History of the Qaraunah Turks in India c14.41

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.