The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v1.c11.173.2

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.