Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of the Qaraunah Turks in India c7: Chapter II. The Early Years of Muhammad's Reign, 725-728 A.H.

History of the Qaraunah Turks in India c7

Language
English

Contents

Chapter II. The Early Years of Muhammad's Reign, 725-728 A.H.

c7.2

After the death of his father Prince Juna ascended the throne in the fort of Tughluqabad under the title of Muhammad Tughluq in the month of Rabi-'-al-awwal 725 A.H. (February, 1325 A.D.) three days after the death of his father. In accordance with ancient custom the court went into mourning, and the Prince reverentially performed the obsequies of his father. According to Barani who is followed by Yahya, Nizam-al-Din and Badaoni there was a double coronation, for, on the 40th day after having arranged all matters connected with government, the new emperor marched from Tughluqabad towards Dihli, where he seated himself on the throne of the old Sultans.¹ No revolution, no palace intrigue, no local or provincial insurrection stood in the way of his accession to the throne. The people, accustomed to such occurrences, soon forgot the murder of the late Sultan, just as their forbears had forgotten the cruel murder of the good old Firuz before the rising prosperity of his fortunate nephew. Muhammad's brothers Bahram Khan, Mubarak Khan, Masud Khan, Nusrat Khan and Mahmud Khan are said by Barani to have been living at the time of his accession.² Bahram Khan was an adopted son of the late Sultan, and Barani has made a mistake in saying that Mahmud Khan was alive at the time of the accession of Muhammad Tughluq, for he was in all probability smashed to death with his father under the fatal structure raised by Ahmad Ayaz. Barani in the course of his narrative

c7.3

¹ Barani, Cal. Text, p. 456.

c7.4

² Barani, Cal. Text, p. 454. It is stated in the Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi that these were the titles of the Princes.

c7.5

بعد آراستن تخت جهانداري چهلم روز از تغلق آباد درون شهر دهلي رفت-

c7.6

The *fraternities* of the Middle Ages, which were so numerous and so varied in their objects, were not all of the same origin. Some were religious, some social, some charitable, and some industrial. The religious guilds, or *gilds*, as they were often called, were associations of laymen for the purpose of performing religious duties, such as the maintenance of a chaplain, the celebration of masses, or the support of a hospital. The social guilds were formed for the purpose of mutual aid and good fellowship, and often included in their objects the relief of the poor, the sick, and the aged. The charitable guilds were established for the purpose of supporting hospitals, almshouses, and other institutions of mercy. The industrial guilds, or *craft guilds*, were associations of men engaged in the same trade or industry, and were formed for the purpose of regulating the trade, protecting the interests of the members, and maintaining the quality of their work.

c7.7

The craft guilds, which became so powerful in the later Middle Ages, were the successors of the earlier *collegia* of the Roman Empire. The *collegia* were associations of artisans and tradesmen, which were recognized by the state and had a legal existence. When the Roman Empire fell, these associations were largely destroyed, but the idea of association for mutual protection and the regulation of trade survived. In the early Middle Ages, the *gilds* began to reappear, and by the twelfth century they were firmly established in many of the cities of Europe.

c7.8

The craft guilds were organized on a democratic basis, and every member had a voice in the management of the guild's affairs. The officers were elected by the members, and the rules and regulations were made by the guild as a whole. The guilds had the power to fix prices, to regulate the hours of labor, and to determine the conditions of apprenticeship. They also had the power to punish members who violated the rules, and to expel those who were guilty of serious offenses. The guilds were thus a powerful force in the economic life of the Middle Ages, and they played an important part in the development of the modern industrial system.

c7.9

The decline of the craft guilds began in the sixteenth century, when the rise of the factory system and the growth of international trade made it difficult for the small, local guilds to compete with the larger and more efficient industrial organizations. The guilds were also weakened by the growth of the power of the state, which began to regulate trade and industry directly, and by the rise of the capitalist class, which sought to break the power of the guilds and to establish a system of free competition. By the end of the eighteenth century, the craft guilds had largely disappeared, but their influence lived on in the trade unions and other labor organizations of the modern world.

c7.10

THE EMPIRE OF DELHI—1327 A. D.

c7.11

Kach GUJARAT o Gondal Girnar VINDHYA MTS o Dhar Nerbudda R. DEVAGIRI o Daulatabad Godavari R. ARABIAN SEA Sindabur (Goa) Bidar o Warangal TELANG Krisna R. o Virupaksapattana Tungabhadra R. Pennugonda DWARSAMUDRA o Dwar Samudra Tiruvannamalai Kaveri R. Kampil MALABAR HOYSALAS o Kundani o Madura Calicut Manjarur o (Manglore) Mahanadi JAJNAGAR B A Y O F B E N G A L
23. PROVINCES. Dihli Devagiri Multan Kuhram Samana Siwistan Ucch Hansi Sirsuti Ma'bar Telang Gujarat Badaon Oudh Kanauj Lakhnauti Bihar Kara Malwa Lahore Kalanor Jajnagar Dwarsamudra. I N D I A N O C E A N the *Goths*, the *Vandals*, the *Suevi*, the *Burgundians*, the *Alani*, the *Huns*, the *Franks*, the *Saxons*, the *Thuringians*, the *Rugians*, and the *Heruli*. The names of these tribes are familiar to the reader, but their origin, their migrations, and their settlements are involved in the deepest obscurity. The most probable opinion is that they were all of German or Scythian extraction, and that they had been driven from their native seats by the pressure of the Huns, a formidable nation of Tartars, who had crossed the Volga and the Tanais, and were advancing with rapid strides towards the frontiers of the Roman empire.

c7.12

The first of these nations that crossed the Danube was the *Goths*. They were divided into two great branches, the *Visigoths* or Western Goths, and the *Ostrogoths* or Eastern Goths. The Visigoths, under the conduct of Fritigern, implored the protection of the emperor Valens, and were permitted to settle in the province of Thrace. But the perfidy of the Roman governors, and the insolence of the Roman soldiers, soon provoked them to rebellion. They defeated the imperial armies, and Valens himself perished in the battle of Hadrianople.

c7.13

The death of Valens was followed by the accession of Theodosius, who, by his wisdom and valour, restored the discipline of the Roman legions, and compelled the Goths to accept a peace, which was rather a truce than a permanent settlement. The Goths, however, remained in the heart of the empire, and their presence was a constant source of danger and alarm. They were no longer the rude barbarians who had first crossed the Danube; they had learned the arts of war and the policy of the Romans, and they were ready to take advantage of any opportunity to assert their independence.

c7.14

The reign of Theodosius was the last period of the glory of the Roman empire. After his death, the empire was divided between his two sons, Arcadius and Honorius. Arcadius reigned in the East, and Honorius in the West. The division was fatal to the interests of the state. The two brothers were weak and indolent, and they were governed by their ministers and favourites. The Goths, under the command of Alaric, took advantage of the weakness of the government, and invaded Italy. They besieged and took Rome, and the eternal city, which had for so many centuries been the mistress of the world, was plundered by the barbarians.

c7.15

The fall of Rome was a shock to the whole civilized world. It was the end of an era, and the beginning of a new and darker age. The Goths, after the death of Alaric, retired from Italy, and settled in Gaul and Spain, where they founded kingdoms which were destined to last for several centuries. The Vandals, under the command of Genseric, crossed into Africa, and established a powerful kingdom, which for a time threatened the security of the Mediterranean. The Franks, under the command of Clovis, conquered Gaul, and laid the foundations of the French monarchy. The Saxons, under the command of Hengist and Horsa, invaded Britain, and established the kingdoms of the Heptarchy.

c7.16.1

makes no further mention of the activities of the Sultan's brothers, but we learn from Ibn Batūṭah that Masud was executed on the charge of rebellion and conspiracy.³ Nusrat Khan probably died during the reign otherwise, as Sir Wolseley suggests, his title would not have been conferred upon Shihāb Sultani.⁴ Sir Wolseley's surmise that Mubārak Khan was neglected, or possibly blinded early in the reign to make Muhammad's position secure is not supported by Ibn Batūṭah who distinctly states that the Sultan's brother Mubarak Khan was appointed to the office of Mirdād and he sat with the Qazi in the Diwan to administer justice.⁵ No opposition seems to have been offered by Muhammad's brothers. Bahram was only an adopted son, and his claim to the throne would have found no support from the nobles, because it could not be grounded on any legal right. Mubārak Khan acquiesced in his brother's assumption of royalty, because, as Barani positively states, and we have no reason to doubt his testimony on this point, the late Sultan had declared him as his heir to the throne,⁶ and because Muhammad's undoubted abilities marked him out as a pre-eminently fit person to occupy the throne, which had been filled in the past by such renowned captains of war as 'Ala-al-Din Khilji and Ghiyas-al-Din Tughluq. Muhammad had held important offices under the Khiljis and acquired considerable experience of administrative work which must have pre-disposed the nobles and officers of the state in his favour.

c7.16.2

For several years he had been Amir Ākhur and Vakil-i-dar under Qutb-al-Din Mubarak Shah, and was the chief instrument in helping to put an end to the regime of the unclean Khusrau. He was equally gifted with warlike qualities. As Crown Prince he had led expeditions in the Deccan against the Hindu chiefs, and had in one of his campaigns obtained a victory over the stubborn Pratap Rudra Deva II, the Kākatīya Raja of Warangal of which an account has been given in the last chapter. The empire which Muhammad inherited extended over a large part of the Indian peninsula; in the north it included the whole of the Gangetic valley, the plains of the Punjab as far as Lahore and the entire strip of land stretching from the Indus down to Kambayat and Gujarat; in the east it comprised Bengal and towards the close of his life Ghiyas had reasserted his authority over Lakhnauti and Sonargaon. In the central region that lies between the Gangetic plain and the Deccan, Dhar, Malwa, Ujjain and Gwalior acknowledged the suzerainty of Dihli. Further south, the empire exercised sway over the eastern portion of Khandesh, Berar, Haiderabad and a strip of land along the eastern coast of the modern Madras Presidency. There is clear evidence to prove that the imperial arms had penetrated as far as Rajmundri or the eastern Madras coast. The present Sultan had gone there as Crown Prince in his father's reign in 1324 A.D.

c7.16.3

and had built a mosque as is shown by an inscription dated Monday, 10th September, 1324 A.D.⁷ In Rajputana the famous state of Mewar recognised the authority of the Dihli government till the end of the reign of Tughluq Shah as is evidenced by an inscription of Tughluq Shah and Asadal-Din Arslān, his nephew, discovered in the fort of Chittor.⁸ The inscription is broken on the right side and the first and fourth part of each verse is missing. Asad-al-Din was appointed naib Barbak by Tughluq Shah immediately after his accession. The building to which the inscription refers was most probably a mosque built by Asad-al-Din Arslān, and the inscription shows that, during the reign of Tughluq Shah, Chittor, at any rate, was subject to the Sultan of Dihli. But Chittor tried to recover its independence under Rana Hammīr, who had succeeded to the Gaddi in 1301 A.D. by marrying the daughter of Raja Maldeva, the Sonigra chief, who had been placed in charge of that fort by 'Ala-al-Din. The Rajput chronicles speak of a fight between the Dihli emperor and the Rana of Mewar, but there is much confusion in the names of the rulers concerned. Tod relates that after 'Ala-al-Din's death Rana Hammīr rapidly recovered his power, and drove away Maldeva, the imperial governor of Mewar.

c7.16.4

The Khilji king Mahmud invaded Mewar, but he was defeated at Singoli and taken prisoner by Hammīr who slew Hari Singh, brother of Banvir (Mal-Deva's son).⁹ The Khilji king remained confined in Chittor for three months, and was not liberated until he had surrendered Ajmer, Rantambhor, Nagor and Sooespur, besides paying 50 lakhs of rupees and 100 elephants. Tod's account is not correct for there was no such king as Mahmud of the Khilji dynasty. Tod certainly does not mean Mahmud Khilji of Malwa, for he says later that the Sultans of Gujarat and Malwa formed a league against Kumbha and in 1440 A.D. at the head of a large army they invaded Mewar.¹⁰ Kumbha met them with a large force consisting of one lakh of horse and foot and 1,400 elephants, defeated them, and carried as a captive to Chittor Mahmud, the Khilji sovereign of Malwa. Erskine in his Rajputana Gazetteer gives a different account.¹¹ He says, Muhammad Tughluq came down with a large army, but he was defeated and taken prisoner at Singoli, close to the eastern border of Mewar and was not released till he had paid a large ransom said to have been 50 lakhs of rupees and 100 elephants and ceded several districts. In view of the inscription to which allusion has been made before and the increased prosperity of Mewar under Hammīr, we cannot doubt the truth of the native annals.

c7.16.5

As Mewar was subject to Dihli till the reign of Tughluq Shah, the king who was defeated by the Mewar forces could be no other than Muhammad Tughluq or one of his generals, though the annotator of Tod's annals positively asserts that it was Muhammad Tughluq.¹² This victory of Hammir must have occurred early in Muhammad's reign. A Jain temple inscription of Rana Kumbha's time dated Samvat 1495 (1438

c7.17

³ Ibn Batūṭah, III, p. 292. Masud was not the Sultan's own brother, for Ibn Batūṭah writes that his mother was stoned to death on a charge of adultery, III, p. 292.

c7.18

⁴ J.R.A.S., 1922, p. 367.

c7.19

⁵ Ibn Batūṭah, III, p. 287.

c7.20

⁶ Barani, Cal. Text, p. 456. Barani writes :— سلطان محمد بن تغلق شاه که ولیعهد سلطان تغلق شاه بود

c7.21

⁷ Here is the translations of the inscription on the mosque built by Prince Juna. "This mosque was built during the reign of the great Sultan Ghiyas-al-Din, the Sultan (may God perpetuate his kingdom and sovereignty) and through the ever-increasing iqbal (fortune) of the lord of the world, the blessed 'Ulugh Khan, by this humble servant, who solicits the mercy of God, Salar alwi built this mosque on the 20th of the bleesed Ramzan (may its blessings be universal), 724 A.H.=Monday, 10th, 1324 A.D." For a copy of this inscriptions I am indebted to the A. A. S. for epigraphy Southern Circle, Madras.

c7.22

⁸ Through the kindness of R. B. Pandit Gauri Shankar Ojha, curator, Provincial Museum, Ajmer, I have been able to obtain a copy of this inscription which was discovered in the fort of Chittor. A part of it is missing. ["The lord of the country, throne, signet, and crown like Solomon; world illuminator like the Sun, nay, the shadow of God, the greatest of all the foundations of justice have become strong. He died on the 3rd Jumada I. May God accept this act of charity and may He reward him for his righteous motive a thousand times more.

c7.23

⁹ Tod's Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan edited by Crooke, I, pp. 318-19.

c7.24

¹⁰ Ibid., Vol. I, p. 335.

c7.25

¹¹ Erskine, Rajputana Gazetteer, II-A, p. 16.

c7.26

¹² Footnote to page 319 in Tod's Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan edited by Crooke, I, p. 319.

c7.27

A.D.) states that Hammīr defeated a Muhammadan army. The fact that a Dihli army marched into Mewar after Tughluq Shah’s death is established, but it does not seem to have been accompanied by the Sultan himself, for he was much too busy with the preliminary settlement of his empire and the plans of conquest in the Deccan. The details furnished by Rajput chronicles may be right or wrong, for they are uncorroborated, but this much is certain that the imperial authority received a set back. Hammīr embarked upon a career of ceaseless conquests. The local annals relate that the princes of Marwar, Jaipur, Bundi, Gwalior, Chanderi, Raisin, Sikri, Kalpi and Abu with a number of lesser states paid homage to Hammir and recognised him as the paramount Prince in Rajputana.¹³ This is undoubtedly an exaggeration, and the over-lordship of Hammīr amounted to nothing more than a mere recognition of the premier position of Mewar among Rajput states. The difficulties and troubles of the Sultan of Dihli favoured the rise of Mewar. Hammīr enlarged his territories by making fresh conquests in Nagor and Surashtra and increased the prosperity of his country by raising works of public utility and grimly set himself to the task of removing every vestige of Muhammadan conquest. Rajputana was henceforward practically cut off from the Dihli empire and for several generations the Hindu princes, secure in their fortresses, were left free to pursue their own schemes of aggrandisement without any interference from Dihli.

c7.28

¹³ Tod’s Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, I, p. 320.

c7.29

The Deccan and the far South had been conquered by Malik Kafur, but the Muslims had never acquired a firm foothold in that difficult and intractable region. Ghiyas had reasserted his authority over Telingana and the Maharashtra country, but the Hoysala king Vir Ballāla III had withheld allegiance to Dihli. He was fighting ceaselessly against the Muslims in the South and his efforts were so far successful that he was able at last to build up a large dominion which had three capitals—Dwarsamudra in Mysore, Kundani in Salem and Tiruvannamalai in North Arcot. The Deccan was far from being completely subdued, but the northern portion of the empire was in a peaceful state in 1325 A.D. and this tranquillity was largely the result of the mild government of Tughluq Shah who had wounded no feelings and who had scrupulously abstained from over-government.

c7.30.1

The problems of the empire which confronted Muhammad Tughluq were not so difficult as they had been under Balban and ‘Ala-al-Din. Both these rulers had been troubled by the frontier question which had taxed their resources to the uttermost. The forward policy of ‘Ala-al-Din had greatly minimised the chances of Mughal danger, but the hostility of the Hindu Rajas, the overweening claims of the native nobility, the orthodox prejudices of the clerical party and its ambition to dominate the state were dangers which the Muslim government in India had still to face. But the task of the new Sultan, though not so formidable as that of Balban and ‘Ala-al-Din was certainly more trying than that of his father who had appeared on the scene at a favourable crisis in the history of the Dihli Sultanate. Although he could not boast of a high pedigree, he was welcomed by all classes, because he gave them the much coveted gifts of peace and order and ended the Khusrauite regime. Muhammad’s difficulty was of a two-fold nature; he had to satisfy the old nobility by assuring them that although there was no blue blood in his veins he meant to rule according to their advice, and that he deserved their confidence. Secondly, he had to remove the suspicion which still lurked in the popular mind that he was the author of his father’s death. Muhammad who was one of the ablest men of the age behaved with great tact.

c7.30.2

He knew full well that gorgeous display of splendour accompanied by liberal gifts to all sections of the population touched the imagination of the people of Hindustan more than anything else and were as effective in securing loyalty and devotion as the strokes of skilful diplomacy. The streets of the city were decorated with festoons of flowers, the castles of the nobility as well as the dwellings of the humble were adorned and at the head of a stately procession which included in the front and rear well caparisoned elephants laden with gold and silver which was scattered among the people, the Sultan made his triumphal entry into the capital. There was no declaration of policy, no foretaste of the innovations which he practised afterwards to the disgust of his people and the detriment of his empire. To allay the apprehensions of the public who feared and admired him and to placate the nobles, he made large and generous gifts. Then, there was the prompting of nature which was liberal to a fault, and has been eulogised by all who came in contact with him. Tatar Khan, the governor of Sonargaon and the adopted son of Ghiyas-al- Din Tughluq was given the title of Bahram Khan and received one hundred elephants, a crore of golden *tankahs* and two thousand horses.

c7.30.3

To Malik Sanjar Badakhshāni were given eighty lakhs of *tankahs* and Bahadur Shah, the dispossessed ruler of Bengal, was restored to his former dignity, and received a large treasure, a dexterous move, as Edward Thomas points out, to show clearly that Bahadur was nothing more than an ordinary provincial governor transferable at will, though his claims to imperial succession rested on a surer and legal basis. To signify his esteem for Bahadur, the Sultan agreed that the names of both should appear together on the coins struck at Sonargaon, and there are coins of the years 725-31 A.H. bearing the names of both.¹⁴ Ibn Batūtah also distinctly states that Bahadur acknowledged the supremacy of Muhammad Tughluq over Eastern Bengal, and was given wealth, elephants and horses and admitted to royal favour.¹⁵ Malik-al-mulk ‘Imādal-Din obtained seventy lakhs of *tankahs* and Sayyid ‘Azd-al-Dowlah, a tutor of the Sultan became the recipient of forty lakhs and a pension of one hundred lakhs of *tankahs* per annum was granted to Malik Bahram Ghaznīn. The bounty of the new monarch was lavishly extended to other functionaries of the state and learned men, and Maulana Nasir Tawil, Qazi-Kasmah, Khudāwandzadah Ghiyas-al-Din, Qiwām-al-Din and Nāsir Kafi received several lakhs from the exchequer of the state.

c7.30.4

To the disciples and followers of Shaikh Nizam-al-Din Aulia the Sultan granted lands and allowances, and endowed the Shaikh’s tomb with twelve *parganahs* for the purpose of providing food for the poor and offering incense at the shrine.¹⁶ The Sultan was devoted to the Shaikh, and this was probably done to signify his gratitude for the help he had given in securing the throne. Maulana Nāsir-al-Din and Malik Ghazi, the poet, were granted a pension of one lakh a year which shows that royal patronage was extended to men of all classes. Barani gives a long list of officers upon whom titles were conferred, and who were entrusted with important duties.17 The fame of the Sultan's liberality spread far and wide and brought to Dihli some of the most learned men from the different parts of Asia who were fitly honoured by their royal benefactor. Before the outflow of this somewhat prodigal generosity, no opposition could be offered, and no wonder if men warmly welcomed their new ruler. Men's memories are short; and in the minds of many the young ruler must have been excused the guilt of parricide.

c7.31

¹⁴ J.A.S.B., 1922, XVIII, pp. 423-24. J.A.S.B., 1874, pp. 83, 290. J.A.S.B., Numismatic Supplement, XVI, pp. 699-700. J.A.S.B., Numismatic Supplement, XXXV, pp. 152-53. Numismatic Chronicle and Journal of the Royal Numismatic Society, Parts I and II, Fifth Series, Nos. 13 and 14, p. 98. Lane Poole, The Coins of the Muhammadan States of India in the British Museum, p. 11. Barani, Cal. Text, p. 461.

c7.32

¹⁵ Ibn Batūtah writes that on Bahadur’s restoration to his former dignity the Sultan appointed his nephew Ibrahim Khan who was to share the sovereignty with him and his name was also to appear on the coins along with the name of Bahadur. Ibn Batutah has made a mistake in calling Bahram Khan Ibrahim Khan. Bahram Khan, as has been said, was an adopted son of Sultan Ghiyas-al-Din Tughluq. Ibn Batūtah III, pp. 316-17. Ibn Batūtah’s Text (Paris Ed.) has Ghiyas-al-Din Burah (براه) while another text has Bhanora, (بهنورا).

c7.33

¹⁶ Matlub-al-Talibin, India Office MS. f. 111. 17 Barani, Cal. Text, pp. 454-55. 18 The Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi MS. has Malik Pindar Khilji which is a mistake. 19 Navsāri is situated in the Baroda state in 20° 57' N. and 720° 56' E. 147 miles from Bombay, with which it is connected by main line of B.B.C.I. Railway. It is the same as Ptolemy's Nasaripa. Imp. Gaz., XVIII, p. 425.

c7.34

A fresh redistribution of offices followed. Malik Firuz, his cousin was appointed naib Bārbak (deputy Chamberlain) and Malik Bedar Khilji18 who was honoured with the title of Qadar Khan was placed in charge of Lakhnauti on the death of Nāsir-al-Din Khilji. Maulana Qiyām-al-Din, the Sultan's tutor received the title of Qutlugh Khan and was appointed Vakil-i-dar. Malik Maqbūl or Qabūl became Wazīr-i-mamālik under the distinguished title of 'Imād-al-mulk, while the son of Qutlugh Khan received a jagir for his maintenance in Gujarat. Ahmad Ayāz, the royal engineer, who had built the fatal pavilion at Afghanpur, received, perhaps as a reward for his services, the title of Khwaja Jahan and the office of Wazīr-al-mulk. The province of Gujarat was entrusted to Malik Maqbūl who was elevated to the rank of Khan-i-Jahan. Malik Shihāb-al-Din was entrusted with the duty of superintending the activities of merchants and traders and was appointed Malik-al-Tujjār (Chief of the merchants) and the district of Navsari19 was assigned to him in jagir. The provincial governors began their work in obedience to royal commands, and a great improvement was discernible in all branches of the administration.

c7.35

The earliest rebellion of Muhammad's reign was that of his cousin (father's sister's son) Bahā-al-Din Gashtāsp in 727 A.H.²⁰

c7.36

²⁰ Bahā-al-Din's surname is differently spelt in different texts. It is Gashtāsb (گشت اشب) in Ibn Batūtah (III, p. 318) Malik Bahadur Gashbashb (گشبا شب) in Yahya, Garshasm (گر شاسم) in Badāoni (Text, I, p. 227) and Garshasp (گر شاسب) in Firishta (Lucknow Text, p. 135). Firishta writes غم زاده سلطان محمود شاه which is a mistake of the scribe. Barani in one place calls him Tughluq Shah's sister's son.

c7.37

B a h a - al-Din Gashtasp's rebellion. Barani makes no mention of this rebellion, though in one place he speaks of him as Sultan Tughluq Shah's sister's son. Ibn Batūtah is the only contemporary writer who gives a detailed account of the rebellion. He also calls him Sultan Tughluq Shah's sister's son, but his information regarding the rebellion must have been obviously derived from persons whom he met in Hindustan after his arrival. Even Ibn Batūtah, though he mentions the rebellion among the earliest events of Muhammad's reign, gives no date. The only earlier authority that favours us with a date is the *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi* which places it towards the close of 727 A.H. after the transfer of the capital to Devagiri. Badāoni copies this history as appears from his narrative, but makes a mistake in saying that the rebellion occurred in Dihli. Firishta in the sequence of events rightly places this rebellion before the transfer of the capital, and says that it was during this rebellion that the Sultan was much pleased with the situation of Devagiri and considered it more central than Dihli. But his date 739 A.H. is incorrect, for if we accept his order of events, the rebellion must take place sometime in 727 A.H. before the transfer of the capital, which was certainly effected in this year as is established by numismatic evidence. Hajji-ad-Dabir's authority Husām Khan whom he often quotes gives a brief account of the rebellion, but his chronology is highly defective. Robert Sewell also accepts 727 A.H. which receives

c7.38

Badāoni copies Yahyā as appears from his text:

c7.39

در آخر سنه مذکور ملک بہادر گر شاسب عارض لشکر در شہر دہلی خروج کردہ -

c7.40

But my text of the *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi* does not contain the words 'In the city of Delhi.' support from Hindu sources.²¹ Baha-al-Din who is described by Yahyā and Badāoni as *‘ariz-i-Lashkar* (Commander of the forces) held the fief of Sagar,²² which is at a distance of seven miles north of Sholapur in the Deccan. The cause of the rebellion is described by Ibn Batutah who says that the rebel who was a brave man refused to owe fealty to Muhammad Tughluq on his accession to the throne. The *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi* does not mention the cause of the revolt, but Firishta clearly states that his ambition to usurp sovereignty led him to conspire with the Deccan Amirs with whose help he increased his forces, and acquired much influence in the country. Apparently, Bahā-al-Din counted for success upon the distance that divided him from the capital, and the pressure of more urgent engagements upon the Sultan. According to Firishta, some of the nobles who were true to their master's salt opposed him, but his power became so formidable that he compelled them by force of arms to seek shelter in the fort of Mandu. When the news of the revolt reached the Sultan, he sent Khwaja Jahan and Malik Majir with the entire forces of Gujarat at their command to chastise the rebel. The hostile armies faced each other before Devagiri. Bahā-al-Din and his officers fought with great courage, but at last he lost the day owing to the defection of one of his principal commandants Khizr Bahrām with all his men. The royal army followed up its victory, and reduced to sore straits by an unexpected turn of events, Gashtasp fled to Sagar, but finding that the imperialists would not spare him on any account, he fled to the Raja of Kampil,²³ a notable prince in the Deccan, with all his family and belongings and sought shelter with him. In this hilly and inaccessible region, the royal forces pursued the rebel and laid siege to the town. Khwajah Jahan pushed on the siege, but he was defeated in two hotly contested engagements. Soon after reinforcements came from Devagiri, and the hostile armies engaged each other for the third time in battle. The Rai's supplies and treasure were wellnigh exhausted, and he was defeated and taken prisoner.²⁴ Firishta's account is somewhat different from that given by Ibn Batūṭah. Were it not for the fact that Ibn Batūṭah, though no eyewitness of these events, met the surviving sons of the Rai who may have informed him of their father's fate, it would have been difficult to choose between these two authorities in regard to this particular incident.²⁵ The traveller writes that the Rai of Kampil, when he saw escape impossible, caused a funeral pyre to be erected and informed his wives and daughters that he had resolved to burn himself in the flames. One by one the brave matrons came out of their apartments to give proof of their devotion, and having performed their ablution and pasted their bodies with sandal, they kissed the ground and consigned themselves to the flames. Some of the nobles and ministers of the Rai, overpowered with grief at this tragic sight, followed the example of their chief to signify their devotion to him. Last of all, the Rai, having put on his armour, rushed upon the imperialists and lost his life in the encounter. The royal army entered the city and began to harass the inhabitants. Eleven sons of the Rai were captured and brought before the Sultan. They embraced Islam and in recognition of their father's gallantry in the field of battle the Sultan elevated them to the rank of amirs and granted them mansabs. Ibn Batūṭah, who saw three of them on his arrival in India gives the names of two as Nasr and Bakhtiyar and describes the third as Al-muhardar, an officer who used to keep the royal seals.²⁶ Driven to bay, Gashtasp fled to Vir Ballāla III, the Hoysala Prince, who was residing at Tonnur in the Mysore district.²⁷ Frightened by the

c7.41

²¹ Lists of Antiquities, Madras, II, p. 161. The date 738 A.H. (1337-38 A.D.) given by the French translators of Ibn Batūtah in their Chronological summary is incorrect. Ibn Batūtah, III. Introduction, p. xx.

c7.42

²² Sagar is near Gulbarga.

c7.43

²³ Kampil or Kampli on the river Tungbhadra is in the Bellary district in Madras near Vijaynagar.

c7.44

²⁴ Firishta, Lucknow text, p. 136.

c7.45

²⁵ Ibn Batūṭah writes that the third son of the Rai whom he mentions as Al-muhardar was a great friend of his, III, p. 320. This man may have related to the traveller the story of the fall of his house.

c7.46

²⁶ The Paris edition of Ibn Batūṭah has Nasar, while another text has Nūsir. Ibn Batūṭah, III, p. 320.

c7.47

²⁷ Tradition says, he was residing at Tondanur or Tonnur in Mysore, but in 1321 A.D. (Gu 69) we find him living at Arunasamudra which may possibly be in this neighbourhood and Hg. 98, represents him as residing at Unnamale in South Arcot.

c7.48

Ibn Batūṭah corrects Firishta in material particulars, and his account is too detailed to be a mere invention.

c7.49

The Portuguese Chronicler Nuniz who wrote in the fifteenth century relying mainly upon tradition also gives an account of this rebellion.

c7.50

According to the Hindus the cause of the invasion of Kampil was the lust of conquest, while Ibn Batūṭah says, it was caused by the flight of Bahā-al-Din to the Rai. The Hindu tradition says that none of the royal family survived the attack, while Ibn Batūṭah positively asserts that the Rai had eleven sons some of whom he met in India. Sewell, A Forgotten Empire, p. 18.

c7.51

fate of the Rai of Kampil, Ballāla showed no hospitality to the fugitive rebel, and made him over to the imperial general Khwaja Jahan. Firishta's statement that Ballāla acknowledged the supremacy of the Dihli Sultan is supported neither by Ibn Batūṭah nor by the numerous inscriptions of Ballāla that are available to us. If he ever recognised the sovereignty of the Dihli Sultan, such recognition must have been merely nominal dictated by a temporary necessity. Bound hand and foot, the captive governor was dispatched to Dihli, where he was flayed alive and paraded in the streets, while the executioner by way of warning to other like-minded miscreants uttered the words: 'Thus shall those guilty of treason perish.'²⁸ Ibn Batūṭah relates that the culprit was taken into the haram where his female relatives up-braided him and spat upon him. At last, he was flayed alive and his flesh was cooked with rice and sent to his family.²⁹ Ibn Batūṭah's statement that the corpses of Bahā-al-Din and Ghiyas-al-Din Bahadur of Bengal were stuffed with bran and paraded together in the empire is incorrect, for Bahadur's rebellion occurred three or four years afterwards.³⁰

c7.52

²⁸ Firishta, Lucknow Text, p. 136.

c7.53

²⁹ Ibn Batūṭah, III, p. 321.

c7.54

³⁰ Ibid., pp. 321-22.

c7.55

During the early years of his reign Muḥammad introduced the first of those measures which have been severely condemned by historians. It was the taxation in the Doab. Among contemporary writers only Barani makes mention of it but he gives no date. The Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi places it in 729 A.H. after the invasion of Tarmāshrīn Khan, but does not say like Badāoni that the enhancement of the tax in the Doab was intended to punish the refractory inhabitants of that region, and it is not clear on what authority Badāoni relied for making this statement.³¹ Firishta³² describes it as one of the earliest measures of the reign and mentions it among the events of the year 727 A.H. Sir Wolseley Haig accepts Badāonī's date and writes that in 730 A.H. Muhammad introduced two most disastrous measures—the enhancement of the assessment of the land in the Doab and the issue of his fictitious brass currency, which was an attempt to make brass tokens pass current as silver coins. He also accepts Badaoni's statement that the enhancement of the assessment was intended to be both a punitive measure and a means of replenishing the treasury.³³ A close examination of the accounts of contemporary and later authorities leads to the conclusion that the enhancement was effected sometime towards the close of 727 A.H. Yahyā's statement that it was carried out in 729 A.H. after the invasion of Tarmāshrīn does not seem to be probable. Barani writes that when the Sultan returned to Dihli after having defeated Bahrām Aibaī, he stayed there for two years, and, according to him at that time the country of the Doab was brought to ruin by the heavy taxation and the numerous cesses.³⁴ This is what he writes:—

c7.56

³¹ Badāoni, Cal. Text, I, p. 228. He writes:— در این ایام رای سلطان چنان اقتضا کرد که از بس که رعایای میان دوآب سرکشی دارند خراج آن ولایت ده بیست مقرر سازند -

c7.57

³² Firishta, Lucknow Text, p. 134.

c7.58

³³ J.R.A.S., 1922, pp. 342-43.

c7.59

³⁴ Barani, Ca.. Text, p. 473. Buhar MS. f. 144 b. Bankipore MS. f. 231 a. (But the order of folios in this MS. has been revised since I consulted it.) India Office MS. f. 300 a.

c7.60

در آن دو سال که سلطان در دهلي بود ولايت ميان دوآب
از شداید مطالبه و بسياري ابواب خراب شد -

c7.61

Very probably this refers to the rigorous collection of taxes and cesses during the two years the Sultan stayed at Dihli after the suppression of the revolt of Bahram Aiba. After the completion of his conquests the Sultan had engaged himself in reorganising the system of revenue as appears from the account of Barani who says that soon after Muhammad's accession tributes came regularly from the various provinces of the empire, among which he includes Telang, Kampil, Dwarsamudra and Mabar which were not conquered until the close of 727 A.H.³⁵ The revision of taxation in the Doab seems to have been part of a general scheme of re-settlement of the revenue system which the Sultan enforced as soon as his authority was established over the different parts of the empire.

c7.62

³⁵ Barani, Cal. Text, pp. 468-69.

c7.63.1

Barani, who gives the first place to this scheme of taxation among the causes of the decline of Muhammad's empire, writes that it brought about the ruin of the country and the decay of the people and his view is adopted by Nizam-al-Din and Firishta. The author of the *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi*, who is an earlier authority than Nizam-al-Din and Firishta, describes the measure as a process of assessment, and Hajji-ad-Dabir following some text of Barani ascribes it to the emptiness of the treasury.³⁶ Modern writers have attributed the enhancement to the drain on the treasury which was caused by the reckless prodigality of the Sultan, though Mr. Gardner Brown is inclined to consider it as a necessary and proper measure, for the Doab was the most prosperous part of the empire and could well bear—as 'Ala-al-Din had shown—a higher rate than was usually imposed.³⁷ It is true, the Sultan had spent huge sums of money in celebrating his coronation, and had awarded rich gifts to the nobility and the common people. But subsequent events make it clear that he was by no means confronted with bankruptcy. The chief motive seems to have been to obtain revenue in order to be able to increase his military resources and to organise the administration on an efficient basis. It was an administrative measure for which there was a precedent.

c7.63.2

The Doab was, as it had long been, the richest and most fertile part of Hindustan, and its refractory inhabitants had given not a little trouble to the rulers of Dihli. There is plenty of evidence of this in Barani's *Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi* and in the *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi* which describes at length the attempts of the later Tughluqs to suppress the rebellions in the Doab. Whenever a change of dynasties or rulers occurred, the people of the Doab were the first to revolt, and civil wars often broke out in which the rival protagonists changed sides with astonishing rapidity and fought with a savage ferocity. The importance of the Doab has continued unabated, and every adventurer who rose to the surface in the 18th century coveted its possession and exerted himself to establish his hold upon it. Even Mahdaji Sindhia, one of the ablest and most farseeing statesmen of the period deemed it necessary to establish himself in the Doab in order to keep his hold over the decrepit empire of the Mughals. It is almost a truism to say that whoever possesses the Doab and keeps its inhabitants under firm control not only acquires possession of vast material resources, but commands the whole of Hindustan. 'Ala-al-Din had harshly dealt with the Khūts, muqaddams and Balāhars of the Doab, who possessed the great reservoir of wealth upon which the rulers of Dihli could draw in time of need for the maintenance of their power.

c7.63.3

He had raised the land tax to 50 per cent and levied in addition to this a house tax and a grazing tax.³⁸ Ghiyas seems to have maintained this rate, but he was especially careful to avoid inequitable enhancement, for the Hindus were treated severely, and Barani writes that only a bare subsistence was left to them.³⁹ Muhammad had no capable minister like Sharaf Qai to carry out thoroughly the work of assessment, nor was his scheme of revised taxation enforced at an opportune moment. He felt that the Doab did not contribute enough to the revenues of the state, and therefore decided to enhance the taxes. Mr. Gardner Brown's statement that the new taxation was not heavy, indeed, lighter than was subsequently levied is not justified by facts, for Firuz levied 1/10th as the right of Sharb or irrigation with the advice of the doctors of the law in addition to the Khiraj allowed by the orthodox school. The Fawāyad-i-Firuz Shahi, a work on Muslim law, written during the reign of Firuz Shah, divides Khiraj into two classes—the Khiraj-i-Wazifah, i.e., the fixed tribute in the shape of money or grain which was taken from the conquered and the Khiraj-i-muqāsimah which ranged from 25 per cent to 50 per cent, the last rate being the maximum allowed.⁴⁰ There is no evidence in the contemporary works to the effect that the maximum was ever reached under Firuz. On the contrary, we read of the cheapness of prices and of the abolition of as many as 23 taxes during his reign.⁴¹

c7.64

³⁶ T. M. MS.

c7.65

³⁷ Journal, U. P. Historical Society, Vol. I, Pt. II, pp. 11-12.

c7.66

³⁸ Barani, Cal. Text, p. 287.

c7.67

³⁹ Barani, Calcutta Text, p. 430.

c7.68

⁴⁰ Fawayād-i-Firuz Shahi, A.S.B. MS. f. 199 b.

c7.69

⁴¹ Sirat-i-Firuz Shahi, Bankipore MS.

c7.70

The contemporary chronicler Barani takes a gloomy view of the Sultan's policy and writes: "Another measure which conduced to the ruin of the country and the people was the taxation in the Doab, which was increased ten and twenty times. To put into effect this scheme of the Sultan, his Kārkuns created such awābs or cesses as broke the backs of the ryots. These awābs were demanded with such rigour that the ryots were reduced to impotence, poverty and ruin. Those who were well off and owned property became rebels. The land was ruined and cultivation was greatly diminished. The ryots of distant provinces, having heard of the fate of the people of the Doab, through fear of similar demands being made from them, withdrew their allegiance and sought shelter in the woods. The decline of cultivation, the ruin of the ryots, the failure of the convoys of corn from distant provinces produced a famine in Dihli and its neighbourhood and the country of the Doab. Rain did not fall at the same time and the famine continued for several years. Thousands of people perished of want and communities were scattered and households were broken up. The glory of the empire of Muhammad began to decline from this time.⁴² An important question for consideration is the actual enhancement ordered by the Sultan. The India Office MS. of Barani as well as other MSS. that I have utilised have خراج ولایت دواب يكي به ده و يكي به بيست مييارد شد which literally interpreted means that the Sultan raised the Khiraj of the Doab ten and twenty times.⁴³ The Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi also has يكي به ده يكي به بيست but to this increase in the land tax are added the ghari (house tax) and the Charāhi (pasture tax) which had been levied by ‘Ala-al-Din previously. A census of the residential houses was taken and the cattle were branded. The produce was estimated, and the market rates were fixed by the Sultan. These regulations weighed heavily upon the people who drove away their cattle into the jungles for purposes of grazing.⁴⁴ Badaoni copies the Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi, but instead of يكي به ده يكي به بيست he writes:—

c7.71

⁴² Barani, Cal. Text, p. 473.

c7.72

⁴³ This is the reading in all texts of Barani. I have consulted many Persian scholars regarding the meaning of this phrase, and they all agree in saying that it means ten instead of one and twenty instead of one.

c7.73

⁴⁴ Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi, MS.

c7.74

خراج آن ولایت ده بیست مقرر سازند -

c7.75

which Ranking translates by saying that the Sultan doubled the tax in the Doab.⁴⁵ In transcribing the passage from the Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi Badaoni makes another alteration namely that the measure was intended to punish the refractory inhabitants of the Doab. Nizām-al-Dīn Ahmad who generally follows Barani for this reign writes :

c7.76

⁴⁵ Ranking, Al-Badaoni, I, p. 305.

c7.77

خراج تمام ولایت دوآب را یکی بده قرار داده ادواب چند برائے ایں امر پیدا کرد -

c7.78

which means that the tax was raised from one to ten and not ten per cent as Mr. De suggests in his translation.⁴⁶ Firishta differs from all these and writes : ده سی و ده چهل which means that the Sultan raised tax from ten to thirty and forty in the Doab.⁴⁷ Hajjī-ad-Dabīr is more explicit when he says that the land which brought one *tankah* since the days of Islamic conquest now brought ten and twenty *tankahs*.

c7.79

⁴⁶ Tabqāt-i-Akbari, Cal. Text, p. 202. Also English Translation by Mr. De, p. 213. Lucknow Text, p. 101.

c7.80

⁴⁷ Firishta, Lucknow Text, p. 134.

c7.81

All these writers take an exaggerated view of the effects of the revised taxation which though not fundamentally excessive was introduced at a very unfavourable moment. Barani says, rain did not fall, and convoys of corn did not come from the provinces owing to drought. It does not appear that the Sultan exceeded the legal maximum of 50 per cent which had been reached under 'Ala-al-Dīn, and Barani expresses himself in a hyperbole when he says that the tax was raised ten and twenty times. This is a familiar mode of expression in Hindustan. Elliot mistranslates the original passage when he writes that the Sultan thought he ought to get ten or five per cent more tribute from the lands in the Doab.⁴⁸ Ten or five per cent more would not be so heavy as to break the backs of the ryots whereas ten and twenty times would be perfectly absurd. The tax was felt as a burden by the population accompanied as it was by the *gharī* and *Charāhī* and the inquisitorial proceedings of state officials, and Barani speaks of such *abwābs* as the ryots could not pay. Famine aggravated the situation further, and the scarcity of fodder more than the undue heaviness of the cesses obliged them to drive their cattle to the woods.

c7.82

⁴⁸ Elliot, III, p. 238.

c7.83

Barani's remarks deserve a close examination. The highly coloured picture of the Sultan's policy drawn by him is largely due to the fact that he belonged to a party with whose ideals and opinions the Sultan did not sympathise. But since he was an eyewitness of official doings, his remarks cannot be lightly dismissed. All taxation is unpopular even in modern times, and Muhammad's new scheme, coming as it did after a period of ease, was bound to cause discontent. That it caused distress and was resented by the people is beyond a shadow of doubt: Much of it was due to the severity that was practised by the officials in the realisation of these cesses, and we learn from Ibn Batūṭah that officers were venal in those days. Hājji-ad-Dabīr, following Barani's text, says that during the two years the Sultan stayed at Dihli (728 A.H.—730 A.H.) a great ruin was brought about by the rigorous collection of the cesses in the Doab. The cattle were sold, corn stacks were burnt and the ryots were treated with merciless cruelty. In sheer despair they also broke out into rebellion and killed the officers of the state.⁴⁹ It is certainly a hyperbole to say that the ryots of distant countries, on hearing of the distress and ruin of the people of the Doab, broke out into rebellion and "threw off their allegiance," for at this time the Sultan was engaged in establishing his authority in the different parts of his empire and exacting obedience from all classes of his subjects. To make matters worse, a famine occurred at this time and there is nothing to show that the Sultan relaxed the severity of his demands. These continued as usual, and under the double pressure of an inexorable state demand and the depression of the agricultural industry owing to drought, the ryots must have suffered heavily. When they tried to escape from the enhanced impost, they were severely punished. Barani's story of the expedition to Baran, where according to him, the Sultan hunted men like wild beasts, is to be ascribed to his patriotic indignation at the punishments inflicted upon the people of his own native district for their inability to meet the demands of the state.⁵⁰ Mr. Gardner Brown

c7.84

⁴⁹ Hajjī-ad-Dabīr clearly says that when the officers of the state employed rigour in collecting the taxes and practised oppression, the people rebelled in despair and abandoned their fields.

c7.85

⁵⁰ Barani, Cal. Text, pp. 479-80.

c7.86

This is what Barani writes :

c7.87

و همدراں ایام سلطان محمد بر طریق شکار در ولایت برن رفت و فرمان داد تا تمامی ولایت برن را نهب و تاراج کردند و سرهای هندوان آوردند و در کنگره‌ها حصار برن بیاویختند - exonerates the Sultan from all blame and says that the sufferings of the people were more due to want of rain than to heavy taxation. Even if the taxation were light, considering the normal prosperity of the Doab, was it not the duty of the administration to restore the tax to its former level or to reduce it as soon as famine conditions were known? But famine was not officially declared or recognised, and no measures of relief were undertaken to cope with it, though much was done later by the Sultan, when a similar calamity befell the country. Famine doubtless aggravated the distress of the people, but in the beginning it was not so serious as to cause widespread disturbances in the empire. The work of resettling the empire proceeded apace, and the Sultan successfully planned expeditions against the rebels. How could this be possible, if the situation had been so serious as Barani represents it to be? Although it would be wrong to call this measure a freak of disordered fancy, it must be pronounced to be an ill-devised expedient, scarcely capable of being defended on political or economic grounds. That the people rebelled under a painful necessity cannot be doubted, and if political disturbances occurred in the Doab,—a most sensitive part of Hindustan,—the blame rests upon the administration and not upon the people. The Sultan lost all patience, when his cherished schemes failed. He became more and more self-centred and began to think of experiments, which tended to alienate from him the sympathies of his subjects, and which produced a great deal of unrest in the country.

First 95 of 150 passages. Read on

Linked texts (7)