The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v1.c11.173

Language: English

v1.c11.173.1

As to the extent of the period over which they ruled our authorities differ. The *Ta’rīkh-i-Ṭāhirī* gives them only 143 years, from 700 to 843 A. H. but Abu’l-Faẓl, Firishta, and Shāh Qāsim Khān (author of *Beg-lār-nāma*) give them a period of 500 or 505 years. ‘Alī Shīr Qāni‘, though he estimates the ‘term of their authority’ at 550 years, yet places the accession of Sumra, the founder of the dynasty, in about 720 A.H. (1320 A.D.), shortly after the accession of Ghiyāth ud-Dīn Tughluq Shāh. According to this source the last prince of the dynasty was Armīl, who was slain by the Sammas in A.H. 752 (1351 A.D.) But he admits that the history of the family is very discordantly narrated, and repeats the statements of Muḥammad Yūsuf, which place the date of the first Sumra prince in 445 A.H. (1053 A.D.). Elliot has shown that the dynasty certainly came to an end in *c.* A.H. 764 because in about that year Sulṭān Fīrūz Tughluq invaded Sind and was opposed by a prince whose title was Jām,² a title borne by Sammas only.

v1.c11.173.2

Ten years previous to this the chief of Thatta who opposed Muḥammad Tughluq is described by Baranī as belonging to the Sūmra tribe (سومرگان).¹ The statement of this contemporary historian is supported by Firishta, who also describes the opponent of this Tughluq emperor as a Sūmra (سومره) prince.² But the question is complicated by the mention of the Jām as the opponent of Muḥammad Tughluq in another passage of Baranī.³ The *Ta’rīkh-i-Ma‘ṣūmī* represents this ruler as belonging to the Samma tribe.⁴ As all the authorities are agreed that the opponent of Sulṭān Fīrūz was a Jām, the confusion might have been caused by the existence of remnants of the Sūmras, who though ousted probably still lingered for some years near about Thatta. This appears to be supported by the statement of the *Tuḥfat ul-Kirām*, which represents the opponents of Fīrūz as ‘Sūmra, Jareja, and Samma’ tribes though it mentions the Jām as the ruler of Sind.⁵ Anyhow it is certain that the dynasty disappeared during the period *c.* 752 A.H. (1351-52 A.D.) to *c.* 764 A.H. (1361-62 A.D.).⁶ If we count back 500 years from this period, it takes us to the middle of the 9th century A.D. Though the round figure is rather suspicious, yet in view of the number of authorities who assign this period to the Sūmras, we may conclude that there is some element of fact in the tradition.

v1.c11.173.3

It is possible that the beginning of the rise of the dynasty is to be traced to the period of confusion in Sind which followed the rise of the Ṣaffārids in the middle of the 9th century (257 A.H.=870-71 A.D.). There is some likelihood that the prince who was ousted by Maḥmūd of Ghazni may possibly have been a Sūmra prince. In the sacred books of the Druses we find an epistle addressed in the year 433 A.H. (1032 A.D.) to the 'Unitarians of Multan and Hindūstān in general, and to Shaikh ibn Sūmar Rājā Bal in particular.'¹ The Sūmras probably continued to acknowledge the suzerainty of Maḥmūd and his son Ma'sūd, but became virtually free from all control in the reign of 'Abd ur-Rashīd (*c.* 1052 A.D.). After a period of virtual independence they had probably again to bow before Mu'izz ud-Dīn Muḥammad Sām when he conquered Multan and Uchch in 570 A.H. (A.D. 1175) and undertook his disastrous march against Anhilwāra in A.H. 574 (A.D. 1178). The *Ṭabaqāt-i-Nāṣirī* informs us that Mu'izz ud-Dīn Ghūrī conquered Daibul and the coast regions in its neighbourhood in A.H. 578 (A.D. 1182).² Nāṣir ud-Dīn Qabācha, who was appointed governor of Upper Sind in 1205 A.D., possibly also held some sort of a loose hegemony over them. After his defeat and death in A.D.

v1.c11.173.4

1228, Malik Sinān ud-Dīn Chatisar, the then Sūmra prince, submitted to Junaydī, the general of Iltutmish, and became a vassal of the Delhi Sulṭān.³ Chatisar is probably to be identified with Chanar or Chanīsar of the Sindian chronicle. According to Ḥasan Nizāmī 'coinage was struck, and the prayers read in the name of Shams ud-Dīn as far as Quṣdār and Makrān.' After this, their power appears to have declined, till they were supplanted by the Sammas. From the name of the contemporary of Iltutmish it is clear that the reigning family of the Sūmras had already accepted Islam. Elliot has shown some grounds for believing that they were probably tainted with Qārmaṭian heresy as early as the 11th century A.D.⁴ The period when the princes accepted Islam is uncertain, but Tod had noticed that with a few exceptions, the whole tribe had entered into 'the rank of the faithful.' ¹ As to the position occupied by the Sūmras, we should remember that though their authority spread over the whole of the territory now known as Sind, yet there is evidence to show that there were other tribal principalities in this region. With the decline of their power these tribes soon transferred their allegiance to the Muhammadan governors of Multan. The *Chach-nāma* gives us the following list of 'seven Rānās of Sind tributary to Multan in the days of Nāṣir-ud-Dīn Qabācha'²: (1) Rānā Buhnar Sa'ta Rāthor, of Dabra, in the district of Durbela;

v1.c11.173.5

(2) Rānā Sanīr, son of Dhamāj, of the tribe of Kureja *Samma*, residing in Tūng, lying in the district of Rūpāh; (3) Jaisar, son of Jajjī Māchhī Solankī, of Māniktara; (4) Wakīa, son of Pannūn Channūn, who was established in the valley of Sīwī; (5) Channūn, son of Dīta, of the tribe of Channa, resident of Bhāg-nai; (6) Jīya, son of Warīāh, of Jham, or Hemakot; (7) Jasodhan Ākra, of Mīnnagar district of Bambārwa.