History of the Qaraunah Turks in India c14.35

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:—