacerdotal order were punished so severely; while there are instances in which political offenders were let off with extraordinary leniency. Barani and Ibn Batūṭah both give detailed accounts of the rebellions of the reign from which it appears that even in case of serious offences against the state the malefactors escaped with a light penalty or secured total pardon. The Sultan's treatment of Nusrat Khan and 'Ain-al-Mulk, who were restored to favour in spite of their rebellions, was certainly more humane than that of many other mediæval rulers in similar circumstances. He pardoned even the clericals, but when they persisted in mischief, he laid his hands freely upon them. Often did he find that his confidence was betrayed by men whom he had raised to honour and eminence. Their perversity and disloyalty exasperated him so that he was at times obliged to have recourse to drastic measures in order to vindicate his own authority. In such circumstances when chronic disorder prevailed in the empire, he lost his balance of mind and behaved with extraordinary harshness towards those who failed to respond to his demands or to carry out his orders.

c13.63

We have sufficient data to prove that Muhammad was no monster who took delight in shedding blood for its own sake and those who stigmatise him as a callous tyrant forget the age in which he lived and the circumstances in which he was placed. As often happens in the case of men of genius, he was a combination of opposite qualities, incredibly generous in his gifts and pitilessly severe in dealing with offenders. Later historians contented themselves by describing him as a 'mixture of opposites' for they believed that the traits which Muhammad's character possessed were incompatible. Barani was interested in exaggerating the cruelties of the Sultan for his party and his native district had suffered much at his hands, but we cannot summarily dismiss Ibn Batūṭah's statements regarding the terrible modes of punishment which are mentioned by him. The difference between Barani and Ibn Batūṭah has been pointed out before, and a careful reading of the former's text makes it clear that his account is more of a theological lament than a just and unbiassed statement of the Sultan's policy. The truth seems to be that the Sultan was subject to great paroxysms of rage at times, foes. Jahangir relates with gusto how he impaled alive seven hundred associates of Prince Khusrau before the gates of Lahore and caused two of his principal comrades to be inclosed in the skin of a cow or ass and had them paraded in the city. On another occasion he punished parricide by ordering the tongue of the culprit to be cut and by condemning him to be fed at the same mess as the dog-keepers and sweepers. Aurangzeb's unnatural treatment of his father and brothers is too well known to need mention. Yet we do not find even the faintest disapproval of such conduct in the works of orthodox writers. How strange seems to be the verdict of history on Muhammad Tughluq? The punishments related by Ibn Batūṭah seem to be grossly exaggerated in some cases. It is stated that the two Sindhi Maulvis suffered a revolting torture because the Sultan suspected the honesty of their intentions. Ibn Batūṭah says not a word regarding the manner in which the Sultan convinced himself of their guilt and adds that a confession was obtained by means of a most inhuman torture. He says they were made to lie on the ground and a red-hot sheet of iron was placed upon their chests which burnt their flesh and then urine and dust were applied to the wounds thus caused. After this the Maulvis confessed that their motives were dishonest. Shaikh Shihab-al-Din's punishment seems to be equally severe and irrational and it is difficult to understand how the Sultan who was so fond of justice should have sanctioned such barbarities.

c13.64

As life advanced, the Sultan became more and more severe in his policy, but his punishments were not the result of caprice. The needs of the empire and the disloyalty of his officers compelled him to adopt such an attitude. Like all despots he thought punishment as a most efficacious remedy for putting down revolt and disorder. It was not his intention to inflict wanton misery upon the people, for in 745 A.H., during the Deccan revolt, when the Sultan was at Sultanpur he observed to the historian Zia Barani: " Thou seest how many revolts spring up. I have no pleasure in them, although men will say that they have all been caused by my excessive severity. I will not cease to inflict punishments owing to these rebellions." He enquired of the historian under what circumstances punishments had been inflicted by kings in the past. Barani, who never forgives the Sultan for his punishments, himself opined with the opportunism of a courtier that ' a king cannot carry

c13.65

The Sultan's punishments not due to caprice.

c13.66

on his government without punishments, for if he were not an avenger, God knows what evils would arise from the insurrections of the disaffected, and how many thousand crimes would be committed by his subjects.' He suggested seven cases for punishment as laid down in the law—(1) apostasy from true religion, (2) wilful murder of a believer, (3) adultery of a married man with another's wife, (4) proved conspiracy against the Crown, (5) leading a revolt or aiding or abetting rebels, (6) joining the enemies or rivals of the king, carrying news to them, supplying them with arms or aiding or abetting them in any way, and (7) disobedience which is likely to cause distempers in the state.³⁴ The Prophet, said the historian, had expressed himself regarding the first three and left the rest to the discretion of the civil authorities. Indirectly he hinted that the appointment of capable administrators conduces to the proper management of a large dominion, and good laws alone can make it unnecessary for a king to employ force against his subjects. But the Sultan emphasised the wickedness and turbulence of the times and expressed his determination to punish even the most trifling act of contumacy with death. The reason for severity is clearly expressed in what he added further: "I have no Wazir as will make rules to obviate my shedding of blood. I punish the people because they have all at once become unfriendly and disloyal. I have given away so much money and yet see hostility and ingratitude on all sides. The temper of the people is well-known to me and I see that they are disaffected and inimical to me."³⁵ When Taghi's revolt broke out and the Sultan hurried towards Gujarat, fearfully annoyed with the *amirs Sadah*, to whom he had shown great favours in the past, Barani says, he felt inclined to suggest to him the abandonment of his harsh policy and the adoption of gentler measures, but fear prevented him from doing so. Thus, on several occasions the historian made a compromise with his conscience and kept his views to himself. Devagiri was lost and all over the empire a spirit of lawlessness prevailed. The rapid succession of these troubles disheartened the Sultan and calling the historian one day he described to him the condition of his kingdom in these pathetic words:

c13.67

³⁴ Barani, Calcutta Text, p. 510.

c13.68

³⁵ Ibid., p. 511.

c13.69

"My kingdom is diseased and no treatment cures it. The physician cures the headache and fever follows; he strives to allay the fever and something else supervenes." Barani told the Sultan what other kings had done in similar circumstances and observed that 'of all political ills, the greatest and most dire was a general feeling of aversion and a want of confidence among all ranks of the people.' The Sultan stuck to his view and said that if he succeeded in establishing order in the country, he would entrust the kingdom to Firuz, Malik Kabir and Ahmad Ayaz and himself go to visit the K'abah at Mecca. He further added: "My remedy for rebels, insurgents, opponents and disaffected people is the sword. I employ punishment and use the sword so that a cure may be effected by suffering. The more the people resist, the more I inflict chastisement."36 The charge of wanton cruelty or lust for blood falls to the ground in view of these statements. The Sultan wanted to punish rebels who stirred up strife in the country and not innocent men as is frequently supposed. Conciliation did not appeal to his mediaeval mind; half measures were anathema to him. With him the issue was between royalty and sedition and he never sat down calmly to analyse the causes of the latter. Opposition even though it were based on just grounds was intolerable to him. It was a masterful love of prestige and not perversity, a consciousness of superior might and not a natural thirst for blood, a lack of faith in human nature due to the misbehaviour of those whom he had favoured and not an inherent wish to destroy the human species that aggravated the crisis and rendered harmony impossible in the state.

c13.70

Modern European writers who have closely followed Barani and Firishta have reiterated their views. It would be wearisome to cite passages from them which are based upon the diatribes of Barani, so faithfully reproduced in such histories as Nizam-al-Din's Tabaqat-i-Akbari and Badaoni's Muntakhab-ut-tawarikh. Sewell who followed Firishta and the Portuguese chronicler Nuniz picturesquely describes the Sultan as 'something superhuman, monstrous, a saint with the heart of a devil, or a fiend with the heart of a saint.'37 Nuniz in one place speaks of him as the lord of the skins by which he means that his punishments were terrible.³⁸ Modern writers have fallen into the mistake of applying to Muhammad’s motives and policy the standards of our own day. They have failed to reconcile the Sultan’s actions with his high education and uncommon intellectual powers. Hence they have framed against him the charge of insanity. But none of his contemporaries lets fall even a hint from which we might infer that he was partially or wholly insane. ‘Afif, the author of the Sirat, and Sultan Firuz say nothing which can even remotely suggest that the Sultan suffered from mental derangement in the slightest degree. Nor is there any one among the later writers from Yahaya Sirhindi downwards who states that the Sultan was mad. Still, the judicious Elphinstone writes: ‘Yet the whole of these splendid talents and accomplishments was given to him in vain; they were accompanied by a perversion of judgment which, after every allowance for the intoxication of absolute power, leaves us in doubt whether he was not affected by some degree of insanity.’³⁹ Following the doubtful statement of Elphinstone later scholars have positively charged the Sultan, some with eccentricity and others with madness.⁴⁰ They took their cue from Barani who was at his wit’s end to give a correct description of the Sultan who seemed to him a veritable wonder of creation, a rare combination of opposite qualities. If he had been insane, surely Barani and Ibn Batūṭah would have made a statement to that effect in plain language. None of them does so and even those among later writers who describe him as bloody do not call him mad. There was no hereditary weakness which affected his brain for his father was a great warrior and statesman and his stock had not yet tasted enough of luxury to lose its martial vigour. Besides, it would have been impossible for an insane king to rule the empire for 27 years in such stormy times. The ‘Ulama who were already opposed to him would have issued a fatwah declaring that he was not entitled to rule over the ‘faithful.’ None of the administrative measures of Muhammad are such as can justify the charge of madness, though we might say with certainty that some of them were foolishly carried out and entailed much misery upon the population. But the foolish execution of an impolitic measure is a different thing from an act of positive madness.

c13.71

³⁶ Barani, Calcutta Text, p. 522.

c13.72

³⁷ Sewell, A Forgotten Empire, p. 15.

c13.73

³⁸ Ibid., p. 9.

c13.74

³⁹ History of India, p. 395.

c13.75

⁴⁰ Havell, Aryan Rule, p. 311. Raverty, J. A. S. B., 1892, p. 328. Yule, Cathay and the Way Thither, IV, Second Edition, pp. 10-11. Sir Richard Temple’s Article in the Indian Antiquary, 1922, p. 208. Sewell, A Forgotten Empire, p. 15. Beveridge’s Foreword to N. N. Law’s Promotion of learning in India during Muhammadan Rule, p. XXII. Arnold, The Caliphate, p. 103.

c13.76

A still more serious charge closely bound up with the charge of cruelty brought against the Sultan by Barani is that of irreligiousness. Barani denounces the Sultan's chief advisers who were instrumental in causing the death of Musalmans. He writes: 'The philosophers had so firmly planted their ideas in his mind that there was no room in it for the Holy Book and the sayings of the Prophets which are the pillars of Islam. He believed nothing that did not appeal to his reason. If Sultan Muhammad had not been influenced by the ideas of these philosophers and had faith in the sayings of the Prophets, he would have never committed such acts, possessed as he was of great qualities and accomplishments. So powerful was the hold of philosophical ideas on him that he cared nothing for the heavenly books. As a result of this, it became his habit to slay the true believers in God, among whom were the 'Ulama, mauvids, Sufis, Qalandars, scribes and men of the army. Not a day might pass when Muslims were not slain, and a stream of blood did not flow before the palace gate. All this was due to lack of faith in the knowledge contained in the revealed books.'⁴¹

c13.77

⁴¹ Barani, Calcutta Text, pp. 465-66. India Office MS. f. 295.

c13.78

Barani bases his charge upon the philosophical studies of the Sultan and his love of ratiocination. A careful examination of this passage will show how sweeping the charge is. The Sultan is charged not merely with the slaughter of the learned and pious but also scribes and soldiers, and Barani ascribes this tendency to his lack of faith and the visionary character of his mind. As a bigoted ecclesiastic, averse to the shedding of Muslim blood, he regarded the death of every Muslim culprit as an instance of wanton cruelty due to lack of faith. Later historians have reiterated the charge with more or less verbal amendments. Yahya Sirhindi clearly states that in Dihli and its environs the 'Ulama and the faqirs were wantonly slain so that heaps of corpses rose up in front of the palace gate, but strangely enough in the same breath he speaks of four muftis who were stationed in the palace and with whom the Sultan discussed the pros and cons of a case before pronouncing judgment. It appears from his account that the Sultan was particularly anxious to see that no injustice was done to any body and that the *muftis* fully considered each case before it was finally disposed of.

c13.79

Nizam-al-Din Ahmad while dwelling upon the Sultan's observance of religious fasts and prayers and his exemplary conduct writes that from constant association with men who were learned in philosophy, but had no concern with the law of the Prophet, the Sultan had acquired an impression that truth was confined only to ratiocinative learning.⁴² His language is more guarded than that of Barani and he does not emphasise the slaughter of the 'true believers' caused by the Sultan's lack of faith in traditional learning. Badāoni who is less judicious than Nizam-al-Din Ahmad only paraphrases Yahya's diatribe against the Sultan and falls into the same inconsistency.⁴³ Himself an orthodox Muslim, he condemns the system of government which made the Sayyids, 'Ulama, Shaikhs, low-born men, mean fellows, peasants and soldiers all alike in his eyes, but in the same breath he says that the Sultan was so scrupulous in inflicting punishments that he argued with the *muftis* and warned them that if any one were slain wrongfully by their oversight, the blood of that victim would be upon their heads.⁴⁴ Firishta like Nizam-al-Din blames the Sultan for desiring to combine in his own person the temporal and spiritual functions and writes: 'The Sultan paid no regard to religious learning. He allowed no privilege to the 'Ulama in his *Darbār* and accepted only those things of religion which satisfied the test of reason.'⁴⁵ This is followed by the usual charge of the slaughter of true believers, saints, *sufis*, Qalandars, whose only fault as in Barani, is the profession of their faith. But like his predecessors Firishta praises the Sultan's strict observance of the five prayers and fasts and the exceptional purity of his private life. It is needless to mention other later writers, who have largely borrowed from Barani, Nizam-al-Din and Firishta their account of the Sultan's character.

c13.80

⁴² Tabaqat-i-Akbari, Calcutta Text, p. 200.

c13.81

⁴³ Calcutta Text, I, p. 238.

c13.82

⁴⁴ Al-Badāoni, Calcutta Text, pt. I, p. 239.

c13.83

⁴⁵ Firishta, Lucknow Text, p. 133.

c13.84

It was Barani who popularised the idea of the Sultan's hostility to the faith, but on a close examination, his account is found to be a tissue of contradictions and inconsistencies. We have to decide whether the Sultan had really given up the principles of his faith and permitted the slaughter of Shaikhs, sufis and the ‘Ulama on religious grounds. Barani himself admits in the course of his narrative that the Sultan observed the namaz with the strictness of a true Muslim and rose from his seat as soon as he heard the cry of the muazzin.⁴⁶ An antidote to Barani's exaggerated condemnation is supplied by other contemporary writers. Ibn Batūṭah who knew the Sultan well observes:—

c13.85

⁴⁶ Calcutta Text, p. 506.

c13.86

“The stories of the generosity and gallantry of this Prince are well known among the people as his punishments of the culprits and wrong-doers. But he is a great lover of justice and right. He follows the practices of religion with devoutness and performs the prayers himself and punishes those who neglect them.”⁴⁷ He mentions the cruel practices of the Sultan, but he does not sweep into a single line all classes of men from peasants and soldiers to Shaikhs and Sufis. He praises the devoutness of the Sultan and mentions the punishments of wrong-doers only. Badr-i-Chāch and Shihāb-al-Din also declare that the Sultan was deeply religious. We read in the Masālik that many soldiers and amirs read the fiqah and the ‘Ulama attended on him during the Ramzan and observed the fast. Instead of slaying faqirs he fed thousands of them at the expense of the state. He knew by heart the Quran and the Hidāyah, the famous treatise on jurisprudence, which embodies the principles of the sect of Abu Hanifah. He enforced the religious prayers among all classes of his subjects and severely dealt with those who neglected them. On one occasion nine men were slain for this offence, and if Ibn Batūṭah be true, this would prove rather an excess of religious zeal than want of it.⁴⁸ A catechism was prepared and those who failed to repeat the prescribed formula were punished. Men were employed to bring from the markets those who did not attend the mosque at the appointed hours of prayer, and this order was executed with such fidelity that even the grooms who stood at the gates of the Hall of Audience

First 85 of 105 passages. Read on

Linked texts (7)