A History of Agriculture in India v2.c50.17

v2.c50.17

The Muhammedan historians of the Sultanate were mostly courtiers and *qadis*. They were contemporaries who had seen and taken part in the events they narrated. That is why their record of events is vivid and authentic. Their histories are, however, records of battles, conspiracies, revolts, murders and fratricides. Elliot remarks, ‘Of domestic history, we have in our Indian Annalists absolutely nothing, and the same may be remarked of nearly all Muhammedan historians, except Ibn Khaldun. By them society is never contemplated, either in its conventional usages or recognized privileges; its constituent elements or mutual relations; in its established classes or popular institutions, in its private recesses or habitual intercourses. In notices of commerce, agriculture, internal police, and local judicature, they are equally deficient. A fact, an anecdote, a speech, a remark, which would illustrate the condition of the common people, or of any rank subordinate to the highest, is considered too insignificant to be suffered to intrude upon a relation which concerns only grandees and ministers, thrones and imperial powers.’¹