Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of the Qaraunah Turks in India c8: Chapter III. The Sultan's Experiments and the Mughal Invasion

History of the Qaraunah Turks in India c8

Language
English

Chapter III. The Sultan's Experiments and the Mughal Invasion

c8.2

The first experiment which caused much suffering to the people was the transfer of the capital from Dihli to Devagiri. Barani is very sparse in giving dates. He places the transfer of the capital just after the enhancement of the land tax in the Doab which is one of the earliest measures of Muhammad's reign, and which seems to have been carried into effect not long after his accession. The author of the *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi* assigns the first transfer (it may be noted that he speaks of a second transfer after 729 A.H.) to 727 A.H., and he is followed by Badāoni whose account is an exact reproduction of that given by the *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi*. Firishta supports the above by saying that when the Sultan had gone to Devagiri during the rebellion of Bahā-al-Din Gashtāsp, he was so pleased with the situation of Devagiri that he wished to make it his capital.¹ But his chronology is hopelessly wrong. He assigns the transfer to the year 740 (1339 A.D.), but this is quite incorrect, for Ibn Batūtah who came to Dihli towards the close of 1333 writes that he saw the Sultan repeopling the depopulated city, which shows that the transfer must have at least taken place before his arrival.² This is corroborated by numismatic evidence. When the token currency was withdrawn, and free exchange was permitted by the Sultan, Barani and all later writers declare that mounds of copper coins arose in Tughluqabad.³ The trend of the narrative indicates that Barani is describing the activities of the capital which must have regained its old status in 732 A.H. There is more numismatic evidence which clearly points to the year 727 A.H. There are coins struck at Daulatabad in the year 727 A.H. bearing on the them the superscription " Cupola of Islam " (قبة الاسلام) a fact which shows that in 727 Daulatabad was the capital of the empire.⁴ The Asiatic Society of Bengal has a coin in its possession which was issued from Devagiri in 727 A.H. bearing on the margin the following legend:—

c8.3

¹ The transfer of the capital, 726-27 A.H.

c8.4

¹ Firishta, Lucknow Text, p. 136. Briggs I, p. 419.

c8.5

² Ibn Batūtah III, Paris, p. 316.

c8.6

³ Barani, Cal. Text, p. 476.

c8.7

⁴ Masālik, Paris, MS.

c8.8

هذا الدينار في قبة اسلام ايمني حضرته ديوغير - ۷۲۷

c8.9

and this is supported by the *Masālik* wherein Devagiri is described as the *Qubbat-al-Islam*.⁵ The author the *Masālik* derived his information from one who had seen Devagiri with his own eyes. In Nelson Wright's Catalogue of coins in the Indian Museum, Calcutta, there is a gold coin (No. 307) issued in 727 A.H., bearing the same superscription as the above.⁶ Further evidence of this is supplied by the fact that earlier coins struck at the Devagiri mint are different. The title of *Qubbat-al-Islam* does not appear on the coins issued in various years, but we have a coin struck at Daulatabad, the new name of Devagiri in 726 A.H., having on the margin the following legend which is different from the one quoted above:⁷

c8.10

⁵ Ibid.

c8.11

⁶ N. Wright, Catalogue of Coins, p. 51.

c8.12

⁷ Ibid., p. 50, Coin No. 300, weight 173 grs.

c8.13

ضرب هذه السكة في بلدة دولت باد سنة ست و عشرين و سبعمايه

c8.14

This shows that in 726 A.H. the Sultan had declared Devagiri as the capital of the empire. Writing about Bahram Aibā's revolt, Barani says that when the revolt broke out, the Sultan was at Devagiri, and when he returned after suppressing the revolt, he did not proceed to Devagiri whither the citizens and their families had removed. While he remained at Dihli, the nobles and the soldiers continued with him but their wives and children were at Devagiri.⁸ The rebellion of Bahrām according to Barani is the second rebellion of the reign and took place early in 728 A.H. All this evidence tends to prove that the transfer was effected in 726-727 A.H.

c8.15

⁸ Barani, Cal. Text, p. 479.

c8.16

An interesting question which deserves examination is whether the Sultan carried the inhabitants of Dihli twice to Devagiri or Daulatabad. A difficulty has been created by the author of the *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi* who speaks of two migrations to Devagiri.⁹

c8.17

⁹ The *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi* thus describes the first transfer in 727 A.H.

c8.18

According to him, the first migration occurred in 727 A.H. when the Sultan carried with his mother Makhdum Jahan, the amirs, maliks and other notable persons with horses, elephants and treasure of the state. Again, after describing the invasion of Tarmāshīrīn Khan, which according to him occurred in 729 A.H., and the taxation of the Doab with the disturbance which followed it, Yahyā writes that the Sultan purchased the houses of the inhabitants of Dihli and carried them, together with the inhabitants of the neighbouring towns, to Daulatabad so that the houses in Dihli were emptied and there was heard in the city not even the cry of dogs or cats. Daulatabad was filled with the inhabitants of Dihli who were munificently rewarded.

c8.19

The vulgar section of the public and the vagabonds who had remained in the town brought the goods of the inhabitants out of their houses and destroyed them. Thus, Yahyā distinctly mentions two migrations—one of the notables of the state in 727 A.H. and the other of the inhabitants of Dihli about two years later, i.e., in 729 A.H., designed solely as a punitive measure against the refractory people of the Doab, and he is copied by Badāoni whose account is a faithful reproduction of that given by him.¹⁰ Firishta, who has also copied the *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi* to a large extent in the matter of chronology and also of the arrangement and narration of facts, mentions two migrations of the whole population en masse from Dihli to Daulatabad.¹¹ He does not slavishly follow the

c8.20

¹⁰ Ranking, Al-Badāoni, I, pp. 303, 305.

c8.21

¹¹ Firishta, Lucknow Text, p. 136; Briggs, I, pp. 420, 422. Firishta thus describes the two transfers:

c8.22

حکم فرمود که دهلی را که رشک مصر بود خراب کرده خلق آنجا را از صغیر و کبیر و نوکر و غیر نوکر و از مونث و مذکر کو چادیده بدیوگیر آورند و متوطن سازند“ -
و چون مردم اطراف که در دولت‌آباد بتکلیف ساکن شده بودند پراگنده گشتند - بادشاه مدت دو سال در آنجا مانده همت بر تعمیر دولت‌آباد بگماشت و مادر خود مخدومه جهان را با سائر حرمهای امراء سپاهی روانه دولت‌آباد گردانید - و احدی از مردم دهلی را که باب و هوا آنجا خو گرفته بودند بحال خود

c8.23

*Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi* like Badāoni, but confuses the whole thing by a misreading of the texts of Barani and the *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi*. He adheres to the order of events followed by Barani, but adds something more to the information, supplied by Barani for which there is no warrant. According to him, the first migration took place after Bahā-al-Din's rebellion, though his date is quite wrong, when the Sultan carried the whole population, men and women of all classes to Daulatabad and paid them the prices of their houses in Dihli and the expenses of the journey. The second migration occurred when the Sultan returned to Dihli after the suppression of the revolt of Bahrām Aibā. He sent his mother with the wives of amirs and military men to Daulatabad and also the inhabitants of Dihli so that the old capital became a desert in which only the cries of foxes, jackals and other wild animals were heard. This is clearly a confused mixture of the texts of Barani and Yahyā. From the accounts of these two writers who are not contemporary, certain modern writers have constructed the plausible theory that the first migration consisted in the transfer only of the court and the official machinery and the second in the removal of the people of Dihli. We may dismiss at once Badaoni and Firishta who are later writers who have adopted the versions of Barani and the *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi*. The author of the *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi* is also a secondary authority, but he deserves more attention because he wrote only about eighty years after Muhammad's death, and because he must have utilised certain history or histories other than Barani's *Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi*, for he supplies at times information for which we look in vain in Barani, information which is amply corroborated by other contemporary writers and the evidence of coins.

c8.24

It is difficult to accept the statement of the *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi* about the two migrations. Barani who is a contemporary writer mentions only one migration, and he is consistent in giving his account. He had no reason to conceal the fact, if a second migration of the whole population had taken place, for that would have agreeably fitted in with his notions of the Sultan's character and policy, and in a matter like this the testimony of a well-informed

c8.25

نگذاشته طرا بدولت آباد فرستاد و دهلي بنوعي ويران گشت - که آواز هيچ متنفسي بجز شغال و روباه و جانوران صحرائي بگوش نمي رسيد -

c8.26

contemporary must carry weight. It appears from the *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi* that the removal of the entire population in about 729 A.H. was prompted by the Sultan's desire to punish the refractory people of the Doab. This is an extraordinary form of punishment, and no ruler would have recourse to such a measure when a hundred others equally or perhaps more effective and speedy were ready to hand. ¹¹ Then, if the transfer had a punitive purpose as Yahya suggests, why did the Sultan pay the prices of their houses to the inhabitants of Dihli and provide all necessary comforts during the long journey of 800 miles? The second migration of the population *en masse* is mentioned just after the invasion of Tarmashirin Khan in 729 A.H. The invasion of the Chaghtai chief was due to the depopulation of Dihli of which the Mughals had heard, and under these circumstances the evacuation of Dihli, to say the least of it, would have been an act of questionable wisdom.¹² It does not seem probable that the Sultan would be so unwise as to carry his population to Daulatabad after the Mughal invasion which cost him so much money and caused him profound anxiety. Again, the author of the *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi* makes contradictory statements in the same breath. He says that even porters were not to be found at the doors of houses and not even the cries of cats and dogs were heard in the city and in the next sentence he writes that the common people (مردم عوامي) and the vagabonds (اوباش) who had remained behind seized the people's goods and destroyed them. The second statement makes it clear that some persons did remain in Dihli notwithstanding the Sultan's fiat. The population of Dihli in those days must have consisted largely of the nobles, officers, civil and military, of the state together with their numerous dependents, who would certainly follow their masters and patrons to Daulatabad. Much of the trade and industry of the time also depended upon the court, and naturally business-men would like to accompany the court to keep their business on. It seems that a second migration, particularly when the first was so comprehensive as to consist of amirs, maliks, notables, the 'Ulama, with slaves, dependents, their horses, elephants and treasures, would hardly be necessary. It is highly improbable that having once decided to transfer the capital for weighty reasons of which Barani gives a correct account, the Sultan would enforce a second migration after a lapse of two years, especially when the situation in Hindustan was far from satisfactory. Barani and all later writers state that after the suppression of the revolt of Bahram Aibā, the Sultan returned to Dihli with his military officers and remained there for two years. It is difficult to understand why the Sultan should choose Dihli as his place of residence, if it were completely depopulated.

c8.27

¹² Arabic History of Gujarat, Volume IV, p. 865.

c8.28

Barani's statement that there was only one migration and that of the whole population en masse seems to be correct. His account is too detailed to be a mere slip and there seems to be no reason why he should not mention that there were two migrations, if they had actually occurred, as is the case with the author of the Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi. Barani is supported by Ibn Batūtah, whose account leads to the inference that there was only one migration and that was of a fairly considerable portion of the population. Dihli does not seem to have been completely depopulated, for the mint was always there, and we have coins struck at Dihli during the years 727, 728, and 729 A.H.¹³ If the government offices had been removed, and also the population, why was the mint allowed to exist? The very fact that the mint continued to work at Dihli shows that there must have been a regular staff of officers entrusted with the management of the institution and a certain fraction of the population.

c8.29

¹³ Thomas, Chronicles, p. 209. Thomas calls it a most perfect coin.

c8.30

During the rebellion of Bahā-al-Din Gashtāsp, when the Sultan was in the Deccan, he was much struck by the geographical and strategic position of Devagiri and he wished to make it his capital. His empire now included practically the whole of the Indian peninsula, excepting a strip of land on the western coast in the Deccan, Orissa and the Rajput states in Rajputana which had taken no part in Dihli politics for the last ten years. Towards the north the empire embraced the Doab, the plains of the Punjab and Lahore together with the territories stretching from the Indus to the coast of Gujarat; towards the east it comprised the entire province of Bengal, and in the centre it included the whole of the central region, consisting of such principalities as Malwa, Mahoba, Ujjain and Dhar. The Deccan had been well-nigh subdued, although a few chiefs like Krisna Nāyak of Warangal still lived in a state of sullen hostility. The whole country extending from the Mahanadi and the Krisna along the Eastern coast to the southernmost extremity of the peninsula was included in the empire of Dihli. Warangal, Madura and Dwarsamudra, all owned allegiance; and the Hoysala king Vir Ballāla had acknowledged the superior power of the Sultan. The empire needed a central capital from which a vigilant watch could be maintained over all the different parts of Hindustan. Dihli, just now in the grip of a severe famine, was too remote from the outlying provinces; it was far too northern to be the capital of an empire which had its base in the extreme south, and, then, it was constantly threatened by the Mughal invasions. Close to Rajputana, it was exposed to danger from the most warlike people whom even ‘Ala-al-Din had not been able entirely to subjugate. It was, as Sher Shah said two centuries later the very road of an invader and peculiarly fitted to be his first resting place. All the invaders of Hindustan had established dominion over the country by capturing Dihli, for the fall of the capital in those days meant the fall of the empire. The Gangetic plain was a great lever to sustain their newly founded power by supplying inexhaustible resources which enabled them to contend successfully against the native powers. From the chief seat of the empire at Dihli it was well-nigh impossible to keep a firm hold over the south where the Hindu Rajas had never been completely reconciled to Muhammad’s domination and to prevent a recrudescence of rebellion and internecine strife, if the reins were slackened in the slightest degree. Devagiri was safe and far away from the route of the enemy. Distance did not much matter to the Sultan for he had an efficient post running from Dihli to Devagiri which facilitated communication and enabled him to keep in touch with his vast possessions. It was more centrally situated than Dihli and, as Barani says, the different provinces of the empire, Gujarat, Dihli, Sonargaon, Dwarsamudra; Ma‘bar, Kampila were nearly equidistant from it.

c8.31

It was the centrality of the place that led to the transfer of which the contemporary chronicler has given such a pathetic description. Besides the centrality of the place Barani mentions another motive. Having described the evil effects of famine in the Doab, he goes on to say that the Sultan decided to transfer the capital with a view to put an end to the sufferings and difficulties of the respectable persons among his subjects.¹⁴ Firishta states that the Sultan broached the subject to his ministers, the majority of whom suggested Ujjain, the ancient capital of the Hindu king Vikramāditya, as a more convenient place, but their suggestions were overruled by him. Ibn Batūtah, whose account is obviously based upon hearsay, for he was no eyewitness of the unfortunate experiment, informs us that the people of Dihli wrote anonymous letters in which they said that none except the Sultan should open them.¹⁵ These pasquinades were dropped at night into the Hall of Audience, and when the Sultan opened them next morning, he found them full of abusive epithets. At this he was so much enraged that he decided to depopulate Dihli by way of punishment. This queer explanation of a measure, so serious and important in all its bearings, fails to carry conviction to the mind, for the Sultan, though terribly severe in his later life, was not so petulant in the early part of his reign as to order the transfer of the capital for punishing a few anonymous scribblers whom he could easily make an example of, if detected. He had done nothing so far to offend the people of Dihli, whom he had loaded with gifts and honours, and on whom he had conferred high offices and commands. There is no evidence to show that the Sultan had in any way injured the citizens of Dihli. The taxation in the Doab to which Yahyā attributes the second transfer coupled with famine had doubtless caused a great misery, but it does not seem to have been an evil of such magnitude as to upset the Sultan altogether. Assuming that the Sultan was led by his alleged unpopularity to leave Dihli, can it be said with reason that in Devagiri he would be more safe, for in that difficult and intractable region he would be surrounded by foes alien in race and creed? Besides, he had no large Muslim population in the Deccan to count

c8.32

¹⁴ Barani, Cal. Text, p. 473.

c8.33

¹⁵ J.A.S.B., 1892, I, p. 392.

c8.34

The text has:—

c8.35

سلطان محمد که در معمول گردانیدن آن خرابی دارالملک و ابتري خواص خلق و برافتاد مردم گذیده و چیده روي نمود انست که سلطان محمد را در دل افتاد که دیوگیر را دولت آباد نام کرد

c8.36

The author of the Khulāsat-ut-tawārikh says that the climate of the Deccan Sultan and he describes this as a cause for upon in time of danger, and the Hindus of the south were not so submissive as those of the north who had become inured to Muslim domination. It seems, therefore, highly improbable that Muhammad would go to the Deccan to punish the impertinent people of Dihli who lampooned him in the guise of anonymity. Ibn Batūṭah is not supported by any contemporary or later writer, and, inspite of his asseveration that he heard all this from a ‘trustworthy’ informant in Dihli, it is difficult to accept his statement in view of the liberal advances which the Sultan made from the treasury to the emigrants. He himself writes that the Sultan purchased the houses of the citizens of Dihli and paid full prices. The whole chain of evidence corroborates Barani who records the Sultan's motive in plain language which we often miss in him.

c8.37

A modern writer has suggested that the transfer of the capital was to some extent dictated by the consideration that the importance of the Punjab had declined owing to the Mughal raids and owing to a great flood that ‘had rendered thousands homeless and changed the river courses.¹⁶ No Muslim historian mentions this reason which, although strikingly original, is of doubtful validity. The writer of the article in question has followed Major Raverty, who, relying upon the information supplied by the author of the Khulāṣat-ut-tawārīkh, who was a native of Batala in the Punjab says: ‘the exact year in which this flood took place is not fixed, but it was a long time before the invasion of Hindustan by Amir Timur.¹⁷ In all probability it happened a short time before Sultan Firuz commenced opening canals; and the vast changes which this flood appears to have caused may have been the reason of his bringing canals to his

c8.38

¹⁶ Gardner Brown's article on Muhammad bin Tughluq in the Journal of the U. P. Historical Society, Vol. I, Pt. II, p. 13.

c8.39

¹⁷ Major Raverty's Article on ‘The Mihran of Sind’ and its tributaries’ in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1892, I, pp. 392, 498.

c8.40

Here is the English rendering of the passage to which Major Raverty refers:—

c8.41

The whole land was covered with water. The buildings of towns and villages were in a state of decay, and many lives were wasted. After the storm had subsided, the land remained desolate and it was after a long time that some places were repopulated. As the Mughals of Kabul and Balkh invaded the land of the Punjab every year, the whole country was ruined in every direction, and the revenue was considerably reduced. In the time of Sultan... Barani, Cal. Text, p. 473.

c8.42

newly founded Hisar Firoza and parts adjacent.' According to Sujan Rai, whose information is obviously based on local tradition, the country remained waste and uncultivated until the rise of Bahlol Lodi in whose time Rai Ram Deva Bhatti farmed the whole of the Punjab for nine lakhs of *tankahs*.¹⁸ Major Raverty first places the flood in the beginning of the reign of Firuz Shah and in another place he fixes it sometime between the siege of Ucch by the Mughals and the invasion of Hind by Amir Timur, that is between 643 A.H. and 801 A.H. about the years 720—724 A.H. (1320—24 A.D.). Barani does not even throw out a hint that the Punjab was depopulated during his time, nor does he make mention of a great flood in the years 720—724 A.H. There is no evidence in Ibn Batūṭah, ‘Afif and ‘Ain-al-mulk who was governor of Multan for a pretty long time, of the flood to which Sujan Rai alludes. The silence of all these writers though not a conclusive argument against the occurrence of the flood is significant. Floods were a common occurrence in those days, and it does not seem likely that the Sultan would be influenced by them so far as to decide upon the change of the capital. The consideration seems to be too far-fetched to have appealed to the Sultan. The importance of the Punjab consisted in its nearness to the lands from which India's invaders have come, and the frontier question continued to trouble Muhammad's successors as much as it troubled him and his predecessors. To sum up, the Sultan's object in removing to Devagiri was to get rid of the Mughals and to settle and control the newly acquired possessions in the South. It was not, as many modern writers have suggested, a wild experiment due to the mad freak of a callous tyrant who had sworn vengeance upon his subjects.

c8.43

¹⁸ J.A.S.B., 1892, I, p. 392.

c8.44

Having resolved to transfer the capital, the Sultan ordered the people of Dihli, men, women and children, servants and maidservants to go to Daulatabad with all their belongings. A regular post was established between Dihli and Daulatabad and at every *kroh* a postal station was built and at every stage a palace and a *Khanqah* were built, where food, drink and betels were given to the way-farers free of cost. Trees were planted on both sides of the road to afford comfort to travellers and some of these were seen by the author of the *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi* in the 15th century. Every sort of convenience was supplied to the emigrants, and even Barani admits that rewards and gifts were liberally bestowed upon them by the Sultan.¹⁹ All difficulties were disregarded, and the Sultan did not care for the envy of the kings of Iran and Turan and the distance of the frontier. What this transfer must have meant to the people of Dihli can be inferred from the fact that Dihli was a large and populous city spread over a wide area. Barani who knew the city well writes that it had grown prosperous during the last 150 or 160 years, and had begun to rival the glories of Cairo and Baghdad.²⁰ Ibn Batūṭah gives an elaborate description of the city which, according to him, consisted of four cities—old Dihli, Siri, Tughluqabad and Jahānpanāh, the residence of Sultan Muhammad and his statement is corroborated by the authors of the *Malfūzāt-i-Timuri*²¹ and the *Zafarnāmah*. The description of the city given by the *Masālik* evidently refers to a later period, for Ibn Batūṭah’s statement that on his arrival in Dihli he witnessed the vestiges of desolation in certain places is in conflict with it.²² The court and the officials were removed to the new capital, and attracted by the Sultan’s bounty learned and pious men also went to reside there. The Sultan grudged no expenditure in making it the true metropolis of Islam and adorned it with beautiful buildings. The author of the *Masālik* dwells enthusiastically upon the vastness and beauty of the edifices of Devagiri²³ and he is corroborated by Ibn Batutah who visited it in 1343 A.D., when it had ceased to be the capital of the empire. 'Abdul Hamīd Lahori, the author of the *Bādshāh namah* and the European travellers who wrote in the 17th century testify to the solidity and grandeur of the fort of Daulatabad. It appears from Ibn Batūtah's account that the city continued to enjoy royal favour, and attained to a considerable degree of prosperity.

c8.45

¹⁹ Barani, Cal. Text, p. 474.

c8.46

²⁰ Ibid., p. 474.

c8.47

²¹ Ibn Batūṭah, III, Paris, pp. 146-47. Malfūzāt-i-Timuri, Elliot, III, pp. 447-48. Zafarnamah, Elliot, III, p. 504. Carr Stephen, Archæology of Dihli, pp. 98-99. Ibn Batūṭah writes : Dihli consists of four cities :—
(i) The old Dihli founded by the Hindus, which was conquered in 584 A.H.
(ii) Siri which had been given by the Sultan to Ghiyas-al-Dīn, the ‘Abbasid.
(iii) Tughluqabad which was built by the Sultan’s father.
(iv) Jahānpanāh, which has been built by the present Sultan. The Sultan wished to enclose them within a wall but he gave up the scheme for financial reasons.

c8.48

²² Ibn Batūṭah in the earlier part of his work speaks of Dihli as a magnificent and well-populated city, and in another place in describing the depopulation of Dihli by the Sultan he says that he saw the marks of desolation and that when he reached Dihli the Sultan was repeopling it. The first description applies to Dihli as he left it in 1342 A.D. The second description occurs in his account of the evacuation of Dihli where he makes the deliberate statement that when he entered the city he found that the Sultan was making efforts to repeople it.

c8.49

²³ Masālik, Paris, MS. 48-49. Ibn Batūtah, IV, Paris, pp. 48-49. Bādshahnāmah, Biblioth, Ind., pp. 496-500. Tavernier's Travels in India, Vol. I, p. 143. The Masālik's account of Dihli is as follows :- The Sultan called Devagiri *Qubbat-al-Islam* or the cupola of Islam. The city was divided into quarters for civil and military officers, Qazis and learned men, *Shaikhs* and *faqirs* and merchants and tradesmen. Everything that was needed for human comfort was supplied. The old fort was repaired and fortified and new reservoirs were constructed for supplying water.

c8.50

But despite royal beneficence the people of Dihli were unwilling to leave their native town. The Sultan's order must have weighed heavily upon the Hindus and Muhammadans alike. They could not bear the pain of exile in a foreign land. Barani's exaggerated statement that in sheer despair they laid down their heads in a heathen land, and of all the multitude of emigrants only a few survived to return to their homes contains a substratum of truth.

c8.51

The scheme failed disastrously, and resulted in considerable suffering to the population. The change of capitals is not an unusual thing in history. Fatehpur Sikri and Chittor are conspicuous examples of it. The Maratha capital changed frequently in the 17th century, and Rajgarh, Mahāvalesvara, Jinji, Kolapur, and Satara were all declared in turn capitals of the Maratha kingdom.²⁴ But the manner in which Muhammad effected the transfer was most impolitic. Elphinstone who is remarkably judicious admits that the design was by no means unreasonable in itself, if it had been begun without precipitancy and conducted with steadiness.²⁵ That Daulatabad was safer than Dihli in the 14th century may be admitted, but it is questionable whether the Sultan would have profited by the change. Firishta rightly expresses his disapproval of the measure by saying that the Sultan disregarded two of his formidable enemies, the rulers of Iran and Turan.²⁶ Then, Devagiri was situated at a long distance from the outlying provinces of the empire like Bengal and the Punjab, and in case the Mughals invaded Dihli, when the Sultan's forces were locked up in the Deccan owing to the revolt of the native population, they would have easily captured it and seized a large portion of Hindustan. This was a contingency which the Sultan did not foresee. There was no precedent to guide him, and the whole thing became a strange innovation, so the people thought, to harass and annoy them. Though Barani's statement that the 'grave-yards of Musalmans arose all around Devagiri' is a gross exaggeration, there is no doubt that the Musalmans of Dihli abhorred the idea of living permanently in the land of the infidels.

c8.52

²⁴ Indian Antiquary, 1921, p. 157. Shivaji, Rajgarh. Shambhuji, Mahavalesvara. Raja Ram, Jinji. Raja Ram's descendants, Kolapur. Sahu, Satara.

c8.53

²⁵ History of India, p. 400.

c8.54

²⁶ Firishta, Lucknow Text, p. 136.

c8.55

The unwarranted assumption of Ibn Batūṭah that a search was instituted in Dihli under a royal mandate to find out if any of the inhabitants were lurking in their houses, which resulted in the discovery of a blind man and a cripple is based upon mere bazar gossip, invented afterwards to discredit the Sultan. What Ibn Batūṭah heard from his informant is as follows:

c8.56

'Both were brought into the Sultan's presence; the cripple was blown away by means of a *manjniq* and the blind man was ordered to be dragged to Daulatabad forty days' journey from Dihli with the result that only one of his legs reached the new capital.'²⁷ The same authority informs us that one night the Sultan ascended the roof of the palace and when he saw 'neither smoke nor light' in the city, he declared that he was satisfied.²⁸ In view of the Sultan's lavish generosity towards those who went from Dihli to Daulatabad and back from Daulatabad to Dihli, it is difficult to explain this monstrous conduct. But it must be borne in mind that Ibn Batūṭah was no eye-witness of these occurrences, and by the time he reached Dihli six years later, a good deal of falsehood must have entered into the original story. Besides, Ibn Batutah does not refer us to any unimpeachable source for this piece of information, and relies only on hearsay. The contemporary Chronicler comments upon the

c8.57

²⁷ Ibn Batūṭah, III, p. 315.

c8.58

²⁸ Ibn Batūṭah III, p. 315.

c8.59

thoroughness with which the evacuation was carried out in his usual hyperbolical fashion by saying that " not a cat or dog was left in any of the buildings of the city, in its palaces or its suburbs," and his statement is endorsed by all later writers who mostly copied him. European scholars unaccustomed to the oriental style of writing have put a literal construction upon the passage to prove Barani's falsity, but it should be understood that such forms of speech are still common amongst the people of India, and if literally interpreted, they would convey an absurd meaning. It is true, the Sultan's order was carried out vigorously, but, as has been shown before, a wholesale evacuation was never accomplished. When the Sultan saw the failure of his scheme, he brought back the court to Dihli, and not long afterwards when he went to the Deccan to suppress the rebellion of Jalal-al-Din Ahsan Shah, he gave a general permission to the inhabitants of Dihli to go back to their old homes, if they wished to do so. The expenses of the journey were provided by the state and great generosity was shown. Two or three caravans started towards Dihli, and many with whom the climate of Devagiri agreed preferred to stay there. Dihli lost much of its former glory and grandeur, and though the Sultan brought learned men, landholders, and other famous men from far and wide to take up their abode in the old capital, no inducement proved of any avail. The old prosperity did not return; and Dihli did not recover its former greatness for a long time, as is proved by Ibn Batūtaḥ's testimony. The Sultan carried out a sound measure in a most egregious manner. Nothing can obviate the eccentricity which attaches to the execution of the plan, but in apportioning blame it should be remembered that he lived in an age, when rulers hardly felt any scruples in sacrificing the interests of their subjects for the gratification of their desires. The failure of the scheme and the loss of money which it entailed embittered the Sultan's disposition, and, as Barani puts it, caused a great harm to the kingdom.

c8.60

An important episode of Muhammad's reign which Barani slurs over is the invasion of the Mughals under the Chagtai chief Tarmāshirin Khan of Transoxiana. Firishta charges Barani with *surpressio veri* in this case and says that he deliberately avoided mentioning it for fear of giving offence to Sultan Firuz Tughluq.²⁹ It is probable that Barani may have preferred to keep silence over

c8.61

²⁹ Firishta, Lucknow Text, p. 134.

c8.62

The Mughal invasion, 729 A.H.

c8.63

this discreditable occurrence, but it must be remembered that Barani is not a detailed chronicler who attempts to supply information about everything relating to Muhammad's reign. The nearest successor of Barani who mentions this invasion is the author of the *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi*. According to him the invasion took place in 729 A.H. after the transfer of the capital.³⁰ Badāoni copies him.³¹ Firishta who also consulted the *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi* gives a different account of the invasion and it appears that he relied upon some other history of which he does not make mention in the body of his work. He assigns the date 727 A.H. to this invasion, and as Sir Wolseley Haig rightly says, this date might have been attributed to the mistake of the scribes who very often substitute سبع for تسع but for the fact that the sequence of events mentioned by him makes it quite clear that he means 727 A.H. and not 729 A.H.³² According to Firishta, it was after this invasion that Muhammad Tughluq subjugated the distant provinces of India such as Dwarsamudra, Ma‘bar, Kampil, Warangal, Lakhnauti, Satagaon and Sonargaon. He must have relied for the chronology of Muhammad's reign upon some other work or works, for all his dates do not tally with those given by the author of the *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi* and Badaoni. The only corroboration of his date is to be found in the *Haft-i-Risalah-i-Taqwīm-al-Buldān* a history of the Mughals, but this is a later work and, therefore, not of much value.³³ Besides, its chronology is far from satisfactory.³⁴ Hajji-ad-Dabīr, who is an independent authority, basing his information on the oft-quoted *Tarikh Husām Khani* corroborates the *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi*, although he does not favour us with a date. In the sequence of events he places this invasion after the appointment of Nusrat Khan to the fief of Bidar, which occurred much later than 729 A.H. But incidentally he says that the Mughals in Khorasan and ‘Iraq heard of the depopulation of Dihli Tarmāshirin, brother of Qutlugh Khwajah, advanced into Hindustan at the head of a large army, and this seems probable. We have no reason to reject Yahyā’s date which is supported by the trend of circumstances. Besides, Yahyā is an earlier authority than Firishta, who except for matters that came within his personal knowledge is a mere compiler. The earlier years of Muhammad Tughluq's reign were fully occupied with other recorded events. The year 726 A.H. does not appear to have been disturbed, and if Northern India had been threatened by a serious Mughal invasion at this time, Muhammad Tughluq would have hardly thought of launching his Deccan campaigns in 727 A.H. He was evidently at Dihli, when the invasion occurred, but during a great part of 727 and to some extent in 728 A.H. he was absent in the Deccan, completing his conquests and busy in resettling the new capital of his empire. All evidence tends to show that the invasion occurred in the earlier years of Muhammad's reign. The date 729 A.H. is an early enough date, for in that year Muhammad Tughluq had been only four years on the throne.

c8.64

³⁰ T. M. MS.

c8.65

³¹ Badāoni, Cal. Text, I, pp. 227-28.

c8.66

³² J.R.A.S., 1922, pp. 341-42.

c8.67

³³ Buhar, MS. f. 8a. According to the author of this work Tarmashirin's death occurred in 728 A.H. which is incorrect (f. 8a).

c8.68

³⁴ Howorth, History of the Mongols, Pt. III, p. 606.

c8.69

Tarmāshirīn is described by Ibn Batūtah who met him in his own country sometime towards the close of 1332 A.D. or the beginning of 1333 A.D. as a just and powerful prince, whose dominions were surrounded by four great kingdoms—China, India, 'Iraq, and the country of the Uzbegs. He wistfully looked around in search of conquest, and the decline of the Persian monarchy under the degenerate 'Abū Sa'id encouraged him in his ambitious designs. He attempted a conquest of Khorasan and in 1326 A.D. crossed the Oxus, but he was defeated near Ghazni by Amir Hasan, son of Chaupān. To find an outlet for his ambitions probably, he turned towards India, where much confusion had been caused by famine and the transfer of the capital. The change of such an important capital as Dihli was a momentous event in those days, and we may believe Hājji-ad-Dabīr when he says that it was one of the causes of the Mughal invasion.³⁵ Having subjugated Lamghan, Multan and the northern provinces, the Mughals harried the entire plain extending from Multan and Lahore to the outskirts of Dihli. The districts of Samana, Indari³⁶ and Badāon also suffered at their hands. It appears that the outposts of the empire were not as effectively garrisoned; as they had been under Ghiyas-al-Din Tughluq and that is why the Mughals found it easy to plunder the whole country right up to the confines of the capital. The manner in which Muhammad met this invasion is variously described. According to the *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi* the Sultan collected his troops between Dihli and the *Hauz Khas*, and when the Mughals had retreated from the bank of the Jamna and crossed the Indus, he went out with his army in pursuit of them, as far as Kalanor and then returned.³⁷ There is no mention of any engagement between the Mughals and the Dihli troops. Only Tarmāshirin is described as شکسته a vanquished enemy. The fort of Kalanor which was in a dilapidated condition was entrusted to Majīr-al-Din Abū Rajā who carried out its repairs. The Sultan also sent some brave and reputed warriors in pursuit of Tarmāshirin and himself returned to Dihli. Badāoni follows the *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi*, and instead of describing the enemy as شکسته he describes the Dihli forces as عساکر منصور اسلام (the victorious army of Islam). Ranking does not give us an exact translation of the text in-as-much as he says that the Sultan pursued him as far as the frontier of Kalanor and defeated him, leaving the destruction of that fort in the hands of Majīr-al-Din Abū Rajā.³⁸ The text has only the following.³⁹

c8.70

³⁵ Arabic History of Gujarat, III, p. 865.

c8.71

³⁶ A town in Sarhind on the right bank of the Dihli canal and on the route from Karnal to Boorea being 15 mile north of the former, Lat. 29° 52' Long. 77° 8', Thornton, Gazetteer of the Territories of the E. I. Company, II, p. 217.

c8.72

³⁷ The text of the T. M. has :- سلطان میان دهلی و حوض خاص لشکر های فراوان گرد آورده نزول کرده بود چون مهـوس (مندرس) شکسته او از آب سندھہ بحرہ کردہ سلطان با لشکرھای خویش متعاقب او تاحـد کلانور برفت و حصار کلانور که مندرس و خراب بود عهده مجیرالدین ابو رجا گردانید او مرتب کنانید -

c8.73

³⁸ Ranking, Al-Badaoni, I. p. 305.

c8.74

³⁹ Badāoni, Cal. Text, I, p. 228.

c8.75

سلطن تاحـد کلانور تعاقب او نموده شکست و ریخت آن حصار را بعهده مجیرالدین ابو رجا باز گذاشته بر سمت دهلی بازگشت -

c8.76

Hājjī-ad-Dabir quoting Husām Khan, writes that the Mughal chief encamped outside Dihli, and his troops ravaged the territories of Lahore, Sāmāna, and Badāon. Muhammad Shah entrenched himself in his fort and did not come out until the Mughals had departed from Dihli of their own accord owing to the devastation of the country.40 When the enemy had crossed the Indus, he went in pursuit of them as far as Kalanor and then returned. Firishta's account which is based upon some independent but unknown authority seems to be more worthy of credit. He states clearly that the Sultan, finding that he could not cope with the enemy in the open field, negotiated for a peace. Tarmāshirīn, having accepted valuable gifts in the shape of gold and jewels, which Firishta describes as ‘almost the price of the kingdom,’ returned to his own country through Gujarat and Sindh which were devastated by the Mughal soldiery. The *Haft-Risālah-i-Taqwīm-at-Buldān* also says that the Sultan paid a tribute to the Mughal chief whereupon he returned to his country. The disparity between Yahyā and Firishta is remarkable, and Husām Khan only partially corroborates Firishta when he says that the Sultan remained entrenched in his fort, and only came out when the Mughals had departed. Firishta's account is more probable, for Ibn Batūtah who was in Transoxiana either towards the close of 1332 A.D. or in the beginning of 1333 A.D. and who was the recipient of gifts and presents from Tarmāshirīn writes that friendly relations existed between the Sultan of Hind and the Chaghtai chief.41 Such relations would be impossible, if Tarmā-

c8.77

41 Ibn Batūtah, Paris, III, p. 43.

c8.78

The Sultan of Hind and Tarmāshirīn, says Ibn Batūtah; addressed each other as brothers.

c8.79

Ibn Batūtah relates that when Buzan became ruler of Transoxiana in place of Tarmāshirīn, the latter's son Shami ‘Ughli, his sister and his husband, Firuz, came to India. The Sultan of Hind who was a friend of Tarmāshirīn, received them kindly and extended his hospitality to them. After sometime a man came from the direction of Sindh who gave himself out as Tarmāshirīn. His identification proved that he was Tarmāshirīn. Khwajah Jahan, Ahmad Ayaz and Qutlugh Khan, the trustworthy amirs of the Sultan, told him that the presence of Tarmāshirīn was a great danger to the state especially when there were forty thousand men of his tribe settled in India. Under their advice the Sultan expelled him from his dominions.

c8.80

This story savours of a myth and cannot be accepted as a piece of sober history.

c8.81

Ibn Batūtah arrived on the bank of the Indus on September 12, 1333 A.D. During his journey towards India he stayed for fifty-four days in Transoxiana and came in personal contact with Tarmāshirīn. It appears from the cities which he passed through that his journey must have taken about six months or a little more than that. Ibn Batūtah must have been in Transoxiana either at the end of 1332 or in the beginning of 1333 A.D.

c8.82

shirīn had been defeated by the Dihli forces. He was, perhaps, placated by the Sultan, as Firishta writes, with costly gifts and presents. Again, if as Yahyā and Badāoni suggest, Tarmāshirīn had been defeated by the Dihli troops, Barani would have mentioned the fact with pleasure, for in that case he would have had no fear of giving offence to Firuz. But this argument holds good, only if we draw the inference from Barani's silence as Firishta does that he deliberately omitted to tell of this incident, an incident which does not reflect much credit upon Muhammad Tughluq. Besides, Dihli was depopulated at this time, and the Sultan had not forces enough at his command to fight the Mughals. The Doab was in the throes of a severe famine, and most of the great officials and nobles of the empire were at Devagiri. Plunder was the ruling passion of the Mughal barbarian, and the Sultan drove him off by attacking him in this most vulnerable quarter. In any case the invasion of the Chaghtai Prince was a passing storm, which soon disappeared.

c8.83

The coins issued just after the installation of Ghiyas-al-Din Tughluq testify to the revolution that had taken place in Dihli politics and the precipitate haste made by the supporters of the plebeian king, whose name is mixed up with the pompous titles of Qutb-al-Din Mubārak Shah.⁴² Ghiyas had to put an end to the disorders of the realm, and had neither the time nor the inclination to deal with currency questions. Fakhr-al-Din Jūnā was a man endowed with originality and a lover of novelty. His ambitious programme included also a reform of the coinage. From his mints in the different parts of the empire, various kinds of coins were issued, which were unequalled in the artistic perfection of their design, execution, and finish. One of the earliest acts of his reign was to refashion the entire system of coinage in order to found coins which might facilitate exchange and form convenient circulating media. Himself a skilled calligraphist, he caused legends to be inscribed on his coins in fine clear letters, which illustrate his love of beauty and form.

c8.84

⁴² Ghiyas's coin No. 157 in Thomas' collection has on the reverse the following superscription which indicates the recipiancy with which he was elevated to the throne: "The second Alexander, right hand of the Khilafat, supporter of the commander of the faithful." These were titles assumed by Mubārak. Thomas, Chronicles, pp. 189-90. Hodiwala, Numismatic Supplement, XXXV, p. 157. J.A.S.B.

c8.85

He issued a new gold piece, called the Dinār by Ibn Batūṭah, which weighed 200 grains, and revived the adali which weighed 140 grains of silver, and which seems to have fallen into disuse. This was the result of the abundance of gold in the country in comparison with silver.⁴³ To provide facilities for exchange even in small transactions, the Sultan devised the dokani piece, which was equal to two kanis, and which was designated Sultani after the name of its founder, and the Shah Kani which was three-fourths of a hashtkani.⁴⁴

c8.86

⁴³ This abundance was caused by the influx of gold into Northern India consequent upon the successful expeditions of Kafur and the Sultan himself. The introduction of the gold piece shows that there was more gold than silver in the country.

c8.87

⁴⁴ Masālik, Paris, MS. Quatrèmeré, Notices etc. Extraits, XIII, p. 211. Shaikh Mubarak bears testimony to the usefulness of the dokani, four of which were equal to a hashtkani.

c8.88

But the most remarkable experiment of Muhammad Tughluq, which has been little understood and much condemned, was the introduction of a token currency in 730 A.H. Barani gives no date, but places it in point of time after the transfer of the capital to Devagiri which took place in 726-27 A.H. and no token coins are available bearing the dates 726, 727, 728 and 729. During these years the Sultan had scarcely time to embark upon such a novel experiment, for he was busy with the transfer of the capital and the rebellion of Kishlū Khan in Multan. The author of the Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi gives no date, and follows Barani in placing the experiment after the transfer of the capital. The dates 727, and 734 A.H. given by Firishta and Ḥājjī-ad-Dabīr respectively are incorrect. The first token coin in Nelson Wright's Catalogue of Coins in the Indian Museum of Calcutta (II, p. 59) is dated 730 A.H. under the head 'forced currency,' and no other coin, bearing an earlier date, has yet been brought to light by any numismatist. The token currency was certainly not in vogue, when Ibn Batūṭah came to India in 1333 A.D., and his silence is indicative of the fact that its circulation extended over a very brief period. By the time Ibn Batūṭah reached Dihli, it appears, the people had ceased to talk about this innovation, and its mischievous effects had been completely repaired. From Thomas' collections it is clear that the experiment was tried after the transfer of the capital, for there are coins issued from Daulatabad bearing the date 730 A.H.⁴⁵ Numismatic evidence further establishes the fact that the token currency lasted only for a brief period, i.e., during the years 730—33 A.H.⁴⁶ By the year 734 A.H. the currency was restored to its old level, as is proved by a coin of unalloyed silver issued from the Dihli mint, which contains 168 grains of silver, the average metallic weight of the genuine *tankah*.⁴⁷

c8.89

⁴⁵ Coin No. 195 in Thomas' collection. Chronicles, p. 249.

c8.90

⁴⁶ Thomas, pp. 249—53. Rogers, Catalogue of Coins in the Indian Museum, Calcutta, p. 62. Numismatic Supplement, J.A.S.B., XXXV, p. 149. Yule, Travels of Marco Polo, I, p. 384.

c8.91

⁴⁷ Thomas, The Initial Coinage of Bengal, J.A.S.B., 1867, p. 13.

c8.92

The token currency was not an original device, for towards the close of the 13th century Qublā Khan, the Mongol emperor of China, had encouraged and developed in his dominions the use of paper currency. He introduced a paper currency in the first year of his reign, i.e., 1260 A.D., and continued to issue it fearlessly to the end. This paper money was called the Chāo and its use was enforced throughout the vast empire on pain of death.⁴⁸ All

c8.93

⁴⁸ D'Ohosson, Histoire des Mongols, II, pp. 486-87. The Mongols used the paper money but they did not invent it. Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. I, p. 136. Marco Polo, Notes and Addenda, edited by Cordier, pp. 70-71. Yule, Travels of Marco Polo, I, pp. 272-73. Marco Polo (I, p. 378) describes in detail how the paper money was made. He writes :—

c8.94

"He makes them take the bark of a certain tree, in fact of the mulberry tree, the leaves of which are the food of silk-worms,—these trees being so numerous that whole districts are full of them. What they take is a certain fine white bark or skin which lies between the wood of the tree and the thick outer bark, and this they make into something resembling sheets of paper, but black. When these sheets have been prepared, they are cut up into pieces of different sizes. The smallest of these sizes is worth a half tornesel; the next, a little larger still is worth half a silver groat of Venice; another a whole groat; others yet two groats, five groats and ten groats. There is also a kind worth one Bezant of gold, and others of three Bezants, and so up to ten. Yule, Marco Polo, I, p. 378.

First 93 of 165 passages. Read on

Linked texts (5)