Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of the Qaraunah Turks in India c14: Authorities

History of the Qaraunah Turks in India c14

Language
English

Contents

Authorities

c14.1

In studying the history of the Tughluqs one is struck by the paucity of original material, but thanks to the labour of European and Indian researchists and antiquarians several works of importance have come to light which are of great help in interpreting the history of this period. Two authorities for a history of the dynasty during the first three decades of its rule may be classified under the following heads :

c14.2

(1) Contemporary sources.
(2) Sources nearly contemporary.
(3) Secondary or later sources.
(4) Contemporary literature.
(5) Archæological evidence.
(6) The English works.

c14.3

The contemporary authorities which directly deal with the period are :—

c14.4

(i) Zia Barani's *Tarikh-i-Firūz Shahi*.
(ii) Shihab-al-Din's *Masālik-al-absar-fi-Mamālik-al-amsār*.
(iii) Ibn Batūtah's account of his travels in India.
(iv) The Qasāid of Badr-i-Chāch.
(v) Amir Khusrau's *Tughluqnamah*.

c14.5

Besides these, there are other works mentioned such as Shams-i-Sirāj's *Manāqib-i-Sultan Tughluq* and *Manāqib-i-Sultan Muhammad*, but these are not known to exist.

c14.6

The principal authority which has been more or less used by all historians for this period is Zia Barani's *Tarikh-i-Firūz Shahi*. Zia was a native of Baran (modern Bulandshahr) in the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh. He was born probably in or about the year 684 A.H. (1285 A.D.), for he says that in 758 A.H. (1359 A.D.), when he completed his history he was seventy-four years of age. His father and uncle were employed in the service of the state, and he was himself patronised by Sultan Muhammad Tughluq. Thus, he had unique opportunities of acquainting himself with the affairs of the Sultans of Dihli. He wrote several other works besides his history. The author of the Matlūb-al-tālibin credits him with the authorship of the Sanāi Muhammadi, the Salwat-i-Kabīr, the ‘Ināyatnamah Ilāhi, the Masir-i-Sādāt, and the Akhbar Barmākiyan. Barani’s history is a continuation of Minhāj-i-Siraj’s Tabqat-i-Nāsiri which was complied during the reign of Sultan Nāsir-al-Din Mahmūd Shah of the slave dynasty and contains an account of the Sultans of Dihli from Balban to Firuz Shah Tughluq. Barani was well-qualified to write a history of this period. Himself an accomplished scholar, he associated with men like Amir Khusrau and Amir Hasan Dihlwi who were held in esteem at court. He was a disciple of Shaikh Nizām-al-Din Aulia and frequently associated with him. In his preface which is written in highly inflated language after the fashion of the day, Barani expatiates at length upon the value and usefulness of history. He rates historical learning above the ‘Ilm-i-tafsīr (knowledge of the commentaries of the Quran), Hadīs (tradition), Fiqah (law) and Sufism and writes that he has found history more useful than all these branches of theological learning. Among trustworthy historians he mentions four—Khwajah Sadr Nizāmi, the author of the Tāj-al-Māsir, Sadr-al-Din ‘Ufi, the author of the Jām-al-Hikāyat, Minhaj-i-Siraj, the author of the Tabqāt-i-Nāsiri and Kabīr-al-Din, son of Tāj-al-Din ‘Iraqi, who wrote an account of the conquests of ‘Ala-al-Din in elegant diction. He praises these historians and lays down the canons of historical writing, which have a touch of modernity about them. ‘Truth’ says he, ‘is all-important for the historian. It is the foundation of all history. If a historian describes the good qualities of a king, he ought not to conceal his defects. Considerations of partiality or friendship should not influence the writing of history. If he cannot record the truth plainly he must do so by suggestions and implications. A historian may be excused, if he does not state the truth about living persons, but it is his bounden duty to write what is true about those who are dead.’ Barani took great pains to write his history which he regards as a compendium of all useful knowledge—at once a history of kings and emperors and a treatise on the art of government. Like a mediæval scholar he takes upon himself the rôle of a reviewer and writes that he has stated nothing but the truth and appeals to his readers to believe him. He holds out his book as a model for those who aspire to write history and considers it superior to all other historical works.

c14.7

Barani was in close contact with Sultan Muhammad Tughluq who showed him great favour on account of his literary attainments. He writes in the course of his narrative that for seventeen years and three months he had received many favours and gifts from the Sultan. Whatever he writes about this remarkable king, he writes from personal observation. He was frequently consulted by him on matters of state, though the historian, according to his own confession, seldom gave honest advice. Barani finished his history in 758 A.H. and included in it an account of the first six years of the reign of Sultan Firuz Shah, son of Sipahsalar Rajab whom Major Lees in his illuminating article on the ‘Materials for the History of India’ has confounded with Sālār Mas‘ud Ghazi who is entombed at Bahraich.¹ The historian's old age was spent in great poverty and misery. He retired to a village near Dihli and all accounts agree that he was penniless at the time. Indeed, so poor and destitute had he become that he had not even a piece of cloth to serve as his shroud. He bewails his fate in pathetic language, expresses contrition for his sins in the present life and dreads the punishments in the world to come.² Barani's history contains only an account of the first six years of that monarch's rule. The work which he left unfinished was carried on by Shams-i-Sirāj ‘Afif, the official historian of Firuz, who brought down his history to the end of his reign.

c14.8

¹ J. R. A. S. 1868, p. 444.

c14.9

² Barani, Cal. Text, p. 23.

c14.10

I have utilised and compared several MSS. of Barani's *Tarikh-i-Firūz Shahi*. The India Office MS., though not dated, seems to be an old copy. Probably it was written in the 15th century. The calligraphic style is not uniform in the book. In some places it is the later style which came into vogue under the Mughals, while in others it is the old style of pre-Mughal days. The MS. on the whole resembles the *Munshāt-i-Māhrū* in calligraphic style. The Buhar MS., though not dated, is a beautifully written copy and is more correct than the Khudābakhsh Text which was badly arranged when I consulted it. It seems older than the other Indian Texts. The Khudābakhsh MS., which appears to have belonged to the library of the Nawabs of Oudh, is probably a 16th century copy, but it contains many errors. The A. S. B. MS., which belonged at one time to Tippu Sultan's library, is written in beautiful *nastāliq* and is superior in point of accuracy to the Khudābakhsh Text. I have compared all these with the Text of Barani published in the Bibliotheca Indica Series and have noted the differences wherever they occur. Many discrepancies have come to light and they have been discussed in the body of this work. In my judgment the Text published by the Asiatic Society of Bengal is on the whole correct and reliable. The extracts given by Sir Henry Elliot are defective in several places and I have discussed them wherever I have found them differing from the original Text.

c14.11

Another contemporary work of great value is the *Tuḥfat-al-nazzar fī gharāib-al-amṣār wa ‘ajāib-al-Safar* of Ibn Baṭūṭah who writes his full name as Abu ‘Abdullah Muḥammad bin ‘Abdullah bin Muḥammad bin Ibrāhīm of Lavat of Tanjah (Tangiers). Ibn Baṭūṭah was born at Tangiers on Monday, the 27th Rajab, 703 A.H., March 5, 1304 A.D. From his early youth he had a passion for voyages and started from home, leaving his parents who were living at the time on Thursday, the 2nd Rajab, 725 A.H. (January 14, 1325 A.D.) when he was only 22 years of age and did not return home until he was nearly fifty in Zi-al-Ḥijjah, 754 A.H. (December 1353 A.D.). Ibn Baṭūṭah writes that he had lost all his notes during the voyage and wrote the account of his travels from memory. This was completed on Zi-al-Ḥijjah 3, 756 A.H. (December 13, 1355 A.D.) The present *Safarnāmah* is an abridgment of Ibn Baṭūṭah's book made by Ibn Juzzī who describes him as the greatest traveller among Muslims. Ibn Juzzī finished his summary in the month of Safar, 757 A.H. (February, 1356 A.D.).

c14.12

In the course of his voyages Ibn Baṭūṭah visited numerous Asiatic countries and cities of which he has given pretty full accounts. Passing through the whole longitude of Africa, he reached Alexandria and visited Cairo where he stayed for some time. From Cairo he started for Mecca, but wars in the Red Sea prevented him from doing so and he was obliged to turn back. He proceeded to Palestine and Syria and visited the cities of Allepo and Damascus. He went to Mecca where he stayed for three years and from there started on his voyage. Passing through African and Egyptian territories, he again reached Syria and made an extensive tour throughout the small Turkish monarchies which existed in Asia Minor. He then crossed the Black Sea to Caffa, the first Christian city which he visited. After protracted wanderings by devious routes in Kipchak and Middle Russia where he was very much struck by

c14.13.1

the regard which the Tartars showed for their women, he proceeded towards Constantinople. From there he traversed across the desert to Khwarizm and Bokhara and to Transoxiana where he stayed for 54 days with Tarmāshirīn of whom he writes a detailed notice. After this he proceeded to Khorasan and Afghanistan and passing through the passage of the Hindukush he entered Sindh and reached the bank of the Indus on Muharram 1, 734, A.H. (September 12, 1333 A.D.) This is the commencement of his Indian voyage of which he has given a detailed account in his Safarnamah. When Ibn Batūtah reached Dihli, the Sultān (Muhammad Tughluq) had gone towards Kanauj. He was hospitably received by the Queen-mother Makhdum Jahan who bestowed valuable gifts upon him. The Wazir Khwajah Jahan presented the traveller with 2,000 dinars as his sarshasti (for washing the head) allowance. A khil'at of silk and rewards for his companions and servants according to their rank. The Sultan who had been informed of the traveller's arrival sent an order that a jagir, yielding an income of 5,000 dinars a year should be granted to him. This was done and three villages Bawali (Badali), Basī (Basahi) and half of Balrah which were 16 krohs from the capital in the sadi of Hindpat (Sonpat) were assigned to him for his maintenance. Ibn Batūtah was called Maulana Badr-al-Din in Hindustan.

c14.13.2

When the Sultan came back to the capital, he received the traveller kindly and appointed him Qazi of Dihli on a salary of 12,000 dinars per annum. Ibn Batūtah, who, all of a sudden, began to bask in the sunshine of royal favour, forgot the limitations of his purse and cultivated extravagant habits. So much so indeed, that on one occasion his debts amounted to 55,000 dinars to pay which he had recourse to shifty devices notwithstanding his dignity as a high judicial officer of the state. He remained in the service of the Sultan for eight years and during this period he took part in several important transactions. When the Sultan left for Ma'bar, he left Ibn Batūtah at Dihli in charge of the monastery of Qutb-al-Din which had a large establishment to manage. Towards the close of his residence in India, Ibn Batūtah fell out of favour and the cause of this royal displeasure was his visit to Shaikh Shihāb-al-Din bin Shaikh Jām who had offended the Sultan by calling him a tyrant. He was placed under surveillance which caused him much anxiety. He began to fast and pray for days together in order to escape from royal wrath and gave up all thought of worldly enjoyments and pleasures. When the Sultan heard of his asceticism in Sindh whither he had gone to suppress a local rebellion, he summoned him in his presence and offered him service again in Jamād-al-ākhir, 742 A.H. (Nov. 1341 A.D.). Ibn Batūṭah declined and began to practise religious observances as before.

c14.13.3

After forty days he was again called by the Sultan who expressed his intention to send him on an embassy to China. Ibn Batūṭah obeyed the command and started on his journey on the 17th Safar, 743 A.H. (July 22, 1342 A.D.) with a large number of costly presents of all kinds for the emperor of China. By a circuitous route in describing which he has made much confusion he reached the port of Qandhar and took ship for China. On the way the party met with a serious mishap. The ship in which Ibn Batūṭah and his companions were sailing was sunk and all were killed including Amir Zahīr-al-Dīn and the slave Kāfūr. After the accident the Moor went to Hanaur where he was coldly received by Sultan Jamāl-al-Dīn. He left the place after two months and went back to Calicut where he took ship for the Maldive islands. From the Maldives he proceeded to Ceylon and thence to Ma‘bar where he was well received by his relative Ghiyās-al-Dīn Damghānī. He stayed at Madura for some time and enjoyed the hospitality of the Sultan. After long wanderings in Bengal he started on his voyage to China via Java, Sumatra, and the islands of the Indian Archipelago. Colonel Yule doubts whether Ibn Batūṭah ever went to China, but it appears from the detailed account of that country given by him and corroborated by other historians that he did visit China, though he could not fulfil the mission with which Muhammad had entrusted him.

c14.13.4

On his return from China he again came to India and stayed at Calicut for some time. Fearing the wrath of the Sultan of Dihli, he did not go to Dihli and embarked on boardship and finally reached home towards the close of 755 A.H. (1354 A.D.). Here he recorded those observations which have entitled him to be placed in the forefront of the world's greatest travellers. Ibn Batūṭah died at the age of seventy-three in 1377-78 A.D.

c14.14

Lees' translation of the Travels of Ibn Batūṭah which was translated from the abridged Arabic MSS. preserved in the public library of Cambridge with notes and which was published by the Oriental Translation Fund in 1829 A.D. does not go far enough and fails to give us a complete picture of the India of Muhammad Tughluq's time. More full and accurate is the French edition of Ibn Batūṭah's Voyages by C. Defrémery and B. R. Sanguinetti in four volumes with a French translation of the text, a chronology and an exhaustive list of contents. When the French conquered Algiers, MSS. of the unabridged work came into their hands. There are now five copies in the Imperial Library of Paris only two of which are complete. One of them, Yule remarks (Cathay II, p. 42), has been proved to be an autograph of Ibn Juzzī, the original editor, who abridged the memoranda prepared by the traveller himself. Portions of the travels dealing with Central Asian Countries appeared from time to time in the Journal Asiatique, but the portion dealing with India was never published *in extenso*.

c14.15

The third volume of the Travels edited by Defrémery and Sanguinetti deals with India and the fourth gives an account of Ibn Batūṭah’s wanderings in India and his homeward voyage and embodies his observations regarding the countries he visited, and the peoples amongst whom he lived and moved.

c14.16

The full name of the work is *Masālik-al-abṣār-fi mamālik-al-amṣār* which means ways of sight regarding the countries and cities of the world. The author of the work was Shihāb-al-Din Ahmad bin Sahioe popularly known as Al-marāshi. He was born in the year 697 A.H. (1297 A.D.) and died at Damascus in 749 A.H. (1348 A.D.). He does not say much about himself except that his ancestors, like himself, were employed in the service of the Sultans of Egypt. His father Qazi Muḥi-al-Din was a royal amanuensis who dealt with confidential despatches at Damascus. He was dismissed from office and it was after some time that he became the head of the department of secret correspondence in Egypt. The author, being a man of considerable literary attainments, assisted his father in both offices. Shihāb-al-Din is said to have written seven works on different subjects of which the Masālik is known to us. So far as I am aware there is only one copy of the work and that too is incomplete in the Bibliothèque Impériale at Paris which Quartrémere has translated in Tome XIII of his *Notices et extraits*. Sir Henry Elliot has translated (III, pp. 573—85) extracts from the French translation of Quartrémere into English. I have utilised a rotograph copy of the portion dealing with India which was obtained by me through the good offices of Professor Sylvain Levi from the Bibliotheque Nationale Paris. The colophon of the MS. contains the names of the work and the author who is surnamed Al-marāshi instead of Al-marākashi. There are two dates at the top—964 A.H. (1556 A.D.), and 1032 A.H. (1622 A.D.)—but it is not clear what they signify. The title page contains the name of the author in Arabic and its French equivalent is given as Shihāb-al-Dīn bin Ahmad bin Shāhīr vulgo dicte al-Marāshi.

c14.17

The Masālik contains fourteen chapters which are enumerated in the MS. of which the first deals with India and Sindh. The author writes that before the commencement of this work he knew nothing but patiently acquired knowledge from those who possessed information about things and men. He alludes to two works which he utilised:

c14.18

(1) The Tuhfatul albāb by Muhammad bin ‘Abdul Rahīm which contains a description of Hindustan; and

c14.19

(2) ‘Iqd-al-La’āl by Ibn ‘abd-al-Rabbah and his account is largely based on information supplied by one Shaikh Mubārak bin Mahmūd Amb. Shihāb-al-Dīn in writing about India says: ‘I used to learn a great deal about India from books and the reports of men which seem very agreeable to the eyes and ears. But since the country was far away, I could not ascertain the truth of what I read and heard. When I began to write this book and tried to find out which of the informants were reliable, I came to know that the reality far excelled what I had heard and read in books.’ Shaikh Mubārak is the principal informant of Shihāb-al-Dīn. His ancestors were held in high esteem by the Sultans of Hindustan and he himself had witnessed some of the great victories of Muhammad Tughluq. His account of conquests is complete, though geographically not quite correct and the figures furnished by him are doubtless much exaggerated. Besides Shaikh Mubārak, the author of the Masālik obtained information from several other persons whose names he mentions in the course of his narrative.

c14.20

These are:—

c14.21

(1) Shaikh Burhān-al-Dīn Abu Bakr bin jalāl Beezi.

c14.22

(2) Sirāj-al-Dīn Abu-al-Safā ‘Omar bin Ishāq bin Ahmad Shibli Auzi (of Oudh) who was a native of Oudh and learned in theology. He frequently visited the court of the Sultan of Dihli. He mentions the provinces of the empire of Muhammad and he is supported by other evidence.

c14.23

(3) Abu Muhammad Hasan bin Muhammad Ghori Hanafī Qāzī-al-Quzāt.

c14.24

(4) Abu Bakr Buzzī.

c14.25

(5) Khwajah Ahmad bin Khwajah ‘Omar bin Musāfir.

c14.26

(6) Shaikh Muhammad Khojandī who had been in the military service of the Sultan.

c14.27

(7) Sharīf Tāj-al-Dīn Hasan Samarqandī.

c14.28

(8) Yahya.

c14.29

(9) ‘Alī bin Mansūr, an ‘Arab Amīr of Bahrain who had frequently visited Hindustan and knew much about Sultan Muhammad.

c14.30

The *Masālik*, though it does not contain a connected history of Sultan Muhammad’s reign, gives valuable information about the administration, the character of the Sultan and the currency and weights and measures of the time. Most of these details are corroborated by other contemporary writers and hence there can be no doubt about its general reliability.

c14.31

The Qasāid or odes of Badr-i-Chāch, though they do not contain much historical matter, help us to explain certain points in connection with the reign of Muhammad Tughluq. The poet whose real name was Badr-al-Dīn or ‘Full moon of religion’ was a native of Chāch or Shash which is modern Tashqand. He enjoyed the patronage of Muhammad Tughluq and in recognition of his poetical gift received from him the title of Fakhr-al-Zamān. Sir Henry Elliot has translated (III, pp. 567—573) certain odes, but no complete translation is available. There are three copies of the *Diwan* of Badr-i-Chāch in the Khudābakhsh library of which a detailed notice is given in Maulvī Muqtadir’s catalogue. The MS. No. 140 is the best of all, though it is slightly damaged and worm-eaten. It contains ample explanatory notes on the margin. The colophon of the MS. contains an inscription to the effect that the MS. was admitted into the royal library in the time of Emperor Farrukh-Siyar. Badr-i-Chāch helps us in determining certain disputed dates and gives some account of the patent of the Khalifah, the recall of Qutlugh Khan from the Deccan in 745 A.H., and the conquest of Nagarkot. The poet describes the Sultan as obedient to the laws of the Prophet and loyal to the Khalifah and feels pride in attending his court. His muse was not shocked by the barbarities of the Sultan which moved his contemporary Barani. Badr-i-Chāch is well known for his difficult style, gorgeous imagery and frigid conceits which is in Prof. Browne’s words a common characteristic of the Persian poetry produced by men of the Turkish race or writing under Turkish influence and patronage.³ The poet sometimes writes in a rancorous vein, and in a satire on a certain rival poet Nāsir-al-Din he so far forgets the dignity of his lofty vocation as to speak ill of his wife, and says that he does not know even the alphabet, a way of reviling peculiar to mediæval wits. The poet finished his work in the month of Zi-al-Q'adah 745 A.H., i.e., seven years before the death of his patron and the date of his death is expressed in the following verse⁴ :—

c14.32

³ Persian Literature under Tartar Dominions, p. 110.

c14.33

⁴ Bankipore MS. No. 140, f. 64.

c14.34

سال تاریخ عرب " دولت شه " ذي قعده
آسمان عقل گهرهاي مرا داد نظام

c14.35

Barani's *Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi* is the only extant authority which gives a full account of the first two Tughluqs. Later writers derived much of their information from Barani and most of the 16th and 17th century writers based their writings largely upon his history. As a contemporary Barani who was in the service of the state had unique opportunities of acquainting himself with the affairs of the Sultans of Dihli. Though he has his own limitations as a member of the class of ‘Ulama, he supplies pretty full information about many important events. In dealing with Muhammad Tughluq's reign he abandons the chronological method and selects the most important events of the reign for discussion. It would not be right to infer from this division into topics that he sought to establish a pre-conceived thesis. To understand his attitude towards Sultan Muhammad it is necessary to bear in mind the canons of historical writing followed in mediæval India. Most of those who wrote historical works belonged to the class of ‘Ulama and looked at things from the theological point of view. They praised those who followed the formulæ of the orthodox school and condemned those who acted contrary to them. Rulers like ‘Ala-al-Din who cared nothing for the verdict of the ‘Ulama and did what seemed beneficial to the state received scant praise at the hands of these writers. On the contrary, weak-minded men like Firuz who followed the orthodox principles were held up as ideal Muslim rulers. To find favour with these historians, one must follow the dictates of the Quran in the matter of administration and humiliate and crush the Hindus, which was looked upon as a meritorious act. Barani belonged to this school. He was well pleased with Ghiyās because he was an orthodox Müslim who patronised his co-religionists and reduced the Hindus to poverty and submission. But he changes his tone in describing the reign of Sultan Muhammad. He bestows lavish praise upon him for his great qualities of intellect and character and expresses his bewilderment at the 'bold and visionary' schemes which he pursued to the detriment of his empire. Barani wrote under official patronage. He was aware that Firuz had a tender regard for his cousin's reputation and, therefore, although he praises the Sultān for many things, he finds it impossible to forgive him for his disregard of the 'Ulama and to understand his plans and policies which were so original and in advance of the age. For matters that did not affect his order or the religion of Islam he is perfectly reliable, and, though he is always deficient in chronology and careless in his method of arrangement, he records the annals of the reign with considerable accuracy and truthfulness. In his preface he emphasises the importance of historical truth and promises to write nothing but the truth; but he is led astray by his clerical bias. He was prejudiced against Sultan Muhammad for several reasons. Firstly, the inhabitants of his native district Baran had suffered at the hands of the Sultan and his officers during a punitive expedition led by him to suppress disorder. The object of the expedition did not matter to a theologian like Barani who had little appreciation of the needs of the administration. Secondly, he does not approve of the generosity which the Sultan showed towards the foreigners. Though Barani only speaks in general terms of the magnificent gifts of the Sultan to foreigners, it is clear that neither the native officials nor the clericalists looked upon such a policy with favour. The presence of foreigners was gall and wormwood to them and they combined to thwart the administration which excluded them from its patronage. But the supreme faults of Muhammad were:—

c14.36

(1) his philosophical pursuits and the application of the principles of rationalism to matters of religion;

c14.37

(2) his generous treatment towards the Hindus and the absence of official persecution;

c14.38

(3) and his disregard of the 'Ulama and deviation from the orthodox path.

c14.39

These charges explain Barani's attitude towards the Sultan. They have been fully discussed in the body of this work, but it is necessary to advert briefly to them here. He traces every disaster of the reign to the Sultan's ignorance of 'religious knowledge.' He does not appreciate his measures to reform the administration and among the five reasons which have led him to withhold his admiration from the Sultan one is the promulgation of new measures in rapid succession. It seemed to him that the state was not doing its duty in extending toleration towards the Hindūs. Muhammad's government fell far short of the ideal of a Muslim state. Indeed, the one lament that runs throughout Barani's gloomy narrative which we do not find in Ibn Batūtah is that Sunni Musalmans were wantonly slain and that no distinction was made between the ordinary man and the Shaikhs and the 'Ulama. The principles of the Hanifi school were understood to be three—to look upon the shedding of Muslim blood as a sin, to follow the Quran and the Hadis in administering justice, to restrict taxation to the prescribed four taxes and to adhere to the prescribed share of the spoils (1/5th for the state and 4/5ths for the army) prescribed in the Quran. Muhammad's administration violated all these principles. The clericalists were deprived of their monopoly of justice and were no longer treated as a sacrosanct order. Ibn Batūtah's narrative makes clear to us how the animosities of the 'Ulama were aroused against the Sultan. It was to strengthen his position against the opposition of these men that he applied to the Khalifah for a patent of investiture.

c14.40

Barani's old age was one of gloom and sorrow. Poor and forlorn, when he sat down to write his history, he had not a spark of optimism left in him. He had lost his appointment, it seems, after the death of Muhammad and was passing his days in poverty. As he looked back, he saw nothing but the disastrous effects of what he considered a thoroughly misconceived policy. The splendour and success of the early years of Muhammad's reign contrasted with the failure of his subsequent years filled him with gloom, and though now and then he admires the Sultan's zeal for reform, the thought of ruin is so deeply rooted in his mind that he finds himself unable to trace events to their proper causes. Is it true that Barani indulged in deliberate falsehood? In fairness to that mediæval chronicler it must be said that it is impossible to make such an affirmation. Very probably he was sincere in his condemnation of the Sultan's measures. He is rather frank, for he confesses that he acquiesced owing to fear and love of money in what Sultan Muhammad did against the *Shariāt* and expresses his regret for it. He is doubtless guilty of *suppressio veri* as in the matter of the death of Sultan Ghiyās-al-Din and the ameliorative reforms of the Sultān like the suppression of Satī. He was obsessed by the idea that Islam was being ruined by the Sultan's policy, and it was this mental obsession which prevented him from seeing things in their proper perspective. His attitude is precisely that of an orthodox Brāhmana Pandit attempting to write a history of modern India with its multifarious problems. The ideas of the educated Indian—his condemnation of caste, untouchability and the inviolability of the Brahmanical order and his faith in widow remarriage and foreign travel—will be described as so many disasters to religion. Barani could not get rid of such a mentality. Opportunism was not unknown to him for he writes in one place: ‘I did not speak what was right and true on account of fear and greed. I do not know what will happen to me in future.’ The observations of such a writer must be accepted with caution particularly when he is writing the history of a man whose ideas and ideals were wholly different to his own.

c14.41

Barani is supplemented and in many places corrected by Ibn Batūtah. In the third volume of the voyages (French edition, pp. 464-65) there is an extract from Ibn Khaldun's history in which it is said that when Ibn Batūtah returned to his country and related the wonderful stories about the lands he had visited and the wealth and grandeur of the Sultan of Hindustan, his hearers were taken by surprise and felt disposed to disbelieve him. Ibn Khaldun had a talk with the Wazir Farasbin Wadrār about Ibn Batūtah and he advised him not to be so over-incredulous in accepting the accounts of great kingdoms and empires. There can be no doubt about Ibn Batūtah's general veracity, and any one who carefully peruses his narrative will subscribe to this view. The French translators describe him as a truthful recorder of events. The earlier view which European scholars formed of Ibn Batūtah from Lees' incomplete translation has been abandoned now, and my detailed and minute examination of the material relating to Muhammad's reign has convinced me of the great value of Ibn Batūtah's observations. Prof. Dozy Leyden describes his ‘Travels’ as a work of the first order while Reniaud in his introduction to Abdul Feda's geography writes that he excels Ibn Haukal and Masudī. Even Mac Guckin de Slane who judged him a bit too severely says that his sincerity is above suspicion and agrees with Dozy in calling him an honest voyager. That Ibn Batūṭah was gifted with uncommon powers of observation is amply proved by the enormous amount of careful and detailed information he supplies about the many Asiatic countries which he visited. But his account of Hindustan where he stayed eight years affords invaluable material for constructing a history of the reign of Muhammad Tughluq. He is not very reliable for things that never came under his notice although even here his remarks merit consideration, for often his information was derived from respectable eye-witnesses. He alone gives us a faithful picture of court life and the manners and customs of the age and graphically describes the character, the administrative reforms and the warlike exploits of Sultan Muhammad and corrects in material particulars the biassed account of Barani. Ibn Batūṭah is more reliable for he is an independent writer. When he wrote his observations in his distant home without notes or memoranda he had nothing to fear from the Sultan and had no expectation of reward. He is a careful recorder of events for he is amply corroborated by other contemporary and later writers. The more closely we compare his narrative with those of his contemporaries, the more are we convinced of his general truthfulness and his capacity for taking interest in human affairs. In several respects we find him in agreement with other writers who had no access to his travels when they wrote. He helps us in settling the chronology of the reign, and often furnishes details for which we look in vain in Barani. He mentions several things which Barani omits as for example the cause of the death of Sultan Ghiyas, the rebellion of Bahā-al-Din, the durbars of Muhammad and the practical working of the government in its multifarious activities. We gather from him the details regarding the administration of justice and have no reason to disbelieve him in view of the fact that he was intimately connected with public affairs.

c14.42

But Ibn Batūṭah is not free from faults. Being a foreigner, he is sometimes credulous and places reliance upon hearsay and falls into exaggeration. He mixes up history with romance and fiction and sometimes interweaves real facts with gossip. In this respect he is inferior to Barani who has the equipment of a historian and is not prone to lend a willing ear to all kinds of reports. His superiority to Barani consists in his disinterestedness; he is not the champion of an injured class or order and, therefore, impartial. But he is neither methodical nor scientific. He is careless about the chronological sequence of events as for example when he says that the corpses of Ghiyās-al-Din Bahadur and Bahā-al-Din were paraded together. He lacks accurate geographical knowledge and writes loosely about his journeys. Sometimes he carelessly substitutes the name of a city for one that has slipped off from his memory. He starts from Tilpat, goes to Biyanah and then comes back to Kol and again proceeds towards Gwalior thus adopting a circuitous route on his way to the Deccan. Many other inaccuracies and careless remarks can be cited, but they do not detract from the general soundness of his observations. From occasional slips which are inevitable in a work written from memory we cannot impugn his veracity as Yule feels disposed to do. Rather we ought to give credit to the man who penned without the aid of notes or jottings so much useful and authentic information about Hindustan and its people.

c14.43

Ibn Batūṭah, as he is revealed to us in his ‘Travels’ is an adventurous spirit who has a keen zest for life and a natural capacity for enjoyment and who takes delight in moving amidst strange and unfamiliar scenes and surroundings. A tendency to be extravagant accompanied by an attempt to get rid of an embarrassing situation by unworthy makeshifts, a kind of superstitious piety with a child-like belief in miracles, a moral laxity and yet a positive genius for seeing things and entering into the life of the people in whose midst he lived—these are some of the outstanding characteristics of this great mediæval traveller who ranks at once as the rival and compeer of the great Venetian.

c14.44

The Masālik supplements both Barani and Ibn Batūṭah. Its value rests on the ground that its author, though he never came to India, was an independent writer who neither courted the Sultan's favour nor feared his wrath and who had no motive in misrepresenting facts. In most cases his information was derived from trustworthy persons who had a first-hand knowledge of the affairs of Hindustan like Shaikh Mubarak and Khojandi. None of Shihāb-al-Din's informants says anything about the horrible deeds of the Sultan which profoundly moved Barani. There is undoubtedly looseness and exaggeration in the Masālik and I have great doubts about the accuracy of the figures supplied by its author. But the agreement of two independent authorities like Ibn Batūṭah and the author of the *Masālik* is valuable especially when they are corroborated by contemporary Indian authority. The *Masālik* throws much light upon the economic condition of the people, the working of the machinery of government, the personal character of the Sultan, a most controversial topic and clears up a number of difficulties relating to the currency and the weights and measures of the reign. Badr-i-Chāch’s panegyric does nothing more than help us in determining with accuracy a few important dates and corroborates the *Masālik*’s statement about the Sultan’s patronage of learning and scholarship.

c14.45

The near contemporaries of Barani who throw light upon certain aspects of Muhammad’s reign are Shams-i-Sirāj ‘Afif, the author of the *Sirat*, Sultan Firuz himself and ‘Ain-al-Mulk Multani. Shams-i-Sirāj ‘Afif’s *Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi* is a continuation and completion of Zia Barani’s history and is carried down to 790 A.H. (1388 A.D.) the date of Firuz Shah’s death. ‘Afif came of a family in Abuhar, the home of Firuz’s Rajput mother and his great-grandfather was collector of revenue of Abuhar and was intimately known to Ghiyās-al-Din Tughluq. His father was also employed in the service of Sultan Firuz and he derived from him a great deal of information. His book is essentially a history of Firuz but he makes some observations regarding the origin of the dynasty and the character and achievements of Sultan Muhammad which serve as a corrective to Barani. The MSS. of ‘Afif’s history are available and I have found the Bibliotheca Indica edition fairly satisfactory. The *Sirat-i-Firuz Shahi* of which the only copy is in the Khudabakhsh Library at Bankipore is a rare work. It was written in 772 A.H. (1370 A.D.) during the reign of Firuz and though the author does not give his name it appears from the highly eulogistic vein in which he writes that he attended the court of Firuz and enjoyed his patronage. The MS. is dated 1002 A.H. (1593 A.D.,) and though very carelessly written is a very old copy. As the author of the *Sirat* wrote only 18 years after Sultan Muhammad’s death, his information must have been based upon what he saw with his own eyes and what he heard from eyewitnesses. He speaks of Muhammad’s devoutness, his toleration towards the Hindūs, his great abilities and indirectly gives us a glimpse of the fiscal system which prevailed in his reign. It supplies information which is lacking in Barani and which is corroborated.

c14.46

from other independent sources; as for example, no historian, not even Barani, has recorded the story of Qazi Jalal's revolt, but the *Sirat* makes mention of it and it is corroborated by Ibn Batūṭah. Similarly it gives more details about the life of Taghī and the cause of his rebellion and in all important particulars it is substantially in agreement with Barani and others. The *Munshāt-i-Māhrū* of ‘Ain-al-Mulk Multani compiled towards the close of the 14th century is an extremely rare work of which a copy is in the possession of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. The MS. is not dated, but there is plenty of internal evidence to show that its author was ‘Ain-al-Mulk Multani and that the present copy was transcribed not later than the 15th century. The author is a man of wide learning, well-versed in Islamic theology and jurisprudence and experienced in the affairs of state. There is no doubt about his identity for he describes himself as (بندہ جان بخشش ایں خداوند) slave of the Sultan who was pardoned his life and sometimes as (بندہ قدیم) old slave. It will be remembered that after his rebellion his life was spared by Sultan Muhammad. The *Munshāt-i-Māhrū* does not contain a word about the rebellion of its author, but it says much about the other aspects of his life and the times in which he lived. He mentions Sultan Muhammad's name with gratitude and supplies information regarding his reign which supplements Barani. He writes much about the system of administration as it existed under Firuz and a comparison of his account with Barani, Ibn Batūṭah, the *Sirat* and the *Fatūḥāt* enables us to understand the institutions of the time which were not radically transformed. ‘Ain-al-Mulk must have been aware of the cause of Sultan Ghiyās's death, but he slurs over it and in an *arzdāsht* we read only the remark that ‘the solid and well-founded palace fell down by the will of Providence’. As the MS. is an old copy, it is obscure in certain places and it is difficult to explain the precise meaning of the technical terms he employs in describing the fiscal system. Despite these defects ‘Ain-al-Mulk is more elegant and polished than Barani, but our only regret is that he does not give us an account of his rebellion and his relations with Sultan Muhammad. He clearly distinguishes between the Gakkars and the Khokhars and gives much useful information about the provincial administration as it existed in the 14th century.

c14.47

The *Fatūḥāt* is an autobiographical memoir of Sultan Firuz. I have not come across any manuscript copy of this work except a small abridged version of it which is in the possession of Mr. Zafar Husain of the Archæological Department. Sir Henry Elliot's translation (III, pp. 374—88) seems to be pretty full and accurate. The *Fatūhāt* dwells upon Firuz's achievements in the field of administration and humanitarian reform but at the same time it reflects the ascendancy of the ‘Ulama over the Sultan's mind and his desire to suppress the spirit which was a legacy of the last reign. After Muhammad's death we find Firuz taking vigorous measures to stamp out heresy and idolatry which had possibly grown under Muhammad's liberalism. The *Fatūhāt* records how in everything the Sultan reverted to the Quranic formulæ. It is a valuable commentary upon Sultan Muhammad's reign and indirectly furnishes much evidence of his broad-mindedness and unorthodox policy.

c14.48

Among later historians the most remarkable is Yahya bin Ahmad bin ‘Abdullah Sirhindi, author of the *Tarikh-i-Mubārak Shahi*. This is a work which is superior to all later writings in several respects. It begins with the history of the conquest of Hindustan by Muhammad Ghori and ends with an account of Muhammad Khan bin Khizr Khan. Sir Henry Elliot has given extracts (IV) from his MS. which Thomas describes as a second-rate copy, but he begins with Firuz Tughluq's reign. I was able to consult a fairly good manuscript copy of the *Tarikh-i-Mubārak Shahi* which is in the possession of Prof. J. N. Sarkar of the Patna College. This MS. is dated 1038 A.H. (1628 A.D.) a fairly old MS. and concludes with an account of Sultan Mubarak Sayyid's preparation for march to Multān. The last date in this MS. is Rabi-al-ākhir 838 A.H. (1434 A.D.). The author does not give a list of the works he utilised in writing his history. He simply says that he gathered the accounts of the Sultans of Dihli from various books and from eye-witnesses. But it is clear that he has consulted among others Barani's *Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi* and Shams-i-Sirāj ‘Afif's *Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi*.

c14.49

The *Tarikh-i-Mubārak Shahi* supplements Barani in a variety of ways. Its author wrote only about eighty years after Muhammad Tughluq's death when there must have been living persons who had seen with their own eyes some at least of the events of his reign or who must have derived their information from persons who were very near Muhammad's time. Yahya's real merit consists in the fact that he does not wholly depend upon Barani. It is clear from his

Secondary Authorities

c14.s1.1

narrative that he has consulted some work or works other than Barani's history of which we have no trace at present. Among earlier authorities he alone gives dates and differs from Barani in material particulars. The value of his information increases a great deal when he is corroborated by Ibn Batūtah and other independent authorities. The points of agreement have been examined in detail in the body of this work. Later writers have made a free use of the *Tarikh-i-Mubārak Shahi*. Badaoni has copied it almost verbatim and has in certain places introduced errors for which he is himself responsible as for example, when he confounds Jalal-al-Din Ahsan Shah Kaithali with Hasan Kangu, the founder of the Bahmani dynasty. The order of events, the chronology and the method of treatment are exactly the same. Firishta has also borrowed a great deal from this work and it finds a place in his bibliography. But like others of his age Yahya is uncritical and reiterates the charges which Barani brought against the Sultan and towards the close of his account of his reign he enumerates the various causes to prove the theory of complete ruin. The language is simple, free from hyperboles and laudatory strings of adjectives and there is nothing of Barani's verbosity in it, nor does the author attempt anything more than a bare chronicle of facts.

c14.s1.2

The writers of the 16th and 17th centuries deserve a brief examination. Abul Fazl does not give a detailed history of the pre-Mughal Sultans of Dihli, but his *Ain-i-Akbari* is very useful for geographical and statistical information. Nizām-al-Din Ahmad, the author of the *Tabqāt-i-Akbari* who finished his work in 1593 is a historian of great repute. He has certainly a better mental equipment than Badaoni and Firishta, and his sources of information are trustworthy. He names 27 works which he utilised in preparing his history among which are mentioned the *Tughluq namah*, Barani's *Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi* the *Tarikh-i-Mubārak Shahi*, the *Tarikh-i-Bahmani* the *Tarikh-i-Bahadur Shahi*, the *Tarikh-i-Fatuh-u-Salātīn* which deal to some extent with the Tughluqs. The Bakhshi's faculty for discrimination and capacity for judicious interpretation coupled with the want of rhetoric distinguish him from other historians of the period. In writing his history of the first two Tughluqs he largely drew upon Barani's *Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi* from which the narrative is sometimes copied verbatim. He mentions the *Tughluq namah* among his authorities but he throws no light upon the origin of the dynasty. He could not get hold of 'Afif's *Manāqib-i-Sultan* Tughluq and probably obtained little help from Amir Khusrau's panegyric. The *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi* is also mentioned in his list but there is nothing in his narrative to show that he consulted it. He follows Barani's meagre chronology and adopts his arrangement of topics. But in some matters he is remarkably accurate as for example in describing the origin of Hasan Kangu, the founder of the Bahmani kingdom. In dealing with Muhammad Tughluq's reign, though he repeats the story of a mournful tragedy, his remarks throw much light upon certain problems connected with it. The provincial histories given by him are very useful and in certain cases supplement the information given even by contemporary writers.

c14.s1.3

A contemporary of Nizam-al-Din is Amin Ahmad Razi, the author of the *Haft Iqlim* who completed his work in 1593 A.D. There are copies of this work in the Bankipore, the Asiatic Society of Bengal and the Buhar libraries and a small portion of it has been published in the *Bibliotheca Indica*. The author of the *Haft Iqlim* is an independent authority and gives some original information. Being an earlier writer than Badaoni, Ali, Firishta and Hajji-ad-Dabir, he is more valuable when he is corroborated from other independent sources as for example in giving an account of the origin of the Bahmani dynasty he refers to a certain work the *Ayun-ut-tawarikh* which is in agreement with the *Tabaqat*, the *Burhan-i-Masir* and the Arabic History of Gujarat. The *Haft Iqlim* is an encyclopaedia which gives biographical notices of Shaikhs and leading personages and throws much light upon certain events of political history.

c14.s1.4

Next in point of time comes Badaoni who is valued highly by European scholars. Badaoni was an orthodox Sunni who saw in Akbar's liberalism the ruin of Islam. He finished his history on February 23, 1596, two years after Nizam-al-Din's death, and though he expresses his gratefulness to the former, he does not borrow his facts from him. He does not follow Barani either. As he says in his preface, he relies upon the *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi* which he copies in a most uncritical fashion. He does not seem to have taken the trouble of comparing the text of the *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi* with those of Barani's *Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi* and the *Tabaqat-i-Akbari*. From the beginning to the end the method of Badaoni is the same as that of Yahya, though he omits to mention certain details given by the latter.

c14.s1.5

Firishta and Hajji-ad-Dabīr are contemporaries but they do not appear to have met or consulted each other. Firishta presented his history to Ibrahim ‘Adil Shah in 1015 A.H. (1606 A.D.) while Hajji-ad-Dabīr was still engaged upon his work. Firishta quotes no less than 35 works which he utilised in preparing his history and names 20 others in the body of the text from which he makes citations. Though the *Tarikh-i-Mubārak Shahi* and the *Tarikh-i-Bahādur Shahi* are included in his list, he makes mention of no contemporary history dealing with the Tughluqs other than those that are known to us. He largely bases his account upon Barani, Nizam-al-Din and Yahya and refers to several other works in the course of his narrative. Some European scholars look upon him as a mere plagiarist, but this judgment is a little too severe in view of the fact that the methods of scientific writing and critical interpretation were unknown to mediæval scholars. Firishta’s chronology is defective, his statements are sometimes inconsistent and in the midst of conflicting statements of various historians he finds himself in great difficulty and adopts a curiously indecisive attitude. But in the volume of matter and the simplicity of his style he excels many other Persian writers. He has a fuller acquaintance with Deccan history and mentions among his authorities the *Bahmannamah*, the *Sirāj-al-tawārīkh* by Mulla Muhammad Lāri and the *Tuhfatuh Salātīn Bahmani* by Mulla Daud Badari which are scarce. Strangely enough he does not mention the *Burhān-i-Māsir* of ‘Ali bin ‘Azizullah Tabātabā which appeared about 1596 A.D. Probably this was due to professional rivalry. The *Burhān* which was commenced in 1000 A.H. (1591 A.D.) as is shown by the title which is a chronogram was written in the Deccan and its author must have had access to reliable sources of information. There are several discrepancies in the two works regarding the names and genealogies of some of the Bahmanī kings. The account of the origin of Hasan Kāngū given by the *Burhān-i-Māsir* is quite different from that given by Firishta and it is supported by a number of earlier and later authorities and by numismatic evidence. The *Burhān* at once supplements and corrects Firishta in several particulars and altogether it is a valuable history of the Deccan. Major King has translated it in the *Indian Antiquary* Vol. xxviii (119—55) and Luzac and Co. have published a reprint of the translation. I have utilised Prof. J. N. Sarkar’s MS. which has been transcribed from the India office MS.

First 57 of 156 passages. Read on

Linked texts (11)