The Sultanate of Delhi, 711–1526 A.D. c28.16

c28.16

Both these theories are based on mere guess or argumentation and are, therefore, untenable. In the first place, ‘Pramar’ or ‘Parmar’ in Arabic script cannot be read as ‘Parwar’, as one is written with م and the other with و. It is inconceivable that all the scribes and editors of nearly a dozen Persian works from Barani to Farishta should have committed such a gross error in spelling, and that it would have gone undetected by the modern Persian knowing historians. Secondly, had Khusrav Shah really been a Pramar, he would have been like the Sisodias, the Rathors and the Kachhwahas, designated by the general term ‘Rajput’ with which the medieval Muslim writers were so intimately familiar. At any rate, he would not have been dubbed a low-caste Hindu. It is too much to suppose that all the medieval Indian historians from Amir Khusrav to Farishta were ignorant of “the intricate and obscure nomenclature of Hindu tribes and castes,” as the late Professor Hodivala¹⁷ has attempted to argue; and, as we shall presently see, there is no doubt that at least Amir Khusrav, Barani, Nizam-ud-din Ahmad and Badauni were acquainted with the caste to which Khusrav Shah originally belonged. And finally the names of Khusrav Shah’s relatives who were Hindus, such as, Jaharia and Randhol (not Ramdhol as Professor Sri Ram Sharma wrongly supposes) are suggestive of a low origin and certainly not of Pramar or any other high caste among the Hindus.¹⁸