History of the Qaraunah Turks in India c13.70

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.