History of the Qaraunah Turks in India c13.63

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.