History of the Qaraunah Turks in India c14.s1: Secondary Authorities

History of the Qaraunah Turks in India c14.s1

Language: English

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.

c14.s1.6

The *Zafar-al-Walih bi Muzaffar wa Aliah* of ‘Abdullah Muhammad bin Siraj-al-Din ‘Omar Al-Makki surnamed Hajjī-ad-Dabīr is another important work which deserves to be noted. A portion of this valuable work has been published in two volumes by Sir Denison Ross with a critical introduction under the title of “An Arabic History of Gujarat.” The unpublished portion, of which the proof sheets were generously lent to me by Sir Denison Ross, gives a fairly detailed history of the first two Tughluqs. The Hajjī began writing his book in 1015 A.H. (1605 A.D.) and as Sir Denison Ross points out, was still engaged upon the work when the *Mīrat-i-Sikandarī* was published about 1611 A.D. For the first two Tughluqs the Hajjī has copiously consulted Barani’s *Tarīkh-i-Firuz Shahi*. But he supplements and sometimes corrects Barani from other sources such as the *Tabqāt-i-Bahādur Shahi* of Husām Khan written in the tenth century A.H. which so far as I know is no longer available. In the body of his work he makes mention of several other works which he has utilised in preparing his history. Husām Khan often differs from Barani, but as we are not aware of the sources which he consulted, we cannot always prefer his version to that of Barani unless it is supported by other independent evidence. The Hajjī often makes parallel quotations from Barani and Husām Khan without expressing his own opinion. He is well-informed about the history of Gujarat and the Deccan and in describing the origin of Hasan Kāngū he is in agreement with the *Burhān-i-Māsir* though he never mentions the name of this work. He is a careful and honest compiler and in an age when copying was much in vogue and authors used to palm off other peoples' writings as their own, he has the frankness to state the names of the writers whose version he reproduces.

c14.s1.7

The *Gulzār-i-Abrār* compiled by Muhammad Guthi bin Hasan bin Mūsā Shattārī in 1602-13 A.D. is a rare hagiological work dealing with the lives of the Sufi saints of Muslim India. It throws a flood of light upon the spiritual life of the Muslims in those days.

c14.s1.8

An oft-quoted later compilation is the *Khulāsat-ut-tawārīkh* of Sujan Rai Khatri of Batālā in the Punjab composed in 1695-96 A.D. There are several MS. copies of it in India, and it has been edited and published by Mr. Zafar Hasan of the Archæological Department. Sujan Rai gives a large bibliography, but it does not appear that he consulted all the works mentioned therein. Strangely enough none of the contemporary works dealing with the Tughluqs find a place in his list. He follows Nizām-al-Din and Firishta and gives no new information about anything except the origin of Ghiyās and the Punjab floods of the early times. Though a Hindu writer, he shows no partisan spirit. He is so saturated with the Persian histories that he forgets that he is a Hindu and writes as if he were a Muslim. Captain Lees describes (J.R.A.S. 1868, p. 423) the *Khulāsat* as ‘one of the most carefully compiled general histories of India’ and he was much impressed by the ‘ability and modesty of the real historian.’ Needless to say, this praise is not altogether deserved and Sujan Rai is nothing more than an ordinary compiler.

c14.s1.9

Another work which throws light upon certain aspects of the reigns of the first two Tughluq Sultans and which furnishes us with an account of Zia Barani is the *Matlūb-al-Tālibīn*, a biography of Shaikh Nizam-al-Din Aulia, composed in 1111 A.H., *i.e.*, 1689 A.D. by Muhammad Bulāq who describes himself as a nephew of the Shaikh. He says he has based his account on the *Tarikh-i-Hindi*, the *Hasratnāmah*, the *Chishtiyah Bihishtiyah*. Hazrat Sayyid Jalal Makhdūm’s writings, the *Rāhat-al-Muhabbin*, the *Fawāyad-al-fawād*, and the *Sair-al-Aulia* by Sayyid Muhammad Kirmānī and several other works. Being a descendant of the Shaikh, he has nothing but admiration for him, but his detailed account is full of interesting information about the social and religious life of the time. He tells us much about the disciples of the Shaikh who played an important part in the affairs of the empire of Dihli under the Tughluqs and helps us to solve the problem of the death of Sultan Ghiyās-al-Din Tughluq.

c14.s1.10

The *Tarikh-i-Rashidi* of Mirza Haider Daghlat, a cousin of the Emperor Babar, composed towards the middle of the 16th century, is the history of that branch of the Mughal Khans who separated themselves about the year 1321, from the main stem of the Chaghtāi, which was then the ruling clan in Transoxiana. Mirza Haider tells us much about the Mughals and incidentally gives a brief account of the Qaraunahs. The *Tarikh-i-Rashidi* has been translated into English by Ney Elias and Sir Denison Ross and the learned translators have in their introduction cleared up many intricacies regarding the Turkish and Mughal tribes. The footnotes and the appendices contain much valuable information which helps us to elucidate the tangled history of the various clans of Central Asia.

c14.s1.11

The *Tarikh-i-Rashidi*.

c14.s1.12

Much light is thrown on Rajput history by Muhnot Nainsi's Khyātā compiled during the years 1650--66 A.D. It is not a historical work in the strict sense of the term, but it embodies a lot of information gleaned by the author from documents stored in the archives of the states of Rajputana for at least 200 years before his time. The Khyātās of the bards, traditions and Vanśāvalīs, which the author could lay his hands on, have been incorporated in this work in extenso so that a great deal of falsehood is mixed up with genuine historical matter. The period covered is from 1143 A.D. till the times of the author. The language employed is old Marwari and in some places Dingal is also used. Nainsi does not exaggerate or minimise; he is a truthful recorder of events and, therefore, his work despite its defects has much historical value. While the Muhammadan historians write vaguely about Rajputana and extol the deeds of valour of their patrons, Nainsi presents the other side and his observations have a freshness and charm which seldom fails to strike us.

c14.s1.13

The provincial histories of India supplement the information contained in general histories. The histories of Sindh, the Tarīkh-i-Māsūmī, the Tuhfatuh-al-Kirām, the Tārīkh-i-Tāhiri and others have been translated copiously in Elliot's History, Vol. I. The Khudabaksh Library possesses manuscript copies of the Tarīkh-i-Māsūmī and the Tuhfatuh-al-Kirām which I have compared with Elliot's translations. For Bengal the only connected history is the Riyāz-us-Salātīn of Ghulām Husain completed in 1788 A.D. but it is full of inaccuracies and misstatements of facts. In describing the history of Bengal I have relied upon contemporary authorities and the evidence of coins and inscriptions. The numerous articles on Bengal history published in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal have also been utilised. Stewart's History of Bengal does not go far enough and is inaccurate both in facts and chronology.

c14.s1.14

As for the history of Gujarat, the Mīrāt-i-Sikandarī and the Mīrāt-i-Ahmadī provide only a general sketch of this period. The Mīrāt-i-Sikandarī is an earlier work, but its account of Muhammad Tughluq's Gujarat campaigns is not exhaustive. The Mīrāt-i-Ahmadī is a later compilation, but it contains much useful historical and topographical information. Hajji-ad-Dabīr has a special knowledge of the history of Gujarat, and although he copies Barani's account of the Deccan rebellions of Muhammad Tughluq’s reign he is more correct in describing the names of important places and persons.

c14.s1.15

There is not much contemporary literature which has a direct bearing upon the history of the first two Tughluqs. The Qasīdās of Badr-i-Chāch have been mentioned before. The *Dhūrta Samāgam Nātak* (a comedy of cheats) by a Maithil poet Jyotirīśvara, was staged early in the 14th century at the court of Hari Singh Deva of the Kāranāta dynasty. It throws some light upon an important point connected with the Bengal expedition of Sultan Ghiyās-al-Din Tughluq. There are several literary works dealing with the foundation of the city of Vijayanagar of which detailed notices are given in Ayyanger’s Sources of Vijayanagar history which I have utilised.

c14.s1.16

Besides the authorities mentioned before, there are other historical works written outside India which serve to explain certain points relating to this period of Indian history. During the 13th and 14th centuries the Mongols or Mughals exercised much influence on Indian affairs and under Muhammad Tughluq the Indian government was brought into touch with the great powers of Central Asia. To understand the conditions which existed in Central Asian countries in Muhammad’s day and to explain the position and prerogative of the Khilafat in the first half of the 14th century it has been necessary to consult some non-Indian histories. Among the Persian authors who have written about the Mughals the first place belongs to Rashīd-al-Dīn, the author of the *Jām-ut-tawārīkh*, who completed his work in 1312 A.D. Rashīd’s sources were excellent. The archives of the *Ilkhāns* were at his disposal and he was constantly aided by a Mughal who knew all about the Mughal and Turkish tribes. Rashīd-al-Dīn gives much useful information about Indian geography some of which is reproduced in Elliot’s Historians, Vol. I.

c14.s1.17

The *Tarikh-i-Wassāf* was completed in 1312 A.D. The historian’s real name was ‘Abdullah bin Fazl-Ullah and the surname Wassāf which he took for himself was justified by his rhetorical style. The *Tarikh-i-Wassāf* contains an account of India which is brought down to 1312 A.D. and gives some interesting geographical notices. There is a whole chapter in it dealing with the history of Abu Sa‘īd, the Ilkhān ruler of Persia, a contemporary of Muhammad Tughluq. Wassāf subsequently resumed his labours and brought down his history to the year 728 A.H. (1328 A.D.).

c14.s1.18

Malik Muayyad Ismail Abul Feda, author of the *Tarikh-i-Abul Fedā*, was a learned prince who wrote an account of his times. It is written on page 302 of the text that I have utilised that Abul Fedā's history goes down to 709 A.H., but the MS. of Ibn Bardī goes down to 729 A.H. The printed text in the Allahabad Public Library contains account of events up to the death of Ilkhan Abu Said of Persia in 736 A.H. Abul Fedā gives a rapid and brief survey of the 'Abbasid Khalifahs and the information he supplies is very meagre. But he is valuable for things that came directly under his notice. He gives an account of the relations of Abu Sa'id and Sultan Nāsir of Egypt which enables us to understand the foreign policy of the Central Asian rulers. In the beginning he mentions a number of works which he utilised in preparing his history. He writes in a plain and elegant style and is not ornate like Khondāmīr.

c14.s1.19

The *Tarikh-i-Guzīdah* composed in 1329 A.D., is a general history of great value. The author mentions about 24 works which he utilised in preparing it. It contains a full account of the 'Abbasids and their fall and of the Muslim kings of Persia.

c14.s1.20

The *Majmal-i-Fasīhī* is a valuable chronological compendium of important events down to 1441 A.D. The author Ahmad bin Muhammad lived in the time of Shāh Rukh and was an eye-witness of most of the events he describes. His chronological summary is very useful. There is a copy of this work in the Khudabakhsh Library, Bankipore.

c14.s1.21

The *Habib-us-Siyar* is a general history from the creation of the world to 930 A.H. (1523 A.D.) by Ghiyās-al-Din bin Humām-al-Dīn surnamed Khondāmīr, who wrote it during the years 927—30 A.H. (1521—24 A.D.). The work gives an elaborate account of the 'Abbasid Khalifahs and the Ilkhāns of Persia and I have gleaned much information from it about them.

c14.s1.22

Jalāl-al-Din A's Suyūtī, *Tārīkh-al-Khulfā* translated by Jarrett, Biblioth. Ind. A's Suyūtī was born according to A'S Sakhwi in the month of Rajab 849 A.H. (October, 1445 A.D.). His mother was a Turkish slave and he was brought up as an orphan. He studied theology and jurisprudence deeply and won a high place in the world of scholarship. He died on the 18th Jamād, I. 911 A.H. (October 17, 1505 A.D.).

c14.s1.23

The *Tārīkh-al-Khulfā* of Suyūtī, though it cannot be treated as an original work, is an excellent summary of the principal events of the reigns of the Khalifahs. Suyūtī is not merely a chronicler of political events. He sketches vividly the fashions and manners which prevailed at the courts of Khalifahs and in this respect he is superior to Abul Fedā. Like Abul Fedā he consulted copiously the leading authorities on the subject and he mentions twelve works which he utilised in preparing his history. It would be unfair to judge Suyūtī's history by the canons of modern criticism. He lived at a time when law and theology were exclusively studied by Muslim students and hence his work is saturated with the influence of traditional learning. Suyūtī makes no mention of the negotiations between the Khalifahs and Sultan Muhammad Tughluq which are described in Barani's *Tārīkh-i-Firuz Shāhi*. But his account of the Khalifahs Al-Mustakfi and Al-Hakīm and their relations with the rulers of Egypt helps us to understand the conditions of the age and the prestige of the office of Khalifah in spite of the scant regard which rulers like Nāsir paid to them. We learn from Suyūtī that the Khalifahs were powerless in the time of Sultan Nāsir and his immediate successors. Al-Mustakfi was imprisoned by Nāsir and banished from the Capital. That Muhammad Tughluq should have offered submission to these powerless pontiffs proves clearly the hold of the traditional idea upon his mind.

c14.s1.24

The *Haft Risālah-i-Taqwīm-ul-Buldān* is a later compilation which gives an account of the Mughal races. It gives a short summary of events in the history of Transoxiana in chronological order from 990 A.D. to 1610 A.D. The MS. in the Buhar Library is in a damaged condition and the colophon is dated the 10th Zi-al-Qadah, A.H. 1197.

c14.s1.25

In addition to these I have utilised D'Ohosson's *Histoire des Mongols* in four volumes, a work based on profound original research. I have found it useful for the history of the Ilkhāns of Persia, the Khāns of Cathay and the Chaghtai rulers of Transoxiana. Howorth's *History of the Mongols* is equally useful. No words can convey an idea of the toil which this huge work must have entailed upon its author. The work is a store-house of information about the Mongols. Though it is lacking in method and proper arrangement, it supplements and corrects the work of other European scholars.

c14.s1.26

Archæological evidence.

c14.s1.27

The archæological evidence is of three kinds:—(1) Monumental, (2) Epigraphic, (3) Numismatic.

c14.s1.28

The monumental evidence is of great illustrative value. The ruins of Tughluqabad and old Dihli still testify to the greatness of the Tughluqs. The solidity and massiveness of the fort and the solemn grandeur of the tomb of Sultan Tughluq Shah give us some idea of their power and magnificence. There are a few inscriptions in Northern India which illustrate the history of the period, but for South Indian history we have an abundance of inscriptions on copper plates. These inscriptions are either commemorative, dedicatory or donative. They throw a flood of light upon the history of the Hindu states of the South and their relations towards the Muhammadan empire of Dihli on the one hand and the Sultanate of Madura on the other. They help us to define with approximate accuracy the limits of the ancient kingdoms. It does not fall within the purview of this work to give a detailed history of the Vijayanagar empire and I have contented myself merely with giving an account of its foundation and the circumstances attending it from original sources. The valuable material embodied in the Epigraphia Indica, the Epigraphia Carnatica, the Epigraphical Reports, Sewell's Lists of Antiquities and the numerous archæological reports and journals have been carefully used as the footnotes will show. Most of the South India inscriptions are of a donative character and are useful in as much as they enable us sometimes to determine an important date. The numerous inscriptions of Ballala III indicate the acuteness of the struggle which the Hindus carried on amongst themselves and with the Muhammadan powers.

c14.s1.29

In constructing a connected history of Muhammad Tughluq's reign the numismatic data have proved of incalculable assistance. The mediæval writers are as a rule deficient in chronology and consequently much difficulty is experienced in settling the dates of even important political events. The numismatic material is more accessible than the epigraphic. A great many coins have been discussed in treatises by scholars of repute who have placed plenty of useful material within the reach of the researchist from which he can draw his own conclusions. The coins of Muhammad Tughluq and the legends inscribed thereon have served to elucidate several knotty points connected with his reign and have helped considerably in making a full chronology. The various coins collected in Thomas' 'Chronicles of the Pathān kings,' the 'Initial coinage of Bengal,' the various catalogues of coins and the journals of learned Societies have been carefully studied and utilised. The numismatic data have rendered invaluable help in interpreting the history of Bengal during this period.

c14.s1.30

The English works which I have consulted in the course of my investigations are too many to be mentioned here. But among these there are two which rank as original material. They are Marco Polo’s Travels and Tod’s Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan. Marco Polo, the famous Venetian traveller, visited India towards the close of the 13th century and his observations regarding the geography of the Deccan and the social and political condition of the people are extremely interesting: Yule’s *Travels of Marco Polo* in two volumes with elaborate footnotes is a mine of information. In revising Yule’s work Cordier has shown much learning and critical acumen and has considerably added to the information supplied by the former.

c14.s1.31

Tod never meant his work to be treated as a history of Rajasthan. He only offered to use his own words ‘a copious collection of materials for the future historians.’ He is therefore an original authority for the Rajput period. He is pro-Rajput in his sympathies, but that does not detract from the merit of his monumental work. His dates and facts are sometimes wrong and we must exercise caution in dealing with them. There are several editions of Tod but I have used Crooke’s edition which contains useful explanatory notes.

c14.s1.32

Besides the authorities mentioned above the following have been consulted in the preparation of this work :—

c14.s1.33

| Abbott | ... | ... | Sind. |
| ‘ Abdul Hamid Lahori | ... | Bādshāhnamah, Biblioth. Ind., 2 Vols. | |
| Aghnides | ... | ... | Theories of Muhammadan Finance. |
| Aiyenger | ... | ... | South India and her Muhammadan Invaders. |
| ‘ Ala-al-Din Atamulk Juveni | ... | Tarikh-i-Jahan Kushāī. | |
| Amir Khusrau | ... | ... | Khazāyan-al-Fatūh. |
| ,, | | | ‘ Ashiqā. |
| ‘Ameer ‘ Ali | ... | ... | History of the Saracens. |
| Arnold | ... | ... | The Caliphate. |

c14.s1.34

Atkinson ... ... N.-W.P. Gazetteer of the Himā-layan Districts.

c14.s1.35

” Notes on the History of the Himā-layan Districts.

c14.s1.36

Ayyanger ... ... Sources of Vijayanagar History.

c14.s1.37

Bayley ... ... Local Muhammadan Dynasties of Gujarat.

c14.s1.38

Beames ... ... Elliot's Glossary of the Punjab Tribes, 2 Vols.

c14.s1.39

Bhandārkar ... ... Vaisnavism, Saivism.

c14.s1.40

Bhattasāti ... ... The Coins and Chronology of the independent rulers of Bengal.

c14.s1.41

Bourdillon ... ... Catalogue of Coins in the Indian Museum, 2 Vols.

c14.s1.42

Bombay Gazetteer ...

c14.s1.43

Briggs ... ... Rise of Muhammadan Power, 4 Vols.

c14.s1.44

Browne ... ... Persian Literature under the Tartar Dominion.

c14.s1.45

Brown ... ... The Coins of India.

c14.s1.46

Burgess ... ... Archæological Survey of Western India, 2 Vols.

c14.s1.47

B. S. Row ... ... History of Vijayanagar.

c14.s1.48

Elias and Ross ... ... A History of the Moghuls of Central Asia.

c14.s1.49

Elliot ... ... Numismata Orientalia.

c14.s1.50

... Hisorians, Vol I.

c14.s1.51

Elliot and Dowson ... History of India as told by its own Historians, 8 Vols.

c14.s1.52

Elphinstone ... ... History of India.

c14.s1.53

Encyclopædia of Islam ...

c14.s1.54

Epigraphia Indica ...

c14.s1.55

Epigraphia Indo-Moslemica

c14.s1.56

| Sharaf-al-Din Muhammad-al-atāi | ... | ... | Fawayad-i-Firuz Shahi. |
| Fleet | ... | ... | Kanarese Dynasties. |
| Forbes | ... | ... | Rāsmālā. |
| Carr Stephen | ... | ... | Archæology of Delhi. |
| Cordier | ... | ... | Travels of Marco Polo, Vols I and II. |
| " | | | Ser Marco Polo. |
| Cunningham | ... | ... | Growth of English Industry and Commerce. |
| Darashikoh | ... | ... | Safinat-al-aulia. |
| District Gazetteers | ... | | |
| D'Ohosson | ... | ... | Histoire des Mongols, 4 Vols. |
| Grant Duff | ... | ... | History of the Mahrattas, 3 Vols. |
| Havell | ... | ... | Aryan Rule in India. |
| Howorth | ... | ... | History of the Mongols, part III. |
| Hughes | ... | ... | Dictionary of Islam. |
| Hunter | ... | ... | Imperial Gazetteer. |
| Ibbetson | ... | ... | Punjab Castes. |
| Irvine | ... | ... | The Army of the Moghuls in India. |
| Jarrett | ... | ... | Ain-i-Akbari, 2 Vols. |
| Jurji Zaydan | ... | ... | History of Islamic Civilisation, translated by Margoliouth. |
| Kremer | ... | ... | Orient under the Caliphs. (English translation by Khudabakhsh). |
| Lane-Poole | ... | ... | A History of Egypt. |
| " | | | Catalogue of Indian coins. |
| Lee | ... | ... | ... | Travels of Ibn Batūtah translated into English. |
| Lewis Rice | ... | ... | Mysore and Coorg from the Inscriptions. |
| " | | | Epigraphia Carnatica. |
| " | | | Mysore Gazetteer. |
| Macaulay | ... | ... | The Sikh Religion, 6 Vols. |

Linked texts (7)

Haft iqlīm — Amīn Aḥmad Rāzī 1594, Persian
Khazāʾin al-futūḥ — Amīr Khusraw Dihlavī
Tārīkh-i Fīrūzshāhī — Shams-i Sirāj ʿAfīf
Bhaktamāl — Nābhādās alias Nārāyaṇ Dās 1575, Hindi
Puruṣaparīkṣā — Vidyāpati Ṭhākura, Sanskrit
Tārīkh-i Mubārakshāhī — Yaḥyā b. Aḥmad Sirhindī
Fawāʾid al-fuʾād — Amīr Ḥasan Sijzī Dihlavī