The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v1.c11.209

Language: English

v1.c11.209.1

It will be observed from a comparison of the two lists that though there are important differences, yet there is a substantial measure of agreement in them. Both the lists agree that Jām Unar was the founder of the line. According to Mīr Ma'ṣūm he killed the last Sūmra prince Armīl,² and conquered Siwistān after defeating and killing Malik Ratan, who is described as "the representative of the Turk." But he retired to Thari on being threatened by Malik Fīrūz and 'Alī Shāh, who were near Bhakkar with the royal Turkish army, and died there after a reign of 3½ years. In the present state of our knowledge it is difficult to identify this Turkish king but it is not unlikely that he was some earlier representative of the Slave kings of Delhi. The next prince, Jūnā, is also found in both the lists. He is said to have laid waste the villages and towns up to Bhakkar which he conquered. For some time he reigned supreme in Sind; but we are told that at length Sulṭān 'Alā ud-Dīn sent his brother Ulugh Khān to Multan to check him. The Jām however died before the beginning of operations against him, after a reign of 13 years. If this Sulṭān 'Alā ud-Dīn is the Khaljī prince of that name who ascended the throne in 696 A.H.

v1.c11.209.2

(1296 A.D.), then we must conclude that the Sammas, who appear in the list of Rānās of Sind as early as the time of Nāṣir ud-Dīn Qabācha (died in 1228 A.D.), must have established an independent power long before their overthrow of the Sūmras in the middle of the 14th century. In that case both the tribes must have ruled simultaneously for some time before one ousted the other, a phenomenon by no means unique in Indian history.¹ But unfortunately we cannot dogmatise, because we are not sure of the accuracy of the chronological arrangement of our source. Our doubts find support from the fact that Shams-i-Sirāj, the contemporary historian of the period, describes a brother of Rāi Unar as the contemporary of Fīrūz Tughluq. If this brother is identified with Jām Jūnā of Abu'l Faẓl, then the whole chronological scheme of *Ta'rīkh-i-Ma'ṣūmī* crumbles to the ground. But unfortunately Shams-i-Sirāj does not mention the name of this Jām, and it may not be impossible that the prince to whom he refers was another brother of Rāi Unar. According to Mīr Ma'ṣūm the next prince, Tamāchī (Tamājī) was carried with his family to Delhi as captive by 'Alā ud-Dīn, and had children there. These children, he tells us, were brought by the tribe to Tharī, and kept prisoners, while it took the business of government into its own hands. After the lapse of some time, and the death of Jām Tamāchī his son Malik Khair ud-Dīn returned to Sind from Delhi and assumed the government.

v1.c11.209.3

During his rule Sulṭān Maḥmūd (Tughluq) invaded Sind, but could not do anything effective, as he "died in the neighbourhood of Bhakkar"¹ (A. H. 752). Sulṭān Fīrūz Shāh, who succeeded him, was harassed by this Jām for some stages when the former started for Delhi.² The period thus described appears to have been one of considerable confusion, and it is curious that these two princes (Nos. 3 and 4 of *Ta'rīkh-i-Ṭāhirī*) are omitted by Ab'ul Faẓl. It should be also noted that Mīr Ṭāhir does not mention the reign periods of these two rulers. It was probably during this period that Shihāb-ud-Dīn, king of Kashmir (1359-1378), invaded Sind and defeated its Jām on the banks of the Indus.³ The next prince, called Bābiniya by Mīr Ma'ṣūm, is perhaps to be identified with Banhatiyah, the third prince on Abu'l Faẓl's list. According to Mīr Ma'ṣūm this prince was ruling in Sind when Sulṭān Fīrūz Shāh invaded that country. This statement is supported by Shams-i-Sirāj, the contemporary historian of the period. He tells us that 'at this time the Jām, brother of Rāī Unar and Bābiniya, his brother's son, were masters of Thatta.' This Jām who probably came to the throne after the period of turmoil referred to above appears from *Ta'rīkh-i-Fīrūz Shāhī* to have been completely overshadowed by Bābiniya; that is probably the reason why he has been omitted by Abu'l Faẓl and Mīr Ma'ṣūm.

v1.c11.209.4

It is to be observed, however, that Shams-i-Sirāj differs from *Ta'rīkh-i-Ma'sūmī* in making Bābiniya "the brother's son" of this Jām.