Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

This is a broad, catch-all category of works that fit best here and not elsewhere. If you haven't found it someplace else, you might want to look here.

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:08 am

Devanampriya
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 10/19/21

The Inscription fronting West.

1. Dewananpiya Pandu so raja hewan aha. "Sattawisati wasa
2. abhisitena me, iyan dhanmalipi likhapita. Rajjaka me
3. bahusu panasatasahasesu janesuayanti. Tesan yo abhipare
4. dandawe atapati, ye me kathi kin? Te rajjaka aswata abhita
5. kinmani, pawatayewun janasa janapadasa hitasukan rupadahewun;
6. anugahenewacha, sukhiyana dukhiyana janisanti; dhanmaya te nacha-
7. wiyewa disanti janan janapadan. Kin tehi attancha paratancha
8. aradhayewun? Te rajjaka parusata patacharitawe man purisanipime
9. * [The letter chh is read as r throughout; and the letter u as ru.— Ed.] rodhanani paticharisanti; tepi chakkena wiyowadisanti ye na me rajjaka
10. charanta arundhayitawe, athahi pajanwiya taye dhatiya nisijita;
11. aswatheratiwiya ta dhati, charanta me pajan sukhan parihathawe.
12. Hewan mama rajjaka kate, janapadasa pitasukhaye; yena ete abhita
13. aswatha satan awamana, kamani pawateyewuti. Etena me rajjakanan
14. abhikarawadandawe atapatiye katke, iritawyehi esakiti
15. wiyoharasamuticha siya. Dandasamatacha, awaitepicha, me awute,
16. bandhana budhanan manusanan tiritadandinan patawadhanan,tinidiwasani, me
17. Yutte dinne, nitikarikani niripayihantu, Jiwitaye tanan
18. nasantanwa niripayantu: danan dahantu: pahitakan rupawapanwa karontu.
19. Irichime hewan nira dhasipi karipiparatan aradhayewapi: janasacha
20. wadhati: wiwidhadanmacharane; sayame danasan wibhagoti." [By comparing this version with that published in July, it will be seen to what extent the license of altering letters has been exercised. The author has however since relinquished the change of the Raja's name, in consequence of his happy discovery of Piyadasi's identity.— Ed. (James Prinsep)]

-- Further notes on the inscriptions on the columns at Delhi, Allahabad, Betiah, &c., by the Hon'ble George Turnour, Esq. of the Ceylon Civil Service, 1837


Image
Various "Devanampiya Piyadasi" inscriptions on the Pillars of Ashoka.

Image
"Devānaṃpiyasa Asoka", honorific Devanampiya (Brahmi script: [x], "Beloved of the God", in the adjectival form -sa) and name of Ashoka, in Brahmi script, in the Maski Edict of Ashoka.

Image
"Devānampiyena" ([x]:"Of Devanampiya") in the Lumbini Minor Pillar Edict of Ashoka. Brahmi script.

Devanampriya, also Devanampiya (Brahmi script: [x], Devānaṃpiya), was a Pali honorific epithet used by a few Indian monarchs, but most particularly the Indian Emperor Ashoka (r.269-233 BCE) in his inscriptions (the Edicts of Ashoka).[1] "Devanampriya" means "Beloved of the Gods". It is often used by Ashoka in conjunction with the title Priyadasi, which means "He who regards others with kindness", "Humane"[1]

The Kalsi version of the Major Rock Edict No.8 also uses the title "Devampriyas" to describe previous kings (whereas the other versions use the term "Kings"), suggesting that the title "Denampriya" had a rather wide usage and might just have meant "King".[2][3]

Prinsep in his study and decipherment of the Edicts of Ashoka had originally identified Devanampriya Priyadasi with the King of Ceylon Devanampiya Tissa of Anuradhapura.

But in my preceding notice, I trust that this point has been set at rest, and that it has been satisfactorily proved that the several pillars of Delhi, Allahabad, Mattiah and Radhia were erected under the orders of king Devanampiya Piyadasi of Ceylon, about three hundred years before the Christian era.

-- VI.—Interpretation of the most ancient of the inscriptions on the pillar called the lat of Feroz Shah, near Delhi, and of the Allahabad, Radhia [Lauriya-Araraj (Radiah)] and Mattiah [Lauriya-Nandangarh (Mathia)] pillar, or lat, inscriptions which agree therewit, by James Prinsep, Sec. As. Soc. &c.


Tissa, later Devanampiya Tissa was one of the earliest kings of Sri Lanka based at the ancient capital of Anuradhapura from 247 BC to 207 BC. His reign was notable for the arrival of Buddhism in Sri Lanka under the aegis of the Mauryan Emperor Ashoka. The primary source for his reign is the Mahavamsa, which in turn is based on the more ancient Dipavamsa.

Tissa was the second son of Mutasiva of Anuradhapura. The Mahavamsa describes him as being "foremost among all his brothers in virtue and intelligence".

The Mahavamsa mentions an early friendship with Ashoka. Chapter IX of the chronicle mentions that "the two monarchs, Devanampiyatissa and Dhammasoka, already had been friends a long time, though they had never seen each other", Dhammasoka being an alternate name for Ashoka. The chronicle also mentions Tissa sending gifts to the mighty emperor of the Maurya; in reply Ashoka sent not only gifts but also the news that he had converted to Buddhism, and a plea to Tissa to adopt the faith as well. The king does not appear to have done this at the time, instead adopting the name Devānaṃpiya "Beloved of the Gods" and having himself consecrated King of Lanka in a lavish celebration.

Emperor Ashoka took a keen interest in the propagation of Buddhism across the known world, and it was decided that his son, Mahinda, would travel to Sri Lanka and attempt to convert the people there.
The events surrounding Mahinda's arrival and meeting with the king form one of the most important legends of Sri Lankan history.

According to the Mahavamsa king Devanampiyatissa was out enjoying a hunt with some 40,000 of his soldiers near a mountain called Mihintale. The date for this is traditionally associated with the full moon day of the month of Poson.

Having come to the foot of Missaka, Devanampiyatissa chased a stag into the thicket, and came across Mahinda (referred to with the honorific title Thera); the Mahavamsa has the great king 'terrified' and convinced that the Thera was in fact a 'yakka', or demon. However, Thera Mahinda declared that 'Recluses we are, O great King, disciples of the King of Dhamma (Buddha) Out of compassion for you alone have we come here from Jambudipa'. Devanampiyatissa recalled the news from his friend Ashoka and realised that these are missionaries sent from India. Thera Mahinda went on to preach to the king's company and preside over the king's conversion to Buddhism.

-- Devanampiya Tissa of Anuradhapura, by Wikipedia


However, in 1837, George Turnour discovered Sri Lankan manuscripts (Dipavamsa, or "Island Chronicle") associating Piyadasi with Ashoka:

I proceed now to give my authority for pronouncing Piyadasi to be Dhanmasoko.

From a very early period, extending back certainly to 800 years, frequent religious missions have been mutually sent to each other's courts, by the monarchs of Ceylon and Siam, on which occasions an exchange of the Pali literature extant in either country appears to have taken place. In the several Solean and Pandian conquests of this island, the literary annals of Ceylon were extensively and intentionally destroyed. The savage Rajasingha in particular, who reigned between A.D. 1581 and 1592, and became a convert from the Buddhistical to the Brahmanical faith, industriously sought out every Buddhistical work he could find, and "delighted in burning them in heaps as high as a cocoanut tree." These losses were in great measure repaired by the embassy to Siam of Wilbagadere Mudiyanse, in the reign of Kirtisri Rajasingha in A.D. 1753, when he brought back Burmese versions of most of the Pali sacred books, a list of which is now lodged in the Dalada temple in Kandy.

The last mission of this character, undertaken however without any royal or official authority, was conducted by the chief priest of the Challia or cinnamon caste of the maritime provinces, then called Kapagama thero. He returned in 1812 with a valuable library, comprising also some historical and philological works. Some time after his return, under the instructions of the late Archdeacon of Ceylon, the Honorable Doctor Twisleton, and of the late Rev. G. Bisset, then senior colonial chaplain, Kapagama became a Convert to Christianity, and at his baptism assumed the name of George Nadoris de Silva, and he is now a modliar or chief of the cinnamon department at Colombo. He resigned his library to his senior pupil, who is the present chief priest of the Challias, and these books are chiefly kept at the wihare at Dadala near Galle. This conversion appears to have produced no estrangement or diminution of regard between the parties. It is from George Nadoris, modliar, that I received the Burmese version of the Tika of the Mahawanso, which enabled me to rectify extensive imperfections in the copy previously obtained from the ancient temple at Mulgirigalla, near Tangalle.

Some time ago the modliar suggested to me that I was wrong in supposing the Mahawanso and the Dipawanso to be the same work, as he thought he had brought the Dipawanso himself from Burmah. I was sceptical. In my last visit, however, to Colombo, he produced the book, with an air of triumph. His triumph could not exceed my delight when I found the work commenced with these lines quoted by the author of the Mahawanso* [Vide in the quarto edition the introduction to the Mahawanso, page xxxi.] as taken from the Mahawanso (another name for Dipawanso) compiled by the priests of the Utaru wihare at Anuradhapura, the ancient capital of Ceylon. "I will perspicuously set forth the visits of Buddho to Ceylon; the histories of the convocations and of the schisms of the theros; the introduction of the religion (of Buddho) into the island; and the settlement and pedigree of the sovereign Wijayo."...

In one of the narratives of this book, containing the history of Dhanmasoko, of Asandhimitta his first consort after his accession to the Indian empire, of his nephew Nigrodho, by whom he was converted to Buddhism, and of his contemporary and ally Dewananpiyatisso, the sovereign of Ceylon, — Dhanmasoko is more than once called Piyadaso, viz.:
"Madhudayako pana wanijo Dewalokato chawitwa, Pupphapure rajakule uppajitwa Piyadaso kumaro hutwa chhattan ussapetwa sakala-jambadipa eka-rajjan akasi*." [Vide page 24 of the Mahawanso for an explanation of this passage.]

"The honey-dealer who was the donor thereof (to the Pache Buddho) descending by his demise from the Dewaloko heavens; being born in the royal dynasty at Pupphapura (or Patilipura, Patna); becoming the prince Piyadaso and raising the chhatta, [Parasol of dominion.] established his undivided sovereignty over the whole of Jambudipo'' — and again —

"Anagate Piyadaso, nama kumaro chhattan ussapetwa Asoka nama Dhanma Raja bhawissati."

"Hereafter the prince Piyadaso having raised the chhatta, will assume the title of Asoka the Dhanma Raja, or righteous monarch."


It would be unreasonable to multiply quotations which I could readily do, for pronouncing that Piyadaso, Piyadasino [Piyadassino is the genitive case of Piyadasi, [x]: — Ed.] or Piyadasi, according as metrical exigencies required the appellation to be written, was the name of Dhanmasoko before he usurped the Indian empire; and it is of this monarch that the amplest details are found in Pali annals. The 5th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th chapters of the Mahawanso contain exclusively the history of this celebrated ruler, and there are occasional notices of him in the Tika of that work, which also I have touched upon in my introduction to that publication. He occupies also a conspicuous place in my article No. 2, on Buddhistical annals. His history may be thus summed up.

-- Further notes on the inscriptions on the columns at Delhi, Allahabad, Betiah, &c., by the Hon'ble George Turnour, Esq. of the Ceylon Civil Service, The Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. VI, Part II, Jul-Dec, 1837

"Two hundred and eighteen years after the beatitude of the Buddha, was the inauguration of Piyadassi, .... who, the grandson of Chandragupta, and the son of Bindusara, and was at the time Governor of Ujjayani."

— Dipavamsa.[4]


Since then, the association of "Devanampriya Priyadarsin" with Ashoka was reinforced through various inscriptions, and especially confirmed in the Minor Rock Edict inscription discovered in Maski, associating Ashoka with Devanampriya:[1][5]

[A proclamation] of Devanampriya Asoka.
Two and a half years [and somewhat more] (have passed) since I am a Buddha-Sakya.
[A year and] somewhat more (has passed) [since] I have visited the Samgha and have shown zeal.
Those gods who formerly had been unmingled (with men) in Jambudvipa, have how become mingled (with them).
This object can be reached even by a lowly (person) who is devoted to morality.
One must not think thus, — (viz.) that only an exalted (person) may reach this.
Both the lowly and the exalted must be told : "If you act thus, this matter (will be) prosperous and of long duration, and will thus progress to one and a half.

— Maski inscription of Ashoka.[6]


Image
Image
[Librarian's Comment: Contrast increased to show how the word "Ashoka" was added to the end of the first line in a rough-uneven area that the original writer was careful to avoid with respect to the entirety of the remaining inscription, that has all been rendered on the flattest-available portions of the rock face. If stones could speak, this one would cry "foul!"]
Image
Image

Maski is a town and an archaeological site in the Raichur district of the state of Karnataka, India. It lies on the bank of the Maski river which is a tributary of the Tungabhadra. Maski derives its name from Mahasangha or Masangi. The site came into prominence with the discovery of a minor rock edict of Emperor Ashoka by C. Beadon in 1915. It was the first edict of Emperor Ashoka that contained the name Ashoka in it instead of the earlier edicts that referred him as Devanampiye piyadasi. This edict was important to conclude that many edicts found earlier in the Indian sub-continent in the name of Devanampiye piyadasi, all belonged to Emperor Ashoka....

The Maski version of Minor Rock Edict No.1 was historically especially important in that it confirmed the association of the title "Devanampriya" ("Beloved-of-the-Gods") with Ashoka:


[A proclamation] of Devanampriya Asoka.
Two and a half years [and somewhat more] (have passed) since I am a Buddha-Sakya.
[A year and] somewhat more (has passed) [since] I have visited the Samgha and have shown zeal.
Those gods who formerly had been unmingled (with men) in Jambudvipa, have how become mingled (with them).
This object can be reached even by a lowly (person) who is devoted to morality.
One must not think thus, — (viz.) that only an exalted (person) may reach this.
Both the lowly and the exalted must be told: "If you act thus, this matter (will be) prosperous and of long duration, and will thus progress to one and a half.

— Maski Minor Rock Edict of Ashoka.

-- Maski, by Wikipedia


Historical Usage

Devānaṃpiya may refer to:

• Devanampiya Tissa of Anuradhapura (died 267 BCE), ruler of Sri Lanka based at the ancient capital of Anuradhapura from 307 to 267 BC
• Ashoka (ca. 304–232 BCE), Indian emperor of the Maurya Dynasty
• Dasharatha Maurya (ca. 232 to 224 BCE), grandson of Ashoka, in his Barabar caves inscriptions, in the form "Devanampiya Dasaratha".
• Vana-varampan, early Tamil for "the One who is Loved by the Gods" - title of a Tamil Chera chieftain of early historic south India.

References

1. The Cambridge Shorter History of India. CUP Archive. p. 42.
2. Beckwith, Christopher I. (2015). Greek Buddha: Pyrrho's Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia. Princeton University Press. pp. 235–236. ISBN 9781400866328.
3. Inscriptions of Asoka. New Edition by E. Hultzsch (in Sanskrit). 1925. p. 37 Note 3.
4. Allen, Charles (2012). Ashoka: The Search for India's Lost Emperor. Little, Brown Book Group. p. 79. ISBN 9781408703885.
5. Gupta, Subhadra Sen (2009). Ashoka. Penguin UK. p. 13. ISBN 9788184758078.
6. Inscriptions of Asoka. New Edition by E. Hultzsch (in Sanskrit). 1925. pp. 174–175.

**************************

Until about a hundred years ago in India, Ashoka was merely one of the many kings mentioned in the Mauryan dynastic list included in the Puranas. Elsewhere in the Buddhist tradition he was referred to as a chakravartin/ cakkavatti, a universal monarch, but this tradition had become extinct in India after the decline of Buddhism. However, in 1837, James Prinsep deciphered an inscription written in the earliest Indian script since the Harappan, brahmi. There were many inscriptions in which the King referred to himself as Devanampiya Piyadassi (the beloved of the gods, Piyadassi). The name did not tally with any mentioned in the dynastic lists, although it was mentioned in the Buddhist chronicles of Sri Lanka. Slowly the clues were put together but the final confirmation came in 1915, with the discovery of yet another version of the edicts in which the King calls himself Devanampiya Ashoka.

-- The Penguin History of Early India: From the Origins to A.D. 1300, by Romila Thapar

**************************

In a study of the Mauryan period a sudden flood of source material becomes available. Whereas with earlier periods of Indian history there is a frantic search to glean evidence from sources often far removed and scattered, with the Mauryan period there is a comparative abundance of information, from sources either contemporary or written at a later date.

This is particularly the case with the reign of Aśoka Maurya, since, apart from the unintentional evidence of sources such as religious literature, coins, etc., the edicts of the king himself, inscribed on rocks and pillars throughout the country, are available. These consist of fourteen major rock edicts located at Kālsi, Mānsehrā, Shahbāzgarhi, Girnār, Sopārā, Yeṟṟaguḍi, Dhauli, and Jaugaḍa; and a number of minor rock edicts and inscriptions at Bairāṭ, Rūpanāth, Sahasrām, Brahmagiri, Gāvimath, Jaṭiṅga-Rāmeshwar, Maski, Pālkīguṇḍu, Rajūla-Maṇḍagiri, Siddāpura, Yeṟṟaguḍi, Gujarra and Jhansi. Seven pillar edicts exist at Allahabad, Delhi-Toprā, Delhi-Meerut, Lauriyā-Ararāja, Lauriyā-Nandangarh, and Rāmpūrvā. Other inscriptions have been found at the Barābar Caves (three inscriptions), Rummindei, Nigali-Sāgar, Allahabad, Sanchi, Sārnāth, and Bairāṭ. Recently a minor inscription in Greek and Aramaic was found at Kandahar.

The importance of these inscriptions could not be appreciated until it was ascertained to whom the title ‘Piyadassi’ referred, since the edicts generally do not mention the name of any king; an exception to this being the Maski edict, which was not discovered until very much later in 1915. The earliest publication on this subject was by Prinsep, who was responsible for deciphering the edicts. At first Prinsep identified Devanampiya Piyadassi with a king of Ceylon, owing to the references to Buddhism. There were of course certain weaknesses in this identification, as for instance the question of how a king of Ceylon could order the digging of wells and the construction of roads in India, which the author of the edicts claims to have done. Later in the same year, 1837, the Dīpavaṃsa and the Mahāvaṃsa, two of the early chronicles of the history of Ceylon, composed by Buddhist monks, were studied in Ceylon, and Prinsep was informed of the title of Piyadassi given to Aśoka in those works. This provided the link for the new and correct identification of Aśoka as the author of the edicts.

-- Asoka and the Decline of the Mauryas, by Romila Thapar

**************************

Legends about past lives

Buddhist legends mention stories about Ashoka's past lives. According to a Mahavamsa story, Ashoka, Nigrodha and Devnampiya Tissa were brothers in a previous life. In that life, a pratyekabuddha was looking for honey to cure another, sick pratyekabuddha. A woman directed him to a honey shop owned by the three brothers. Ashoka generously donated honey to the pratyekabuddha, and wished to become the sovereign ruler of Jambudvipa for this act of merit. The woman wished to become his queen, and was reborn as Ashoka's wife Asandhamitta....

According to an Ashokavadana story, Ashoka was born as Jaya in a prominent family of Rajagriha. When he was a little boy, he gave the Gautama Buddha dirt imagining it to be food. The Buddha approved of the donation, and Jaya declared that he would become a king by this act of merit. The text also state that Jaya's companion Vijaya was reborn as Ashoka's prime-minister Radhagupta. In the later life, the Buddhist monk Upagupta tells Ashoka that his rough skin was caused by the impure gift of dirt in the previous life. Some later texts repeat this story, without mentioning the negative implications of gifting dirt; these texts include Kumaralata's Kalpana-manditika, Aryashura's Jataka-mala, and the Maha-karma-vibhaga. The Chinese writer Pao Ch'eng's Shih chia ju lai ying hua lu asserts that an insignificant act like gifting dirt could not have been meritorious enough to cause Ashoka's future greatness. Instead, the text claims that in another past life, Ashoka commissioned a large number of Buddha statues as a king, and this act of merit caused him to become a great emperor in the next life....

Rediscovery

Ashoka had almost been forgotten, but in the 19th century James Prinsep contributed in the revelation of historical sources. After deciphering the Brahmi script, Prinsep had originally identified the "Priyadasi" of the inscriptions he found with the King of Ceylon Devanampiya Tissa. However, in 1837, George Turnour discovered an important Sri Lankan manuscript (Dipavamsa, or "Island Chronicle") associating Piyadasi with Ashoka:

"Two hundred and eighteen years after the beatitude of the Buddha, was the inauguration of Piyadassi, .... who, the grandson of Chandragupta, and the son of Bindusara, was at the time Governor of Ujjayani." — Dipavamsa


-- Ashoka, by Wikipedia

**************************

[I would like at this point to pay belated acknowledgement to my respected friend and colleague, Karl Khandalawala, which whom I have sometimes expressed differences of interpretation, in this case in opposing his view (which on hindsight appears to be entirely correct) that the Sarnath pillar reveals the influences of foreign (Achaemenid) influence.... A further issue reflecting his correctness is embodied in the self-styled title Asoka used as the opening words of many of his inscriptions (Devanampiya Piyadassi), often translated as 'Beloved of the Gods." A century ago, this term was rightly recognised by the brilliant French Indologist Emile Senart, as borrowed from earlier Achaemenid inscriptions in Persia, yet since then ignored by all authorities writing on Asoka in English.]

-- The True Chronology of Aśokan Pillars, by John Irwin

**************************

[The Mahavamsa] is very important in dating the consecration of the Maurya Emperor Ashoka…

The Mahavamsa first came to the attention of Western readers around 1809 CE, when Sir Alexander Johnston, Chief Justice of the British colony in Ceylon, sent manuscripts of it and other Sri Lankan chronicles to Europe for publication. Eugène Burnouf produced a Romanized transliteration and translation into Latin in 1826... Working from Johnston's manuscripts, Edward Upham published an English translation in 1833, but it was marked by a number of errors in translation and interpretation, among them suggesting that the Buddha was born in Sri Lanka and built a monastery atop Adam's Peak. The first printed edition and widely read English translation was published in 1837 by George Turnour, an historian and officer of the Ceylon Civil Service…

Early Western scholars like Otto Franke dismissed the possibility that the Mahavamsa contained reliable historical content…

The Chinese pilgrims Fa Hsien and Hsuan Tsang both recorded myths of the origins of the Sinhala people in their travels that varied significantly from the versions recorded in the Mahavamsa…

[T]he genealogy of the Buddha recorded in the Mahavamsa describes him as being the product of four cross cousin marriages. Cross-cousin marriage is associated historically with the Dravidian people of southern India -- both Sri Lankan Tamils and Sinhala practiced cross-cousin marriage historically -- but exogamous marriage was the norm in the regions of northern India associated with the life of the Buddha. No mention of cross-cousin marriage is found in earlier Buddhist sources…

The Mahavamsa is believed to have originated from an earlier chronicle known as the Dipavamsa... The Dipavamsa is much simpler and contains less information than the Mahavamsa.

-- Mahavamsa, by Wikipedia

**************************

In the meantime, Sinha-bahu and Sinhasivali, as king and queen of the kingdom of Lala (Lata), "gave birth to twin sons, sixteen times." The eldest was Vijaya and the second was Sumitta. As Vijaya was of cruel and unseemly conduct, the enraged people requested the king to kill his son. But the king caused him and his seven hundred followers to leave the kingdom, and they landed in Sri Lanka, at a place called Tamba-panni, on the exact day when the Buddha passed into Maha Parinibbana.

The Dipavamsa was translated into English by Hermann Oldenberg in 1879.

-- Dipavamsa, by Wikipedia

**************************

Governor of Ujjain

According to the Mahavamsa, Bindusara appointed Ashoka as the viceroy of present-day Ujjain (Ujjeni), which was an important administrative and commercial centre in the Avanti province of central India. This tradition is corroborated by the Saru Maru inscription discovered in central India; this inscription states that he visited the place as a prince.

Image
The Saru Maru commemorative inscription seems to mention the presence of Ashoka [Piyadassi!] in the area of Ujjain as he was still a Prince.

In the main cave were found two inscriptions of Ashoka: a version of the Minor Rock Edict n°1, one of the Edicts of Ashoka, and another inscription mentioning the visit of Piyadasi: ...

"The king, who (now after consecration) is called "Piyadasi", (once) came to this place for a pleasure tour while still a (ruling) prince, living together with his unwedded consort."

-- Saru Maru, by Wikipedia


-- Ashoka, by Wikipedia

**************************
R. Thapar writes that the classical writers did not refer to Asoka [xxxvi]. This is clearly absurd; they must have used a different name, not Asoka or Piyadassi. A careful study shows that Devanampiya, the most common name of Asoka in the Edicts is in fact the same as Devadatta[xxxvii] or Diodotus. The interpretation of Devanampiya as `beloved of the Gods' is superficial. Asoka states that his ancestors were Devanampiyas, which shows that it is a patronymic, not a title -- even Chandragupta was a Devanampiya or Diodotus (of Erythrae). 'Nam' in Persian and 'Nomos' in Greek means 'law' another Persian word for which is 'Dat'. Thus Devanam is the same as Devadat. Piya or Priya may have had the sense of a redeemer as in the case of the name of Priam of Troy. Many Parthian Kings assumed the titles Priapatius and Assak. As can be seen from the Shahnama, the Avesta and Xerexes' inscriptions, `Deva' initially meant a clan, not god. Ignorance of this has led to senseless translations of Asoka's Edicts as `Gods mingled with men'. Only oblique scholarship has obscured that the name Devadatta occurring in the second line of Asoka's famous Taxila pillar inscription refers to Asoka himself. The line "l dmy dty `l " [xxxviii] which Marshall and Andreas translated as `for Romedatta', refers to Devadatta.

-- An Altar of Alexander Now Standing at Delhi [REDUCED VERSION], by Ranajit Pal

**************************

Asoka, the Sungas and the Andhras

After a reign of some twenty-five years, Bindusara was succeeded about 274 B.C. by his son, Asokavardhana, usually known as Asoka, whose importance in the eyes of Buddhists has given him a place in Indian history to which, from a political point of view, his grandfather is much more entitled. He is called Asokavardhana in the Puranas, and in Buddhist literature Asoka; in the only one of his inscriptions in which he refers to himself by name he is Asoka. In all his other inscriptions he is called Devanampriya, usually with the epithet Priyadarsin. The term Devanampriya, "dear to the gods" may be translated as "His Majesty"; from one of the rock edicts we learn that it was also used by his predecessors, and we find it in an inscription of his grandson, Dasaratha; in the Mudrarakshasa it is applied to his grandfather, Chandragupta. One other reference to Asoka is found, that in the Girnar inscription of the satrap Rudradaman, which calls him Asoka Maurya. It hardly required the recently discovered Maski inscription to confirm the identity of the Asoka of Buddhist tradition with the Priyadarsin or Piyadasi of the inscription. It is to these inscriptions, engraved on rock in various parts of his vast empire, that we owe the fact chat we have a picture of Asoka such as we possess of no other character in early Indian history. But although they throw some valuable light on the history of his reign, these inscriptions were not intended as historical documents.

For the events attending Asoka's accession our only source of information is Buddhist tradition.

-- The Cambridge Shorter History of India, p. 42.

**************************

The more he read, the more questions bedevilled Prinsep. Who was this King Piyadasi? At times he referred to himself as 'raja magadhe', so he must have ruled the kingdom of Magadha. None of the ancient Sanskrit lists of kings carried such a name. Then he got a lucky break. A scholar named George Turnour, working in Sri Lanka, was translating an ancient text called Mahavamsa and he discovered that there was a Lankan king named Piyadasi. But it was hard to believe that this king, ruling a tiny island south of the Indian subcontinent, could get inscriptions placed as far north as Bihar! The final link was again found in a Lankan text that explained that Piyadasi was a popular royal title and that the Lankan king shared it with another king who ruled at the same time in India. The two kings were allies and the text gave the real name of this Indian king. [NO CITATION!] A few decades later another inscription was discovered at Maski in Karnataka that confirmed it.

Raja Devanam Piyadasi's name was Ashoka.

-- Chapter 1. Discovering Ashoka, Excerpt from "Ashoka: The Great and Compassionate King", by Subhadra Sen Gupta

**************************

According to some scholars such as Christopher I. Beckwith, Ashoka, whose name only appears in the Minor Rock Edicts, should be differentiated from the ruler Piyadasi, or Devanampiya Piyadasi (i.e. "Beloved of the Gods Piyadasi", "Beloved of the Gods" being a fairly widespread title for "King"), who is named as the author of the Major Pillar Edicts and the Major Rock Edicts. Beckwith also highlights the fact that Buddhism nor the Buddha are mentioned in the Major Edicts, but only in the Minor Edicts. Further, the Buddhist notions described in the Minor Edicts (such as the Buddhist canonical writings in Minor Edict No.3 at Bairat, the mention of a Buddha of the past Kanakamuni Buddha in the Nigali Sagar Minor Pillar Edict) are more characteristic of the "Normative Buddhism" of the Saka-Kushan period around the 2nd century CE.

This inscriptional evidence may suggest that Piyadasi and Ashoka were two different rulers. According to Beckwith, Piyadasi was living in the 3rd century BCE, probably the son of Chandragupta Maurya known to the Greeks as Amitrochates, and only advocating for piety ("Dharma") in his Major Pillar Edicts and Major Rock Edicts, without ever mentioning Buddhism, the Buddha or the Samgha. Since he does mention a pilgrimage to Sambhodi (Bodh Gaya, in Major Rock Edict No.8) however, he may have adhered to an "early, pietistic, popular" form of Buddhism. Also, the geographical spread of his inscription shows that Piyadasi ruled a vast Empire, contiguous with the Seleucid Empire in the West.

On the contrary, for Beckwith, Ashoka himself was a later king of the 1st-2nd century CE, whose name only appears explicitly in the Minor Rock Edicts and allusively in the Minor Pillar Edicts, and who does mention the Buddha and the Samgha, explicitly promoting Buddhism. He may have been an unknown or possibly invented ruler named Devanampriya Asoka, with the intent of propagating a later, more institutional version of the Buddhist faith. His inscriptions cover a very different and much smaller geographical area, clustering in Central India. According to Beckwith, the inscriptions of this later Ashoka were typical of the later forms of "normative Buddhism", which are well attested from inscriptions and Gandhari manuscripts dated to the turn of the millennium, and around the time of the Kushan Empire. The quality of the inscriptions of this Ashoka is significantly lower than the quality of the inscriptions of the earlier Piyadasi.

-- Edicts of Ashoka, by Wikipedia
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36183
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:31 am

Firuz Shah Tughlaq
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 10/23/21

I now proceed to lay before the Society the results of my application of the alphabet, developed by the simple records of Bhilsa, to the celebrated inscription on Feroz's column, of which facsimiles have been in the Society's possession since its very foundation, without any successful attempt having been made to decipher them. This is the less to be wondered at when we find that 500 years before, on the re-erection of the pillar, perhaps for the second or third time, by the emperor Feroz [r. 1351–1388)], the unknown characters were just as much a mystery to the learned as they have proved at a later period — "Round it" says the author of the Haftaklim, "have been engraved literal characters which the most intelligent of all religions have been unable to explain. Report says, this pillar is a monument of renown to the rajas or Hindu princes, and that Feroz Shah set it up within his hunting place: but on this head there are various traditions which it would be tedious to relate."

Neither Muhammed Ami'n the author of the Haftaklim [Muhammad Amin Razi, [x], vide Amin Ahmad, author of the Haft Aklim -- The Oriental Biographical Dictionary], nor Ferishteh, in his account of Feroz's works alludes to the comparatively modern inscription on the same pillar recording the victories of Visala Deva king of Sacambhari (or Sambhar) in the 12th century, of which Sir William Jones first, and Mr. Colebrooke afterwards, published translations in the first and seventh volumes of the Researches. This was in quite a modern type of Nagari; differing about as much from the character employed on the Allahabad pillar to record the victories of Chanara and Samudra-gupta, as that type is now perceived to vary from the more ancient form originally engraven on both of these pillars; so that (placing Chandra-gupta, in the third or fourth century, midway between Visala, in the Samvat year 1220, and the oldest inscription) we might have roughly deduced an antiquity of fourteen or fifteen centuries anterior to Visala's reign for the original lat alphabet, from the gradual change of form in the alphabetical symbols, had we no better foundation for fixing the period of these monuments.

But in my preceding notice, I trust that this point has been set at rest, and that it has been satisfactorily proved that the several pillars of Delhi, Allahabad, Mattiah and Radhia were erected under the orders of king Devanampiya Piyadasi of Ceylon, about three hundred years before the Christian era.

VI.—Interpretation of the most ancient of the inscriptions on the pillar called the lat of Feroz Shah, near Delhi, and of the Allahabad, Radhia [Lauriya-Araraj (Radiah)] and Mattiah [Lauriya-Nandangarh (Mathia)] pillar, or lat, inscriptions which agree therewith., by James Prinsep, Sec. As. Soc. &c.


Image
Firoz Shah Tughlaq
Firoz shah Tuglaq ibne Malik Rajjab
Sultan of Delhi
Reign: 23 March 1351 – 20 September 1388
Predecessor: Muhammad bin Tughluq
Successor: Tughluq Khan
Born: 1309
Died: 20 September 1388 (aged 79), Jaunpur
Burial: 20 September 1388, Tomb of Firoz Shah at Jaunpur, Jaunpur
Issue: Fateh Khan, Zafar Khan, Nasir ud din Muhammad Shah III
Names: Firuz Shah Tughlaq
House: Tughlaq
Dynasty: Tughlaq dynasty
Father: Malik Rajab
Mother: Bibi Naila
Religion: Islam

Sultan Firoz Shah Tughlaq (1309 – 20 September 1388) was a Muslim ruler of the Tughlaq dynasty, who reigned over the Sultanate of Delhi[1] from 1351 to 1388.[2][3] He succeeded his cousin Muhammad bin Tughlaq following the latter's death at Thatta in Sindh, where Muhammad bin Tughlaq had gone in pursuit of Taghi the ruler of Gujarat. For the first time in the history of Delhi Sultanate, a situation was confronted wherein nobody was ready to accept the reins of power. With much difficulty, the camp followers convinced Firoz to accept the responsibility. In fact, Khwaja Jahan, the Wazir of Muhammad bin Tughlaq had placed a small boy on throne claiming him to the son of Muhammad bin Tughlaq,[4] who meekly surrendered afterwards. Due to widespread unrest, his realm was much smaller than Muhammad's. Tughlaq was forced by rebellions to concede virtual independence to Bengal and other provinces. He established Sharia across his realm.[1]

Background

His father's name was Rajab (the younger brother of Ghazi Malik) who had the title Sipahsalar. His mother Naila was a Bhati Rajput princess (daughter of Rana Mal) from Dipalpur.[5]

Rule

We know of Firoz Shah Tughlaq in part through his 32-page autobiography, titled Futuhat-e-firozshahi.[6][7]

Image
Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi bi tashih-i Abdu'r-Rashid
Rashid, Abdur; editor: [Firoz Shah Tughlaq, Sultan of Delhi]
Published by Muslim University, Aligarh, 1954


[This little work, the production of the Sultan Firoz Shah, contains a brief summary of the res gestae [achievements] of his reign, or, as he designates them, his "Victories." Sir H. Elliot was unable to obtain a copy of it, but considered its recovery very desirable, "as everything relating to the noble character of Firoz is calculated to excite attention." Colonel Lees also speaks of it, but he had never seen it, and was not well informed as to its extent.1 [Journal Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. IV., New Series, p. 446. See also Briggs' Ferishta, I., 462.] Mr. Thomas was more fortunate, for he possesses a copy which purports to have been written in 1139 H. (1726 A.D.), but it is quite modern; the date therefore must be that of the MS. from which it was copied. The work is a mere brochure of thirty-two pages, and the editor has translated the whole of it, with the exception of a few lines in the preface laudatory of the prophet. It exhibits the humane and generous spirit of Firoz in a very pleasing unostentatious light, recording his earnest endeavours to discharge the duties of his station with clemency, and to act up to the teaching of his religion with reverence and earnestness.]

-- XVII. Futuhat-i Firoz Shahi of Sultan Firoz Shah, Excerpt from The History of India As Told By Its Own Historians: The Muhammadan Period, edited from the posthumous papers of the Late Sir H.M. Elliot, K.C.B., East India Company's Bengal Civil Service, by Professor John Dowson, M.R.A.S., Staff college, Sandhurst, Vol. III, P. 374-, 1871


He was 42 when he became Sultan of Delhi in 1351. He ruled until 1388. At his succession, after the death of Muhammad Tughlaq, he faced many rebellions, including in Bengal, Gujarat and Warangal. Nonetheless he worked to improve the infrastructure of the empire building canals, rest-houses and hospitals, creating and refurbishing reservoirs and digging wells. He founded several cities around Delhi, including Jaunpur, Firozpur, Hissar, Firozabad, Fatehabad.[8] Most of Firozabad was destroyed as subsequent rulers dismantled its buildings and reused the spolia as building materials,[9] and the rest was subsumed as New Delhi grew.

Religious and administrative policies

Tughlaq was a fervent Muslim and adopted sharia policies. He made a number of important concessions to theologians. He imposed Jizya tax on all non-Muslims. He tried to ban practices that the orthodox theologians considered un-Islamic, an example being his prohibition of the practice of Muslim women going out to worship at the graves of saints. He persecuted a number of sects which were considered heretical by the Muslim theologians.[citation needed] Tughlaq took to heart the mistakes made during his cousin Muhammad's rule. He decided not to reconquer areas that had broken away, nor to keep further areas from taking their independence. He was indiscriminately benevolent and lenient as a sultan.[10] He decided to keep nobles and the Ulema happy so that they would allow him to rule his kingdom peacefully.

"The southern states had drifted away from the Sultanate and there were rebellions in Gujarat and Sindh", while "Bengal asserted its independence." He led expeditions to against Bengal in 1353 and 1358. He captured Cuttack, desecrated the Jagannath Temple, Puri, and forced Raja Gajpati of Jajnagar in Orissa to pay tribute. He converted Chauhan Rajputs from Hinduism to Islam in the 14th century. They are now known as Qaimkhanis in Rajasthan.

He laid siege to Kangra Fort and forced Nagarkot to pay tribute, and did the same with Thatta.[8] During his time Tatar Khan of Greater Khorasan attacked Punjab multiple times and during final battle in Gurdaspur his face was slashed by the sword given by Feroz Shah Tughlaq to Raja Kailash Pal of Mau-Paithan from Nagarkot region. Feroz Shah Tughlaq married off his daughter with Raja Kailash Pal, embraced him to Islam and sent the couple to rule Greater Khorasan, where eleven sons known by the caste of 'badpagey' were born to the queen.[11]

Rather than awarding position based on merit, Tughlaq allowed a noble's son to succeed to his father's position and jagir after his death.[12] The same was done in the army, where an old soldier could send his son, son-in-law or even his slave in his place. He increased the salary of the nobles. He stopped all kinds of harsh punishments such as cutting off hands. He also lowered the land taxes that Muhammad had raised. Tughlaq's reign has been described as the greatest age of corruption in medieval India: he once gave a golden tanka to a distraught soldier so that he could bribe the clerk to pass his sub-standard horse.[13]

Infrastructure and education

Tughlaq instituted economic policies to increase the material welfare of his people. Many rest houses (sarai), gardens and tombs(Tughluq tombs) were built. A number of madrasas (Islamic religious schools) were opened to encourage the religious education of Muslims. He set up hospitals for the free treatment of the poor and encouraged physicians in the development of Unani medicine.[14] He provided money for the marriage of girls belonging to poor families under the department of Diwan-i-khairat. He commissioned many public buildings in Delhi. He built Firoz Shah Palace Complex at Hisar in 1354 CE, over 300 villages and dug five major canals, including the renovation of Prithviraj Chauhan era Western Yamuna Canal, for irrigation bringing more land under cultivation for growing grain and fruit. For day-to-day administration, Sultan Firoz Shah Tughlaq heavily depended on Malik Maqbul, previously commander of Warangal fort, who was captured and converted to Islam.[15] When Tughlaq was away on a campaign to Sind and Gujarat for six months and no news was available about his whereabouts Maqbul ably protected Delhi.[16] He was the most highly favoured among the significant number of the nobles in Tughlaq's court and retained the trust of the sultan.[17] Sultan Feroze Shah Tughlaq used to call Maqbul as 'brother'. The sultan remarked that Khan-i-Jahan (Malik Maqbul) was the real ruler of Delhi.[18]

Hindu religious works were translated from Sanskrit to Persian and Arabic.[19] He had a large personal library of manuscripts in Persian, Arabic and other languages. He brought 2 Ashokan Pillars from Meerut, and Topra near Radaur in Yamunanagar district of Haryana, carefully cut and wrapped in silk, to Delhi in bullock cart trains. He re-erected one of them on the roof of his palace at Firoz Shah Kotla.[19]

Image
Remains of buildings at Firoz Shah Kotla, Delhi, 1795.

Image
Remains of an Ancient Building near Firoz Shah's Cotilla
Artist and engraver: Daniell, Thomas (1749-1840)
Date: 1795
Plate 7 from the first set of Thomas Daniell's 'Oriental Scenery.' In the 14th Century Delhi was the capital of the Tughluqs, powerful rulers whose kingdom encompassed almost all of the subcontinent. The citadel (Daniell's Cotilla or kotla) of Firuz Shah, on the river Jumna, was built by Firuz Shah Tughluq, who ruled between 1351 and 1388. The buildings in this aquatint no longer exist and the citadel is now in the south-east of modern Delhi. The course of the Jumna has now shifted eastwards. This view was reproduced on a Staffordshire earthenware dish around 1810-20.

-- British Library Online Gallery, bl.uk




I have the pleasure of presenting to the Society a Book of Drawings and Inscriptions prepared under the inspection of their late member, Captain James Hoare, and intended by him (I have reason to believe) for the life of the Society.

Two of the drawings represent elevations, taken on the spot, of the stone building near Dehlee, called the Shikargah, or hunting place, of Feeroz Shah; with the pillar in the center, and above the summit of it, commonly known by the designation of Feeroz Shah’s Lat; and described, with an outline of the building and pillar, in the 21st paper of the 1st Vol. of the Society’s Transactions.

Image
The Staff of Firuz Shah, 1788
[10'4" circumference at base / 37' tall / red]


-- Translation of one of the Inscriptions on the Pillar At Dehlee, called the Lat of Feeroz Shah, Excerpt from Asiatic Researches, Volume 7, by Henry Colebrooke, Esq., With Introductory Remarks by Mr. Harington, P. 175-182, 1803


Transfer of capital was the highlight of his reign. When the Qutb Minar struck by lightning in 1368 AD, knocking off its top storey, he replaced them with the existing two floors, faced with red sandstone and white marble. One of his hunting lodges, Shikargah, also known as Kushak Mahal, is situated within the Teen Murti Bhavan complex, Delhi. The nearby Kushak Road is named after it, as is the Tughlaq Road further on.[20][21]

Legacy

His eldest son, Fath Khan, died in 1376. He then abdicated in August 1387 and made his other son, Prince Muhammad, king. A slave rebellion forced him to confer the royal title to his grandson, Tughluq Khan.[8]

Tughlaq's death led to a war of succession coupled with nobles rebelling to set up independent states. His lenient attitude had strengthened the nobles, thus weakening the his position. His successor Ghiyas-ud-Din Tughlaq II could not control the slaves or the nobles. The army had become weak and the empire had shrunk in size. Ten years after his death, Timur's invasion devastated Delhi. His tomb is located in Hauz Khas (New Delhi), close to the tank built by Alauddin Khalji. Attached to the tomb is a madrasa built by Firoz Shah in 1352–53.

Coin gallery

Image
Gold coin of Firuz Shah

Image
Jital of 40 Rati

Image
Billon Tanka of Hazrat Dehli Dated AH 771

Image
Coin of 32 Rati

Image
Jital of 40 Rati

Image
Jital of 40 Rati

Image
Jital of Firoz Shah

References

1. Peter Jackson. The Delhi Sultanate: A Political and Military History. Cambridge University Press. p. 288.
2. Tughlaq Shahi Kings of Delhi: Chart The Imperial Gazetteer of India, 1909, v. 2, p. 369..
3. Sarkar, Jadunath (1994) [1984]. A History of Jaipur (Reprinted, revised ed.). Orient Blackswan. p. 37. ISBN 978-8-12500-333-5.
4. Banerjee, Anil Chandra (1983). A New History Of Medieval India. Delhi: S Chand & Company. pp. 61–62.
5. Sarkar, Jadunath (1994) [1984]. A History of Jaipur (Reprinted, revised ed.). Orient Blackswan. p. 37. ISBN 978-8-12500-333-5.
6. Tughlaq, Firoz Shah (1949). Futūḥāt-i Fīrūz Shāhī (Reprinted by Aligarh Muslim University ed.). OCLC 45078860.
7. See Nizami, Khaliq Ahmad (1974). "The Futuhat-i-Firuz Shahi as a medieval inscription". Proceedings of the Seminar on Medieval Inscriptions (6–8th Feb. 1970). Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh: Centre of Advanced Study, Department of History, Aligarh Muslim University. pp. 28–33. OCLC 3870911. and Nizami, Khaliq Ahmad (1983). On History and Historians of Medieval India. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. pp. 205–210. OCLC 10349790.
8. Sen, Sailendra (2013). A Textbook of Medieval Indian History. Primus Books. pp. 97–100. ISBN 978-9-38060-734-4.
9. "West Gate of Firoz Shah Kotla". British Library.
10. Chaurasia, Radhey Shyam (2002). History of Medieval India: From 1000 A.D. to 1707 A.D. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers. pp. 67–76. ISBN 978-81-269-0123-4.
11. Pathania, Raghunath Singh (1904). Twarikye Rajghrane Pathania. English version, 2004 Language & Culture Department Himachal Pradesh Govt.
12. Jackson, Peter (1999). The Delhi Sultanate: A Political and Military History. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. p. 304. ISBN 978-0-521-40477-8.
13. Chaurasia, Radhey Shyam (2002). History of Medieval India: From 1000 A.D. to 1707 A.D. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers. p. 75. ISBN 978-81-269-0123-4.
14. Tibb Firoz Shahi (1990) by Hakim Syed Zillur Rahman, Department of History of Medicine and Science, Jamia Hamdard, New Delhi, 79pp
15. Ahmend, Manazir (1978). Sultan Firoz Shah Tughlaq, 1351–1388 A.D. Allahabad: Chugh Publications. pp. 46, 95. OCLC 5220076.
16. Kulke, Hermann; Rothermund, Dietmar (1998). A History of India. Routledge. p. 167. ISBN 0-415-15482-0.
17. Jackson, Peter (1999). The Delhi Sultanate: A Political and Military History. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. p. 186. ISBN 978-0-521-40477-8.
18. Chandra, Satish (2007). Medieval India; From Sultanat to the Mughals. Har Anand Publications. p. 122. ISBN 978-81-241-1064-5.
19. Thapar, Romilla (1967). Medieval India. NCERT. p. 38. ISBN 81-7450-359-5.
20. "Indian cavalry's victorious trysts with India's history". Asian Age. 6 December 2011. Archived from the original on 19 January 2012.
21. "King's resort in the wild". Hindustan Times. 4 August 2012. Archived from the original on 17 June 2013.

External links

• The Dargah Qadam Sharif or Shrine of the Holy Foot, Delhi

***********************

Feroz Shah Kotla
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 10/23/21

Image
Firoz Shah Kotla
Delhi, India
Feroz Shah Kotla Panorama, with Ashokan Pillar (left) and Jami Masjid (right)
Type: Fort
Site information
Condition: Ruins
Site history
Built: 14th century
Built by: Delhi Sultanate
Materials: Granite Stones and lime mortar

The Feroz Shah Kotla or Kotla was a fortress built by Sultan Feroz Shah Tughlaq to house his version of Delhi city called Firozabad.[1]

A pristine polished sandstone Topra Ashokan pillar from the 3rd century BC rises from the palace's crumbling remains, one of many pillars of Ashoka left by the Mauryan emperor; it was moved from Topra Kalan in Pong Ghati of Yamunanagar district in Haryana to Delhi under orders of Firoz Shah Tughlaq of Delhi Sultanate, and re-erected in its present location in 1356. The original inscription on the obelisk is primarily in Brahmi script but language was Prakrit, with some Pali and Sanskrit added later. The inscription was successfully translated in 1837 by James Prinsep.[2] This and other ancient lats (pillars, obelisk) have earned Firoz Shah Tughlaq and Delhi Sultanate fame for its architectural patronage.[3]

Other than the Ashokan Pillar, the Fort complex also houses the Jami Masjid (Mosque), a Baoli and a large garden complex.

History

Feroz Shah Tughlaq (r. 1351–1388), the Sultan of Delhi, established the fortified city of Firozabad[4] in 1354, as the new capital of the Delhi Sultanate, and included in it the site of the present Feroz Shah Kotla. Kotla literally means fortress or citadel. The pillar, also called obelisk or Lat is an Ashoka Column, attributed to Mauryan ruler Ashoka. The 13.1 meters high column, made of polished sandstone and dating from the 3rd century BC, was brought from Ambala in the 14th century under orders of Feroz Shah. It was installed on a three-tiered arcaded pavilion near the congregational mosque, inside the Sultanate's fort. In centuries that followed, much of the structure and buildings near it were destroyed as subsequent rulers dismantled them and reused the spolia as building materials.[5][6]

In the pre-independence era, due to lack of auditoriums in the capital, most classical music performances were staged here or at Qutub complex. Later Ebrahim Alkazi, then head of NSD, staged his landmark production of Dharamvir Bharati's Andha Yug here and its premiere in 1964 was attended by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru.[7]

Image
Jami Masjid

Jami Masjid is one of the most ancient and largest surviving mosque and monument, still in use. Architecturally it was built on a series of underground cells made of quartzite stone, covered with limestone. It is surrounded by a large courtyard with cloisters and a Prayer Hall. The Prayer Hall now in complete ruins was once used by the Royal Ladies. The masjid and its architecture is an example of Tughluq architecture.

The entrance of Jami Masjid lies on the northern side. It is connected by a causeway to the pyramidal structure of the Ashokan Pillar. This mosque was visited by Sultan Timur in 1398 AD to say his prayers. He was spellbound by its beauty and constructed a mosque in Samarkand in Mawarannahr imitating the design of this Masjid. This mosque is also known to be the place where Imad ul Mulk, a Mughal Prime Minister, got the Emperor Alamgir II murdered in 1759 AD.[8]

Topra Ashokan Pillar

See also: Topra_Kalan § Topra_Ashokan_Pillar, and Ashokan_Edicts_in_Delhi § Delhi-Topra_pillar

Image
Ashokan Pillar at Firoz Shah Kotla as it stands today.

Image
Ashoka Pillar at Feroze Shah Kotla, Delhi, 1861.
Image

Image

Image
Plate IV: Picturesque Elevation of the Shikar-Gah, & the Celebrated Pillar at Dehli in June, 1797
-- Translation of one of the Inscriptions on the Pillar At Dehlee, called the Lat of Feeroz Shah, Excerpt from Asiatic Researches, Volume 7, by Henry Colebrooke, Esq.

Image
Water-colour painting of the Pillar of Firoz Shah at Delhi by an anonymous artist, 1808-1820. Inscribed on the front in pencil is: 'The Lat of Firoz Shah at Delhi.' British Library Online Gallery

Image
A View of Firozabad by William Hodges 1787

The Ashokan Pillar which is now within Feroz Shah Kotla is towards the north of Jama Masjid [Mosque]. The Pillar was first erected by King Ashoka between 273 and 236 BC in Topra Kalan, Yamunanagar district, Haryana.

Of note, there is another Ashokan Pillar, that is seen installed near the Hindu Rao Hospital, also erected by King Ashoka in Meerut. This pillar, however, was unfortunately broken into five pieces after it was damaged during an explosion. The pillar was neglected for a century up till 1838 when after the Revolt of 1857 Raja Hindu Rao took charge to transfer the Ashokan Pillar's broken pieces to Kolkata's Asiatic Society. Within a year, the structure was put together and re-established.


Both the Ashokan Pillars were carefully wrapped with cotton silk and were kept on a bed of reed made of raw silk. These were hence transported on a massive carriage attached with 42 wheels and drawn meticulously by 200 men from their original places to Delhi by Feroz Shah Tughlaq to avoid any damage during the journey. Upon reaching Delhi, they were then transported on huge boats to their final destination, one within Feroz Shah Kotla and the other on the ridge near Delhi University and Bara Hindu Rao Hospital.[8]

Script on stone

Image
The inscription on Ashoka pillar at Firoz Shah Kotla.

The Sultanate wanted to break and reuse the Ashokan pillar for a minaret. Firoz Shah Tuhglaq, however, decided to erect it near the mosque instead. At the time of re-installation of the obelisk in Delhi, in 1356, no one knew the meaning of the script engraved in the stone.[9]

About five hundred years later, the script (Brahmi) was deciphered by James Prinsep in 1837 with help from scripts discovered on other pillars and tablets in South Asia.[2]

Translation

The inscription on the 3rd-century pillar describes King Devanampiya Piyadasi's[10] policies and appeal to the people and future generations of the kingdom in matters of dharma (just, virtuous life), moral precepts and freedoms. Some extracts of the translation, per James Prinsep, are as follows:[2]

Along the highroads I have caused fig trees to be planted that they may be for shade to animals and men...

— Inscription on Ashoka Pillar[2]


...And let these and others the most skillful in the sacred offices discreetly and respectfully use their most persuasive efforts, acting on the heart and eyes of the children, to impart enthusiasm and instruction in the dharma (religion).

— Inscription on Ashoka Pillar[2]


And whatsoever benevolent acts have been done by me, the same shall be prescribed as duties to the people who follow after me, and in this manner shall their influence and increase be manifest – by service to father and mother, by service to spiritual pastors, by respectful demeanor to the aged and full of years, by kindness to learn, to the orphan and destitute and servants and minstrel tribe.

— Inscription on Ashoka Pillar[2]


Image
A close up of the inscription on the lat (obelisk).

And religion increaseth among men by two separate processes – by the performance of religious offices, and by security against persecution. (...) And that religion may be free from the persecution of men, that it may increase through the absolute prohibition to put to death (any) living beings or sacrifice aught that draweth breath. For such an object is all this done, that it may endure to my sons and sons' sons – as long the sun and the moon shall last.

— Inscription on Ashoka Pillar[2]


Let stone pillars be prepared and let this edict of dharma (religion) be engraved thereon, that it may endure unto the remotest ages.

— Inscription on Ashoka Pillar, Translated by James Prinsep in 1837[2]


Baoli (The Well)

Image
The Baoli

The circular Baoli, which means 'stepwell', lies towards the northwestern side of the Ashokan Pillar. It lies in the heart of a large garden constructed in the form of subterranean apartments and a large underground canal built on its eastern side through which the water runs into the well. This is the only circular Baoli in Delhi, and also one of the 4 Baolis, where the tank is not separated from the well. It once has a roof on it, which collapsed long ago, exposing the tank at the second level.[11] Originally it had an entry from East and West, but now, only the west side is accessible. Due to security reasons, the Baoli is kept locked, but permission to visit can be obtained easily for research purposes from the Delhi circle office of Archaeological Survey of India.

Prayers at the Fort

Every Thursday there is a huge crowd at the fort. It is popularly believed that Jinn(s) descends at the Fort from the Heavens and accepts requests and wishes from people. A lot of wishes, penned down on paper, can be seen on the walls within the premises.

The association to Jinn(s) seems to be not too old. It is only since 1977, a few months after the end of the Emergency, that there are first records of people starting to come to Firoz Shah Kotla in large numbers.[12]

See also

• Delhi Sultanate
• Ashoka

References

1. "Firozabad - Delhi Govt Portal". web.delhi.gov.in. Retrieved 24 September 2021.
2. Prinsep, J (1837). "Interpretation of the most ancient of inscriptions on the pillar called lat of Feroz Shah, near Delhi, and of the Allahabad, Radhia and Mattiah pillar, or lat inscriptions which agree therewith". Journal of the Asiatic Society. 6: 600–609.
3. William Jeffrey McKibben, "The Monumental Pillars of Fīrūz Shāh Tughluq", Ars Orientalis, Vol. 24, (1994), pp. 105–118
4. Sen, Sailendra (2013). A Textbook of Medieval Indian History. Primus Books. p. 98. ISBN 978-9-38060-734-4.
5. "West Gate of Firoz Shah Kotla". British Library.
6. "Pillar of Firoz Shah at Delhi". British Library.
7. "Capital's cultural affair began in 50s". Hindustan Times. 16 November 2011. Archived from the original on 7 January 2013.
8. "Feroz Shah Kotla Monuments – Jami Masjid Ashokan Pillars". http://www.DelhiInformation.in. Retrieved 3 April 2016.
9. HM Elliot & John Dawson (1871), Tarikh I Firozi Shahi – Records of Court Historian Sams-i-Siraj The History of India, as Told by Its Historians, Volume 3, Cornell University Archives, pp 352–353
10. another name for Ashoka
11. Vikramjit Singh Rooprai (2019), Delhi Heritage: Top 10 Baolis, Niyogi Books p41
12. "Believe it or not: Inside 14th century Delhi fort, djinns grant wishes". hindustantimes.com/. Retrieved 3 April 2016.

***********************

Qutb Minar
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 10/25/21

Image
Qutb Minar
Minar in Delhi, India
Height 72.5 metres (238 ft)
Architectural style(s) Islamic Architecture
UNESCO World Heritage Site
Type Cultural
Criteria 4
Designated 1993 (17th session)
Reference no. 233
Country India
Continent Asia
Construction Started in 1199 by Qutb-ud-din Aibak / completed in ~ 1220 by his son-in-law Iltutmish[1][2]
Qutb Minar is located in IndiaQutb Minar

Image
Location of Qutb Minar in India

The Qutub Minar, also spelled as Qutb Minar and Qutab Minar, is a minaret and "victory tower" that forms part of the Qutb complex. It is a UNESCO World Heritage Site in the Mehrauli area of New Delhi, India.[3][4] It is one of most visited tourist spots in the city due to it being one of the earliest that survives in the Indian subcontinent.[5][6][3]

It can be compared to the 62-metre all-brick Minaret of Jam in Afghanistan, of c. 1190, which was constructed a decade or so before the probable start of the Delhi tower.[7] The surfaces of both are elaborately decorated with inscriptions and geometric patterns. The Qutb Minar has a shaft that is fluted with "superb stalactite bracketing under the balconies" at the top of each stage.[8][9][10] In general, minarets were slow to be used in India and are often detached from the main mosque where they exist.[11]

A Synthesis of South Asian and Islamic Architecture

This victory tower is a symbol of the synthesis of traditional Islamic architecture and Southwestern Asian design. Elizabeth Lambourn’s Islam Beyond Empires: Mosques and Islamic Landscapes in India and the Indian Ocean studies the introduction of Islam in South Asia and how the region influenced the Islamic religious architecture.[12] These newly arrived Muslims from the Islamic West escaped the Mongol Empire and emigrated to India, where they constructed religious centers. The Qutb Minar serves as a central marker to these new Muslim communities as well as being a reminder of Islam's presence in the area.[12] The architecture of the minaret varies greatly from that of the typical style and design of the mosques constructed in the Middle East. The style of these structures is heavily influenced by the local architecture such as the Indic temples. This affected the different materials, techniques, and decoration that were used in the construction of the Qutb Minar.[12]

The minaret is unique in that historically, these tower minarets were uncommon in South Asian-Islamic design until the 17th century. This lag is due to the slow adoption of the typical Middle Eastern style in India.[12] It is also detached from the main mosque, showcasing how the native culture affected the design of a Middle Eastern structure.[11] The Qutb Minar is seen as the "earliest and best example of a fusion or synthesis of Hindu-Muslim traditions" according to Ved Parkash in his essay The Qutb Minar from Contemporary and Near Contemporary Sources.[12] Like many mosques built in South Asia during this time period, the minaret was constructed by Hindu laborers and craftsmen but overseen by Muslim architects.[12] This led to a construction that synthesized both Hindu and Islamic religious architecture. Since the craftsmen were Hindu and unfamiliar with the Quran, the inscriptions are a compilation of disarranged Quranic texts and other Arabic expressions.[12]

History

The Qutb Minar was built over the ruins of the Lal Kot, the citadel of Dhillika.[6] Qutub Minar was begun after the Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque, which was started around 1192 by Qutb-ud-din Aibak, first ruler of the Delhi Sultanate.[13]

Image
Kuttull Minor, Delhi. The Qutb Minar, 1805.

It is usually thought that the tower is named for Qutb-ud-din Aibak, who began it. It is also possible that it is named after Khwaja Qutbuddin Bakhtiar Kaki a 13th-century sufi saint, because Shamsuddin Iltutmish was a devotee of his.[14]

The Minar is surrounded by several historically significant monuments of the Qutb complex. Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque, to the north-east of the Minar was built by Qutub-ud-Din Aibak in A.D. 1198. It is the earliest extant - mosque built by the Delhi Sultans. It consists of a rectangular courtyard enclosed by cloisters, erected with the carved columns and architectural members of 27 Hindu and Jaina temples, which were demolished by Qutub-ud-Din Aibak as recorded in his inscription on the main eastern entrance.[15] Later, a lofty arched screen was erected, and the mosque was enlarged, by Shams-ud- Din Itutmish (A.D. 1210-35) and Ala-ud-Din Khalji. The Iron Pillar in the courtyard bears an inscription in Sanskrit in Brahmi script of fourth century A.D., according to which the pillar was set up as a Vishnudhvaja (standard of god Vishnu) on the hill known as Vishnupada in memory of a mighty king named Chandra.[15]

The mosque complex is one of the earliest that survives in the Indian subcontinent.[5][6]

The nearby pillared cupola known as "Smith's Folly" is a remnant of the tower's 19th century restoration, which included an ill-advised attempt to add some more stories.[16][17]

In 1505, an earthquake damaged Qutub Minar; it was repaired by Sikander Lodi. On 1 September 1803, a major earthquake caused serious damage. Major Robert Smith of the British Indian Army renovated the tower in 1828 and installed a pillared cupola over the fifth story, creating a sixth. The cupola was taken down in 1848, under instructions from The Viscount Hardinge, who was the Governor General of India. at the time. It was reinstalled at ground level to the east of Qutb Minar, where it remains. This is known as "Smith's Folly".[18]

It was added to the list of World Heritage Site by UNESCO in 1993.

The Ghurids

The construction of the Qutb Minar was planned and financed by an Afghani tribe, the Ghurids, who emigrated to India and brought Islam with them. The Ghurids, historically known as the Shansabanis, were a clan of Tajik origin that hailed from Ghur, the mountainous region of modern-day western Afghanistan.[19] In the late eleventh century to the early twelfth century, the different sects of this nomadic clan united, losing its nomadic culture. During this time, they also converted to Islam.[19]

They then expanded into modern-day India and quickly took control of a substantial part of the country.[19]The Ghurids annexed the Multan and Uch in the western Punjab in 1175-76, the northwestern regions around Peshawar in 1177, and the region of Sindh in 1185-86. In 1193, Qutb al-Din Aibek conquered Delhi and implemented a Ghurid governorship in the province, and the congregational mosque, the Qutb Minar complex, was founded in 1193.[19] In the past, scholars believed that the complex was constructed to promote a conversion to Islam amongst the Ghurids' new subjects as well as a symbol of the Ghurids' adherence to a socio-religious system.[19] There is now new information to suggest that conversion to Islam was not a top priority of the new annexes and instead the Ghurid governors sought to make a synthesis of the local culture and Islam through negotiation.[19]

The Patrons and Architects

Qutb-ud-din Aibak, a deputy of Muhammad of Ghor, who founded the Delhi Sultanate after Muhammad of Ghor's death, started construction of the Qutb Minar's first story in 1199. Aibak's successor and son-in-law Shamsuddin Iltutmish completed a further three stories.[14] After a lightning strike in 1369 damaged the then top story, the ruler at the time, Firuz Shah Tughlaq, replaced the damaged story and added one more. Sher Shah Suri also added an entrance while he was ruling and the Mughal emperor Humayun was in exile.[1]

Architecture

Image
Qutb Minar in Mehrauli in Delhi. Clifton and Co., around 1890

Pesrian-Arabic and Nagari in different sections of the Qutb Minar reveal the history of its construction and the later restorations and repairs by Firoz Shah Tughluq (1351–88) and Sikandar Lodi (1489–1517).[20]

The height of Qutb Minar is 72.5 meters, making it the tallest minaret in the world built of bricks.[2][21] The tower tapers, and has a 14.3 metres (47 feet) base diameter, reducing to 2.7 metres (9 feet) at the top of the peak.[22] It contains a spiral staircase of 379 steps.[13][1]

The whole tower contains a spiral staircase of 379 steps.[13] At the foot of the tower is the Quwat Ul Islam Mosque. The Minar tilts just over 65 cm from the vertical, which is considered to be within safe limits.[23]

Qutb Minar was an inspiration and prototype for many minarets and towers built. The Chand Minar and Mini Qutub Minar bear resemblance to the Qutb Minar and inspired from it.[24]

The Stories of the Qutb Minar

The stories of the Qutb Minar vary in size, style, and material due to varying architects and builders constructing each section.

The Basement Story of the Qutb Minar

The Qutb Minar consists of five stories of red and grey sandstone. The lowest story, also known as the basement story, was completed during the lifetime of Ghiyeth al-Din Muhammad, a sultan during the Ghurid dynasty.[25]

It is revetted with twelve semicircular and twelve flanged pilasters that are placed in alternating order.[25] This story is separated by flanges and by storied balconies, carried on Muqarnas corbels.[26] The story is placed on top of a low circular plinth that is inscribed with a twelve-pointed star with a semicircle placed with each of the angles between the star’s points.[25]

There are also six horizontal bands with inscriptions inscribed in naskh, a style of Islamic calligraphy, on this story. The inscriptions are as follows: Quran, sura II, verses 255-60; Quran, sura LIX, verses 22-23, and attributes of God; The name and titles of Ghiyath al-Din; Quran, sura XLVIII, verses 1-6; The name and titles of Mu’izz al-Din; and Qur’anic quotations and the following titles in this much restored inscription: "The Amir, the most glorious and great commander of the army."[25] This level also has inscriptions praising Muhammad of Ghor, the sultan of the Ghurids.[14]

The Second, Third, and Fourth Stories

The second, third, and fourth stories were erected by Sham ud-Din Iltutmish, the first Muslim sovereign to rule from Delhi.[27] He is considered to be the first of the Delhi Sultan dynastic line.[27] The second and third stories are also revetted with twelve semicircular and twelve flanged pilasters that are placed in alternating order.[25] These red sandstone columns are separated by flanges and by storied balconies, carried on Muqarnas corbels.[26] Prior to its reconstruction and reduction, the fourth story was also decorated with semicircular pilasters.[25] It was re-constructed in white marble and is relatively plain.[26]

The Fifth Story

In 1369, the fourth story was repaired after lightning struck the minaret. During reconstruction, Sultan Firuz Shah Tughlaq elected to reduce the size of the fourth story and then separated it into two stories.[27]

Controversy

On 14 November 2000, Delhi newspapers reported that the Hindu nationalist groups, Vishva Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal, planned to host a yajna, a ritualistic Hindu ceremony related to cleansing or purification, at the Qutub Minar complex where the minaret is located.[15] The Delhi police detained 80 activists led by Ram Krishan Gaur that were located by the Qutb Minar and were stopped from performing the yajna inside the tower. Due to a police barricade, the activists instead performed the ritual on the streets outside the mosque complex.[28] Since the spolia of Jain and Hindu temples were used to construct the minaret, the right-wing Hindu groups believed that they needed to perform a cleansing at the complex in order to free the Hindu icons that were "trapped" in the minaret and the mosque complex.[15]

Accidents

Before 1976, the general public was allowed access to the first floor of the minaret, via the internal staircase. Access to the top was stopped after 2000 due to suicides. On 4 December 1981, the staircase lighting failed. Between 300 and 400 visitors stampeded towards the exit. 45 were killed and some were injured. Most of these were school children.[29] Since then, the tower has been closed to the public. Since this incident the rules regarding entry have been stringent.[30]

In Literature

Letitia Elizabeth Landon's poem The Qutb Minar, Delhi is a reflection on an engraving in Fisher's Drawing Room Scrap Book, 1833.

In Popular Culture

Bollywood actor and director Dev Anand wanted to shoot the song "Dil Ka Bhanwar Kare Pukar" from his film Tere Ghar Ke Samne inside the Minar. However, the cameras in that era were too big to fit inside the tower's narrow passage, and therefore the song was shot inside a replica of the Qutb Minar[31]

The site served as the Pit Stop of the second leg of the second series of The Amazing Race Australia.[32]

A picture of the minaret is featured on the travel cards and tokens issued by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation. A recently launched start-up in collaboration with the Archaeological Survey of India has made a 360o walkthrough of Qutb Minar available.[33]

Ministry of Tourism recently gave seven companies the 'Letters of Intent' for fourteen monuments under its 'Adopt a Heritage Scheme.' These companies will be the future 'Monument Mitras.' Qutb Minar has been chosen to part of that list.[34][35]

Gallery

Image
Qutb Minar

Image
Left to Right:Alai Darwaza, Qutb Minar, Imam Zamin's tomb

Image
Entrance to Minar

Image
Calligraphy on upper-base section

Image
Decorative motifs on upper levels

Image
Close-up of balcony

Image
Plaque at Minar

Image
View through arch

Image
Qutb Minar path view

Image
Qutb Minar from the south

See also

• Red Fort
• Agra Fort
• Firoz Minar
• Fateh Burj
• Chand Minar
• Taj Mahal
• List of tallest minarets

Notes

1. "Qutub Minar". qutubminardelhi.com. Archived from the original on 22 June 2015. Retrieved 15 June 2015.
2. History And Civics - Page 40. ISBN 9788131763193.
3. "WHC list". who.unesco.org. 2009. Archived from the original on 27 November 2018. Retrieved 27 October 2011.
4. Singh (2010). Longman History & Civics ICSE 7. Pearson Education India. p. 42. ISBN 978-81-317-2887-1. Archived from the original on 28 May 2013. Retrieved 27 October 2011.
5. "Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque". qutubminardelhi.com. Archived from the original on 25 July 2015. Retrieved 15 June 2015.
6. Ali Javid; ʻAlī Jāvīd; Tabassum Javeed (1 July 2008). World Heritage Monuments and Related Edifices in India. pp. 14, 105, 107, 130. ISBN 9780875864846. Archived from the original on 7 January 2014. Retrieved 26 May 2009.
7. Also two huge minarets at Ghazni.
8. Ettinghausen, Grabar & Jenkins 2003, p. 164.
9. Harle 1994, p. 424.
10. Blair & Bloom 1996, p. 149.
11. Harle 1994, p. 429.
12. Lambourn, Elizabeth A. (2017). "Islam beyond Empires". A Companion to Islamic Art and Architecture. pp. 755–776. doi:10.1002/9781119069218.ch30. ISBN 978-1-119-06921-8.
13. "Qutub Minar". Archived from the original on 16 January 2018. Retrieved 24 October 2016.
14. "Qutub Minar Height". qutubminardelhi.com. Archived from the original on 29 June 2015. Retrieved 15 June 2015.
15. Rajagopalan, Mrinalini (2012). "A Medieval Monument and Its Modern Myths of Iconoclasm: The Enduring Contestations over the Qutb Complex in Delhi, India". In Kinney, Dale; Brilliant, Richard (eds.). Reuse Value: Spolia and Appropriation in Art and Architecture from Constantine to Sherrie Levine. Ashgate Publishing. pp. 199–221. doi:10.4324/9781315606187. ISBN 978-1-4094-8684-8.
16. Wright, Colin. "Ruin of Hindu pillars, Kootub temples, Delhi". http://www.bl.uk. Archived from the original on 30 June 2019. Retrieved 8 July 2019.
17. Wright, Colin. "Rao Petarah's Temple, Delhi". http://www.bl.uk. Archived from the original on 8 July 2019. Retrieved 8 July 2019.
18. "Qutub Minar and Smiths Folly - an architectural disaster." Archived7 October 2016 at the Wayback Machine, WordPress.
19. Patel, A. (2004). "Toward Alternative Receptions of Ghurid Architecture in North India (Late Twelfth-Early Thirtheenth Century CE)". Archives of Asian Art. 54: 35–61. doi:10.1484/aaa.2004.0004. JSTOR 20111315.
20. Plaque at Qutb Minar
21. "World's tallest buildings, monuments and other structures".
22. "Qutb Minar Height". qutubminardelhi.com. Archived from the original on 29 June 2015. Retrieved 15 June 2015.
23. Verma, Richi (24 January 2009). "Qutb Minar tilting due to seepage: Experts". The Times of India. Archived from the original on 31 October 2013. Retrieved 30 June 2012.
24. Koch, Ebba (1991). "The Copies of the Quṭb Mīnār". Iran. 100: 95–186. doi:10.2307/4299851. JSTOR 4299851.
25. Pinder-Wilson, Ralph (2001). "Ghaznavid and Ghūrid Minarets". Iran. 39: 155–186. doi:10.2307/4300603. ISSN 0578-6967. JSTOR 4300603.
26. "Qutub Minar". Archived from the original on 16 January 2018. Retrieved 24 October 2016.
27. Shafiqullah, Shah Muhammad (1 January 1993). "The Qutb Minar: An Observation on Its Calligraphy". Islamic Quarterly. 37 (4): 281–286. ProQuest 1304273557.
28. "VHP yajna thwarted". The Tribune. Chandigarh, India. 14 November 2000.
29. "Around the World; 45 Killed in Stampede at Monument in India". The New York Times. 5 December 1981. Archived from the original on 16 February 2018. Retrieved 13 February 2018.
30. Khandekar, Nivedita (4 December 2012). "31 yrs after tragedy, Qutub Minar's doors remain shut". Hindustan Times. Archived from the original on 14 February 2018. Retrieved 13 February 2018.
31. Mehul S Thakkar, Mumbai Mirror 22 Nov 2011, IST (22 November 2011). "30 years later, Qutub ready to face the camera". The Times of India. Archived from the original on 2 September 2013. Retrieved 26 September 2012.
32. "Mehrauli Qutub Minar UNESCO World Heritage Complex Tour Guide - Destination Overview". Holiday Travel. 12 December 2011. Archived from the original on 31 December 2019. Retrieved 31 December 2019.
33. "Qutub Minar in MEHRAULI, Delhi - 360-degree view on WoNoBo.com". Places.wonobo.com. Archived from the original on 3 November 2013. Retrieved 17 May 2014.
34. "Adopt a Heritage Scheme, Qutub Minar, Delhi - to be adopted by Yatra.com". India Today. Archived from the original on 30 December 2019. Retrieved 30 October 2017.
35. "Clean water to free WiFi: What Yatra.com will provide after adopting Qutub Minar". theprint.in. Retrieved 2 November 2018.

References

• Blair, Sheila S.; Bloom, Jonathan M. (1996). The Art and Architecture of Islam 1250-1800. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-06465-0.
• Harle, James C. (1994). The Art and Architecture of the Indian Subcontinent. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-06217-5.
• Ettinghausen, Richard; Grabar, Oleg; Jenkins, Marilyn (2003). Islamic Art and Architecture 650-1250: 2nd Edition. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-08869-4.

External links

• Qutub Minar
• Archaeological Survey of India | Qutb Minar and its Monuments, Delhi
• Qutb Minar Ticket
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36183
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:26 am

Translation of one of the Inscriptions on the Pillar At Dehlee, called the Lat of Feeroz Shah, Excerpt from Asiatic Researches, Volume 7
by Henry Colebrooke, Esq.
With Introductory Remarks by Mr. Harington.
P. 175-182
1803



Image
Plate IV: Picturesque Elevation of the Shikar-Gah, & the Celebrated Pillar at Dehli in June, 1797

Image
Plate IV: Geometrical Elevation

Image
Plate V: A, B, C, D.

I have the pleasure of presenting to the Society a Book of Drawings and Inscriptions prepared under the inspection of their late member, Captain James Hoare, and intended by him (I have reason to believe) for the life of the Society.



Image
Sikargah or Kushak Mahal, 14th-century hunting lodge built by Firoz Shah Tughlaq.

-- Teen Murti Bhavan, by Wikipedia


Two of the drawings represent elevations, taken on the spot, of the stone building near Dehlee, called the Shikargah, or hunting place, of Feeroz Shah; with the pillar in the center, and above the summit of it, commonly known by the designation of Feeroz Shah’s Lat; and described, with an outline of the building and pillar, in the 21st paper of the 1st Vol. of the Society’s Transactions. The copy of the inscriptions on this pillar, which was received by our revered President and Founder from Colonel Polier, enabled him to exhibit a translation of one of them, as accurate as the imperfect state of the transcript would admit; but on comparing it with a more perfect copy made by Captain Hoare, it was found in several parts defective and inaccurate; and the date, instead of being 123 of the era of Vicramaditya, or A.D. 67, as appeared from the former copy, was clearly ascertained, from the present, to be 1220 of the above era, or A.D. 1164. An accurate translation of this inscription has therefore been furnished by Mr. Henry Colebrooke, (who has distinguished himself as a Sanscrit scholar by his version of the Hindoo Law Digest, compiled under the superintendence of Sir William Jones,) and is now submitted to the Society, with the original Sanscrit in Roman letters.

17. Painting of a Firman of the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb: India, late 18th century, 15.5 cm x 32 cm
Oliver Hoare's Cabinet of Curiosities, An Exhibition at Ciancimino, 85 Pimlico Road, London SW1 W8PH
6th June-6th July 2012

Image

This curiosity belonged to Captain James Hoare who served in India in the second half of the 18th century. It shows a firman, an official document issued by the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb (1658–1707, the sixth Mughal emperor), still folded and sealed with stamped wax, and inscribed in black ink: ‘The firman of the one of exalted rank, in the name of Sepahdar Khan about Muhammad Asim, the judge of Jajmu imploring assistance’.

On the reverse a now faint and partly undecipherable inscription in pencil recounts its story. The emperor issued the firman to confirm a cadi (judge) in his functions, which were to be transferred to his descendants. By the end of the century the family was ‘in a state of beggary from large possessions’, and for some reason a member of the family gave this painting to James Hoare in 1792. It is like a surrealist conundrum. The firman is shown unopened. Why was a picture of it given and not the original, and why should this be so interesting? Was it in exchange for some favour granted? Was James Hoare sufficiently tickled by this last vestige of the family’s prestige to have its portrait painted? Not knowing the answers is part of its charm.

James Hoare was an early member of the Asiatic Society established in Bengal by Sir William Jones, to which he contributed a book of drawings of Firoz Shah’s Lat in Delhi and the Lat in Allahabad. They were a major contribution to deciphering Ashoka’s inscriptions, and arriving at an understanding of the Buddhist past of India. He died of a fever while still in India.


Of the five other inscriptions contained in the accompanying book, and taken from the same pillar, but in a different character, no translation has been yet procurable. The deposit of them among the Society’s papers, and, if they think proper, the publication of an engraving of them in their Transactions, may lead to a future explication of them; which must be also facilitated by Captain Hoare’s collection of the characters.

The same characters appear in the inscription on the pillar at Allahabad, a specimen of which, with a modern Arabick and Persian inscription in the reign of Jehangeer, and a drawing of the pillar, are also contained in the accompanying Book. I have not been able to procure any information respecting this pillar, and understand from Moonshee Mohummud Morad, who accompanied Captain Hoare, that his inquiries at Allahabad were equally unsuccessful.

The Feeroz Shah, whose name is now attached to the Dehlee pillar, (though it must have been erected as some Hindoo monument at a much earlier period,) appears, from Ferishtuh’s History, to have reigned at Dehlee between the years 1351 and 1388; in the last of which he died at the age of ninety; and Ferishtuh, in the words of his translator, Lieutenant Colonel Dow, gives him the following character:

“Though no great warrior in the field, he was, by his excellent qualities, well calculated for a reign of peace. His severity to the inhabitants of Cumaoon, for the assassination of the Governor of Samana, is a great blot in his reputation. But to this he, perhaps, was prompted by a religious zeal and euthusiasm; for the persons murdered, were Seids, or descendants of the prophet. He reigned thirty-eight years and nine months, and left many memorials of his magnificence in the land. He built fifty great sluices, forty mosques, thirty schools, twenty caravansaries, an hundred palaces, five hospitals, an hundred tombs, ten baths, ten spires, one hundred and fifty wells, one hundred bridges; and the pleasure gardens he made were without number.”* [Dow’s History of Hindustan, Vol. I. page 336.]


The author of the Huft Akleem, Mohummud Ameem Razee, who wrote his history of the world (or, as the title of his book imports, of the Seven Climes, into which the Mahommedans divide the universe) in the reign of Akbur, corroborates the above character of Feeroz Shah, and adds the following passage, translated verbatim from his history.

“Among the places built by this King (Feeroz Shah) is a hunting place, which the populace call the Lat of Feeroz Shah. It is a house of three stories, in the centre of which has been erected a pillar of red stone, of one piece, and tapering upwards. The visible part of the shaft is, by measurement, twenty-seven Zirras; and it is said, that one-third only is visible; the remaining two-thirds being buried in the earth. In this case, the total length must be eighty-one Zirras; and it is five Zirras in circumference. Round it have been engraved literal characters, which the most intelligent of all religions have been unable to explain. Report says, this pillar is a monument of renown to the Rajuhs, (or Hindoo Princes,) and that Feeroz Shah set it up within his hunting place. But on this head there are various traditions, which it would be tedious to relate.”


Who Erected Pillars In India before Asoka?

The find-spots of relics are of great importance in the reconstruction of history; but one of the recurrent problems in Indian history is that pillars were often rewritten and re-erected at different locations. Unfortunately this has been totally ignored by gullible historians like H. C. Raychaudhuri and R. Thapar. Even though the weight of some of these pillars is about thirty tons, it is not safe to assume that they were erected in their present locations. Keay writes:

The question of how these pillars had originally been moved round India, and whether they were still in their ordained positions, was an intriguing subject by itself. It was now apparent that they were all of the same stone, all polished by the same unexplained process, and therefore all from the same quarry. 3 [J. Keay, India Discovered: The Achievement of the British Raj (London 1988) 55.]

Significantly, although most writers placed this quarry at Chunar near Benares, Prinsep located it somewhere in the outer Himalayas.

-- An Altar of Alexander Now Standing at Delhi [EXPANDED VERSION], by Ranajit Pal, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune, India, January, 2006


The traditional idea that all were originally quarried at Chunar, just south of Varanasi and taken to their sites, before or after carving, "can no longer be confidently asserted",15 [Harle, J.C., The Art and Architecture of the Indian Subcontinent, 2nd edn. 1994, Yale University Press Pelican History of Art, p. 22] and instead it seems that the columns were carved in two types of stone. Some were of the spotted red and white sandstone from the region of Mathura, the others of buff-colored fine grained hard sandstone usually with small black spots quarried in the Chunar near Varanasi. The uniformity of style in the pillar capitals suggests that they were all sculpted by craftsmen from the same region. It would therefore seem that stone was transported from Mathura and Chunar to the various sites where the pillars have been found, and there was cut and carved by craftsmen.[16] [Thapar, Romila (2001). Aśoka and the Decline of the Mauryan, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-564445-X, pp. 267-70]

-- Pillars of Ashoka, by Wikipedia


Image
Ashoka Pillar at Feroze Shah Kotla, Delh

A pristine polished sandstone Topra Ashokan pillar from the 3rd century BC rises from the palace's crumbling remains, one of many pillars of Ashoka left by the Mauryan emperor.

-- Feroz Shah Kotla, by Wikipedia


The exact length of the Zirra, referred to in the above description, is uncertain. But there can be no doubt that the height of the pillar, now visible above the building, is thirty-seven feet; and that its circumference, where it joins the terrace, is ten feet four inches [124 inches]. These dimensions I have from Moonshee Mohummud Morad, who himself measured the pillar for Captain Hoare in July, 1797; and who adds, that, as far as it could be seen, (which, from the ruinous state of the building, it cannot be, at present, below the upper terrace,) it is certainly, as described in the Huft Akleem, a single stone, of reddish colour, as represented in the drawing.

Image
If the circumference of this pillar is 10'4", or 4.06' diameter where it joins the terrace, then this pillar is 50' tall, rather than 37' tall. Neither is this pillar "red." Neither is it located at the Shikargah hunting lodge.


One of Captain Hoare’s drawings further represents the plans of the three stories of the Shikar-gah; and his Moonshee informs me, the current opinion is, that they were used partly for a menagery, and partly for an aviary, which the plans appear to confirm.

Perhaps the same misguided religious zeal which prompted his severity towards the inhabitants of Cumaoon, may have impelled him to erect a mansion for birds and beasts, round a venerable relict of Hindoo antiquity; the age of which cannot, I conceive, be determined by the date of the inscription now communicated to the Society, as the character of it is modern, and altogether different from the older inscriptions not yet explained.

J. H. HARINGTON. [John Herbert Harington, Asiatic Society Secretary, 1784-1792]

SANSCRIT INSCRIPTION, IN ROMAN CHARACTERS.

samvat 1220 vaisacha sudi 15 sacambhari bhupati srimad vella devatmaja srimad visala devasya.

avindhyad ahimadrer virachita vijayas thirtha yatra prasangad udgriveshu prahart nripatishu vinamat candhareshu prasannah

aryavertam yathartham punar api critavan mlechchha vichchhedanabhir devah sacambharindro jagati vijayate visalah cshonipala.

brute samprati bahujata tilacah sacambhari bhupatih srimad vigraha raja esha vijayi santanajan atmanah.

asmabhih caradam vyadhayi himavad vindhyantaralam bhuvah sesha swicaranaya mastu bhavatam udyoga sunyam manah.

ambho nama ripu priya nayanayoh pratyarthi dantantare pratyacshani trinani vaibhava milat cashtam yasas tavacam

margo loca viruddha eva vijanah sunyam mano vidwisham srimad vigraha rajadeva bhavatah prapte prayanotsave

lila mandira sodareshu swanteshu vamabhruvam satrunan nanu vigraha cshitipate nyayyas cha vasas tava sanca va purushottamasya bhavato nasty eva varan nidher nirmathyapahrita sriyah cimu bhavan crode na nidrayitah.

samvat sri vicramaditya 1220 vaisacha sudi 15 gurau lichitam idam ....

pratyacsham guadanwaya cayastha mahava putra sripatina atra samaye maha -- mantri rajaputra srimal lacshana palah.


VERBAL TRANSLATION

In the year 1220, on the 15th day of the bright half of the month Vaisach, [this monument] of the fortunate Visala Deva, son of the fortunate Vella Deva, (1) [Colonel Polier's transcript exhibited Amilla; the present copy may be read either Avella, or Vella.] King of Sacambhari,

As far as Vindhya, (2) [The Vindhya hills form the range which passes through the provinces of Bahar, Benares, &c. Hemadri, the Mountains of Snow, (called Himavat in the next verse,) is the Imaus and Emodus of ancient geographers. Aryaverta signifies the Land of Virtue; or "inhabited by respectable Men." See Menu, Ch. 2, v. 22.] as far as Himadri, (2) having achieved conquest in the course of travelling to holy places; resentful to haughty Kings, and indulgent to those whose necks are humbled; making Aryaverta (2) once more what its name signifies, by causing the barbarians to be exterminated; Visala Deva, supreme ruler of Sacambhari, (3,) [I have not been able to ascertain the situation of Sacambhari.] and sovereign of the earth, is victorious in the world.

This conqueror, the fortunate Vigraha Raja, (4,) [Whether Vigraha Raja, and Visala Deva, be names of the same person, or of different princes, it is impossible to determine from the tenor of the inscription, without other information.] King of Sacambhari, most eminent of the tribe which sprang from the arms (5) [The transcript of the inscription exhibits Vala,ama Tilacah, as it was also read in the former facsimile. Servone Trivedi advises me to read it Bahujata Tilacha, and I accde to his emendation.] [of Brahma,] now addresses his own descendants:

"By us the region of the earth between Himavat (2) and Vindhya (2) has been made tributary; let not your minds be void of exertion to subdue the remainder."


Tears are evident in the eyes of thy enemy's consort; blades of grass are perceived between thy adversary's teeth; (6) [This alludes to the Indian custom of biting a blade of grass as a token of submission, and of asking quarter.] thy fame is predominant throughout space; the minds of thy foes are void [of hope;] their route is the desert where men are hindered from passing, O Vigraha Raja Deva, in the jubilee occasioned by thy march.

May thy abode, O Vigraha, sovereign of the earth, be fixed, as in reason it ought, in the bosoms (akin to the mansion of dalliance) of the women with beautiful eye-brows, who were married to thy enemies. There is no doubt of thy being the highest of embodied souls. (7) [Servone explains this very obscure passage otherwise: "There is (i.e. there should be) no doubt, or hesitation, in the mind of thee, who art the highest of embodied souls." (Purushottama.)] Didst thou not sleep in the lap of Sri, whom thou didst seize from the ocean, having churned it? (8) [Puroshottaama is a title of Vishnu. With reference to this term, the author of the inscription asks, "Art thou not Vishnu himself? Art thou not he who slept in the arms of Lacshm?" The legend of the churching of the ocean is well known.]

In the year from the fortunate Vicramaditya 1220, (9,) [In the present copy the date is very distinct; and proves to be 1220; not 123, as was suspected by Sir William Jones.] on Thursday, the 15th day of the bright half of the month Vaisach, this was written in the presence of (10) [This part of the inscription is not legible.] .... by Sripati, the son of Mahava, a Cayastha of a family in Gauda: at this time the fortunate Lacshana Pala, a Rajaputra, is prime minister.

Siva the terrible, [x] and the universal monarch.


There are on the same page, some short inscriptions, which I cannot decypher. One of them, however, is partly legible, and appears to be in the Hindustani language. It contains the name of Sultan Ibrahim, and wishes him a long life.

Image
Plate VI: Column of Inscription fronting North.

Image
Plate VI: Column of Inscription fronting North.

Image
Plate VII: Fronting East.

Image
Plate VII: Fronting East.

Image
Plate VIII: Fronting South.

Image
Plate VIII: Fronting South.

Image
Plate IX: Fronting West.

Image
Plate IX: Fronting West.

Image
Plate X: Pillar under the foregoing commencing from the East.

Image
Fact similie

Image
Plate X: Inscription running round the Pillar under the foregoing, commencing from the East.

Image
Fact similie specimen of the foregoing Inscription.

Image
Plate XI:

Image
Plate XI:

Image
Plate XII: [illegible] is below the [illegible] encircles the Pillar.

Image
Plate XII: This Inscription is a continuation of the former & joins it at the * it is below the others & in a different Character. It commences on the South side & encircles the Pillar about seven feet from the Terrace of the Building.

Image
Plate XIII: Pillar of Alahabad.

Image
Plate XIV:

Image
Plate XIV: Specimen of the Inscription on the Pillar at Allahabad.

Image

Image
The same Inscription -- in a more modern Character.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36183
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Mon Oct 25, 2021 5:21 am

XXI. Inscriptions on the Staff of Firuz Shah, translated from the Sanscrit, as explained by Radha Canta Sarman. Excerpt from Asiatic Researches, Volume 1
P. 315-317.
1788

I now proceed to lay before the Society the results of my application of the alphabet, developed by the simple records of Bhilsa, to the celebrated inscription on Feroz's column, of which facsimiles have been in the Society's possession since its very foundation, without any successful attempt having been made to decipher them. This is the less to be wondered at when we find that 500 years before, on the re-erection of the pillar, perhaps for the second or third time, by the emperor Feroz [r. 1351–1388)], the unknown characters were just as much a mystery to the learned as they have proved at a later period — "Round it" says the author of the Haftaklim, "have been engraved literal characters which the most intelligent of all religions have been unable to explain. Report says, this pillar is a monument of renown to the rajas or Hindu princes, and that Feroz Shah set it up within his hunting place: but on this head there are various traditions which it would be tedious to relate."

Neither Muhammed Ami'n the author of the Haftaklim [Muhammad Amin Razi, [x], vide Amin Ahmad, author of the Haft Aklim -- The Oriental Biographical Dictionary], nor Ferishteh, in his account of Feroz's works alludes to the comparatively modern inscription on the same pillar recording the victories of Visala Deva king of Sacambhari (or Sambhar) in the 12th century, of which Sir William Jones first, and Mr. Colebrooke afterwards, published translations in the first and seventh volumes of the Researches. This was in quite a modern type of Nagari; differing about as much from the character employed on the Allahabad pillar to record the victories of Chanara and Samudra-gupta, as that type is now perceived to vary from the more ancient form originally engraven on both of these pillars; so that (placing Chandra-gupta, in the third or fourth century, midway between Visala, in the Samvat year 1220, and the oldest inscription) we might have roughly deduced an antiquity of fourteen or fifteen centuries anterior to Visala's reign for the original lat alphabet, from the gradual change of form in the alphabetical symbols, had we no better foundation for fixing the period of these monuments.

But in my preceding notice, I trust that this point has been set at rest, and that it has been satisfactorily proved that the several pillars of Delhi, Allahabad, Mattiah and Radhia were erected under the orders of king Devanampiya Piyadasi of Ceylon, about three hundred years before the Christian era.

VI.—Interpretation of the most ancient of the inscriptions on the pillar called the lat of Feroz Shah, near Delhi, and of the Allahabad, Radhia [Lauriya-Araraj (Radiah)] and Mattiah [Lauriya-Nandangarh (Mathia)] pillar, or lat, inscriptions which agree therewith., by James Prinsep, Sec. As. Soc. &c.

I have the pleasure of presenting to the Society a Book of Drawings and Inscriptions prepared under the inspection of their late member, Captain James Hoare, and intended by him (I have reason to believe) for the life of the Society.

Two of the drawings represent elevations, taken on the spot, of the stone building near Dehlee, called the Shikargah, or hunting place, of Feeroz Shah; with the pillar in the center, and above the summit of it, commonly known by the designation of Feeroz Shah’s Lat; and described, with an outline of the building and pillar, in the 21st paper of the 1st Vol. of the Society’s Transactions.
The copy of the inscriptions on this pillar, which was received by our revered President and Founder from Colonel Polier, enabled him to exhibit a translation of one of them, as accurate as the imperfect state of the transcript would admit; but on comparing it with a more perfect copy made by Captain Hoare, it was found in several parts defective and inaccurate; and the date, instead of being 123 of the era of Vicramaditya, or A.D. 67, as appeared from the former copy, was clearly ascertained, from the present, to be 1220 of the above era, or A.D. 1164. An accurate translation of this inscription has therefore been furnished by Mr. Henry Colebrooke, (who has distinguished himself as a Sanscrit scholar by his version of the Hindoo Law Digest, compiled under the superintendence of Sir William Jones,) and is now submitted to the Society, with the original Sanscrit in Roman letters.

-- Translation of one of the Inscriptions on the Pillar At Dehlee, called the Lat of Feeroz Shah, Excerpt from Asiatic Researches, Volume 7, by Henry Colebrooke, Esq., With Introductory Remarks by Mr. Harington.

Image
Ashoka Pillar at Feroze Shah Kotla, Delhi, 1861.

A pristine polished sandstone Topra Ashokan pillar from the 3rd century BC rises from the palace's crumbling remains, one of many pillars of Ashoka left by the Mauryan emperor; it was moved from Topra Kalan in Pong Ghati of Yamunanagar district in Haryana to Delhi under orders of Firoz Shah Tughlaq of Delhi Sultanate, and re-erected in its present location in 1356. The original inscription on the obelisk is primarily in Brahmi script but language was Prakrit, with some Pali and Sanskrit added later. The inscription was successfully translated in 1837 by James Prinsep. This and other ancient lats (pillars, obelisk) have earned Firoz Shah Tughlaq and Delhi Sultanate fame for its architectural patronage....

Feroz Shah Tughlaq (r. 1351–1388), the Sultan of Delhi, established the fortified city of Firozabad in 1354, as the new capital of the Delhi Sultanate, and included in it the site of the present Feroz Shah Kotla. Kotla literally means fortress or citadel. The pillar, also called obelisk or Lat is an Ashoka Column, attributed to Mauryan ruler Ashoka. The 13.1 meters high column, made of polished sandstone and dating from the 3rd century BC, was brought from Ambala in the 14th century under orders of Feroz Shah. It was installed on a three-tiered arcaded pavilion near the congregational mosque, inside the Sultanate's fort. In centuries that followed, much of the structure and buildings near it were destroyed as subsequent rulers dismantled them and reused the spolia as building materials....

The Ashokan Pillar which is now within Feroz Shah Kotla is towards the north of Jama Masjid [Mosque]. The Pillar was first erected by King Ashoka between 273 and 236 BC in Topra Kalan, Yamunanagar district, Haryana.

Of note, there is another Ashokan Pillar, that is seen installed near the Hindu Rao Hospital, also erected by King Ashoka in Meerut. This pillar, however, was unfortunately broken into five pieces after it was damaged during an explosion. The pillar was neglected for a century up till 1838 when after the Revolt of 1857 Raja Hindu Rao took charge to transfer the Ashokan Pillar's broken pieces to Kolkata's Asiatic Society. Within a year, the structure was put together and re-established.

Both the Ashokan Pillars were carefully wrapped with cotton silk and were kept on a bed of reed made of raw silk. These were hence transported on a massive carriage attached with 42 wheels and drawn meticulously by 200 men from their original places to Delhi by Feroz Shah Tughlaq to avoid any damage during the journey. Upon reaching Delhi, they were then transported on huge boats to their final destination, one within Feroz Shah Kotla and the other on the ridge near Delhi University and Bara Hindu Rao Hospital.


-- Feroz Shah Kotla, by Wikipedia


Image
The Staff of Firuz Shah.
[10'4" circumference at base / 37' tall / red]


Image
Remains of an Ancient Building near Firoz Shah's Cotilla
Artist and engraver: Daniell, Thomas (1749-1840)
Date: 1795
Plate 7 from the first set of Thomas Daniell's 'Oriental Scenery.' In the 14th Century Delhi was the capital of the Tughluqs, powerful rulers whose kingdom encompassed almost all of the subcontinent. The citadel (Daniell's Cotilla or kotla) of Firuz Shah, on the river Jumna, was built by Firuz Shah Tughluq, who ruled between 1351 and 1388. The buildings in this aquatint no longer exist and the citadel is now in the south-east of modern Delhi. The course of the Jumna has now shifted eastwards. This view was reproduced on a Staffordshire earthenware dish around 1810-20.

-- British Library Online Gallery, bl.uk

He had a large personal library of manuscripts in Persian, Arabic and other languages. He brought 2 Ashokan Pillars from Meerut, and Topra near Radaur in Yamunanagar district of Haryana, carefully cut and wrapped in silk, to Delhi in bullock cart trains. He re-erected one of them on the roof of his palace at Firoz Shah Kotla.

... When the Qutb Minar struck by lightning in 1368 AD, knocking off its top storey, he replaced them with the existing two floors, faced with red sandstone and white marble. One of his hunting lodges, Shikargah, also known as Kushak Mahal, is situated within the Teen Murti Bhavan complex, Delhi.
Image
Sikargah or Kushak Mahal, 14th-century hunting lodge built by Firoz Shah Tughlaq.

Image
Teen Murti Bhavan: Residence of India's first Prime minister, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru

-- Teen Murti Bhavan, by Wikipedia

-- Firuz Shah Tughlaq, by Wikipedia


In a very singular monument near Delhi, an outline of which is here exhibited, and which the natives call the Staff of Firuz Shah, are several old inscriptions partly in ancient Nagari letters, and partly in a character yet unknown; and Lieutenant Colonel Polier, having procured exact impressions of them, presents the Society with an accurate Copy of all the Inscriptions. Five of them are in Sanscrit, and, for the most part, intelligible; but it will require great attention and leisure to decypher the others. If the language be Sanscrit, the powers of the unknown letters may, perhaps, hereafter be discovered by the usual mode of decyphering; and that mode, carefully applied even at first, may lead to a discovery of the language. In the mean time, a literal version of the legible Inscriptions is laid before you. They are, on the whole, sufficiently clear; but the sense of one or two passages is at present inexplicable.

I.

The first, on the southwest side of the pillar, is perfectly detached from the rest: it is about seventeen feet from the base, and two feet higher than the other inscriptions.

OM.

In the year 1230, on the first day of the bright half of the month Vaisach (a monument) of the Fortunate Visala Deva Son of the Fortunate Amilla Deva, King of Sacambhari.

II.

The next, which is engraved as a specimen of the character, consists of two stanzas in four lines; but each hemistich is imperfect at the end, the two first wanting seven, and the two last five, syllables. The word Sacambhari in the former inscription enables us to supply the close of the third hemistich.

OM.

As far as Vindhya, as far as Hsinadri, (the Mountain of Snow,) he was not deficient in celebrity ... making Aryaverta (the Land of Virtue, or India) even once more what its name signifies ... He having departed, Prativahaamana Tilaca (is) king of Sacambhari: (Sacam only remains on the monument.) By us (the region between) Himawat and Vindhya has been made tributary.

In the year from Sri Vicramaditta 123 [A.D. 67], in the bright half of the month Vaisach ... at that time the Rajaputra Sri Sallaca was Prime Minister.

The second stanza, supplied from the last inscription, and partly by conjecture, will run thus:

vritte sa prativahamana tilacah sacambharibhupatik
aswabhik caradam vyadhayi himawadvinahyatavimana alam.


Image

The date 123 [A.D. 67] is here perfectly clear; at least it is clear that only three figures are written, without even room for a cypher after them; whence we may guess that the double circle in the former inscription was only an ornament, or the neutral terminal am; if so, the date of both is the year of Christ sixty-seven; but if the double circle be a Zero, the monument of Visala Deva is as modern as the year 1174, or nineteen years before the conquest of Delhi by Shihabuddin.

III and IV.

The two next inscriptions were in the same words, but the stanzas, which in the fourth are extremely mutilated, are tolerably perfect in the third, wanting only a few syllables at the beginning of the hemistichs:

yak cshiveshu praharta nripatishu vinamatcandhareshu prasannah
--vah sambi purindrah jagata vijayate visala cahonipalah
... da sajnya esha vijayl santanajanatmajah
... punan cshemastu bruvatamudyogasunyanmanah


He who is resentful to kings intoxicated with pride, indulgent to those whose necks are humbled, an INDRA in the city of Causambi (I suspect Causambi, a city near Hastinapur, to be the true reading,) who is victorious in the world, Visala, sovereign of the earth: he gives ... his commands being obeyed, he is a conqueror, the son of Santanajana, whose mind, when his foes say, 'Let there be mercy,' is free from further hostility.

This inscription was engraved, in the presence of Sri Tilaca Raja, by Sripati, the son of Mahava, a Cayastha, of a family in Gauda, or Bengal.

V.

The fifth seems to be an elegy on the death of a king named Vigraha, who is represented as only slumbering. The last hemistich is hardly legible, and very obscure; but the send of both stanzas appears to be this.

OM.

1. An offence to the eyes of (thy) enemy's consort (thou) by whom fortune was given to every suppliant, thy fame, joined to extensive dominion, shines, as we desire, before us. The heart of (thy) foes was vacant, even as a path in a desert, where men are hindred from passing, O fortunate Vigraha Rajadeva, in the jubilee occasioned by thy march.

2. May thy abode, O Vigraha, sovereign of the world, be fixed, as in reason, (it ought) in the bosoms, embellished with love's allurements, and full of dignity, of the women with beautiful eyebrows, who were married to thy enemies! Whether thou art Indra, or Vishnu, or Siva, there is even no deciding: thy foes (are) fallen, like descending water. Oh! why dost thou through delusion, continue sleeping?
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36183
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:22 am

Indian Epigraphy and the Asiatic Society: The First Fifty Years
by Ludo Rocher and Rosane Rocher
University of Pennsylvania
Bulletin of the Asia Institute
New Series, Vol. 23 (2009), pp. 159-170 (12 pages)
Published by: Bulletin of the Asia Institute, a Non-Profit Corporation



In his signature Indian Epigraphy (1998), the honoree of the present volume devoted a chapter to "The History of Indian Epigraphic Studies." The purpose of our essay is to follow up on the first period of this history, "The Pioneering Era: Early Readings of Indian Inscriptions (1781-1834)" (IE: 199-203), focusing on the dynamics and modalities of this epoch, which encompassed the early years of the Asiatic(k) Society and the publication of the twenty volumes of Asiatic(k) Researches, before "the study of Indian inscriptions erupted in a blaze of glory" (IE: 203).

After the slow but steady progress of the first three decades of the nineteenth century, the study of Indian inscriptions erupted in a blaze of glory in the middle of the 1830s.

-- Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages, by Richard Salomon


More than any other, the first volume of AR dealt with epigraphy (1788: seven articles). Studies on inscriptions further appeared in volumes 2 (1790: two), 3 (1792: one), 5 (1798: two), 7 (1801: one), 9(1807: one), 12 (1816: one), 14 (1822: one), 15 (1825: two), 16 (1828: two), and 20 (1836-1839: two).

The Role of the Asiatic Society

As it did for many areas of research on India, the Asiatic Society provided a rallying point, an established institution where contributions to the study of epigraphy could be submitted, discussed, published, and widely distributed. The abundance of papers on inscriptions in the first volume of AR shows that there was a store of material susceptible of publication. Presenting an "Account of the Sculptures and Ruins at Mavalipuram" at the meeting of 17 June 1784, William Chambers regretted that, when he visited the site in 1772 and 1776, there did not exist in India "so powerful an incentive to diligent enquiry and accurate communication, as the establishment of this Society must now prove" (PAS 1: 33, publ. 1788, AR 1: 145-70 @145). Inscriptions had incidentally drawn Chambers' attention, as that of other visitors to ancient monuments. He was sufficiently impressed later to tell his fellow members that "on one of the Pagodas . . . there is an inscription of a single line, in a character at present unknown to the Hindoos," and that be hoped "that some method may be fallen upon of procuring an exact copy of this inscription," since it was one of the "circumstances attending these monuments, which cannot but excite great curiosity, and on which future inquiries may possibly throw some light" (AR 1: 152).

The fortuitous character of epigraphic discoveries did not cease with the founding of the Asiatic Society. John Herbert Harington, the Society's secretary from 1784 to 1792, reported:

A knowledge of the antiquities of Hinduism forming one of the several objects proposed by the institution of our Society, with the hope of communicating something acceptable on this head, I took the opportunity of a late excursion up the country (to visit a cave near Bodh-Gaya) ... On my describing it to the President, whom I had the pleasure to accompany, I was encouraged by him to think that a particular account of it would be curious and useful, and in consequence made a second visit to it from Gya, when I took the following measurements, and, by the means of my Moonshee, a copy of the inscription on it" (1788, AR 1: 276).


It thus appears that Sir William Jones had suggested that Harington explore and describe the cave, and that Harington's discovery of an inscription was accidental.1

Charles Wilkins was in the rare position of not having to wait for the founding of the Asiatic Society to get his work into print. In 1781, shortly after beginning to learn Sanskrit, "the Caxton of India" printed at his own press in Calcutta a translation Governor-General Warren Hastings had asked him to make of an inscription on copper found at Mungir. The first volume of AR reprinted this tract, omitting the dedication to Hastings and adding a facsimile of the inscription, and insured a wide distribution for what had been an obscure pamphlet (1788, AR 1: 123-30). For Wilkins, interest in epigraphy and in Sanskrit went hand in hand. He intimated in his dedication that Hastings' approval of his translation of the Mungir inscription would constitute "a farther inducement ... to pursue the study of the Sanscrit language, in the intricacies of which so much valuable learning lies hidden." He kept Hastings, who allowed him to reside in Banaras for the purpose of learning Sanskrit, apprised of his further epigraphic work, for a handwritten copy of his translation of an inscription at Bodh-Gaya was returned to the custodian of Hastings' papers from Daylesford, his last residence, in September 1836 (APAC: MSS Eur. F324/3, publ. 1788, AR 1: 284-87). Wilkins was already interested in epigraphy in 1780, when, he later wrote,

I discovered, in the vicinity of the town of Buddal, near which the Company have a Factory, and which at that time was under my charge, a decapitated monumental column ... At a few feet above the ground Ii an inscription engraved in the stone, from which I took two reversed impressions with printer's ink.


After initial frustrations, he was able to present his findings to the Society on 14 July 1785, by which time he had "lately been so fortunate as to decypher the character" (PAS 1: 58, publ. 1788, AR 1: 131-41@131).

The Asiatic Society clearly appreciated papers on inscriptions more than on some other objects. Inscriptions found and copied by John Eardley Wilmot, translated by Wilkins, were welcomed and published in AR (15 Dec. 1785, PAS 1: 68, publ. 1790, AR 2: 167-69; 29 Dec. 1785, PAS 1:69, publ. 1788, AR 1: 284-87). By contrast, Wilmot's concurrent communication of "a number of drawings of Hindu temples and images" only elicited the thanks of the Society "for the entertainment afforded by his performances" (29 Dec. 1785, PAS 1: 69). Twenty years after the Society's foundation, when botanist Nathaniel Wallich volunteered to curate a museum in the new structure the Society had built to house its activities, and the Society resolved to draw and make public a list of objects it solicited, the first item in a list of 17 desiderata was "Inscriptions on stone or brass" (2 Feb. 1814, PAS 2: 471, publ. 1816, AR 12: Appendix, v).

Crucial for publication was the availability of a translation. A communication of Charles W. Malet "containing some account of the caves of Salset; and enclosing an inscription taken from them, the character and language of which is unknown" was "returned with the thanks of the Society" (30 June 1785, PAS 1: 57). Years later, when Lieut. William Price sent "a copy of an imperfect inscription in Sanscrit found upon a stone in Bundelcund," he was asked "to add any further remarks or a translation to his communication" (3 Feb. 1813, PAS 2: 453). At a following meeting, was "[r]ead a letter from Lieut. W. Price forwarding to the Society a large stone with Sanscrit inscription found in Bundlelkhund accompanied with a manuscript copy and a translation." Only then was it resolved "that Lieut. Price receive thanks of the Society and that the translated inscriptions be referred to the Committee of Papers" (2 June 1813, PAS 2: 455-56). Price's "Translation of a Sanscrit Inscription on a Stone Found in Bundelc'hand" was published in the long delayed twelfth volume of AR together with a letter dated Calcutta, 1 September 1813, addressed to Society president Henry Thomas Colebrooke, in which Price related how he had "observed a stone, with a Sanscrit inscription, lying at the foot of a rocky hill in the vicinity of the town of Mow, about ten miles from Chatterpur," had the stone removed, deciphered the inscription, and begged leave "to present the monument to the Asiatick Society, and to lay before them a correct transcript of the original, in modern Devanagari character, with a literal translation" (1816, AR 12: 357-74 @357, 358).

Among submitted inscriptions that remained unpublished, apparently for lack of a translation or interpretive account, was a set of facsimiles presented by Major Colin Mackenzie, surveyor of Mysore, an avid collector of inscriptions in South India (7 Jan. 1807, PAS 2: 3411 cf. IE: 203). Similarly, no action other than a vote of thanks was taken on "a transcript of an inscription on stone in the fort of Hansi together with a specimen of the character," which Lieut. Edward Fell first submitted with the rider: "[ I] am sorry that at present my slight knowledge of the Sanscrit prevents an accompanying translation. I fear even some parts of this may be incorrect from the mutilated state of the letters" (5 Aug. 1812, PAS 2: 446, 821- 22). Fell did become an excellent Sanskritist and later submitted a translation of the Hansi inscription, repeatedly begging secretary Horace Hayman Wilson to present it to the Society (7 Mar. 1822, 30 Oct. 1822, 11 Jan. 1823, 21 May 1823, APAC: MSS Eur. E301/1, ff. 77, 95, 103, 116). There was no follow-up either on Fell's submission of a "translation of an inscription from Gurrah Mandal" (7 May 1823, PAS 3: 467). The hitch appears to have been Fell's inability to provide a historical context, for he wrote Wilson on 18 June 1823:

I have nothing in the way of history on the Gurrah & Hansi inscriptions. I don't even know where the first was found -- it was given to me by Col. OBrien -- the latter I transcribed when at Hansi -- it is built in the wall of a handsome Mosque created by Mahmud Ghori, who conquered Hansi ... in 1192. Your fertile genius will enable you to add a few explanations" (APAC: MSS Eur. E301/1, ff. 122-23).


Wilson eventually included both in "Sanscrit Inscriptions. By (the late) Captain E. Fell. With observations by H. H. Wilson" (1825, AR 15: 436-69 @437- 43, 443-46), after all of Fell's manuscript translations were "placed at [his] disposal, upon one condition, viz. that [he would] be so good as to prepare for publication any which in [his] judgment are deserving of it" (Charles Thoresby to Wilson, 1 June 1824, APAC: MSS Eur. E301/1, f. 139). The first of these two inscriptions had been the subject of a duplicate submission. Captain R. Lachlan had laid before the Society on 16 September 1820 "a copy of a Sanscrit inscription detailing the genealogy of the Kings of Gurhamandala with an English translation by Capt. Price" (PAS 3: 358), to which no further reference is found.

Few people who discovered inscriptions were capable of deciphering and translating or interpreting them. As we noted, Wilkins became able to do so several years after discovering the inscription at Badal, Fell some time after first examining that at Hansi. As we also noted, Price was already equal to complying with the Society's request for a translation of the inscription he had found in Bundelkhand when he settled in Calcutta and began teaching Sanskrit, Bengali, and other languages at the College of Fort William. Walter Ewer, an accomplished Persian scholar, acquired the skills to read the till then inaccessible Persian inscriptions on the Qutb Minar by using "a telescope of great magnifying power," translate them, and communicate text and translation to the Society (20 Dec. 1818, PAS 3:363, publ. 1822, AR 14: 480-89@481).

When unsure of what they had found and/or aware that the Society expected more than plain copies of inscriptions, others sought expert help from scholars who prepared translations and presented them to the Society. Publications appeared under the translator's name, with or without mention of the person who had first found the inscription. Thus, of two translations of inscriptions which the Society's proceedings record Wilmot forwarded and Wilkins submitted in December 1785, one, "Translation of a Sanscrit Inscription, copied from a stone at Booddha-Gaya, by Mr. Wilmot, 1785. Translated by Charles Wilkins, Esq.," recorded Wilmot's name (29 Dec. 1785, PAS 1: 69, publ. 1788, AR 1: 284-87). The other, "Two Inscriptions from the Vindhya Mountains, Translated from the Sanscrit by Charles Wilkins, Esq.," did not refer to Wilmot either in the title or in the body of the published text (15 Dec. 1785, PAS I: 68, publ. l790, AR 2: 167-69).

On several occasions, the Society asked experts to provide translations of inscriptions that had been submitted. Secretary Harington requested from Wilkins a "Translation of a Sanscrit Inscription" from the Nagarjuni Hill (17 Mar. 1785, PAS 1: 47, publ. 1788, AR 1: 279- 83). When Resident at Poona Sir Charles W. Malet sent "a facsimile of some ancient inscriptions found in the caves at Ellora," the Society asked Lieut. Francis Wilford in Banaras to decipher and translate them. They were published, notwithstanding Wilford's lukewarm assessment that they were "of little importance; but the publication of them, may assist the labours of others in decyphering more interesting manuscripts or inscriptions" (3 Dec. 1795, PAS 1: 256, publ. 1798, AR 5: 135-40 @135). When William Moorecroft sent copper plates he had procured on loan from temple priests near Badrinath, William Carey and William Price were asked to examine them and report. After submitting an account of the inscription, Price was further requested to provide a literal translation (30 Dec. 1820, 17 Feb. 1821, PAS 3:362, 378, 1083). There, however, matters rested, perhaps because Price judged that "[t]hese were simply royal edicts declaratory of a charitable donation of lands and had nothing to do with the history of the temple of Badri Nath" (PAS 3: 402, 1085-86). Unaware of this development, Moorcroft suggested a further long haul for the plates, writing secretary Wilson from Leh:

Were the inscriptions on the copper Plates of Punkhesur translated? I apprehend they were in the Tibetan character -- if sent here they may be translated into Persian. [Commissioner in Kumaon) Mr Traill would find no difficulty in willing them to the commanding Official at Sabathas who would forward them to this place with a letter to the Minister" [31 Dec. 1821, APAC: MSS Eur. E-101/1 f. 75).


The Society went to great lengths to insure a correct reading and interpretation of two inscriptions from the Rajivalocana temple in Rajim, Chattisgarh, copies of which had been forwarded by Resident at Nagpur Richard Jenkins, with a translation of the first (9 July 1823, PAS 3: 470-71). Concerned that conjectural readings and translations from local pandits were unreliable, they requested facsimiles of both inscriptions, which Jenkins had Col. Agnew submit on 10 March 1824. Only then was a translation of the first read, with observations in which secretary Wilson noted that "[ b]esides the historical notices furnished by this inscription, .... it has some value in the history of Hindoo literature" for dating the Puranas (PAS 3: 494, 512, PAS 3: 1176- 79, publ. 1825, AR 15: 511-15). By contrast, a series of inscriptions found at Mount Abu and submitted with translations by Capt. Alexander Spiers (5 May 1824, PAS 3: 498) were judged too voluminous and many of too little importance. In this case, Wilson undertook to publish "a concise description of the series, translating, in detail, those only which appear to afford materials to history" (1828, AR 16: 284-330 @284).

The Society was keen to publish not only first translations of inscriptions, but also corrected translations based on better documentation. On receiving "a Book of Drawings and Inscriptions prepared under the inspection of their late Member Captain James Hoare:," Harington, vice-president from 1797 to 1819, took advantage of a visit by Colebrooke to Calcutta to have him produce on the basis of this new material a "Translation of One of the Inscriptions on the Pillar at Dehlee, called the Lat of Feeroz Shah" (6 Dec. 1798, PAS I: 304-5, publ. 1801, AR 7: 175-82 @175; cf. Rocher and Rocher 2012: 54), which improved on the translation Jones had first published, based on a copy provided by Antoine Potler (27 Mar. 1788, PAS 1: 125, publ. 1788, AR 1: 379-82).

When interest in epigraphic material waned in the later 1820s, even a translation was not enough to incite publication. Among inscriptions submitted after 1825, only three appeared in AR. "Translation of an Inscription on the Great Bell of Rangoon" by the Rev. G. H. Hough had been read on 1 November 1826 (PAS 3:571, publ. 1828, AR 16: 270-83). The other two, read in the 1830s, appeared in the much delayed first part of the 20th volume, published in 1836: "Translation of Various Inscriptions Found among the Ruins of Vijayanagar" by E. C. Ravenshaw, with preliminary observations by secretary Wilson (7 Nov. 1832, JASB 1: 513, publ. AR 20.1: 1- 40), and a translation by Resident at Ava, Lieut . Col. H. Burney, of an inscription in Burmese discovered at Bodh-Gaya in 1833 by his brother Capt. George Burney (3 Sep. 1834, JASB 3: 411, publ. AR 20.1: 161- 89).

Occasionally, disinterest sank to utter neglect. Not until the meeting of 28 May 1834 were extracts read of

letters from B. H. Hodgson Esq., Resident in Nepal, on the subject of inscriptions in the character No. 1. of the Allahabad column, and forwarding a native drawing of the Matthia Lat'h . . . with an accurate transcript of its inscription. / Also an accurate facsimile of an inscription from the Sagar territory, which proves to be in old Sanscrit character.


To this report James Prinsep, who served as secretary from 1833 to 1838, added the telling remark:

These inscriptions, Mr. Hodgson says, were communicated to the Asiatic Society, eight or ten years ago, but no trace of them could be found among its records: fortunately he has preserved the originals, from which we shall take an early opportunity to make engravings for publication, together with the author's remarks upon this and three other Lat'hs in North Behar of a similar nature (JASB 3: 245- 46).


Hodgson's "Notice of Some Ancient Inscriptions in the Characters of the Allahabad Column" and a "Note on the Mathiah Lath Inscription" by Prinsep were published in the following October, not in Asiatic Researches, but in the new, monthly Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal (ibid: 481-87), which Prinsep had started in 1832 to print the Society's proceedings as well as shorter essays than those in the sluggish Asiatic Researches, which was soon discontinued. With this and other articles, the third volume of JASB again gave epigraphy pride of place, as Prinsep revitalized it.

Of interest are the varied and often circuitous ways in which original inscriptions and copies reached the Society. More often than by purposeful, personal exploration, European civil administrators and members of the military service obtained inscriptions from Indian laborers who found them while engaged in their daily work. Publishing an essay "On Ancient Monuments, Containing Sanscrit Inscriptions" which had been presented to the Society (1807, AR 9: 398- 444), Colebrooke narrated: "Towards the end of 1803, a plate of copper was discovered in digging earth for the repair of the highway through the Manamati hills in the district of Tipura. It was carried to Mr. Eliot, Magistrate of the district; and by him communicated to the Asiatick Society" (401-2). Another copper plate was "found in the district of Gorakhpur, near the river called the little Gand'hac. It was brought to Mr. John Ahmuti, Magistrate of the district, and by him communicated to Captain Wilford, who has presented it to the Asiatick Society" (406). 1n 1806,

a plate of copper was found at Amgach'hi in Sultanpur, by a peasant, digging earth for the repair of a road near his cottage. He delivered it to the nearest police officer, by whom it was conveyed to the Magistrate, Mr. J. Pattle: and by him forwarded for communication to the Asiatick Society (434).


In 1821, Major-General Hardwicke sent "an account of a Sanscrit and Persian inscription on a stone found at Sirsah by Captain W. S. Whish." The marble slab had been found in 1818 "when the force under Major-General Arnold encamped there . . . amongst the rubbish of decayed buildings" (PAS 3: 393, 408). This submission remained unpublished.

One set of inscriptions traveled from a peasant to the Society via the highest echelon of government: "In the beginning of 1823, seven plates of copper with Sanscrit Inscriptions were found by a peasant at work in a field ... ; they were delivered by him to the Magistrate and forwarded to the Government by whom they were presented to the Society" (1825, AR 15: 446). W. B. Bayley, Chief Secretary to Government, wrote Society secretary Wilson:

I am directed by the Honourable the Governor General in Council to transmit to you, for the purpose of their being presented to the Museum of the Asiatic Society, the accompanying 7 plates of copper recently discovered in a field near the junction of the Burna Nullah with the Ganges at Benaras. / 2. The accompanying copy of a letter and of its enclosures from Mr. Macleod, judge and Magistrate of the City of Benaras, are also forwarded to you, in order that they may be laid before the Asiatic Society.


The government added another, unusual step:

3. The Governor General in Council is desirous of forwarding to the Hon'ble the Court of Directors, accurate copies of the several inscriptions on these plates, and I am directed to request that you will be good enough to furnish me with copies of them for that purpose" (24 July 1823, PAS 3: 1603).


In this multiple transfer, one crucial element was omitted in Bayley's official letter, but was revealed in a letter Wilson had received from his protege Fell in Banaras:

The plates were taken to Macleod who sent them to me with a letter on the 'service' requesting me to decypher and to translate them. This has all been done and I do not like to appear to be playing double with him as he has most particularly requested me not to send down a translation, as he says he intends to send it to Mr Bayley. You will however ultimately have it" (30 Oct. 1822, APAC: MSS Eur. E301/ l, f. 95).


Fell was to complain that Macleod was dilatory in transmitting this material, and griped: "He is the worst (blank) we could have" (11 Jan. 1823, 18 June 1823, ibid.: ff. 103, 123). A translation of these "Inscriptions from Benares," with notes by Wilson, was published under the late Capt. Fell's name (1825, AR 15: 437-69 @446-69).

Most inscriptions that made their way to Calcutta were intended to find a permanent place in the Society and its museum, but not all of them did. Returning from a visit to Bombay, General John Carnac brought six copper plates, found during digging works in Thana, but noted in his cover letter: "I obtained permission (from the Governor of Bombay) to bring them round with me, being desirous to submit them to the investigation of the Asiatick Society, under the promise of restoring them to the Proprietor" (15 Feb. 1787, translation read on 29 Mar., PAS l: 101, publ. 1788, AR 1: 357-67, letter @356). A letter from Moorcroft,

communicating his having procured the loan of four large sheets of copper with inscriptions relative (so he thought) to the ancient theological history of the Hindoos from the temple of Punkesur near Budureenath and forwarded the same to the Commissioner at Kumaon, to be sent down to Calcutta, and requesting that the sheets may be returned to the temple within the period of eighteen months (8 Jan. 1820, PAS 3: 340),


reported that he had argued that the originals would best be deciphered in Calcutta "to avoid the risk of errors in copying them likely to occur from the inscriptions being in a language wholly unknown to the Brahmins in attendance at the Temple" (ibid.: 366). Expressing the hope that copper plates from Rajim might be "worthy of being submitted to the Asiatic Society," Jenkins also specified: "I do not say presented, as the Pujaris of the temple to which they belong are not willing to part with them altogether, and 1 have promised that they shall be restored" (read 9 July 1823, PAS 3:470, 1176-77, AR 15: 499).

Notwithstanding the wealth of epigraphic material that reached the Asiatic Society, there is little doubt that many more inscriptions on stone or copper did not find their way to the Society, but fell into the hands of Europeans who wished to own and carry some home as curiosities. Colebrooke deplored that a copper plate had been carried away "beyond reach of reference, having been conveyed to Europe to be there buried in some publick museum or private collection" (1807, AR 9: 401). Even though, in that case, he was able to work from a copy of the transcript preserved by pandit Sarvoru Trivedi (1807, AR 9: 400, 441 ), he viewed such copies as a pis-aller, and "urge(d) the communication of every inscription which may be hereafter discovered," insisting:

It is a subject for regret, that the originals, of which versions have before been made publick, are not deposited where they might be accessible to persons engaged in researches into Indian literature and antiquities: but much more so, that ancient monuments, which there is reason to consider as important, have been removed to Europe, before they had been sufficiently examined, or before they were accurately copied and translated (1807, AR 9: 400).


This was a situation which the Asiatic Society sought to remedy with the formal establishment of a museum.

The Role of Pandits

For inscriptions as for Sanskrit literary texts, Europeans in India often sought the help of pandits. More frequently than with texts, however, native knowledge was apt to fall short of their expectations, as ancient scripts proved a hurdle.2 We are repeatedly told that "even pandits" were unable to decipher a script and interpret inscriptions. Before turning to Wilkins, Harington had taken the impression of the Nagarjuni inscription, which "many Pundits . . . who had seen the original engraving, had attempted in vain to decipher," to Banaras, the reputed center of Hindu learning, but even "a Pundit at Benaris ... attempted in vain to get it read" (1788, AR 1: 276). Sending the box of Rajim copper plates, Jenkins wrote: "The plates and signet bear inscriptions in a character which none of the brahmins of the country are able to decypher" (read 9 July 1823, PAS 3: 470-71, publ. 1825, AR 15: 499-515 @499). Regarding the Thana copper plates, Carnac was less precise: "The Governor of Bombay informed me none of the Gujerat Bramins could explain the Inscriptions" (AR 1: 356), but the fact that he carried the plates, not a transcript, to Calcutta points to an issue of decipherment more than interpretation.

Some pandits nevertheless played an active role in the decipherment and/or elucidation of inscriptions. As Richard Salomon has noted, "These panditas were often, but by no means always, given due credit for their efforts in the publications of English authors, so that it is not always easy to fully evaluate the nominal authors' real contributions" (IE: p. 202, n. 14). We have sought to gather additional information on whether, and to what extent, the most prominent European authors of articles on inscriptions in AR relied on, and, if so, acknowledged, the contribution of pandits in their attempts to decipher and translate Indian inscriptions.

In a unique case, Wilkins seems to have been able early on to decipher the script of inscriptions on his own. He wrote Harington of the Nagarjuni inscription which had stumped pandits:

Having been so fortunate as to make out the whole of the curious inscription you were so obliging as to lend me, I herewith return it, accompanied by an exact copy, in a reduced size, interlined with each corresponding letter in the modern Dewnagar character; and also a copy of my translation, which is as literal as the idioms would admit it to be" (17 Mar. 1785, publ. 1788, AR 1: 279).


In addition to "pure perseverance and genius" (IE: 200-201), Wilkins likely could draw on the expertise and sensitivity to written forms he had developed in his youth as the nephew of an engraver, and later as a founder of types in India.
An even more remarkable achievement by Wilkins was his translation, published as a letter in AR 1, 279-83, of the record now known as the Nagarjuni hill cave inscription of the early Maukhari king Anantavarman.9 [Presented March 17, 1785 (Chaudhuri, Proceedings, 47).] While his comment that the script is "very materially different from that we find in inscriptions of eighteen hundred years ago" is due to his incorrect dating of the Mungir plate alluded to earlier, he was nonetheless correct that "the character is undoubtedly the most ancient of any that have hitherto come under my inspection." (Anantavarman is now known to have ruled sometime in the sixth century A.D.) It is truly remarkable that Wilkins was somehow able to read the late Brahmi of this period, which, unlike the scripts of three centuries later, is very different from modern scripts both in its general form and in many of its specific characters. It is thus not entirely clear how, beyond pure perseverance and genius, Wilkins managed to read this inscription, but presumably he did this by working back from the script of the Pala period which he had already mastered.10 [The precise order in which Wilkins translated his first three inss. is not certain, but it is clear that he worked on the Mungir ins. first, in 1781, and that the Nagarjuni and Badal inss. followed in the period between 1781 and his presentation of all three inss. to the society in 1785 (see Kejariwal, The Asiatic Society, 43-4).] In any case, his translation, while once again not always correct, proves beyond question that he could read the late Brahmi, or early Siddhamatrka, script of the sixth century.

-- Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages, by Richard Salomon

Still, like many contemporaries, he did resort to panditic knowledge to interpret and translate inscriptions as well as literary texts. In his early translation of the Mungir inscription, he acknowledged "[t]he Pundit, by whose assistance this translation was made" (Wilkins 1781, Notes, 21 1788, AR 1: p. 129, n. 4), just as he did later in his translations of the Bhagavadgita (1785, [26]) and Hitopodesa (1787, 319), and in his Sanskrit grammar (1808, xi).

Jones was more inclined than most to acknowledge the assistance he received from pandits. Yet, this is not always immediately apparent in his publications on Indian Inscriptions. Both in the proceedings of the Society and in Asiatic Researches, some inscriptions were presented simply as "translated by the President." For instance, "A Royal Grant of Land in Carnata" communicated by Alexander Macleod was said to have been "translated from the Sanscrit by the President" (read 13 Jan. 1791, PAS 1: 167, publ. 1792, AR 3: 39-53). In the notes to the translation, however, Jones repeatedly referred to consultations with several pandits (AR 3: 43, 48). In the Society's proceedings, the Thana copper plates were presented as "translated by the President" (29 Mar. 1787, PAS 1:101). The published text, however, is said to have been "literally translated from the Sanscrit, as explained by Ramalochan Pandit," Jones's first teacher of Sanskrit (1788, AR 1: 357),3 and omits Jones's name entirely from the title and body of the text. Likewise, the proceedings for 27 March 1788 report: "Read Translation of Inscriptions on pillars of Firoze Shah's Kotela, received from Col. Polier by the President" (PAS 1: 125), but in the printed text the inscriptions are said to be "Translated from the Sanscrit, as explained by Radhacanta Sarman," who soon became Jones's primary panditic acolyte (1788, AR 1: 3791. Jones's authorship of these English translations was to be reclaimed with their inclusion in his collected Works (1807, vol. 4: 334-47, 348-52). Jones's "Remarks" on Wilkins' translations of the Mungir and Badal inscriptions stemmed from a close comparison with the Sanskrit texts together with Radhakanta, to whom he referred several times and paid a ringing tribute: "Radhacanta proposed a conjectural emendation, which would have done honour to Scaliger or Bentley" (1788, AR 1: 143).

Colebrooke, too, regularly resorted to panditic knowledge in the interpretation of inscriptions as well as literary texts. Whereas Jones had studied the inscription on Firuz Shah's column with the assistance of Radhakanta, Colebrooke's improved translation was produced in collaboration with Sarvoru Trivedi, to whom he referred in notes (read 6 Dec. 1798, PAS 1: 305, publ. 1801, AR 7: p. 180, n. 51 p. 181, n. 7), and whom he again identified in a subsequent article as the pandit "who assisted me in decypherlng the copy of an inscription on Firoz Shah's pillar at Delhi" (1807, AR 9: 400, n.).4 Although Colebrooke failed to publish a translation that improved on Wilkins' long, but incomplete, account of an inscription found in Portugal on the grounds of Don Joao de Castro's villa in Sintra, which James Murphy had published with a facsimile (1795: 274-87), he recorded in a letter to his father how crucial panditic help had been to him:


If you see Mr. Wilkins, will you mention to him that I have succeeded in deciphering (with the help of Pundits) the inscription which Mr. W. examined and partly decyphered from a copy made by Mr. Murphy. I mean an inscription carried to Portugal, and there copied by Mr. Murphy. I have thoughts of publishing a translation of it. I am not surprised that Mr. Wilkins could not decipher the whole of it. I should not have succeeded better without help (5 Oct. 1803, Life: 214).


In his major essay "On Ancient Monuments, Containing Sanscrit Inscriptions," Colebrooke relied on, and referred throughout to "Pandits," even "the aid of several Pandits" (1807, AR 9: 398-444). He had one of the inscriptions, which had been deciphered by a pandit in Wilford's service, reexamined "with the concurrence of several Pandits from Tirhut," since the characters "make a nearer approach to the Tirhutiya letters than to any other now in use" (406-7). The text of an inscription forwarded by Mackenzie was, Colebrooke said, "in some instances, read differently by the Pandits whom (he had) consulted," than the translation made by Mackenzie's principal assistant, Kaveli Boria (1807, AR 9: 413).

Fell, whose submissions, even "with the help of a Pandit" (PAS 2: 822), remained unpublished in his lifetime, might have made considerable contributions to the study of inscriptions, had he lived longer. A beginner in 1810, he developed from a star student at Fort William College into a distinguished Sanskrit scholar during his posting in Banaras and engagement there with pandit teachers at Sanskrit College, for which he served as secretary of the directing committee. Fell failed to point to specific help, but he acknowledged discussing inscriptions with "[m]any of the Pandits at Benares" (1825, AR 15: 458). Fell's devotion to inscriptions and other antiquities may have hastened his death. He died of a fever on 15 February 1824 at Bilaspur, en route from Nagpur to Banaras:

he had offered his services in exploring, on his route, those monuments of antiquity which are found in the district of Chutteesghur, especially in the form of ancient and undecyphered inscriptions. These, it was his intention to copy and convey to Benares, where he would have examined and translated them at leisure.5


Price, to whom we referred as a trusted translator of inscriptions, did not mention the help of pandits. Yet, it must be noted that, as an assistant professor and later professor at the College of Fort William from 1823 to 1831, he could command the time of the College's pandits.

Thanks to the various locations and career paths of its members, the Society benefited from a wide and diverse board of pandits. Wilkins' primary assistant was the Bengali Kasinatha, 6 settled in Banaras, whom Wilkins did not name, but whom Jones also consulted through Wilkins and tried in vain to hire (Cannon 1970: 665, 660, 683, 781). Kasinatha went on to be appointed the first rector of Banaras Sanskrit College, founded in 1791, and presumably to help other British scholars until his dismissal for financial irregularities in 1801 (Nicholls 1907: 3, 6). Jones consulted a wide circle of pandits (Rocher 1995 and 2007), and programmatically employed the Bengali Radhakanta and the Bihari Sarvoru Trivedi (Rocher 1989). Colebrooke's circle consisted primarily of Maithila pandits whom he recruited during his early postings in Bihar and who stayed with him through his Indian career (Rocher and Rocher 2012: 124, 201). From the South, a translation of an inscription communicated by Mackenzie, who made up for a lack of language skills with a network of helpers, was made possible by the "united efforts and knowledge" of "the Slisuis and Pandits at Triplicane" and his brahman assistants (1807, AR 9: 42.2.-23). This link with the Society became immediate when, upon being appointed surveyor-general of India, Mackenzie brought to Calcutta a large staff of South Indian acolytes, who, after his death, were placed under Wilson's supervision. After neither local brahmans nor Calcutta pandits were able to read the Rajim copper plates,


it fortunately happened that the establishment of the late Col. Mackenzie possessed an individual, Sri Verma Suri, a Jain of great respectability and learning, who had been long engaged in decyphering the inscriptions of the Dekhin, and to whom the character of the Raju plates was familiar and he accordingly prepared a transcript of the plates and a copy in Devanagari.


It is worth noting, however, that Varma Suri was made to prove his mettle in a thorough examination by Wilson and Price, some of it "without previous notice or preparation," which he sustained "without any embarrassment or hesitation," before Wilson was satisfied that "little doubt could be entertained of his being really acquainted with the character." Varma Suri's intervention convinced Wilson that the main difference between this script and other forms of devanagari was that it was box-headed, with the prospect that "the facsimile of the plates with the Devanagari transcript, and the comparative alphabet will render these it is hoped decipherable generally in future" (1825, AR 15: 507).

Wilson's caution reflects the particular discomfort that British scholars felt with regard to epigraphic material in unfamiliar scripts. Three decades earlier, when asked to decipher Malet's inscriptions from Ellora, Wilford had reported an extraordinary discovery:

I despaired at first of ever being able to decypher them: for as there are no ancient inscriptions in this part of India, we never had, of course, any opportunity to try our skill and improve our talents in the art of decyphering; however after many fruitless attempts on our part, we were so fortunate as to find at last an ancient sage, who gave us the key, and produced a book in Sanscrit, containing a great many ancient alphabets formerly in use in different parts of India; this was really a fortunate discovery, which hereafter may be of great service to us (1798, AR 5: 135).


A far more promising approach to the problem, indeed a short cut, seemed to be heralded in a letter to Jones from Lieutenant Francis Wilford, a surveyor and an enthusiastic student of all things oriental, who was based at Benares. Jones had been sent copies of inscriptions found at Ellora and written in Ashoka Brahmi, the still undeciphered pin-men. He had probably sent them to Wilford because Benares, the holy city of the Hindus, was the most likely place to find a Brahmin who might be able to read them. In 1793 Wilford announced that he had found just such a man:
I have the honour to return to you the facsimile of several inscriptions with an explanation of them. I despaired at first of ever being able to decipher them... However, after many fruitless attempts on our part, we were so fortunate as to find at last an ancient sage, who gave us the key, and produced a book in Sanskrit, containing a great many ancient alphabets formerly in use in different parts of India. This was really a fortunate discovery, which hereafter may be of great service to us.

According to the ancient sage, most of Wilford's inscriptions related to the wanderings of the five heroic Pandava brothers from the Mahabharata. At the unspecified time in question they were under an obligation not to converse with the rest of mankind; so their friends devised a method of communicating with them by "writing short and obscure sentences on rocks and stones in the wilderness and in characters previously agreed upon betwixt them." The sage happened to have the key to these characters in his code book; obligingly he transcribed them into Devanagari Sanskrit and then translated them.

To be fair to Wilford, he was a bit suspicious about this ingenious explanation of how the inscriptions got there. But he had no doubts that the deciphering and translation were genuine. "Our having been able to decipher them is a great point in my opinion, as it may hereafter lead to further discoveries, that may ultimately crown our labours with success." Above all, he had now located the code book, "a most fortunate circumstance."

Poor Wilford was the laughing stock of the Benares Brahmins for a whole decade. They had already fobbed him off with Sanskrit texts, later proved spurious, on the source of the Nile and the origin of Mecca. After the code book there was a geographical treatise on The Sacred Isles of the West, which included early Hindu reference to the British Isles. The Brahmins, to whom Sanskrit had so long remained a sacred prerogative, were getting their own back. One wonders how much Wilford paid his "ancient sage."

Jones was already a little suspicious of Wilford's sources, but on
the code book, which was as much a fabrication as the translations supposedly based on it, he reserved judgment until he might see it. He never did. In fact it was never heard of again. But in spite of these disappointments Jones continued to believe that in time this oldest script would be deciphered. He had been sent a copy of the writings on the Delhi pillar and told a correspondent that they "drive me to despair; you are right, I doubt not, in thinking them foreign; I believe them to be Ethiopian and to have been imported a thousand years before Christ." It was not one of his more inspired guesses and at the time of his death the mystery of the inscriptions and of the monoliths was as dark as ever.


-- India Discovered, by John Keay


This was the same Wilford who, a year later, was to find out that pandit Vidyananda, of Banaras Sanskrit College, who assisted him, had forged Puranic passages destined to support Wilford's fanciful theories (Nicholls 1907: 6). For epigraphic material, the process was even more complicated, necessitating the several acts of deciphering, transcribing, and interpreting the contents. While pandits' superior grounding in Sanskrit language and literature was accepted, their familiarity with ancient and/or regional scripts was much in doubt. Colebrooke warned: "my experience of the necessity of collating the copies made by the best Pandits, from inscriptions in ancient or unusual characters, discourages me from placing implicit confidence in their transcripts" (1807, AR 9: 400- 401). He therefore advocated the necessity of facsimiles (cf. IE: 202), which Wilson was to heed with respect to the Rajim inscriptions.

Evidence is slim to determine how severely the withdrawal of pandit assistance affected the epigraphic work of members of the Asiatic Society after their return to England. Too few went home: Jones, Wilford, and Fell died in India. Prinsep returned too ill and too late to undertake further work. Price "lived to be oldest officer in Indian army; dying at age 99 (Boase 1965: 429), but is not known to have pursued oriental studies of any kind in retirement. Of the main authors of epigraphic studies in AR, only Wilkins and Colebrooke remained active in Britain, and only Colebrooke published further contributions on inscriptions.

Wilkins appeared to his European contemporaries to possess all requisite skills, having, in Jones's words, "performed more than any other European had learning enough to accomplish, or than any Asiatick had industry enough to undertake" (1788, AR 1: 1421. The translations of inscriptions he published often came as responses to requests from others -- Hastings, Wilmot, and the Asiatic Society. This pattern persisted after his return to England. His partial translation of the inscription in Portugal came in a letter of 20 July 1793 answering a request from Murphy (20 July 1793, Murphy 1795: 277-87). It is noteworthy that Colebrooke attributed his own ability to provide a fuller translation of this inscription to "the help of Pundits," which Wilkins no longer enjoyed in England (Life: 214). The Bonn Sanskritist August Wilhelm von Schlegel, who visited Wilkins in the fall of 1823, reported that the aging Wilkins "still entertain[ed] himself with deciphering old inscriptions and coins, occasionally discovering to his astonishment, after much puzzling, that he had already deciphered the same inscription some forty years ago" (29 Feb. 1824, Korner 1930: vol. 1, p. 409). Sir Graves Chamney Haughton recorded in his obituary of Wilkins that Wilkins helped William Marsden, his future son-in-law, "in decyphering the inscriptions on his Cufic coins," and that "[h]is last effort in the way of literature was a translation of a large antique seal, with a Sanskrit inscription, in an ancient and obscure form of Nagari, which he had decyphered many years ago" (1836, Asiatic Journal, n. s. 20:168-69). This inscription from Asirgadh (IE: 124-25) was published posthumously, with Wilkins' translation, comments by Wilson, and a letter of 1 July 1806 in which Capt. James Colebrooke explained how, after the Asiatic Society failed to respond to his submission of the seal he had discovered, he had turned to Wilkins as "the only probable chance he would ever have" of getting it interpreted (1836, JRAS 3: 377-80).

Of Colebrooke's many books and essays after his return to England, three articles, all written alter he founded the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland (1823) and initiated the publication of its Transactions (from 1824), dealt with inscriptions. These inscriptions were part of the collections of Francis Buchanan Hamilton in the East India Library and of James Tod in the Royal Asiatic Society. Since Colebrooke had not worked on them in India, he made no reference to pandits, except when correcting a misinterpretation by Buchanan Hamilton's pandit (1926, TRAS 1.2: 202). Colebrooke kept current with work produced in India and gave it priority, writing Wilkins on 17 November 1824:

I have lately been examining the facsimiles of inscriptions collected by Dr. Buchanan Hamilton. . . There are several sufficiently interesting for publication; but I believe I must await the arrival of the fifteenth volume of the Asiatic Researches for particular information of the inscriptions translated by Capt. Fell and inserted in it, lest I should be publishing what has already been given there (Life: 352-53).


Reading Fell's posthumous translations of inscriptions printed by Wilson, Colebrooke was moved to publish a note acknowledging Fell's correction of his conflation of father and son Vijayacandra and Jayacandra in his work on a copper plate from Banaras (TRAS 1.3: 462).

Inscriptions and Indian History

The notion that inscriptions may serve as a source to study India's past (cf. IE: 3) did not fail to occur to early members of the Asiatic Society. After reporting how local brahmans "chuse to account" for past events at Mamallapuram, founding member William Chambers noted:

by comparing names and grand events, recorded by them, with those interspersed in the histories of other nations, and by calling in the assistance of ancient monuments, coins, and inscriptions as occasion shall offer, some probable conjectures, at least, if not important discoveries, may, it is hoped, be made on these interesting subjects.


He concluded: "The inscription of the Pagoda ... is an object, which, in this point of view, appears to merit great attention" (1788, AR 1: 157-58). Yet, the crucial importance of using inscriptions as a tool for retracing Indian history was not programmatically expressed until much later.

The fact that Wilkins published "[i]n the first volume (of AR) five papers ... , all except one being translations from ancient inscriptions," led one of his biographers to conclude that "Wilkins was therefore one of the first Europeans to realize the importance of ancient Indian inscriptions as sources for historical studies" (Lloyd 1978: 21). Yet, this inference is not supported by any known statement on Wilkins' part. Better in accord with evidence is E. H. Johnston's judgment: "That by this work he was laying the first stone for the edifice of ancient Indian history as erected by modern research does not appear to have dawned on him" (1940: 128).

The title of Jones's inaugural discourse, on 15 January 1784, announced that the Asiatic Society was founded "for inquiring into the history, civil and natural, the antiquities, arts, sciences, and literature, of Asia," and Jones expected that its members would "trace the annals, and even traditions, of those nations" (publ. 1788, AR 1: ix, xiii). But in none of his anniversary discourses did Jones refer to inscriptions. Nor did he mention inscriptions in the paper on Hindu chronology he read on 7 February 1788, based on the Puranarthaprakasa, a compendium of the Puranas prepared by Radhakanta for Warren Hastings (Rocher and Rocher 1994-1995). Rather than to inscriptions, Jones pointed to astronomy for light on history:

on a subject in itself so obscure, and so much clouded by the fictions of the Brahmans, ... we must be satisfied with probable conjecture and just reasoning from the best attainable data, nor can we hope for a system of Indian Chronology, to which no objection can be made, unless the Astronomical books in Sanscrit shall clearly ascertain the places of the colures in some precise years of the historical age" (publ. 1790, AR 2: 145).


Nor did Jones allude to inscriptions in the supplement to that essay, which was based on astronomical texts forwarded by Samuel Davis' pandit, Radhacarana (17 June 1790, publ. 1790, AR 2: 389-403; cf. Rocher 1995: 65). Even in his tenth anniversary discourse, "On Asiatick History," Jones conceived of Sanskrit texts as the only sources for the study of Indian history (28 Feb. 1793, publ. 1795, AR 4: 1-17). In his first discourse to the Society after Jones's death, president [url=http://survivorbb.rapeutation.com/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=4204&start=170]John Shore quoted a paper in Jones's handwriting, entitled "Desiderata," which had come into his possession. One of these desiderata read: "The History of India before the Mahommedan conquest, from the Sanscrit-Cashmir-Histories" (22 May 1794, publ. 1795, AR 4: 188). Even though Jones made pioneering contributions to the early study of Indian epigraphy, he did not establish a direct link between inscriptions and the reconstruction of ancient Indian history.

In a letter to his father of October 1803, in which he discussed the discovery of new inscriptions, Colebrooke explicitly voiced the expectation: "By degrees the History of India will be partly retrieved from such monuments" (Life: 214). This privately expressed opinion long remained unknown, but it was Colebrooke again who, with a published statement in 1807, earned the distinction of having been, in Richard Salomon's words, "the first to clearly recognize the special importance of inscriptions as a source for the political and cultural history of India" (IE: 203).7 Two decades later, Wilson made importance for history the criterion by which to determine which in a group of inscriptions found at Mount Abu deserved to be fully translated (1828, AR 16: 284). Wilson also opened his observations on the Vijayanagar inscriptions with the statement: "The history of Vijayanagar is a subject of considerable interest in the annals of India" (1836, AR 20.1: 1). By that time, in his first contribution to the Society's new Journal, Prinsep had emphatically stated that his work on an inscription on the Allahabad column had been motivated by his being "[a]ware indeed that the only accurate data we possessed for adjusting the chronology of Indian princes were those derived from ancient monuments of stone; inscriptions on rocks and caves; or grants of land engraven on copper-plates, discovered accidentally in various parts of the country" (1834, JASB 3: 114). Indian epigraphy had come of age.

Notes:

1. Jones traveled to Bodh-Gaya, though "much indisposed," on his way back from Banaras, but was not up to visiting caves (Cannon 1970: 659).

2. On the particular difficulty of consulting pandits for older forms of language (Vedic) or of script (in inscriptions), and objections raised by scholars in Europe, see Rocher and Rocher 2012: 25, 77, 105, 189.

3. Lady Anna Maria Jones drew a sketch of the Vaidya scholar Ramalocana (15 Oct. 1785, reproduced in Franklin 2011: 315).

4. Colebrooke was to amend one of Sarvoru's conjectural emendations: on the basis of a Sanskrit text, the Sarngadharapaddhati, he replaced the reading babujata with chahumana or chahavana, thus connecting the inscription with the Chauhan dynasty (1807, AR 9: 445).

5. "Obituary of Capt. Fell," Asiatic Journal 18, July-Dec. 1824:265.

6. Misidentified as Kashmiri in Rocher 1995: 54.

7. See IE: 202-3 for the text of Colebrooke's progammatic statement.

References

APAC: Asia, Pacific, and Africa Collections, British Library.

MSS Eur. E301: Letters to Horace Hayman Wilson

MSS Eur. F324: Papers of Sir Charles Wilkins.

AR: Asiatic(k) Researches.

Boase, 1965: F. Boase. Modern English Biography. Vol. 6. London.

Cannon, 1970: G. Cannon. The Letters of Sir William Jones. Oxford.

Franklin, 2011: M. J. Franklin. Orientalist Jones. Oxford.

IE: R. Salomon. Indian Epigraphy. New York, 1998.

Johnston, 1940: E. H. Johnston. "Charles Wilkins." Woolner Commemoration Volume, ed. M. Shafi, 124-32. Lahore.

Jones, 1807: A. M. Jones. The Works of Sir William Jones. 13 vols. London.

Korner, 1930: J. Korner. Briefe von und an August Wilhelm Schlegel. 2 vols. Zurich.

Life: T. E. Colebrooke. Life of the Author, prefatory volume to the second edition of H. T. Colebrooke, Miscellaneous Essays, ed. E. B. Cowell. London, 1873.

Lloyd, 1978: M. Lloyd. "Sir Charles Wilkins, 1749-1836." India Office Library and Records; Report for the Year 1978: 9-39.

Murphy, 1795: J. Murphy. Travels in Portugal. London.

Nicholls, 1970: G. Nicholls. Sketch of the Rise and Progress of the Benares Patshalla or Sanskrit College. Allahabad.

PAS: Proceedings of the Asiatic Society, ed. S. Chaudburi (vol. 1) and P. T. Nair (vols. 2-4). Calcutta, 1980-2000.

Rocher, 1989: R. Rocher. "The Career of Radhakanta Tarkavagisa, an Eighteenth-Century Pandit in British Employ." JAOS 109: 627-33.

Rocher, 1995: _____. "Weaving Knowledge: Sir William Jones and Indian Pandits." In Objects of Enquiry: The Life, Contributions, and Influences of Sir William Jones, ed. G. Cannon and K. R. Brine, 51-79. New York.

Rocher, 2007: _____. "A Glimpse into an Orientalist's Workshop: Sir William Jones's Engagement with the Vivadarnavasetu and Its Authors." In Expanding and Merging Horizons: Contributions to South Asian and Cross-Cultural Studies in Commemoration of Wilhelm Halbfass, ed. K. Preisendanz, 63-69. Vienna.

Rocher and Rocher, 1994-1995: L. Rocher and R. Rocher. "The Puranarthaprakasa, Jones's Primary Source on Hindu Chronology." Bulletin of the Deccan College 54-55: 47-71.

Rocher and Rocher, 2012: R. Rocher and L. Rocher. The Making of Western Indology: Henry Thomas Colebrooke and the East India Company. London.

TRAS: Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

Wilkins, 1781: C. Wilkins. A Translation of a Royal Grant of Land by One of the Ancient Raajaas of Hindostan, from the original in the Shanscrit Language and Character. Calcutta.

Wilkins, 1785: _____. The Bhagvat-Geeta, or Dialogues of Kreeshna and Arjoon. London.

Wilkins, 1787: _____. The Heetopades of Veeshnoo-Sarma. Bath.

Wilkins, 1808: _____. A Grammar of the Sanskrita Language. London.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36183
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:42 am

Ashokan Edicts in Delhi
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 10/27/21

[From 'Reminiscences of Imperial Delhi’, an album consisting of 89 folios containing approximately 130 paintings of views of the Mughal and pre-Mughal monuments of Delhi, as well as other contemporary material, with an accompanying manuscript text written by Sir Thomas Theophilus Metcalfe (1795-1853), the Governor-General’s Agent at the imperial court. Acquired with the assistance of the Heritage Lottery Fund and of the National Art-Collections Fund.]

Image
The Kotla of Firoz Shah with the Ashokan pillar viewed from the west, with the gateway of the adjacent mosque. Author: Metcalfe, Sir Thomas Theophilus (1795-1853). Medium: Ink and colours on paper. Date: 1843.

[The Kotla of Firoz Shah with the Ashokan pillar viewed from the west, with the gateway of the adjacent mosque. Firoz Shah Kotla, the citadel of the city of Firuzabad, was founded by Feroz Shah Tughlaq (r.1351-88) in 1354. Firuzabad extended from Hauz Khas to the banks of the Yamuna. Only some ramparts and ruined structures survive. The remains of a pyramidical structure, topped by the Ashokan pillar, stands out. The pillar was brought here by Feroz Shah from Ambala, and is the second column of Mauryan Emperor Ashoka (r.c.272-31). It was the first Ashokan pillar to be deciphered by James Princep in 1837, giving the key to the Brahmi script.]

Inscribed: naqsha-i kotla-i Firuz Shah Badshah. Mazhar ‘Ali Khan.

Feroze (‘Propitious’) Shah’s (‘King’) Laut (‘Pillar. Club’) is situated in the immediate environs of the city on the High road from the Dehlie Gate towards Muttra. The building on which the Laut now stands was constructed by the Emperor Feroze Shah as a Shekargah or Hunting place. He reigned at Dehlie between the years AD 1351 and 1388 in the last of which he died at the age of 90. But the pillar must have been erected as a Hindoo Monument at a much earlier period, for one of the inscriptions records a date of 1220 of the Hindoo Era, corresponding with AD 1164, or 29 years before the conquest of Dehlie by Shahabodeen (‘Strength of the Faith’) Ghoree (‘name of a particular family or dynasty’). [Mu'izz ad-Din Muhammad born Shihab ad-Din]

Mu'izz ad-Din Muhammad (Persian: معز الدین محمد غوری‎), born Shihab ad-Din (1149 – March 15, 1206), also known as Muhammad of Ghor, was the Sultan of the Ghurid Empire along with his brother Ghiyath ad-Din Muhammad from 1173 to 1202 and as the sole ruler from 1202 to 1206. He is credited with laying the foundation of Muslim rule in the Indian subcontinent, which lasted for several centuries. He reigned over a territory spanning over parts of modern-day Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Northern India, Pakistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan.

-- Muhammad of Ghor, by Wikipedia


Again, by the guidance of God, I was led to repair and rebuild the edifices and structures of former kings and ancient nobles, which had fallen into decay from lapse of time; giving the restoration of these buildings the priority over my own building works. The Masjid-i jami of old Dehli, which was built by Sultan Mu'izz-ud din Sam [Sultan Shihab ad-Din Ghori / Muhammad of Ghor], had fallen into decay from old age, and needed repair and restoration. I so repaired it that it was quite renovated.

The western wall of the tomb of Sultan Mu'izz-ud din Sam [Sultan Shihab ad-Din Ghori / Muhammad of Ghor], and the planks of the door, had become old and rotten. I restored this, and, in the place of the balcony, I furnished it with doors, arches, and ornaments of sandalwood.

The minara of Sultan Mu'izz-ud din [Sultan Shihab ad-Din Ghori / Muhammad of Ghor] had been struck by lightning. I repaired it and raised it higher than it was before.

-- XVII. Futuhat-i Firoz Shahi of Sultan Firoz Shah, Excerpt from The History of India As Told By Its Own Historians: The Muhammadan Period, edited from the posthumous papers of the Late Sir H.M. Elliot, K.C.B., East India Company's Bengal Civil Service, by Professor John Dowson, M.R.A.S., Staff college, Sandhurst, Vol. III, P. 374, 1871


After Sultan Firoz returned from his expedition against Thatta, he often made excursions in the neighbourhood of Dehli. In this part of the country there were two stone columns. One was in the village of Tobra, in the district (shikk) of Salaura and Khizrabad, in the hills (koh-payah); the other in the vicinity of the town of Mirat. These columns had stood in those places from the days of the Pandavas, but had never attracted the attention of any of the kings who sat upon the throne of Dehli, till Sultan Firoz noticed them, and, with great exertion, brought them away.

-- XVI. Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi, of Shams-i Siraj 'Afif, Excerpt from The History of India As Told By Its Own Historians: The Muhammadan Period, edited from the posthumous papers of the Late Sir H.M. Elliot, K.C.B., East India Company's Bengal Civil Service, by Professor John Dowson, M.R.A.S., Staff college, Sandhurst, Vol. III, P. 269-364, 1871


The height of the pillar now visible above the building is about 37 feet, and its circumference where it forms the terrace is about 10 feet 4 inches; it is composed of a single stone, and tradition asserts that only 1/3 is visible, the remaining 2/3 being buried in the earth. The structure originally consisted of three stories, and used, accorded to current opinion, partly as a menagerie and partly as an aviary.

The Emperor’s reign of 38 years though not brilliant in other respects was distinguished for the enlightened spirit of his Regulations and the extent and utility of his Public Works amongst the latter and the greatest of all is the canal from the Jumna to the district of Hansie and Hissar and still called by his name.

Image
The Kotla of Firoz Shah with the Ashokan pillar, View from the south of the Kotla. Author: Metcalfe, Sir Thomas Theophilus (1795-1853). Medium: Ink and colours on paper. Date: 1843.

[View from the south over the ruined palace and mosque of the Kotla on the river bank, towards the Ashokan pillar. Once the largest mosque in Delhi, now only the rear wall survives. It is believed that Timur, the Mongol conqueror, who sacked Delhi in 1398, came to this mosque for his prayers.]

Inscribed: naqsha-i qil‘a-i kotla-i Firuz Shah bar lab-i darya.

The second view represents a portion of the old Palace built by the same Emperor, but now past falling into decay. On my first arrival in Dehly in 1813, and indeed for many years subsequent, the Hall of Audience here represented was in perfect condition. The roof has of late fallen in with part of the front walk, and a portion of the room in which the Emperor Alumgeer the 2nd was murdered, and by the door way nearest to the river (as shown in the drawing) stills exists, through which the lifeless body of the Emperor was cast out upon the sand, where it lay for several days uninterred and almost unnoticed.

In the background are seen the minarets of the Zeenut ool Musajid (vide page 33 [f. 36]) and the Bridge of Boats constructed by the local authorities over the River Jumna. The Emperor Ahmud (‘Praiseworthy’) Shah {‘King’) having been deposed and blinded in July AD 1734 [i.e. 1754], by Ghaziodeen (‘the Hero of the Faith’) his commander in chief, one of the Princes of the Blood Royal, a son of the former Emperor Jahandar

-- The Kotla of Firoz Shah with the Ashokan pillar, by British Library Online Gallery


Ashokan Edicts
Askhokan Pillar in Feroz Shah Kotla, Delhi
General information
Architectural style: Edicts on sandstone pillars and on in-situ rocks
Town or city: Delhi
Country: India
Coordinates: 28.61°N 77.23°E
Construction started: 3rd century BC
Completed: 3rd century BC
Design and construction
Architect: Ashoka

The Ashokan edicts in Delhi are a series of edicts on the teachings of Buddha created by Ashoka, the Mauryan Emperor who ruled in the Indian subcontinent during the 3rd century BC. The Edicts of Ashoka were either carved on in-situ rocks or engraved on pillars erected throughout the empire; examples of both are found in Delhi.

The first in-situ rock edict was discovered in Delhi in 1966, and establishes the city's ancient historical link with the Ashokan era (273–236 BC).[1][2][3] Delhi's stone pillar edicts were transported from their original sites in Meerut and Ambala during the reign of Firuz Shah Tughlaq (1351–1388 AD). They were erected in Feruzabad, the fourth medieval city of Delhi, established by Feroz Shah Tughlaq.[2][4][5]

The inscriptions are written in Prakrit, a colloquial language used in everyday speech. The edicts were intended to teach the people of the morals and ideals of civilised living, to bring peace and harmony to the vast empire. The philosophy bears a striking resemblance to the teachings of the Buddha, which his followers believe lead to enlightenment (the universal law of nature), and the constituent elements of the world as it is experienced (the characteristic of elements).[6][2][7]

History

Until the 3rd century BC, a large region of the Indian subcontinent was ruled by Chandragupta Maurya (322–298 BC), founder of Mauryan Empire. He was the grandfather of Ashoka. Ashoka's father Bindusara ruled from 297–272 BC. Ashoka, known as Ashoka the Great, after he took over reigns of the Mauryan Empire from his father then expanded and consolidated his grandfather's region into a much larger empire with command over large swathes of the Indian subcontinent and with his capital at Pataliputra, the present day Patna in Bihar.[8] Ashoka ruled for three decades. During his reign, he underwent a dramatic change in his life-style after winning the Kalinga War of 261 BC, at the cost of immense loss of life. As one of his edict inscriptions states: "150,000 people were forcibly abducted from their homes, 100,000 were killed in battle, and many more died later on".[9] This event had a profound impact upon him. He was repentant. He then decided to renounce further warfare. He then converted to Buddhist religion, as the ethos of Buddhism (teachings of Buddha, an awakened teacher who shared his insights to help sentient beings end suffering (or dukkha), achieve nirvana, and escape what is seen as a cycle of suffering and rebirth} appealed to him. His 13th edict is a form of self indictment: "Even a hundredth or a thousandth part only of the people who were slain, or killed or abducted in Kalinga is now considered as a grievous loss by Devanmpiya, beloved of the Gods, i.e., Ashoka".[9]

He avowed that his future actions would entirely be on spiritual lines and devoted to the spread of the doctrine of the right conduct.[9] Two years after the Kalinga war, as a primary member of the Buddhist faith, for 265 days, he undertook a nationwide pilgrimage of holy places of Buddhist religion. On his return to Pataliputra, his capital, in 258 BC, after a grand celebration, he launched his missionary campaign throughout his empire and even spread to South India and Sri Lanka. Ashoka's son Mahindra was involved in this mission. In 257 BC, he got the first four of his 14 rock edicts inscribed in different parts of his empire. Out of the fourteen rock edicts, one rock edict has been discovered in Delhi, though not in a complete form.[9]

While edicts inscribed on rocks were found in many parts of the world, erection of carved pillars was unique to Ashokan times, totally independent of any other structures.[10]

Edicts

Main article: Edicts of Ashoka

Image
Replica of Ashoka's Major Rock Edict at Girnar, Gujarat, displayed at the entrance to the National Museum, Delhi

Ashokan edicts are significant for the message they convey on the teachings of Buddhism. They have been found across his empire, written in several languages and scripts, but most of those found in India are written in Prakrit, using the Brahmi script. To spread the message in the north-western of the empire, edicts were written in Kharoshti script. Bilingual and bi-scriptural edicts have also been discovered in Kandahar and Afghanistan, written in Greek and Aramaic. Ashokan edicts written on rocks or pillars are considered unique and permanent as compared to the palm leaf or bark writings (perishable materials) of the past during the Harappan civilization, or even early Mauryan Empire edicts. The Brahmi script was not deciphered until 1837, by James Prinsep, an Indian antiquarian. The edicts of Ashoka deal with codes of conduct in respect of moral and religious views, as his personal messages.[2][11]

The edicts are of two types: the in-situ rock edicts and the pillar edicts, both of which are found in Delhi. The rock edicts are further subdivided into two categories, the "major rock edicts" and the "minor rock edicts", based on their age. Minor rock edits are the earliest, followed by major rock edicts, and then the pillar edicts.[11] Major rock edicts have been discovered across India, with 14 personal declarations by Ashoka. Two have been moved to Delhi from their original locations.[11]

The minor edicts, which predate the major edicts, have been discovered at 17 locations in different regions of the country. Ten of them are categorized as "minor rock edict I" that proclaim Ashoka's religious commitments and urge people to adopt this path. The last seven edicts, include the category of "minor rock edict II" that urges people to be obedient and respectful to parents, elders and teachers. The last seven rock edict include the Delhi edict (found in 1966) that is categorized as minor rock edict I. One particular minor rock edict that is housed in Asiatic Society, Calcutta is a dictum to the Buddhists urging them to read the seven scriptural texts.[11]

The six basic pillar edicts, which are carved on sandstone, deal mainly with the spread of moral values; Ashoka's Dhamma cover topics such as kindness, forbearance, and concern for the welfare of his people. These edicts are fairly uniform in their language and text, unlike the rock edicts, but the Delhi-Topra pillar has a long additional message. It abridges and reaffirms the content of other pillars, and to some degree those of the Major Rock Edicts also.[11]

Rock edict in Delhi

Image
A rare Ashokan rock edict of the 3rd century BC. found in Delhi enclosed in a crude concrete shed during the 20th century

See also: Minor Rock Edicts

Image
Ashokan edict details on in-situ rock surface in Delhi, but fading

The in-situ Bahapur rock edict (28.55856°N 77.25662°E) was discovered in Delhi in an engraved form on a small patch of rock exposure in Srinivaspuri, one kilometer north of Kalkaji temple, close to Bahapur village in South Delhi. The edict categorized as a "Minor edict" written in Brahmi script was a first person message of Ashoka, which exhorts people to follow the Buddhist way of life. It is inscribed on a rock surface with irregular lines and letter size with a number of lines not clearly decipherable. The edict translated into English reads:

Devanampiya (His Majesty) said thus: (it has been) more than two and a half years since I became a lay devotee.[12] At first no great exertion was made by me but in the last year I have drawn closer to the Buddhist order and exerted myself zealously and drawn in others to mingle with the gods. This goal is not one restricted only to let the people great to exert themselves and to the great but even a humble man who exerts himself can reach heaven. This proclamation is made for the following purpose: to encourage the humble and the great to exert themselves and to let the people who live beyond the borders of the kingdom know about it. Exertion in the cause must endure forever and it will spread further among the people so that it increases one-and-half fold.[8][13]


The rock edict epigraph was discovered on an inclined rock face by a building contractor operating at the site for building a residential colony. Archaeologists immediately examined it on 26 March 1966 and identified it as representing the Minor Rock Edict I of the Ashokan period in the light of its similarity with edicts in 13 other places in different parts of India, such as Barat in Jaipur division (to which Delhi rock edict has close resemblance) and the two pillars in Delhi. The Delhi edict was recorded as the 14th epigraphic version. The inscription covers an area of size 75 centimetres (30 in) length and 77 centimetres (30 in) height of the rock face. There are ten lines of writing of varying length written in Prakrit language in early Brahmi script and lacks uniformity of the aksharas (letters).[2]

One interpretation for the rock edict at Bahapur in Delhi is that it represents the trans-regional trade route of North India as an ancient trade link between the Gangetic Delta and the northwestern part of the Indian subcontinent. The second view is that it marks the site of a temple since it has been found at the base of a rock exposure near the present day Kalkaji temple. It is claimed that at Kalkaji, where the new Kalka Mandir (temple) exists now, was the old location of a temple (one of the five temples in Delhi) built by Pandavas, heroes of the epic Mahabharata period.[2][14]

Image
Shelter on the surrounding rocky landscape

Image
Edict in Delhi surrounded by steel cage

Image
Ashoka's Rock Edict (close up)

Pillar edicts in Delhi

See also: Pillars of Ashoka and Major Pillar Edicts

Image
Pillar edict on the ridge near Hindu Rao hospital, the second pillar shifted from Meerut to Delhi, known as the Delhi-Meerut Pillar

All of the Ashokan pillar or column edicts were made out of Chunar sandstone quarried from Chunar in the Mirzapur District of Uttar Pradesh. They were chiseled at the quarry and then transported to various places in the country. They were chiseled from massive rock blocks of 1.22 metres (4.0 ft) square and 15.2 metres (50 ft) long, which were extracted from the quarry. They were chiseled as monolith pillars of size between 12.2 metres (40 ft) and 15.2 metres (50 ft) in length with an average diameter of 0.785 metres (2.58 ft).[15] The pillars were cut, dressed, finely polished into circular columns, and carved with edicts, before being transported to various locations in the country. Two were transferred to Delhi in the 14th century by Feroz Shah Tughlaq.[16]

The two pillar edicts are still in Delhi.[17] The one on the Delhi ridge opposite the entrance of Bara Hindu Rao Hospital, close to the Delhi University campus, is popularly known as the Delhi-Meerut Pillar. The other, in the grounds of Feroz Shah Kotla, is known as the Delhi-Topra Pillar.[18][2]


Feroz Shah Tughlaq, who ruled from Delhi as Sultan during the medieval period between 1351 and 1388, was a keen historian, architect, game hunter, and with deep sense of commitment to build public utilities related to irrigation works and establishing urban towns. Feroz Shah, during one of his campaigns, was enthralled by the two spectacular monoliths – inscribed Ashokan pillars he saw, one at Topra near Ambala and the other near Meerut, till then undeciphered – and decided to shift them to his palatial Feruzabad palace in Delhi as "totemic embellishments". He shifted the pillars from these places and got them erected in Delhi; the former in his new capital and the latter on the ridge, near Pir-Ghaib, his hunting palace. The first pillar was erected in the 1350s, next to the Friday mosque in the new city of Feruzabad.).[6][2][19][20] Near the gate of the building that holds the Ashokan pillar, every Thursday afternoon is a kind of djinns date, as a large number of people visit the place to either mollify or revere the djinns or genies (said to be a pre-Islamic belief) that are believed to prowl there.[21]

Delhi-Meerut pillar

Image
A portion of the Meerut pillar, with a segment of the Edicts of Ashoka, now in the British Museum.

The Delhi-Meerut pillar (28.673853°N 77.211849°E), was shifted from Meerut, in Uttar Pradesh to Delhi by Feruz Shah and erected at a location in the northern ridge of Delhi, close to his hunting palace, between the Chauburji-Masjid and Hindu Rao Hospital. It was an elaborately planned transportation, from its original location, using a 42-wheeled cart to bring it up to the Yamuna river bank and then further transporting it by the Yamuna river route using barges. As seen now, it is of 10 metres (33 ft) height but the pillar was damaged in an explosion during the rule of Farrukshiar (1713–19). The five broken pieces were initially shifted to the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta and later brought back in 1866 and re-erected in 1887. In the early 17th century, William Finch, a historian chronicler, observed that the pillar had "a globe and half moon at top and diverse inscription upon it".[22][23]

Firoz Shah is considered to be an early conservationist, with a keen interest in ancient buildings and objects. In addition to the Ashokan pillar that he moved from Topra in Haryana and had installed in his citadel in Firozabad, he moved a second pillar from nearby Meerut to be installed at what was soon to become his hunting lodge on the ridge, the Kushak-i-shikar. In the early seventeenth century, the pillar was described by an English traveller, William Finch, as one with a ‘globe and half-moon at top, and divers inscription upon it’. The pillar was severely damaged in an explosion during the reign of Mughal Emperor Farrukhsiyar (ad 1713–19) and disintegrated into five pieces. The five fragments were later restored to an upright position in 1866, but its inscribed portions were sawed off and sent to the Asiatic Society of Bengal. Later, the inscribed pieces were received back and joined together and this restored pillar was installed back at its current location in 1867. The current height of the pillar is 10 m. Inscribed in Brahmi script and written in the Prakrit language, the inscription of Ashoka contains his messages and instruction for promoting Dharma and the welfare and happiness of the people. At the base of the pillar, a plaque announces its history. Today, the pillar looks forlorn, standing alone in its fenced enclosure near a roundabout on the main ridge road in front of the gate of the Hindu Rao Hospital complex.

-- Ashoka Pillar, by Smit Sandhir, flickr.com


Image

Ashoka's Pillar at Kamla Nehru Ridge, near Hindu Rao hospital, is one of the two brought in by Firoz Shah Tughlaq in the mid-13th century. Brought from Meerut after one of his campaigns, the pillar was transported meticulously through the Yamuna river on barges and then hauled up on a 42 wheel cart from the bank to the ridge. Another of its counterparts can be found in the urban village of Firoz Shah Kotla.

The construction is mostly made of sandstone, quarried from Chunar town in Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, presently another small town (known for its pottery) on the Indo-Gangetic belt but historically a very important destination, finding mention in the ancient Hindu Puranas (scriptures). Huge rock slabs were chiseled at the quarry and then sent across the country. The pillar suffered an accident during the tumultuous reign of the Mughal Emperor Farrukhsiyar during the first half of the 17th century. The top of the pillar which got blown off as a consequence still remains in-state as a result. [???] The pieces of the pillar were transported for safekeeping to the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta in 1866, but were brought back and restored in its original place in 1887, where it still stands today.

The pillar is about 10 feet in height with a diameter of about three quarters of a metre and features inscriptions in Brahmi Script; mostly focusing on Ashoka’s major propaganda, viz, his conversion to and propagation of Buddhism and social and animal welfare. Further studies have revealed later inscriptions in Sanskrit around Ashoka’s texts, assumed to date back to the rule of the Chauhan King Visala around the 11th century AD. Firoz Shah himself added some bits of decoration to the pillars later.


The pillar is located at one end of the Kamla Nehru Ridge in North Delhi, with Mutiny Memorial situated nearby.

-- Surviving As A Historical Relic Since The 13th Century, Here's All About The Ashokan Pillar, by Delhi Dwell, 21 Aug 2017


Image
Delhi-Meerut pillar

Image
Delhi-Meerut pillar inscription

Image
Transcription

Delhi-Topra pillar

See also: Topra_Kalan § Topra_Ashokan_Pillar, and Feroz_Shah_Kotla § Topra_Ashokan_Pillar

Image
Ashokan Pillar at the ruined palace in Feroz Shah Kotla, shifted from Topra village in Yamunanagar district, Haryana to Delhi, called the Delhi-Topra pillar.

The Topra Ashokan Pillar (28.635739°N 77.245398°E), moved from Topra Kalan in Yamunanagar district of Haryana, was erected above the palace building at Feroz Shah Kotla is 13 metres (43 ft) high (with one metre below the platform) and made of sandstone. It is finished very well vis-à-vis the second pillar located in Delhi at the ridge.

The inscription in Brahmi script, which was deciphered by James Princep, a renowned scholar in Indian antiquarian studies in 1837, conveys the same message as the other Ashokan Pillars
erected such as "code of dharma:virtue, social cohesion and piety" but with one difference that on this pillar there is also a reference to issues related to taxation. The building that houses the pillar is a three-storied structure built in rubble masonry. It has a large number of small domed rooms in the first and second floors, with links to the roof. Rooms on each floor have arched entrances, which are now stated to be used for pujas (worship). It is a pyramidal shaped structure with reducing size at each level with the pillar installed on the terrace of the building. It is conjectured that originally the pillar had a lion capital (similar to the Ashoka Emblem), which is the National Emblem of India. Feroz Shah is said to have embellished the top of the pillar with frescoes in black and white stone topped with a gilded copper cupola. But at present, what is visible is the smooth polished surface of the pillar, and an elephant carving added much later.[24][25][26] It has also been noted that this pillar, apart from the Ashokan edict, has another set of text inscribed in Sanskrit "below and around Ashokan edict", in nagari script. This inscription records: "the conquests of Visala Deva Vigraharaja IV of the Chauhan dynasty, which was still ruling over Delhi at the time of Ghurid conquests in the 1190s, and his victories over a Mlechha (presumably "Ghaznavid or Gharid"). With this finding, it has been inferred that Visala Deva reused this pillar to record his triumphs in wars.[27]

Image
The Staff of Firuz Shah.
[10'4" circumference at base / 37' tall / red]


I now proceed to lay before the Society the results of my application of the alphabet, developed by the simple records of Bhilsa, to the celebrated inscription on Feroz's column, of which facsimiles have been in the Society's possession since its very foundation, without any successful attempt having been made to decipher them. This is the less to be wondered at when we find that 500 years before, on the re-erection of the pillar, perhaps for the second or third time, by the emperor Feroz [r. 1351–1388)], the unknown characters were just as much a mystery to the learned as they have proved at a later period — "Round it" says the author of the Haftaklim, "have been engraved literal characters which the most intelligent of all religions have been unable to explain. Report says, this pillar is a monument of renown to the rajas or Hindu princes, and that Feroz Shah set it up within his hunting place: but on this head there are various traditions which it would be tedious to relate."

Neither Muhammed Ami'n the author of the Haftaklim [Muhammad Amin Razi, [x], vide Amin Ahmad, author of the Haft Aklim -- The Oriental Biographical Dictionary], nor Ferishteh, in his account of Feroz's works alludes to the comparatively modern inscription on the same pillar recording the victories of Visala Deva king of Sacambhari (or Sambhar) in the 12th century, of which Sir William Jones first [XXI. Inscriptions on the Staff of Firuz Shah, translated from the Sanscrit, as explained by Radha Canta Sarman, Asiatic Researches, Volume 1, 1788, P. 315-317.], and Mr. Colebrooke afterwards, ['Translation of one of the Inscriptions on the Pillar at Delhi, called the Lat of Firuz Shah, by Henry Colebrooke, Esq., With Introductory Remarks by Mr. Harrington,' Asiatic Researches, Vol. VII, 1803, P. 175-182] published translations in the first and seventh volumes of the [Asiatic] Researches. This was in quite a modern type of Nagari; differing about as much from the character employed on the Allahabad pillar to record the victories of Chanara and Samudra-gupta, as that type is now perceived to vary from the more ancient form originally engraven on both of these pillars; so that (placing Chandra-gupta, in the third or fourth century, midway between Visala, in the Samvat year 1220, and the oldest inscription) we might have roughly deduced an antiquity of fourteen or fifteen centuries anterior to Visala's reign for the original lat alphabet, from the gradual change of form in the alphabetical symbols, had we no better foundation for fixing the period of these monuments.

But in my preceding notice, I trust that this point has been set at rest, and that it has been satisfactorily proved that the several pillars of Delhi, Allahabad, Mattiah and Radhia were erected under the orders of king Devanampiya Piyadasi of Ceylon, about three hundred years before the Christian era....

[R]oyal benevolence was exercised ... by the planting of trees along the roadsides, by the digging of wells, by the establishment of bazars and serais, at convenient distances. Where are they all? On what road are we now to search for these venerable relics, these banyan trees and mangoes, which, with the aid of Professor Candolle's theory, would enable us to confirm the assumed date of our monuments? The lat of Feroz is the only one which alludes to this circumstance, and we know not whence that was taken to be set up in its present situation by the emperor Feroz in the 14th century — whether it had stood there from the first? or whether it was re-erected when it received the inscription recording the victories of Visala deva in the Samvat year 1220 or A.D. 1163? — This cannot be determined without a careful re-examination of the ruinous building surrounding the pillar, which I hope some of my antiquarian friends will undertake. The chambers described by Captain Hoare as a menagerie and aviary may have been so adapted from their original purpose as cells for the monastic priesthood — a point which the style of their architecture may settle. The neighbourhood should also be examined for traces of a vihara, a holy tree, a road, and boulees or large pakka wells: — the texture of the stone also should be noticed, that the quarry whence it was brought may be discovered, for now that we know so much of its history we feel a vivid curiosity to pry into the further secrets of this interesting silastambha, even to the difficulties and probably cost of its transport, which, judging from the inability of the present Government to afford the expense even of setting the Allahabad pillar upright on its pedestal, must have fallen heavily on the coffers of the Ceylon monarch!

VI.—Interpretation of the most ancient of the inscriptions on the pillar called the lat of Feroz Shah, near Delhi, and of the Allahabad, Radhia [Lauriya-Araraj (Radiah)] and Mattiah [Lauriya-Nandangarh (Mathia)] pillar, or lat, inscriptions which agree therewith, by James Prinsep, Sec. As. Soc. &c., The Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. VI, Part II, July to December, 1837


Image
The Staff of Firuz Shah.
[10'4" circumference at base / 37' tall / red]


In the year 1230, on the first day of the bright half of the month Vaisach (a monument) of the Fortunate Visala Deva Son of the Fortunate Amilla Deva, King of Sacambhari...

The date 123 is here perfectly clear; at least it is clear that only three figures are written, without even room for a cypher after them; whence we may guess that the double circle in the former inscription was only an ornament, or the neutral terminal am; if so, the date of both is the year of Christ sixty-seven; but if the double circle be a Zero, the monument of Visala Deva is as modern as the year 1174, or nineteen years before the conquest of Delhi by Shihabuddin....

He who is resentful to kings intoxicated with pride, indulgent to those whose necks are humbled, an INDRA in the city of Causambi (I suspect Causambi, a city near Hastinapur, to be the true reading,) who is victorious in the world, Visala, sovereign of the earth: he gives ... his commands being obeyed, he is a conqueror, the son of Santanajana, whose mind, when his foes say, 'Let there be mercy,' is free from further hostility.

-- XXI. Inscriptions on the Staff of Firuz Shah, translated from the Sanscrit, as explained by Radha Canta Sarman. Excerpt from Asiatic Researches, Volume 1, P. 315-317, 1788


Image
The Staff of Firuz Shah.
[10'4" circumference at base / 37' tall / red]


I have the pleasure of presenting to the Society a Book of Drawings and Inscriptions prepared under the inspection of their late member, Captain James Hoare, and intended by him (I have reason to believe) for the life of the Society.

Two of the drawings represent elevations, taken on the spot, of the stone building near Dehlee, called the Shikargah, or hunting place, of Feeroz Shah; with the pillar in the center, and above the summit of it, commonly known by the designation of Feeroz Shah’s Lat; and described, with an outline of the building and pillar, in the 21st paper of the 1st Vol. of the Society’s Transactions....

The Feeroz Shah, whose name is now attached to the Dehlee pillar, (though it must have been erected as some Hindoo monument at a much earlier period,) appears, from Ferishtuh’s History, to have reigned at Dehlee between the years 1351 and 1388; in the last of which he died at the age of ninety; and Ferishtuh, in the words of his translator, Lieutenant Colonel Dow, gives him the following character: ... [Dow’s History of Hindustan, Vol. I. page 336.]

The author of the Huft Akleem, Mohummud Ameem Razee, who wrote his history of the world (or, as the title of his book imports, of the Seven Climes, into which the Mahommedans divide the universe) in the reign of Akbur, corroborates the above character of Feeroz Shah, and adds the following passage, translated verbatim from his history.
“Among the places built by this King (Feeroz Shah) is a hunting place, which the populace call the Lat of Feeroz Shah. It is a house of three stories, in the centre of which has been erected a pillar of red stone, of one piece, and tapering upwards. The visible part of the shaft is, by measurement, twenty-seven Zirras; and it is said, that one-third only is visible; the remaining two-thirds being buried in the earth. In this case, the total length must be eighty-one Zirras; and it is five Zirras in circumference. Round it have been engraved literal characters, which the most intelligent of all religions have been unable to explain. Report says, this pillar is a monument of renown to the Rajuhs, (or Hindoo Princes,) and that Feeroz Shah set it up within his hunting place. But on this head there are various traditions, which it would be tedious to relate.”


The exact length of the Zirra, referred to in the above description, is uncertain. But there can be no doubt that the height of the pillar, now visible above the building, is thirty-seven feet; and that its circumference, where it joins the terrace, is ten feet four inches [124 inches]. These dimensions I have from Moonshee Mohummud Morad, who himself measured the pillar for Captain Hoare in July, 1797; and who adds, that, as far as it could be seen, (which, from the ruinous state of the building, it cannot be, at present, below the upper terrace,) it is certainly, as described in the Huft Akleem, a single stone, of reddish colour, as represented in the drawing.

One of Captain Hoare’s drawings further represents the plans of the three stories of the Shikar-gah; and his Moonshee informs me, the current opinion is, that they were used partly for a menagery, and partly for an aviary, which the plans appear to confirm.


-- Translation of one of the Inscriptions on the Pillar At Dehlee, called the Lat of Feeroz Shah, Excerpt from Asiatic Researches, Volume 7, by Henry Colebrooke, Esq., With Introductory Remarks by Mr. Harington, P. 175-182, 1803


Image
Delhi-Topra Ashoka pillar

Image
Inscriptions (Brahmi on top, Devanagari below)

Image
Transcription

Transportation techniques

Image
Transportation of the Topra pillar to Delhi. Sirat i-Firuz Shahi, 14th century illustration.
Table of Contents

• Preface
• Firozabad, the town
• Kotla Firoz Shah, the Citadel
• The Lat Pyramid
• The connecting bridge
• The Mosque
• The river front and Royal palaces
• Interior courts and Gates
• The Baoli
• Water Tanks and Ducts
• The Citadel Walls; Main entrance bay
• Defence of the walls
• Contemporary accounts of the Citadel
• Firozabad the Royal retreat
• Features of the Palaces
• The Corps of the Palace Slaves
• The Sultan emerges in State
• Events at the Citadel
• The Sultan’s Gardens
• The Sultan’s buildings
• His Chief Architect
• The Royal establishments and domestic arrangements
• Subsequent History of the Kotla
• The Sultan retires in favour of his son Muhammad Khan
• Flight of Muhammad Khan and his supersession by Sultan Firoz’s grandson, Tughlaq Shah
• Death of Firoz Shah
• Death of his successor Tughlaq Shah and enthronement of Muhammad Khan at Samana
• Death of Sultan Muhammad
• Succession of Prince Mahmud at Jahanpanah
• Rebellion and rival sovereignty of his cousin Nasrat Shah at Firozabad
• Timur’s invasion
• Subsequent History
• Appendix
• Index
• Translation of the extracts from Sirat-i-Firozshahi [Folios 91 (b) to 105 (b)]
• Transcript of Sirat-i-Firozshahi [Folios 91 (b) to 105 (6)] with illustrations
LIST OF PLATES.
o Plate I. — Kotla Firoz Shah, Delhi. Bara gateway. General view. (South-west).
o Plate II. — Kotla Firoz Shah, Delhi; Vue D'oiseau of a conjectural reconstruction of the ruined citadel.
o Plate III. — Kotla Firoz Shah, Delhi; Perspective view of river front.
o Plate IV. — Kotla Firoz Shah, Delhi; General view of the mosque. (North-west).
o Plate V. — Kotla Firoz Shah, Delhi; view of the Lat Pyramid.
o Plate VI. — (Coloured.) Kotla Firoz Shah, Delhi; Illustrations from Sirat-i-Firozshahi —
 (а) Removing wheels of the cart from one side and tying ropes and pulling up the pillar to place it in the boat.
 (b) Arrival of boat with pillar on the bank of the Jumna (near Delhi), tying ropes to the pillar to remove it from the boat and place it on the cart.
 (c) The monolith being carried on the ladha (cart) towards the town of Firozabad (Delhi).
 (d) Arrival of the cart with pillar in front of the mosque of Firozabad (Delhi).
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS APPEARING IN THE TRANSCRIPT OF SIRAT-I-FIROZSHAHI.
o Fig. 1. — Erection of piers and pulleys and tying of ropes, for taking down the stone pillar.
o Fig. 2 . — Pasheb on which the stone pillar would rest while taken down.
o Fig. 3. — Erection of pulleys and raising the pillar in order to place it on the ladha (cart).
o Fig. 4. — Arrival of the ladha with the stone pillar, at the bank of the Jamna river.
o Fig. 5. — Constructing the foundations of a structure, 61 yards square thereon to set up the pillar.
o Fig. 6. — Building of the first storey and raising the pillar on its top by means of ropes.
o Fig. 7. — Plan of the second storey.
o Fig. 8. — Raising the pillar two yards at a time, first at one end and then at the other.
o Fig. 9. — Third storey of the structure on which the pillar was set up.


PREFACE.

In the preparation of this memoir on the ruins of Kotla Firoz Shah at Delhi Mr. Page had in mind the desirability of attempting to retrieve for the reader the original "atmosphere" of the old fabric, with all its historical associations and charm: and to reveal the distinctive traits and outlook of those who founded and peopled it in the 14th Century A.D.

As a means to this, Mr. Page had recourse to the original narratives of the Mussalman historians of the time (as translated in Messrs. Elliott and Dowson's invaluable volumes) and has quoted in extenso from their writings.
Verbose and redundant though these annals often are, they nevertheless reflect, as nothing else can, the mentality of their environment and period, and will, it is hoped, help the reader to visualise the life of the time, and repopulate for him the empty remains of what was once the royal retreat of a Turkish King of Delhi.

Besides the works, particularly by Muslim historians referred to by Mr. Page in his Memoir, there exists another trustworthy and contemporary account of Firoz Shah's reign as narrated in the pages of Sirat-i-Firozshahi, a Persian manuscript in Nastaliq characters deposited in the Oriental Public Library at Bankipore and enlisted in its Catalogue as No. 547. From the Catalogue it appears that nothing is known about the author of Sirat-i-Firozshahi but the verse at the end of the manuscript assigns the work to A.H. 772 (A.D. 1370). i.e., the twentieth year of the reign of Firoz Shah. Sirat-i-Firozshahi thus chronicles the events of the earlier part of Firoz Shah's reign.

God said it, I believe it, That settles it.


It is divided into four chapters or babs; and the folios of the second chapter dealing with the removal of the Minarah-i-Zarrin (Golden Pillar) have been transcribed and translated by Mr. Mohammad Hamid Kuraishi, B.A., to form a supplement to Mr. Page's Memoir on Kotla Firoz Shah. The illustrations contained in the original not only add charm to the manuscript but portray the minutest details of the removal of the pillar — its carriage in boats and installation on the citadel at Firozabad, where it stands to the present day.

J. F. BLAKISTON.
Director General of Archaeology
New Delhi, March 1936.

-- Memoirs Of the Archaeological Survey of India, No. 52: A Memoir on Kotla Firoz Shah, Delhi, by J.A. Page, A.R.I.B.A., Late Superintendent, Archaeological Survey of India, With a Translation of Sirat-i-Firozshahi by Mohammad Hamid Kuraishi, B.A., Superintendent, Archaeological Survey of India, 1937

The transportation of the massive pillars to Delhi, planned under the direction of Sultan Feruz Shah, was documented by contemporary historian Shams-i-Siraj.[19][28]

The truncated pillar now at the ruined palace of Feruz Shah came from Khizrabad, in the upstream reaches of the Yamuna River, about 90 kilometres (56 mi) from Delhi. The transportation of the pillar was highly demanding, requiring soldiers (both cavalry and foot) to pitch in with all tools and tackles to transport it to Delhi. Silk cotton from the Silk cotton tree, the simal, was gathered in large quantities to surround the pillar before it was lowered horizontally to the ground. The covering was then removed, and replaced by reeds and raw hide to protect the pillar. A 42-wheeled cart was used to transport it to the river bank, where it was loaded onto a large boat. The cart required 8,400 men to move it, 200 to each wheel.[19] A purpose-built palatial building was constructed out of stone and lime mortar to house the pillar. The square base stone was placed at the base of the pillar before the task was completed. The building is now in a ruined state, but the pillar still stands as it was erected.[19][28]

See also

• Related topics
o Ancient iron production
o Ashoka's Major Rock Edicts
o Dhar iron pillar
o History of metallurgy in South Asia
o Iron pillar of Delhi
o List of Edicts of Ashoka
o Pillars of Ashoka
o Stambha
• Other similar topics
o Early Indian epigraphy
o Hindu temple architecture
o History of India
o Indian copper plate inscriptions
o Indian rock-cut architecture
o List of rock-cut temples in India
o Outline of ancient India
o South Indian Inscriptions
o Tagundaing

Notes

1. Sharma, pp. 1, 10–11 A glorious chapter to Delhi’s history was added as recently as 1966 with the discovery of an inscription by the Mauryan Emperor Ashoka, engraved on a rugged rock, an outcrop of the Arvallis, near Srinivaspuri, west of Kalkaji temple… Direct association of emperor Ashoka (273–236 BC.) of the Maurya Dynasty with Delhi has been brought to light only recently by the discovery of a shorter version of his Minor Rock Edicts carved on a rock near Srinivaspuri. This discovery also indicates that Delhi lay on the trunk route connecting the main cities of ancient India
2. Singh, Upinder (2006). Delhi. Ashokan Edicts in Delhi. Berghahn Books. pp. 120–131. ISBN 81-87358-29-7. Retrieved 22 July2009.
3. Peck, p.26. The city is situated where a spur of the Aravalli Hills meets the Yamuna River, and these outcrops were the sites of some early settlements ... Before the 3rd century BC, India was controlled by numerous competing chiefs and kings, and during this time urban centres of some size developed. One of these became the base of powerful Mauryan Empire, created by Chandra Gupta Maurya and consolidated by his grandson Ashoka (reigned 272–232 BC). Ashoka ruled from Pataliputra, modern Patna, but held sway over most of the Indian subcontinent. He aimed at government in a very real sense, controlling the affairs, or at least exhorting a certain way of life, through his famous edicts… However, the most exciting Mauryan discovery, made in 1966 was of an Ashokan Rock Edict found at Kalkaji (East of Kailash), in South Delhi, indicating that there must have been a reasonably important settlement nearby.
4. Sharma, pp.1,10–11
5. Peck, p.28.The remains of an inscription, on a smooth rock face projecting from the top of a rocky hillock, can be seen under an ugly concrete shelter in a small neighbourhood park in East of Kailash, nor far from the ISKCON temple on the Raja Dhirsain Marg it was discovered in 1966 and is an important part of Delhi’s history and heritage, because it implies that somewhere nearby was a settlement important enough in the 3rd century BC for an edict to have been carved. Among the cluster of religious institutions on the nearby hilltops, the Kalkaji Temple is said to be of great antiquity, and might have had a settlement around it.
6. Sharma, pp. 1, 10–11
7. Peck, p.28
8. Peck, pp.26–28
9. Kulkae, Hermann; Dietmar Rothermund (1998). A History of India. Ashoka the beloved to the Gods. CRC Press. pp. 62–65. ISBN 0-203-44345-4. Retrieved 9 August 2009.
10. "Bhandarkar pp.205–206">Bhandarkar pp.205–206
11. Richard Salomon (1998). Indian epigraphy. Inscriptions of the Mauyryan Period. Oxford University Press US. pp. 135–139. ISBN 0-19-509984-2. Retrieved 22 July 2009.
12. Joshi, M. C.; Pande, B. M. (1967). "A Newly Discovered Inscription of Aśoka at Bahapur, Delhi". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland (3/4): 97. ISSN 0035-869X. JSTOR 25202984.
13. Singh pp.121–122
14. Philip Lutgendorf (2007). Hanuman's tale. A Tale of two Temples, Foot note 9. by Oxford University Press US. p. 253. ISBN 978-0-19-530921-8. Retrieved 7 May 2009.
15. Bhandarkar p.206
16. Bhandarkar pp. 206–207
17. "Delhi's air pollution behind corrosion of Ashoka Pillar?".
18. "Kotla's Ashoka pillar, over 2,000 years old, suffers heavy damage".
19. Keay, John (2001). India: A History. The Arm of the Guptas. Grove Press. p. 136. ISBN 0-8021-3797-0.
20. Flood p. 248
21. Peck p. 82
22. Sharma pp.136–137
23. Peck p. 91
24. Sharma p.131
25. Peck p.85
26. Horton, Patrick; Richard Plunkett; Hugh Finlay (2002). Delhi. Feroz Shah Kotla. Lonely Planet. p. 104. ISBN 978-1-86450-297-8. Retrieved 22 July2009.
27. Flood pp.249–250
28. Bhandarkar pp. 207–209

References

• Bhandarkar, R. G; D.R. Bhandarkar (2000). Asoka. Social and Religious life. Asian Educational Services. ISBN 81-206-1333-3.
• Flood, Finbarr B. (2009). Objects of Translation. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-12594-7.
• Peck, Lucy (2005). Delhi -A thousand years of Building. Rock edicts & Ashokan Pillars. New Delhi: Roli Books Pvt Ltd. ISBN 81-7436-354-8.
• Sharma, Y.D. (2001). Delhi and its Neighbourhood. Rock edicts and Ashokan pillars. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. Archived from the original on 16 February 2010. Retrieved 31 August 2009.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36183
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Thu Oct 28, 2021 4:16 am

A Study of Asokan Pillars: Re-Erected by Firuz Shah Tughluq
by W. H. Siddiqi
Proceedings of the Indian History Congress
Vol. 36 (1975), pp. 338-344 (7 pages)
1975
Table of Contents

• Preface
• Firozabad, the town
• Kotla Firoz Shah, the Citadel
• The Lat Pyramid
• The connecting bridge
• The Mosque
• The river front and Royal palaces
• Interior courts and Gates
• The Baoli
• Water Tanks and Ducts
• The Citadel Walls; Main entrance bay
• Defence of the walls
• Contemporary accounts of the Citadel
• Firozabad the Royal retreat
• Features of the Palaces
• The Corps of the Palace Slaves
• The Sultan emerges in State
• Events at the Citadel
• The Sultan’s Gardens
• The Sultan’s buildings
• His Chief Architect
• The Royal establishments and domestic arrangements
• Subsequent History of the Kotla
• The Sultan retires in favour of his son Muhammad Khan
• Flight of Muhammad Khan and his supersession by Sultan Firoz’s grandson, Tughlaq Shah
• Death of Firoz Shah
• Death of his successor Tughlaq Shah and enthronement of Muhammad Khan at Samana
• Death of Sultan Muhammad
• Succession of Prince Mahmud at Jahanpanah
• Rebellion and rival sovereignty of his cousin Nasrat Shah at Firozabad
• Timur’s invasion
• Subsequent History
• Appendix
• Index
• Translation of the extracts from Sirat-i-Firozshahi [Folios 91 (b) to 105 (b)]
• Transcript of Sirat-i-Firozshahi [Folios 91 (b) to 105 (6)] with illustrations
LIST OF PLATES.
o Plate I. — Kotla Firoz Shah, Delhi. Bara gateway. General view. (South-west).
o Plate II. — Kotla Firoz Shah, Delhi; Vue D'oiseau of a conjectural reconstruction of the ruined citadel.
o Plate III. — Kotla Firoz Shah, Delhi; Perspective view of river front.
o Plate IV. — Kotla Firoz Shah, Delhi; General view of the mosque. (North-west).
o Plate V. — Kotla Firoz Shah, Delhi; view of the Lat Pyramid.
o Plate VI. — (Coloured.) Kotla Firoz Shah, Delhi; Illustrations from Sirat-i-Firozshahi —
 (а) Removing wheels of the cart from one side and tying ropes and pulling up the pillar to place it in the boat.
 (b) Arrival of boat with pillar on the bank of the Jumna (near Delhi), tying ropes to the pillar to remove it from the boat and place it on the cart.
 (c) The monolith being carried on the ladha (cart) towards the town of Firozabad (Delhi).
 (d) Arrival of the cart with pillar in front of the mosque of Firozabad (Delhi).
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS APPEARING IN THE TRANSCRIPT OF SIRAT-I-FIROZSHAHI.
o Fig. 1. — Erection of piers and pulleys and tying of ropes, for taking down the stone pillar.
o Fig. 2 . — Pasheb on which the stone pillar would rest while taken down.
o Fig. 3. — Erection of pulleys and raising the pillar in order to place it on the ladha (cart).
o Fig. 4. — Arrival of the ladha with the stone pillar, at the bank of the Jamna river.
o Fig. 5. — Constructing the foundations of a structure, 61 yards square thereon to set up the pillar.
o Fig. 6. — Building of the first storey and raising the pillar on its top by means of ropes.
o Fig. 7. — Plan of the second storey.
o Fig. 8. — Raising the pillar two yards at a time, first at one end and then at the other.
o Fig. 9. — Third storey of the structure on which the pillar was set up.


PREFACE.

In the preparation of this memoir on the ruins of Kotla Firoz Shah at Delhi Mr. Page had in mind the desirability of attempting to retrieve for the reader the original "atmosphere" of the old fabric, with all its historical associations and charm: and to reveal the distinctive traits and outlook of those who founded and peopled it in the 14th Century A.D.

As a means to this, Mr. Page had recourse to the original narratives of the Mussalman historians of the time (as translated in Messrs. Elliott and Dowson's invaluable volumes) and has quoted in extenso from their writings.
Verbose and redundant though these annals often are, they nevertheless reflect, as nothing else can, the mentality of their environment and period, and will, it is hoped, help the reader to visualise the life of the time, and repopulate for him the empty remains of what was once the royal retreat of a Turkish King of Delhi.

Besides the works, particularly by Muslim historians referred to by Mr. Page in his Memoir, there exists another trustworthy and contemporary account of Firoz Shah's reign as narrated in the pages of Sirat-i-Firozshahi, a Persian manuscript in Nastaliq characters deposited in the Oriental Public Library at Bankipore and enlisted in its Catalogue as No. 547. From the Catalogue it appears that nothing is known about the author of Sirat-i-Firozshahi but the verse at the end of the manuscript assigns the work to A.H. 772 (A.D. 1370). i.e., the twentieth year of the reign of Firoz Shah. Sirat-i-Firozshahi thus chronicles the events of the earlier part of Firoz Shah's reign.

God said it, I believe it, That settles it.


It is divided into four chapters or babs; and the folios of the second chapter dealing with the removal of the Minarah-i-Zarrin (Golden Pillar) have been transcribed and translated by Mr. Mohammad Hamid Kuraishi, B.A., to form a supplement to Mr. Page's Memoir on Kotla Firoz Shah. The illustrations contained in the original not only add charm to the manuscript but portray the minutest details of the removal of the pillar — its carriage in boats and installation on the citadel at Firozabad, where it stands to the present day.

J. F. BLAKISTON.
Director General of Archaeology
New Delhi, March 1936.

-- Memoirs Of the Archaeological Survey of India, No. 52: A Memoir on Kotla Firoz Shah, Delhi, by J.A. Page, A.R.I.B.A., Late Superintendent, Archaeological Survey of India, With a Translation of Sirat-i-Firozshahi by Mohammad Hamid Kuraishi, B.A., Superintendent, Archaeological Survey of India, 1937

The Asokan pillars forming the earliest sculptural monuments of India occupy a unique position for their valuable edicts containing information on political, religious and social life of the Mauryan period.1 But it is not popularly known that out of ten Asokan pillars at least five of them were discovered and re-erected by Sultan Firuz Shah Tughluq (A.D. 1351-1388). He took great interest in the preservation of ancient monuments and evinced particular interest in tracing and re-erecting these columns at different places in his empire. This fact is little known, not only to the general public but also to the experts and specialists. No attempt seems to have been made to study in a proper sequence the events connected with the discovery of the pillars by Firuz Shah. The number of Asokan pillars discovered and re-erected by the Sultan has not been ascertained. None has cared to trace the chronology of the re-setting of the various pillars at different places. Cunningham who took pains to give an account of the discoveries of the pillars had no access to authentic contemporary literature, therefore, most of his dates are incorrect.2

However, an extremely valuable account of Delhi-Topra pillar is contained in Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India on Kotla Firoz Shah, Delhi edited by J. A. Page with an English translation of Sirat-i-Firoz Shah by Mohammad Hamid Kuraishi which was published in 1937.3 [J. A. Page, Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India, No. 52, -- A Memoir on Kotla-Firoz Shah (Delhi-1937). It deals with history and archaeological remains of Firuzabad, Firuz Shah's New Delhi and contains second chapters of the Persian text of Sirat-i-Firuz Shahi with its English translation and illustration of original drawings of Delhi-Topra pillar being carried in boat and re-erected in stages on a specially built three storeyed edifice.]

Image


Page did not study the other two pillars of Fatehabad and Hissar (now in Haryana) which were already noticed by Cunningham. It is, therefore, purposed to give an authentic account of the re-setting of all the five pillars by Firuz Shah in a proper sequence.

The discovery of the first two pillars:

XVI. Tarikh-I Firoz Shahi, of Shams-i Siraj 'Afif

This History of Firoz Shah is devoted exclusively to the reign of that monarch, and therefore has a better right to the title than Barni's history, which embraces only a small portion of the reign of Firoz, and bears the title simply because it was written or finished during his reign. Little is known of Shams-i Siraj beyond what is gleaned from his own work. He was descended from a family which dwelt at Abuhar, the country of Firoz Shah's Bhatti mother. His great grandfather, he says, was collector of the revenue of Abuhar, and was intimate with Ghiyasu-d din Tughlik before he became Sultan. He himself was attached to the court of Firoz, and accompanied him on his hunting expeditions.]

The work has met with scarcely any notice, whilst every historian who writes of the period quotes and refers to Ziau-d din Barni. The reason of this may be that Shams-i Siraj enters more than usual into administrative details, and devotes some chapters to the condition of the common people — a matter of the utmost indifference to Muhammadan authors in general. His untiring strain of eulogy could not have condemned him in their eyes, as they were accustomed to little else in all the other histories they consulted; so that we must either attribute the neglect of this work to the cause assigned, or to the fact of its having at a comparatively late period been rescued from some musty record room. The work, consisting of ninety chapters, contains an ample account of this Akbar of his time; and, making due allowance for the prevalent spirit of eulogium and exaggeration, it not only raises in us a respect for the virtues and munificence of Firoz, and for the benevolence of his character, as shown by his canals and structures for public accommodation, but gives us altogether a better view of the internal condition of India under a Muhammadan sovereign than is presented to us in any other work, except the A'yin-i Akbari.


[In style, this history has no pretensions to elegance, being, in general, very plain. The author is much given to reiterations and recapitulations, and he has certain pet phrases which he constantly uses. Sir H. Elliot desired to print a translation of the whole work, and he evidently held it in high estimation. A portion of the work had been translated for him by a munshi, but this has proved to be entirely useless. The work of translation has, consequently, fallen upon the editor, and he has endeavoured to carry out Sir H. Elliot's plan by making a close translation of the first three chapters, and by extracting from the rest of the work everything that seemed worthy of selection. The translation is close, without being servile; here and there exuberances of eloquence have been pruned out, and repetitions and tautologies have been passed over without notice, but other omissions have been marked by asterisks, or by brief descriptions in brackets of the passages omitted. Shams-i Siraj, with a better idea of method than has fallen to the lot of many of his brother historians, has divided his work into books and chapters with appropriate headings.

[Besides this history of Firoz Shah, the author often refers to his Manakib-i Sultan Tughlik, and he mentions his intention of writing similar memoirs of the reign of Sultan Muhammad, the son of Firoz Shah. Nothing more appears to be known of these works. Copies of the Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi are rare in India, and Colonel Lees, who has selected the work for publication in the Bibliotheca Indica, has heard only of "one copy in General Hamilton's library, and of another at Dehli, in the possession of Nawab Ziau-d din Loharu, of which General Hamilton's is perhaps a transcript."1 [Journ. R.A.S., New Series, iii., 446.] The editor has had the use of four copies. One belonging to Sir H. Elliot, and another belonging to Mr. Thomas, are of quite recent production. They are evidently taken from the same original, most probably the Dehli copy above mentioned. The other two copies belong to the library of the India Office, one having been lately purchased at the sale of the Marquis of Hastings's books. These are older productions; they are well and carefully written, and although they contain many obvious errors, they will be of the greatest service in the preparation of a correct text. None of these MSS. are perfect.The two modern copies terminate in the middle of the ninth chapter of the last book. The Hastings copy wants several chapters at the end of the first and the beginning of the second book; but it extends to the eleventh chapter of the last book, and has the final leaf of the work. The other MS. ends in the middle of the fifteenth chapter of the last book, and some leaves are missing from the fourteenth. Fortunately these missing chapters seem, from the headings given in the preface, to be of no importance.


[A considerable portion of the work was translated in abstract by Lieut. Henry Lewis, Bengal Artillery, and published in the Journal of the Archaeological Society of Dehli in 1849.]

-- XVI. Tarikh-I Firoz Shahi, of Shams-i Siraj 'Afif, Excerpt from The History of India As Told By Its Own Historians: The Muhammadan Period, edited from the posthumous papers of the Late Sir H.M. Elliot, K.C.B., East India Company's Bengal Civil Service, by Professor John Dowson, M.R.A.S., Staff college, Sandhurst, Vol. III, P. 269-364, 1871


Image
Delhi-Topra, Feroz Shah Kotla, Delhi (Pillar Edicts I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII; moved in 1356 CE from Topra Kalan in Yamunanagar district of Haryana to Delhi by Firuz Shah Tughluq.

-- Pillars of Ashoka, by Wikipedia


During his hunting expeditions in 1366 Firuz Shah discovered two remarkable pillars of stone -- one in the village of Topra (Tobra) situated in the hills of Salaura and Khizrabad, and the other in the vicinity of the town of Mirah.4 The village Tobra of Shams Siraj 'Afif' has been satisfactorily identified with Topra in Ambala district of Haryana.

Firuz was so much excited and impressed that he decided to take the pillar from Topra across a distance of over 150 miles to his newly built city Firuzabad. It is interesting to know the details and see illustration in line drawings how this pillar was dislodged, transported by boat and re-erected in stages on a three storied pyramidal pavilion in front of the Jami Mosque of Firuzabad in A.D. 1367.5

After the pillar was finally set up the top was ornamented with black and white stone railings5 and was crowned by a gilded copper cupola. The gold pinnacle of the pillars was intact in A.D. 1611 when William Finch visited Delhi. Firoz Shah was very keen to know the purport of the Mauryan inscription. Many reputed Brahmin scholars of the age are reported to have tried but according to Afif, they could not completely decipher the epigraph except giving its traditional accounts. The pillar is now standing on the above mentioned pyramidal structure in Kotala Firoz Shah, New Delhi. It bears the longest of the pillar edicts of Asoka, giving summary of what Asoka did for "the progress of men by an adequate promotion of Dharma".7

Image
Delhi-Meerut, Delhi ridge, Delhi (Pillar Edicts I, II, III, IV, V, VI; moved from Meerut to Delhi by Firuz Shah Tughluq in 1356, broken in pieces during transportation.

-- Pillars of Ashoka, by Wikipedia


Image

Ashoka's Pillar at Kamla Nehru Ridge, near Hindu Rao hospital, is one of the two brought in by Firoz Shah Tughlaq in the mid-13th century. Brought from Meerut after one of his campaigns, the pillar was transported meticulously through the Yamuna river on barges and then hauled up on a 42 wheel cart from the bank to the ridge. Another of its counterparts can be found in the urban village of Firoz Shah Kotla.

The construction is mostly made of sandstone, quarried from Chunar town in Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, presently another small town (known for its pottery) on the Indo-Gangetic belt but historically a very important destination, finding mention in the ancient Hindu Puranas (scriptures). Huge rock slabs were chiseled at the quarry and then sent across the country. The pillar suffered an accident during the tumultuous reign of the Mughal Emperor Farrukhsiyar during the first half of the 17th century. The top of the pillar which got blown off as a consequence still remains in-state as a result. [???] The pieces of the pillar were transported for safekeeping to the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta in 1866, but were brought back and restored in its original place in 1887, where it still stands today.

The pillar is about 10 feet in height with a diameter of about three quarters of a metre and features inscriptions in Brahmi Script; mostly focusing on Ashoka’s major propaganda, viz, his conversion to and propagation of Buddhism and social and animal welfare. Further studies have revealed later inscriptions in Sanskrit around Ashoka’s texts, assumed to date back to the rule of the Chauhan King Visala around the 11th century AD. Firoz Shah himself added some bits of decoration to the pillars later.


The pillar is located at one end of the Kamla Nehru Ridge in North Delhi, with Mutiny Memorial situated nearby.

-- Surviving As A Historical Relic Since The 13th Century, Here's All About The Ashokan Pillar, by Delhi Dwell, 21 Aug 2017


The next Asokan pillar at Delhi can be seen between the Chauburji-Masjid and Hindu Rao Hospital on the town of Mirath and set up by Firuz over the top of the three storeyed imposing Hunting Palace better known as Kushk-i-Shikar (now mass of ruins). According to Afif this pillar was removed by Sultan Firuz with similar skill and labour, and was re-erected on a hill on the Kushk-i-Shikr. After the erection of the pillar a large town sprang up and the nobles of the court erected their houses there. The hunting palace (Kushk-i-Shikar) was built by Firuz Shah Tughluq in A.H. 755 (A. D. 1354) and was originally a lofty rubble built structure in three storeys, having circular bastions at the corners, The apartments had many entrances of pointed arches on all sides. The bastions as well as top pavilions were covered with low domes of the Khalfi-Tughluq variety. The stone column was fixed on the top of the central structure which was flanked by two square pavilions of similar height.

Afif informs us that the day Firuz successfully raised the second pillar to its proper height he ordered state rejoicing. The whole day was observed as a state festival and all people were entertained; and passers-by irrespective of all distinctions enjoyed sharbat (cold sweet drink). The pillar of Kushk-i-Shikar, remained intact until it was damaged, and broken into five pieces on account of an explosion of the neighbouring powder magazine during the reign of Farrukhsiyar (A.D. 1713-19.) Its inscribed surface was later sawed off and sent to the Asiatic Society of Bengal at Calcutta wherefrom all the pieces were received back and re-set in 1867 by the British on the site of the dismantled palace on the bridge where it can be seen at present. The pillar now measures 10 m. in length.

Thanks largely to Hodgson's discoveries along the Nepalese frontier, Prinsep knew of five Ashoka columns. As he deciphered their messages a sixth came to light in Delhi (the second to be found there). Broken into three pieces and buried in the ground, it was thought to have been the casualty of an explosion in a nearby gunpowder factory sometime in the 17th century. The inscription was badly worn, though evidently the same as that on the other pillars. In due course the whole pillar was offered to the Asiatic Society for their new museum. They accepted it but found the difficulties and cost of transporting it to Calcutta to be prohibitive; eventually they settled for just the bit with the inscription on it.

The question of how these pillars had originally been moved round India, and whether they were still in their ordained positions, was an intriguing subject in itself. It was now appreciated that they were all of the same stone, all polished by the same unexplained process, and therefore all from the same quarry. Prinsep thought this was somewhere in the Outer Himalayas, although we now know their source to have been Chunar on the Ganges near Benares. Either way, they had somehow been moved as much as 500 miles, no mean feat considering that the heaviest weighed over 40 tons.

-- India Discovered, by John Keay


It is possible that after the discovery and re-erection of the two Asokan columns at Delhi, Firuz Shah searched for other such relics in the region. His explorations may have resulted in the discovery of the Hissar pillars which was certainly found later than the Delhi pillars. Had this been discovered earlier it should have been mentioned in the contemporary chronicles and it may have received the same royal attention which was given to the Delhi pillars. Hissar, where another Asokan pillar was re-erected, was a village which was raised to the status of a town by Firuz Shah after his dramatic marriage with the sister of a Gujar named Saharan who later became a nobleman and was favoured with the title of Wajih-ul-Mulk.8 According to Afif, the city of Hissar Firuza was founded by Firuz after his Bengal campaign (1356) earlier than Firuzabad in Delhi. The city was made the headquarter of a newly constructed shiq (district) at the cost of the shiq of Hansi.9

Firuz built a magnificent palace at Hissar, the notable remains of which are still extant and are named after the Gujar queen of the Sultan (Gujari-Mahal). Afif has given interesting description of the palace and underground chambers (Takhana) which formed a complicated irregular structure with many zigzag passages which made it extremely difficult for persons walking through them to find their way out unless they knew the scheme.10

Image
Hisar Ashokan pillar

The mosque got its name from Lat, a column located on the North-East of its courtyard. The Lat was once a part of an Ashokan pillar, one of the rock-cut edicts of Ashoka dating to 250–232 BCE. This has been proved by the inscriptions in Brahmi script on the pillar, deciphered in 1837 by James Prinsep, an archaeologist, philologist, and official of the East India Company. The Ashokan pillar, likely taken from its nearby original location at Agroha Mound, was cut for the ease of transportation and rejoined in four portions here. The remaining bottom portions are at the Fatehabad mosque. The four upper portions of the Ashokan pillar here are tapering registers with a finial topped by an iron rod.

-- Firoz Shah palace complex, by Wikipedia


The Hissar pillar is standing in the courtyard of the mosque of the ruined fort of Hissar. The mosque is locally known as Lat-ki-Masjid, apparently named after the lofty stone tower of its courtyard. The original findspot of this pillar is not known. The contemporary chroniclers are silent about it. It may be presumed that this column was found at a later date at least not before the compilation of Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi which mentioned the palace complex of Hissar in details. It may have been found from certain ancient ruins in the region not very far from Hissar. Cunningham suspected it to be a relic of Buddhist monument shifted from Hansi, a town of considerable antiquity.11

XV. Tarikhi Firoz Shahi of Ziaud Din Barni [Ziauddin Barani]

This History is very much quoted by subsequent authors, and is the chief source from which Firishta draws his account of the period. Barni takes up the History of India just where the Tabakat'i Nasiri leaves it; nearly a century having elapsed without any historian having recorded the events of that interval. In his Preface, after extolling the value of history, he gives the following account of his own work. ["Having derived great benefit and pleasure from the study of history, I was desirous of writing a history myself, beginning with Adam and his two sons. * * * But while I was intent upon this design, I called to mind the Tabakat-i Nasiri, written with such marvellous ability by the Sadar-i Jahan, Minhaju-d din Jauzjani. * * * I then said to myself, if I copy what this venerable and illustrious author has written, those who have read his history will derive no advantage from reading mine; and if I state any thing contradictory of that master's writings, or abridge or amplify his statements, it will be considered disrespectful and rash. In addition to which I should raise doubts and difficulties in the minds of his readers. I therefore deemed it advisable to exclude from this history everything which is included in the Tabakat-i Nasiri, * * * and to confine myself to the history of the later kings of Dehli. * * * It is ninety-five years since the Tabakat-i Nasiri, and during that time eight kings have sat upon the throne of Dehli. Three other persons, rightly or wrongfully, occupied the throne for three or four months each; but in this history I have recorded only the reigns of eight kings, beginning with Sultan Ghiyasu-d din Balban, who appears in the Tabakat-i Nasiri under the name of Ulugh Khan.]

"First. — Sultan Ghiyasu-d din Balban, who reigned twenty years.
"Second. — Sultan M'uizzu-d din Kai-kubad, son of Sultan Balban, who reigned three years.
"Third. — Sultan Jalalu-d din Firoz Khilji, who reigned seven years.
"Fourth. — Sultan Alau-d din Khilji, who reigned twenty years.
"Fifth.— Sultan Kutbu-d din, son of Sultan 'Alau-d din, who reigned four years and four days.
"Sixth. — Sultan Ghiyasu-d din Tughlik, who reigned four years and a few months.
"Seventh. — Sultan Muhammad, the son of Tughlik Shah, who reigned twenty years.
"Eighth. — Sultan Firoz Shah, the present king, whom may God preserve.

"I have not taken any notice of three kings, who reigned only three or four months. I have written in this book, which I have named Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi, whatever I have seen during the six years of the reign of the present king, Firoz Shah, and after this, if God spares my life, I hope to give an account of subsequent occurrences in the concluding part of this volume. I have taken much trouble on myself in writing this history, and hope it will be approved. If readers peruse this compilation as a mere history, they will find recorded in it the actions of great kings and conquerors; if they search in it the rules of administration and the means of enforcing obedience, even in that respect it will not be found deficient; if they look into it for warnings and admonitions to kings and governors, that also they will find nowhere else in such perfection. To conclude, whatever I have written is right and true, and worthy of all confidence.''

Ziau-d din Barni, like many others, who have written under the eye and at the dictation of contemporary princes, is an unfair narrator. Several of the most important events of the reigns he celebrated have been altogether omitted, or slurred over as of no consequence. Thus many of the inroads of the Mughals in the time of Alau-d din are not noticed, and he omits all mention of the atrocious means of perfidy and murder, by which Muhammad Tughlik obtained the throne, to which concealment he was no doubt induced by the near relationship which that tyrant bore to the reigning monarch. With respect, however, to his concealment of the Mughal irruptions, it is to be remarked, as a curious fact, that the Western historians, both of Asia and Europe, make no mention of some of the most important. It is Firishta who notices them, and blames our author for his withholding the truth. Firishta's sources of information were no doubt excellent, and the general credit which his narrative inspires, combines with the eulogistic tone of Ziau-d din Barni's history in proving that the inroads were actually made, and that the author's concealment was intentional. The silence of the authorities quoted by De Guignes, D'Herbelot, and Price, may be ascribed to their defective information respecting the transactions of the Mughal leaders to the eastward of the Persian boundary.

The author did not live to complete his account of Firoz Shah, but towards the close of his work lavishes every kind of encomium, not altogether undeserved, upon that excellent prince. Notwithstanding that Firishta has extracted the best part of the Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi, it will continue to be consulted, as the reigns which it comprises are of some consequence in the history of India. The constant recurrence of Mughal invasions, the expeditions to the Dekkin and Telingana, the establishment of fixed prices for provisions, and the abortive means adopted to avert the effects of famine, the issue of copper money of arbitrary value, the attempted removal of the capital to Deogir, the wanton massacres of defenceless subjects, the disastrous results of the scheme to penetrate across the Himalaya to China, the public buildings, and the mild administration of Firoz; all these measures, and many more, invest the period with an interest which cannot be satisfied from the mere abstract given by Firishta.

[Barni is very sparing and inaccurate in his dates. He is also wanting in method and arrangement. He occasionally introduces divisions into his work, but in such a fitful irregular way that they are useless. In his latter days "he retired to a village in the suburbs of Dehli, which was afterwards the burial place of many saints and distinguished men. He was reduced to such extreme poverty that no more costly shroud than a piece of coarse matting could be furnished for the funeral obsequies." His tomb is not far from that of his friend, the poet Amir Khusru.1 [Col. Lees. Jour., R.A.S., vol. iii., new series, p. 445.]

[Sir H. Elliot had marked the whole of Barni's history for translation, intending probably to peruse it and expunge all trivial and uninteresting passages. The translation had been undertaken by a distinguished member of the Bengal Civil Service, but when required it was not forthcoming. After waiting for some time, the editor, anxious to avoid further delay, set to work himself, and the whole of the translation is from his pen.2 [When a portion of the translation was already in type, and the editor was at work on the last reign, a letter arrived from India with translations of the histories of the second and sixth of the eight kings — too late to be of any service.] It is somewhat freer in style than many of the others, for although the text has been very closely followed, the sense has always been preferred to the letter, and a discretion has been exercised of omitting reiterated and redundant epithets. All passages of little or no importance or interest have been omitted, and their places are marked with asterisks. The Extracts, therefore, contain the whole pith and marrow of the work, all that is likely to prove in any degree valuable for historical purposes. Barni's history of the eighth king, Firoz Shah, is incomplete, and is of less interest than the other portions. In the weakness of old age, or in the desire to please the reigning monarch, he has indulged in a strain of adulation which spoils his narrative. The Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi of Shams-i Siraj, which will follow this work, is specially devoted to the reign of that king. Shams-i Siraj has therefore been left to tell the history of that monarch. But the two writers have been compared, and one or two interesting passages have been extracted from Barni's work.

[The translation has been made from the text printed in the Bibliotheca Indica, and during the latter half of the work two MSS., borrowed by Sir H. Elliot, have been also constantly used,1 [These MSS. being carefully secured by Lady Elliot, could not be obtained while she was absent from home. They have since been examined in respect of several passages in the earlier parts of the translation.] These MSS. prove the print, or the MSS. on which it was based, to be very faulty. A collation would furnish a long list of errata and addenda. One of the two MSS. gives the original text apparently unaltered;2 [This is said to be "a perfect copy, and the autograph of the author. It belongs to the Nawwab of Tonk, by whose father it was plundered from Boolandshahr." It is a good MS., but, so far from being an autograph, the colophon gives the name of the scribe and the date of the transcription, 1019 (1610 A.D.)] but the other has been revised with some judgment. It sometimes omits and sometimes simplifies obscure and difficult passages, and it occasionally leaves out reiterations; but it is a valuable MS., and would have been of great assistance to the editor of the text.]


-- XV. Tarikhi Firoz Shahi of Ziaud Din Barni [[Ziauddin Barani]], Excerpt from The History of India As Told By Its Own Historians: The Muhammadan Period, edited from the posthumous papers of the Late Sir H.M. Elliot, K.C.B., East India Company's Bengal Civil Service, by Professor John Dowson, M.R.A.S., Staff college, Sandhurst, Vol. III, 1871, P. 93.


Cunningham does not give any further details of its artistic appearance. He quotes the statement of Captain Brown in 1838: "The stone appears of the same (i.e., Buddhist) description, but has suffered much from exposure to climate. It has also the appearance of having been partially worked by Firoz's order, and probably some inscription was cut upon it by his workmen, but of which there is now no trace owing to the peeling off of the exterior surface. I, however, observed near the upper part of the stone some of the ancient letters which apparently have been saved by accident. The ancient stone is of one piece and is 10 ft. 10 inches high."12 Standing on the height of the inner side of the main entrance in the courtyard of the mosque the lowest portion of this solid tower is a part of a monolithic pillar, evidently of Mauryan origin. To give a proper shape and height it has been designed in the form of a solid minaret by providing red sand stone shafts interrupted by circular stone discs, the top crowned by an Amalaka marble. The lowest part is badly damaged, but the Mauryan polish and remnants of Brahmi inscription and fragmentary epigraphs of North Indian Script of about 4th/5th Century are still extant.13 The total height of the composite pillar is 10.00 m., the remaining parts from the base being 3.50, 3.00, 2.00, 1.50 ms., respectively. The diameter at the base is 0.75 m. Such tapering solid minarets of stone are found in early mosques of Gujarat, indicating Tughluq influence on regional style.

Image

On the uppermost part of the fort, there is an Idgah. In the precinct of this Idgah, there is a thick lofty pillar in the centre. Constructed with the mixture of Balua soil, red marble, white marble and iron, the pillar is 15.6 feet in height, and six feet in circumference. Verses from the Koran and some brief information about the Tughlaq dynasty have been carved out on 36 slabs of the pillar. Some historians claim this pillar to be the "Kirti Stambha" of Ashoka the Great. The Hisar gazetteer also mentions that the pillar seemed to have been constructed by some Hindu king as words from Sanskrit language have also been found on the slabs. Besides this, the artistic work on the two mosques in this fort also resemble the work on the ancient Hindu temples. These historians believe that the pillar was constructed during the Ashoka period and was given touches of Muslim art by Firoz Shah Tughlaq during 14th century. In the same Idgah, on the west side of the pillar, there is an inscription. On this has been engraved in Arabian language that the Mughal emperor Humanyun came here and constructed a mosque at this place.

-- Fatehabad: A town steeped deep in history, by Sushil Manav, 1999


This mosque known as Humayun’s mosque was built by the Mughal emperor Humayun (1529-1556 AD) at a place where the Lat erected by the Delhi Sultan Firoz Shah Tughlaq was already standing. The mosque consists of an oblong open courtyard. To the west of this mosque is a screen made of Lakhauri bricks. The screen contains a mihrab flanked by two arched recesses on either side. An inscription praising emperor Humayun was found here.

History and description: Standing at a height of over 6 metres, the Lat appears to be a portion of one of the pillars erected by Emperor Ashoka possibly at Agroha or Hansi. The Ashokan epigraph that was once engraved on the pillar was apparently very systematically chiseled off for writing the Tughlaq inscription, recording the genealogy of Firoz Shah in beautiful Tughra-Arabic characters carved in high relief. This Lat (the pillar) stands in the centre of what now looks like an ancient walled Idgah.

-- Lat of Feroz Shah, by fatehabad.nic.in


Image
Figure 4. Pillar, Fatehabad. Photo: author.

The third lat (fig. 4) is located in the town of Fathabad, or Fatehabad,16 Firuz Shah's earliest urban foundation, built in the first year of his reign, A.H. 752/A.D. 1351-52, and located on the road connecting the important sites of Delhi, Hansi, and Multan. The lat may date from this time, although no firm evidence supports this claim. Today it stands in the center of the courtyard of a modern 'idgah, but its original context is not known, and whether the pillar was free-standing or associated with a prior architectural structure remains a mystery. Fatehabad continued to be an important site into Mughal times, when a Humayun-period mosque was built on the site. Mughal patronage of the pillar is unlikely, and there is no evidence of any other builder at the site after the Tughluq period.17

The Fatehabad lat consists of a single column of beige stone standing 3.1 meters above the foundation. This piece is surmounted by a drum of white stone and four sections of red stone. The column is crowned by a red stone amalaka, a round fluted element of Indian origin,18 and a white stone cap raising the height of the column to 4.8 meters above the foundation. There is an estimated 1 to 1.5 meters below the ground. The diameter of the lat is 59 centimeters at its base and 52 centimeters at its top.

Image
Fig. 5. Detail of pillar inscription, Fatehabad. Photo: author.

The most remarkable feature of the Fatehabad lat is its inscription (fig. 5), one of the longest Indo-Islamic epigraphs of the Delhi sultanate; it is historical in content and specific to the Tughluq dynasty.19 [[Mehrdad] Shookoohy, Haryana I, 15-22 and pls. 1-70. [Haryana I. The Colum of Firuz Shah and Other Islamic Inscriptions from the District of Hisar. Plates i-xc. Shokoohy, Mehrdad. School of Oriental and African Studies, London 1988. 42 pp. + 90 plates. Publisher's cloth. 33,5x28,5 cm. Library stamps and bookplate. Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum. Part I IV Persian Inscriptions down to the early Safavid Period. Vol. XLVII India: State of Haryana.]] The date of the lat's installation is not known or given in the epigraph, but specific historical events referred to in the epigraph support attribution to Firuz Shah. The bottom section of the lat appears to be part of an ancient pillar brought to the site during the Tughluq period. Although a Mauryan origin is unlikely, it is nevertheless reused.20 [John Irwin expresses doubt about an Asokan origin for the Fatehabad lat in pt. 4, p. 744, n. 47 of John Irwin, "'Asokan' Pillars: A Reassessment of the Evidence," pts. 1-4, The Burlington Magazine 115 (Nov. 1973): 706-20; 116 (Dec. 1974): 712-27; 117 (Oct. 1975): 631-43; 118 (Nov. 1976): 734-53.] Citing similarities in stone type and column diameters, Cunningham believed that the pillar at Fatehabad and the pillar in nearby Hissar were originally parts of the same piece of stone. If his supposition is correct, then these columns were probably installed simultaneously.

-- The Monumental Pillars of Fīrūz Shāh Tughluq, by William Jeffrey McKibben, Ars Orientalis, Vol. 24 (1994), pp. 105-118 (14 pages), Published by: Freer Gallery of Art, The Smithsonian Institution and Department of the History of Art, University of Michigan


1. Lat, Fathabad, Hissar district, ca. 752/1351

Inside the precinct of the Idgah is a remnant of a lat, possibly Asokan in origin. The lat has been associated, in other cases, with a mosque and probably functioned as a type of minar, a concept which is examined in depth in the following chapter. The lat of Fathabad bears a Tughra Arabic inscription which is said to trace the genealogy of the Tughluq line.22 [The Fathabad column epigraph is long, consisting of 36 concentric bands of inscription. It is not known how much of the inscription is lost but, judging from the height of the column, it probably survives in almost its entirety. The lat inscription is published in Subhash Parihar, Muslim Inscriptions in the Punjab, Harayana, and Himachal Pradesh, 1985, p. 18 (No. 3.6) and illustration 7. A translation of it was allegedly done by Maulvi Ziyauddin Khan but it has not surfaced. See P. Horn "Muhammadan Inscriptions from the Suba of Delhi," Epigraphica Indica 2 (Delhi 1970), pp. 130-159 and 424-437; and H. B. W. Garrick, "Report of a tour in the Punjab and Rajputana, in 1883-84," A.S.J. Reports v. 23, Varanasi, n.d. Not all authors accept an Asokan origin for the Fathabad lat.]

-- The Architecture of Firuz Shah Tughluq, Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University, by William Jeffrey McKibben, B.A., M.A., 1988


The fourth pillar of this class is found in Fatehabad in District Hissar of Haryana. The town of Fatehabad was founded by Firuz Shah earlier than Firuzabad, Delhi and Hissar. It was named after his favourite son Fath Khan who is said to have been at that place. The column is standing in the spacious courtyard of a mosque which was erected by Firuz Shah himself. The mosque is now represented by its four brick walls and the mihrabs in the western wall. This pillar consists of two parts, the lower one being the original part of monolithic Mauryan pillar in grey sandstone of the Chunar variety while the upper part of red sandstone of the Tughluq period is separated by an abacus in white marble. The top of this tower is ornamented by an amalaka of red sandstone and crowned by a marble solid cap. The total height of the pillar is about 5 mts. The portion below the projecting disc which forms part of the grey monolithic pillar bears the circular bands of Persian inscription in beautiful Naskh characters of Firuz Shah Tughluq and gives the brief account of the Tughluq dynasty.

On close observation I noticed a line of Brahmi letters on the top of the Persian inscription immediately below the circular disc. This fragmentary Brahmi writing was not noticed by Cunningham or any other scholar. It is curious to note that these inscriptions have not been studied and published so far. The lower portion column is subjected to damaging weather effect.

Cunningham suspected that the Fatehabad pillar was the part of Hissar pillar which is not based on any evidence, since the diameter of both fragmentary columns substantially differ from each other.

Image

In Allahabad there is a pillar with inscriptions from Ashoka and later inscriptions attributed to Samudragupta and Jehangir. It is clear from the inscription that the pillar was first erected at Kaushambi, an ancient town some 30 kilometres west of Allahabad that was the capital of the Koshala kingdom, and moved to Allahabad, presumably under Muslim rule.

The pillar is now located inside the Allahabad Fort, also the royal palace, built during the 16th century by Akbar at the confluence of the Ganges and Yamuna rivers. As the fort is occupied by the Indian Army it is essentially closed to the public and special permission is required to see the pillar. The Ashokan inscription is in Brahmi and is dated around 232 BC. A later inscription attributed to the second king of the Gupta empire, Samudragupta, is in the more refined Gupta script, a later version of Brahmi, and is dated to around 375 AD. This inscription lists the extent of the empire that Samudragupta built during his long reign. He had already been king for forty years at that time and would rule for another five. A still later inscription in Persian is from the Mughal emperor Jahangir. The Akbar Fort also houses the Akshay Vat, an Indian fig tree of great antiquity. The Ramayana refers to this tree under which Lord Rama is supposed to have prayed while on exile.

-- Pillars of Ashoka, by Wikipedia


The fifth and the last Asokan pillar of this class is now standing in the historic fort of Allahabad. According to Fuhrer it was brought by Firuz Shah Tughluq from the ancient town of Kausambi and was re-erected at Prayaga.14 The pillar bears the famous inscriptions of Asoka, Samudragutpa and Jahangir. According to Cunningham the pillar may have been dislodged many a time before it was finally set up by Akbar or by Jahangir whose date of accession is inscribed on it. There are many visitors' name carved on the pillar when it was lying on the ground. Among dated epigraphs there is one date which falls in the reign of Firuz Shah Tughluq.

Conclusion:

Firuz Shah should be given all credit for the discovery and preservation of five Mauryan pillars. It is recorded that the scholars of his time had failed to decipher the Asokan edicts. But it is nowhere mentioned why Firuz attached so much importance to these, otherwise simple monolithic stone pillars. It is also not known why he decided to re-erect these columns inside or in front of mosques. It seems that after the re-erection of the Delhi-Topra pillar some Indian scholar of his time had informed him about some of the purports of the inscriptions.

On the base of the obelisk there were engraved several lines of writing in Hindi characters. Many Brahmans and Hindu devotees were invited to read them, but no one was able. It is said that certain infidel Hindus interpreted them as stating that no one should be able to remove the obelisk from its place till there should arise in the latter days a Muhammadan king, named Sultan Firoz, etc., etc.

-- XVI. Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi, of Shams-i Siraj 'Afif, Excerpt from The History of India As Told By Its Own Historians: The Muhammadan Period, edited from the posthumous papers of the Late Sir H.M. Elliot, K.C.B., East India Company's Bengal Civil Service, by Professor John Dowson, M.R.A.S., Staff college, Sandhurst, Vol. III, P. 269-364, 1871


This becomes more probable when we consider that Firuz Shah caused to be inscribed memories (Futuhat-i-Firuz Shahi), i.e. records of his achievements or regulations to be inscribed on the eight sides of the octagonal cupola in the Jami Mosque of Firuzabad, next to the pyramidal structure of the Delhi-Topra pillar. It is also not understood why Firuz erected his inscribed cupola before the Asokan pillar. Moreover one can find many parallels in the Asokan pillar edict of Kotla-Firuz Shah and in the Futuhat which recorded Firuz's regulations, public works love of people, abolition of inhuman punishments. and harsh taxes, foundations of hospitals, colleges, towns, gardens, public baths, minarets, excavation of tanks, wells, construction of bridges, canals, preservation of ancient monuments and books (some of them translated from Sanskrit), extension of cultivation; and attempts of raising the morals of the people.15

[This little work, the production of the Sultan Firoz Shah, contains a brief summary of the res gestae [achievements] of his reign, or, as he designates them, his "Victories." Sir H. Elliot was unable to obtain a copy of it, but considered its recovery very desirable, "as everything relating to the noble character of Firoz is calculated to excite attention." Colonel Lees also speaks of it, but he had never seen it, and was not well informed as to its extent.1 [Journal Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. IV., New Series, p. 446. See also Briggs' Ferishta, I., 462.] Mr. Thomas was more fortunate, for he possesses a copy which purports to have been written in 1139 H. (1726 A.D.), but it is quite modern; the date therefore must be that of the MS. from which it was copied. The work is a mere brochure of thirty-two pages, and the editor has translated the whole of it, with the exception of a few lines in the preface laudatory of the prophet. It exhibits the humane and generous spirit of Firoz in a very pleasing unostentatious light, recording his earnest endeavours to discharge the duties of his station with clemency, and to act up to the teaching of his religion with reverence and earnestness.]

-- XVII. Futuhat-i Firoz Shahi of Sultan Firoz Shah, Excerpt from The History of India As Told By Its Own Historians: The Muhammadan Period, edited from the posthumous papers of the Late Sir H.M. Elliot, K.C.B., East India Company's Bengal Civil Service, by Professor John Dowson, M.R.A.S., Staff college, Sandhurst, Vol. III, P. 374-, 1871


REFERENCES

(1) John Irwin, 'Asokan pillars: A reassessment of the evidence' part-I-III, The Burlington Magazine, Vol. CXVII, CXVII (London, 1975) where a purely subjective hypothesis is built up for tracing the origin of the celebrated pillars to the pre-Mauryan period without giving due consideration to archaeological and epigraphical evidences.

(2) Even in recent works these mistakes have not been corrected.

(3) J. A. Page, Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India, No. 52, -- A Memoir on Kotla-Firoz Shah (Delhi-1937). It deals with history and archaeological remains of Firuzabad, Firuz Shah's New Delhi and contains second chapters of the Persian text of Sirat-i-Firuz Shahi with its English translation and illustration of original drawings of Delhi-Topra pillar being carried in boat and re-erected in stages on a specially built three storeyed edifice.

(4) Shams Siraj 'Afif, Tarikh-i-Firoz Shahi (Persian Text) pp. 305-314; Sirat-i-Firoz Shahi page, op. cit (Persian) p. 4, where the name of village is given as Maqbulabad alias Topra, which was most probably renamed after the discovery of the Asokan pillar after the name of Malik Maqbul Sullani who was the Minister of Firuz Shah.

(5) See the details in Page, op. cit. pp. 4-5, Alff. op. cit.; Cunningham, Archaeological Survey of India Reports: Vol. I (Reprinted Delhi, 1972) pp. 161-168. Also pl. note that the year of re-erection has not been correctly given elsewhere.

(6) Firuz provided stone railings of Mauryan pattern before the entrance or his Madrasa (college) at Hauz Khas, New Delhi which is still extant. Sikandar Lodi also erected the same type of railings on the platform in front of his tomb at New Delhi.

(7) K. A. Nizami, "The Futuhat i-Firuz as a Medieval Inscription, Proceedings of the Seminar on Medieval Inscriptions (Aligarh, 7974), pp, 28-33, where he compares the text of the Futuhat with the Delhi-Topra Pillar Edicts of Asoka and observes many striking similarities in both the texts.

See Nizami, Khaliq Ahmad (1974). "The Futuhat-i-Firuz Shahi as a medieval inscription". Proceedings of the Seminar on Medieval Inscriptions (6–8th Feb. 1970). Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh: Centre of Advanced Study, Department of History, Aligarh Muslim University. pp. 28–33. OCLC 3870911. and Nizami, Khaliq Ahmad (1983). On History and Historians of Medieval India. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. pp. 205–210. OCLC 10349790.


(8) Afif op. cit. 124. Also see Sikandar, Mirat-i-Sikandari (Baroda, 1961).

(9) Afif, op. cit.

(10) Afif, op. cit.

(11) Cunningham. op. cit., Vol. V., v. p. 140-142.

(12) Cunningham, op. cit., Vol. V., pp, 140-141.

(13) B. Ch. Chhabra, 'Asokan Pillar at Hissar Punjab,' Vishveshvaranand Indological Journal, (Hoshiapur, 1964 ), e. s.

(14) A. Fuhrer, The Monumental Antiquities and Inscriptions in the North-Western Provinces and Oudh., Arch. Sur. India, New Series, Vol. II. (Allahabad, 1891), p. 128, Cunningham, Arch. Sur. Ind., Four Reports. 1862-63-64-65, Vol. I (Delhi. 1972. ), p. 298.

(15) Nizamud-Din Ahmad, Tabaqat-i-Akbari, (Lucknow, 1875), pp. 150-121; Firishta, Tarikh-i-Firishta (Lucknow, 1905), pp. 150-151, Nizami, op. cit.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36183
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Thu Oct 28, 2021 7:38 am

Antiquarian Interest in Medieval India: Firuz Shah Tughluq and the Ashokan Pillars
by Saleem Ahmad
Proceedings of the Indian History Congress
Vol. 63 (2002), pp. 1295-1300 (6 pages)
2002

[N]ow that we know so much of its history we feel a vivid curiosity to pry into the further secrets of this interesting silastambha, even to the difficulties and probably cost of its transport, which, judging from the inability of the present Government to afford the expense even of setting the Allahabad pillar upright on its pedestal, must have fallen heavily on the coffers of the Ceylon monarch!

-- VI.—Interpretation of the most ancient of the inscriptions on the pillar called the lat of Feroz Shah, near Delhi, and of the Allahabad, Radhia [Lauriya-Araraj (Radiah)] and Mattiah [Lauriya-Nandangarh (Mathia)] pillar, or lat, inscriptions which agree therewith, by James Prinsep, Sec. As. Soc. &c., The Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. VI, Part II, July to December, 1837


The reign of Sultan Firuz Shah Tughluq (1351-88) is known for its large number of public works and structures. The Sultan is credited to have not only built new mosques and palaces, but also renovated a number of edifices and structures of former kings and ancient nobles' which had fallen in decay and disuse.

Although it is generally held that antiquarian interests developed in India only with the establishment of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,1 a study of the contemporary sources of Firuz Shah Tughluq's reign brings to light the keen interest of the Sultan in the antiquaries of the past. In fact, according to Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi the Sultan gave the restoration of 'old' structures priority over his own building works.2 Among these structures were included the Jami' Masjid of 'Old Delhi' (i.e. Quwwatul Islam mosque) the Minara-i Muizzuddin bin Sam (the Qutb Minar), the hauz-i Shamsi, the hauz-i Alai, the madrasa-i Shamsi and the tombs of a number of former Sultans like Muizzuddin bin Sam, Jalaluddin Khalji and Alauddin Khalji.3 This endeavour to renovate and strengthen the buildings of a by gone era was not only a rare feat which we encounter for the first time during the reign of Firuz Shah, it also throws a light on the growth of antiquarian interests during this period.

[This little work, the production of the Sultan Firoz Shah, contains a brief summary of the res gestae [achievements] of his reign, or, as he designates them, his "Victories." Sir H. Elliot was unable to obtain a copy of it, but considered its recovery very desirable, "as everything relating to the noble character of Firoz is calculated to excite attention." Colonel Lees also speaks of it, but he had never seen it, and was not well informed as to its extent.1 [Journal Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. IV., New Series, p. 446. See also Briggs' Ferishta, I., 462.] Mr. Thomas was more fortunate, for he possesses a copy which purports to have been written in 1139 H. (1726 A.D.), but it is quite modern; the date therefore must be that of the MS. from which it was copied. The work is a mere brochure of thirty-two pages, and the editor has translated the whole of it, with the exception of a few lines in the preface laudatory of the prophet. It exhibits the humane and generous spirit of Firoz in a very pleasing unostentatious light, recording his earnest endeavours to discharge the duties of his station with clemency, and to act up to the teaching of his religion with reverence and earnestness.]

-- XVII. Futuhat-i Firoz Shahi of Sultan Firoz Shah, Excerpt from The History of India As Told By Its Own Historians: The Muhammadan Period, edited from the posthumous papers of the Late Sir H.M. Elliot, K.C.B., East India Company's Bengal Civil Service, by Professor John Dowson, M.R.A.S., Staff college, Sandhurst, Vol. III, P. 374-, 1871


The most prominent example of this antiquarian interest is however the feat of the transportation and setting up of the two Asokan pillars by Firuz Shah at Delhi, which has been minutely described by Shams Siraj Afif and the anonymous author of the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi.4



According to Afif, while returning from his campaign against Thatta in AD 1356, that Firuz Shah chanced upon two stone columns whose provenance and history was unknown, and as Afif points out, 'had never attracted the attention of any of the kings who sat upon the throne of Delhi.5 The larger of these pillars was situated in Mauza Topra (Tuwira?), in the hilly tract (daman-i koh of Shig district) Salaura and Khizrabad.6 The other was located in the vicinity (hadd) of qasba Meerut.7 Firuz Shah on noticing these two pillars (Minara) decided to have them carried to his capital, 'as a memorial for future generations'.8 Although, Afif says that there was a popular legend in circulation that 'these columns of stone had been the walking sticks (Chubdasti) of the accused (malun) Bhim who was a man of great size (qad-wa qamat),9 the Sultan ordered a large number of Brahmins (Zunnardar) and Suyurgan' (diro tees?) to decipher the inscriptions which were alleged to be in the 'Indian script' (ba khat-i hindavi).10 The Brahmins and others, Afif says, were not able to decipher the script. Some 'infidels' however interpreted these lines as stating that these pillars would not be able to be moved by any one except by a Muslim king whose name would be Sultan Firuz.11 This attempt at deciphering the inscriptions to know the history of these structures reveal a keen antiquarian interest of Sultan Firuz Shah Tughlaq.

The Sirat-i Firuz Shahi and the Tarikh-i Firuz Shahi of Shams Siraj Afif go on to describe in detail the manner in which the Topra pillar (Minara-i Zarrin) was lifted from its place of origin, shifted to Delhi and then affixed on the pyramidal structure built for the purpose in front of the Jami Masjid at Kotla Firuz Shah.

Describing the process of lifting the pillar from its place, Afif writes:

''After thinking over the best means of lowering the pillar, orders were issued commanding the attendance of all the people residing in the qasbat (districts) and qaryat (villages) in tehsil vicinity of the pillar, within and without the Doab. All the soldiers, mounted and on foot were also ordered to assemble. They were (also) ordered to bring all implements and material (Asbab ha-i guna gun) suitable to bring out the pillar (from the earth). Directions were issued to bring bales of seedless cotton (navalha-i mahly) of the Sembal tree (the Silk-cotton tree). These cotton bales were tied round the pillar to form a cushion (takiya gah) so that when it was removed (dug) from its foundations, it fell gently over it, without any damage being caused to its stone surface.12


The Sirat-i Firuz Shahi on the other hand informs that the pillar was covered with a casing of raw hide (Charm-i Kham), while rice husk (Shali) (or Shal, a coarse mantle of wood and goats hair?) was scattered around it to break the impact of the fall.13 Further, long ropes were tied to the pillar, and as it was lowered stage by stage from its soil, the ropes, the other ends of which were tied to wheels (Charkh), acting as pulleys, helped in its lowering to the ground. This technique of using pulleys, according to the author of the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi was known in the Indian language (Zaban-i hindavi) as larhia(?)14 The uprooted pillar was then shifted on to a windlers -- chariot (gardun) with the help of ropes and a series of pulleys. According to Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, this carriage was prepared on the orders of the Sultan and was of the same size as the length of the pillar. It comprised of two wheels (cutlosses?) (Paya) having a circumference (dauz) of 10 gaz (yards). A brick wall was constructed nearby and as the cutlasses rotated, the pillar was lifted up from the ground. We are further informed that the distance between the carrings and the brick wall was fixed at 6 gaz. It was also ordered that as the pillar was being lifted with the help of the pulleys, four sets of wheels at a distance of 10 gaz from each other be placed below. After the pillar was act in this fashion on the carriage, the wall and the paya(?) were removed.15 The pillar was then tied to the wheel carriage with the help of iron hooks (halqa-ha-i ahm) and ropes and was ordered to be pulled by mighty elephants.16 Explaning this process, the author of Sirat-i Firuz Shahi mentions that the king ordered the pillar to be tied with the help of 10 iron-hooks on each side held together with an equal number of ropes. Three other ropes tied to the necks of the animals were also ordered to be fixed so that the balance be maintained. Four ropes tied on the back and front of the carriage were to be held by the people, including high nobles pulling the cart so that the carriage may not sink into the ground due to its weight.17 According to Afif, the carriage comprised of forty-two wheels, and at each wheel there were two hundred men who pulled and balanced the carriage.18

When this carriage carrying the pillar reached the banks of the river, again elaborate arrangements were made to transfer the pillar from the carriage to the boats. This transfer was again accomplished with the help of pulleys and ropes. Care was taken to place the carriage at level with the boats so that the pillar may easily slip on them from the carriage when the ropes were pulled.19

Our sources then go on to explain how the pillar, when it reached Firuzabad (Kotla Firuz Shah) was fixed on top of a structure which was ordered to be constructed in front of the Jami Masjid.20

As per the order of Firuz Shah a spare pit 7 gaz deep with each side measuring 61 gaz was excavated, which was then filled with gypsum/lime (gach) and stones in such a fashion that in 60 gaz platform with a height of 3 gaz21. Stage by stage the pillar was then raised on this structure. Dealing with the construction of the structure on which the pillar was raised, Afif describes.

"It was constructed of stone and lime (Chuna) and consisted of several stages (Poshish) as each stage was completed. Sultan Firoz Shah, through the Divine inspiration to raise the pillar to that level. Another stage was then built and the pillar was again raised, and so on in succession until it reached the intended height. After this other devices (Litt. hikmat) were utilized to fix it in an erect position. Ropes of great thickness were obtained and wooden windlesses (Churkh ha-i Chutina) were placed on each of the six stages of the lase. And end of the ropes were tied to the head of the pillar, while the other end was passed through the windlass which were firmly secured with many fastenings. When once the windlass was pulled with force, it rotated and the pillar was raised. And when rose to a height of half a gaz, it was cushioned with logs of wood and the bales of seeded cotton of Sembal tree. In this fashion over a period of a few days and much force, the pillar was raised to the desired level (i.e. strengthened). Large wooden beams were placed from its head to foot and fastened with iron nails in a way that a scaffolding was formed, and to pillar would not tilt in any direction. It (now) stood as straight as an arrow, without a smallest deviation. The square stone (sang-i Chahar gusha), which was found at its original foundation, was placed under it.22


We are further informed that the Sultan then ordered an addition of some ornamental friezes of black and white stone to be placed around the capital, on top of which was raised a gilded copper cupola (Chharari) due to which this pillar came to be known as minara-i zarrin or the golden minaret.23

The account of Sirat-i Firuz Shahi is accompanied by ten sketches which depict the various processes and techniques through which the pillar was uprooted, transported and ultimately fixed on the pyramidal structure at Kotla Firuz Shah.

The antiquarian interest during the medieval period as revealed from the account of this Ashokan pillar appears to have subsided followed the death of Sultan Firuz Shah, only to be revived almost two centuries later when during the reigns of Babur and Akbar. we once again start getting evidence of this nature.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. See for example Dilip K. Chakraborti. A history of Indian Archaeology from the beginning to 1947, Delhi, 1968; idem, India: An Archaeological History. Palaeolithic Beginning to Early Historic Foundations.ovp. 1999.

2. Firuz Shah, Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi, ed. Sh. Abdur Rashid. Aligarh. 1954. p. 11. For the new constructional works of the Sultan, ee Yahya Sirhindi. Tarikh-i Mubarak Shahi, ed. Hidayat Husain, Bib. Ind. Calcutta. 1981. p. 135; Shams Siraj Afif. Tarikh-i Firuz Shahi, ed. Molvi Wilayat Husain, Bib. Ind. Calcutta. 1890. pp. 329-31.

3: Futuhat, op. cit., pp. 12-15.

4. Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, Anonymous. MS Pankipur Library (Rotograph in the Dept. of History Library. AMU) ff.95(a) 101(b).

5. Afif, op. cit., p. 305.

6. Presently in the Ambala district, See. Irfan Habib. An Atlas of the Moghal Empire, OUP. 1982, 4A, 4B, 30+. 77+.

7. Afif, op. cit., p. 305.

8. Ibid., pp. 306, 308.

9. Ibid., p. 306.

10. The pillar at Firuz Shah Kotla is inscribed with Ashokan Edicts no. 1-7. See Epigraphia Indica, II, 1894. pp. 245-48.

11. Afif. op. cit., p. 312.

12. Afif, op. cit., p. 309.

13. Sirut, op. cit., f.96(a); according to Afif, the encasing with raw hide was done once the pillar had been brought out of the ground (p. 309).

14. Ibid.

15. Ibid.

16. Ibid., f.97(a).

17. Ibid., f.97(a) (b).

18. Afif, op. cit., p. 309.

19. Sirat, op. cit., f.98(a).

20. Sirat, f.101(a), Afif, p. 310-11.

21. Sirat, f. 101(a).

22. Afif, op. cit., pp. 311-12.

23. Ibid., p. 312.

Image

Image

***********************



Image

A View of the Fort of Allahabad, 1783, William Hodges, Yale Center for British Art

Image

A View of the Fort of Allahabad, William Hodges, 1744–1797, British, ca. 1783, Gray wash and graphite on laid paper, laid down on 19th Century wash mount, Sheet: 19 1/8 x 25 1/2in. (48.6 x 64.8cm). (Photo by: Sepia Times/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)

Image

The Chalees Satoon, in the Fort of Allahabad, on the River Jumna (1796) - painted by Thomas Daniell

Image

Allahabad Fort, in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, circa 1800. It was built by Mughal Emperor Akbar in 1583 and stands on the banks of the Yamuna River. (Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images) "View of Allahabad, Showing the Fort," from vol. 3 of 'The Indian Empire' by Robert Montgomery Martin, c.1860

Image

North West Gate of the Fort, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, India

Image

Part of palace within the Fort of Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, India

Image

Allahabad Fort, in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, seen from the right bank of the Yamuna River, 1892.
It was built by Mughal Emperor Akbar in 1583. (Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

Image

Lithograph City and Fort of Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, India

Image

Military and mutiny, brigadier, General Havelock [1857-1859] leaving the fortress of Allahabad to recapture Cawnpore, Uttar Pradesh

Image

The fort of Allahabad from the river Jumna Jamuna, Uttar Pradesh, India. A view of the fort of Allahabad, from the Illustrated London News, 1857

Image

The fort of Allahabad and Junction of the Jumna Jamuna with the Ganges, Uttar Pradesh, India; "The Allahabad fort seen from across the river," from the Illustrated London News, 1887

Image

Line of railway from Calcutta, Kolkata to Delhi, fortress of Allahabad, bridge across the Jumna Jamuna river, Uttar Pradesh. "Fortress of Allahabad--Bridge of Boats across the Jumna," Illustrated London News, 1851

Image

Allahabad, from the Right Bank of the Jumna, William Simpson, 1823–1899, British, 1865, Watercolor with gouache and graphite on moderately thick, moderately textured, cream wove paper, Sheet: 14 5/8 x 20 1/4 inches (37.1 x 51.4 cm), boats, cityscape, figures, fort, fountain, genre subject, landscape, military art, river, riverbanks, ships, sunset, walls, Allahabad, Ganges, India, Punjab, Yamuna. (Photo by: Sepia Times/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)

Image

Ghat at Allahabad Fort, 1858-61. Artist Unknown. (Photo by Heritage Art/Heritage Images via Getty Images)

Image

The Mughal interior of the west gate to Allahabad Fort; by Seeta Ram, 1814-15* (BL)

Image

Palace of Allahabad, From an English history book, 1851

Image

"Hindoo shrine at Allahabad," from the Illustrated London News, 1881

Image

Fort Allahabad, A gelatin silver photo, c.1900

Image

"Allahabad: On the Walls of the Fortress at time of a Pilgrimage," a photogravure by Martin Hurlimann, 1928

Image

"Remains of the Old Fort of the Jumna, Allahabad". Drawing. 1828-33 (made). by Robert Captain Smith, Allahabad

Image

Khusru-BaghAllahabad 1870s

Image

The Ashokan Pillar, located in the Allahabad Fort (madrascourier.com, "Why the Allahabad Pillar Inscriptions Are a National Heritage," by Karthik Venkatesh, November 16, 2018)
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36183
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Mon Nov 01, 2021 4:29 am

Chapter 7: The Tughlaq Dynasty, Excerpt from "A Textbook of Medieval Indian History
by Sailendra Nath Sen
©  Sailendra Nath Sen 2013

CHAPTER 7: The Tughlaq Dynasty

Ghiyasuddin Tughlaq (1320-25)


Ghiyasuddin was the founder of the Tughluq dynasty. This dynasty is also known as the dynasty of the Qaraunah Turks since his father was a Qaraunah Turk. Ghiyasuddin was a man of humble origin. His success against the Mongols during the reign of Alauddin raised him to a prominent position. He ascended the throne on 8 September 1320 and took up the title of Ghazi or 'slayer of the infidels'.

Domestic Policy

Ghiyasuddin' s first task was to restore administrative order by removing the abuses that had crept in. He won over the nobles by bestowing lands and employment. He recovered most of the treasure squandered by Khusrau Shah. Nothing however, could be recovered from the famous Saint, Shaikh Nizam-uddin Auliya. He encouraged agriculturists and protected the cultivators from harassment. He lightened the burden of taxation by fixing the dues of the State to one-tenth and one-eleventh in a year. He gave up the practice of survey of the land and instead laid down that land revenue should be assessed by the collectors in person. Instead of increasing the revenue, the Sultan's policy was that of 'the extension of cultivation'. This led to reclamation of the wastelands and an increasing acreage under cultivable land. Canals were excavated to irrigate the fields, gardens were planted and forts were repaired. He improved the system of communication by streamlining the postal system. He reformed the judicial system. However, his treatment of the Hindus was not praiseworthy. He devised a system of relief for the poor. He was a patron of literary men and religious institutions. Amir Khusrau, his poet laureate, received a pension of 1,000 tankas per mensem. Amir Khusrau observes: 'He never did anything that was not replete with wisdom and sense.'

Foreign Policy

Ghiyasuddin pursued the Khalji policy of imperialism and wanted to assert his authority over those states which had renounced their allegiance during the weak reign of Khusrau Shah. In 1321 he sent his eldest son and heir-apparent, Jauna Khan, conferred with the title, Ulugh Khan, to subjugate the recalcitrant Prataparudra Deva, the Kakatiya ruler of Warangal. The invaders besieged the fort of Warangal but the heroic resistance of the defenders who snapped the lines of communication with Delhi unnerved Ulugh Khan. Wild rumours, that the Sultan had died, goaded Ulugh Khan to hasten back to Delhi without achieving anything. In 1323 he marched again to Warangal and compelled Prataparudra to surrender along with his family. The Raja was sent to Delhi and Warangal was named Sultanpur. On his way to Delhi, Ulugh Khan invaded Jajnagar in Orissa.

The Sultan devoted his attention to Bengal, then torn by civil war between the various contenders for the throne. The Sultan marched in person towards Bengal in 1324. He placed his nominee, Nasiruddin, on the throne of West Bengal as a vassal of Delhi. East Bengal was annexed to Delhi. On his way back, the Sultan attacked Tirhut (north Bihar) and appointed a governor there.

On his return from Delhi, the Sultan was received at Afghanpur, near Tughlaqabad. The Sultan was received at a wooden pavilion which collapsed; and caused him and his second son, Prince Mahmud Khan's death. According to Isami and Ibn Battuta, the whole thing was the result of a plot masterminded by Ulugh Khan. Ghiyasuddin laid the foundation of a large palace fort which later became known as Tughlaqabad.

Muhammad bin Tughluq (1325-51)

After Ghiyasuddin's death in July 1325, Ulugh Khan ascended the throne under the title of Sultan Muhammad bin Tughluq. His character was a mixture of opposites that defied analysis. According to Barani, the Sultan was 'one of the wonders of creation. His contradictory qualities were beyond the grasp of knowledge and common sense'. He was endowed with a keen intellect which encompassed different subjects like logic, astronomy, philosophy, mathematics, science, and Persian classics. These fine qualities can hardly be reconciled with the vagaries of his nature. Perplexed by this contradiction, Elphinstone expressed the doubt 'whether he was not affected by some degree of insanity'. In making the correct assessment of Muhammad bin Tughluq, one might say that he lacked practical judgement and wise statesmanship. He had an obstinate disposition which brooked no opposition. Moreover, 'the Sultan, like Jahangir afterwards, believed himself to be a just man ... he deliberately defended his conduct against criticism and avowed his resolve to continue his course to the end'.1 [Vincent A. Smith, Oxford History of India, ed. Percival Spear, OUP, 1976, p. 250.]

Relocation of the Capital

One of the most controversial steps taken by Muhammad bin Tughluq was the relocation of the capital from Delhi to Devagiri, also named Daulatabad. It is alleged that the Sultan wanted to punish the people of Delhi who had become hostile to him. However, this has been disputed by modern writers. It appears that the transfer was not a whimsical act but the result of forethought. The Sultan's motive was to set up a capital central to all parts of the empire enabling him to control the entire south and to protect the empire from the ever-present Mongol menace. Having decided the measure, the Sultan ordered in 1328-9, a mass exodus of the people, including his mother and Sufi saints. Though the Sultan made comfortable arrangements for the people during their long journey from Delhi to Devagiri, a distance of 1,500 km., the people suffered great privations. There was a good deal of pressure exerted upon the people to migrate and most of the migrants were not happy. However, Delhi was not deserted. Rather Daulatabad became a second capital, as coins struck at Daulatabad testify. Moreover, the Sultan's ambitious project went awry when in 1334-5 there was a serious rebellion in Mahar (modern Coromandel in Tamilnadu) which enveloped the entire south including Dvarasamudra and Warangal. 'Thus the raison d'etre of keeping Daulatabad as a second capital disappeared.' During 1335-7 the Sultan permitted the people of Daulatabad to return to Delhi. Many of the Sufis and men of learning refused to leave Daulatabad and in course of time it became a centre of Islamic learning.

Introduction of Token Currency

In 1329-30, the Sultan introduced token currency, an experiment which proved a costly failure. Imitating the paper money project of Kublai Khan (AD 1260-94), the Sultan issued bronze coins equivalent to the value of the silver coins. According to Barani, the Sultan was forced to take this drastic step to replenish his treasury exhausted by his lavish gifts and to equip a large army for ambitious foreign expeditions. However, the experiment proved a costly failure as the Sultan was unable to prevent the circulation of forged coins. Thus, the counterfeit bronze coins replaced gold and silver coins completely. Land tax was paid in the token currency. Trade and commerce suffered as foreign merchants suspended their business transactions with India. The abundance of these new coins depreciated their value and they became as 'worthless as stones and potsherds'. To avert the mounting economic crisis, the Sultan stopped the circulation of token currency and ordered the redemption of token coins by gold and silver coins. According to Barani, heaps of bronze coins accumulated near Tughlaqabad.

The Sultan had to cope with the ever present Mongol menace in the frontier region. Despite the internal dissensions which overwhelmed the Mongols, they were strong enough to threaten the Punjab and the areas near Delhi. In the early years of Muhammad Tughluq's reign the Mongols under their leader, Tarmashirin, swooped down upon Sind and even advanced up to Meerut, about 65 km. from Delhi. The Sultan not only defeated the Mongols, but also occupied Kalanaur and extended the frontier up to Peshawar.

Shortly after the transfer of the capital from Delhi to Devagiri, Muhammad entertained the project of making Sind and Punjab immune from the recurring danger of Mongol invasions. The project is described by Barani as the Sultan's ambition to conquer Khurasan, Iraq and Transoxiana. The Sultan mobilized a large army of 3,70,000 soldiers. However, he disbanded the army after keeping them idle for a year. Perhaps the Sultan's aim was to extend control over Kabul and Ghazni.

After the projected Khurasan expedition, the Sultan launched an expedition in the Kulu-Kangra region of Himachal, perhaps to offset Chinese incursions. The expedition that took place in 1333 has been called the Qarachil expedition. The expedition proved a failure and the entire force of 10,000 was annihilated.

Agrarian Reforms

The failure of three experiments -- the exodus from Delhi to Devagiri, the abortive Khurasan expedition and the Qantchil campaign -- affected the reputation of the Sultan and depleted his treasury. Meanwhile certain agrarian measures of the Sultan, epidemics and a famine which lasted several years affecting large parts of the Doab (land between the Jumna and the Ganges), caused widespread distress and a violent peasant uprising.

In 1328-9 the Sultan enhanced the land-tax on the farmers. New cesses were levied and the old cesses -- grazing tax (charm) and house tax (ghari) were collected in a rigorous manner. The most seamy side of the tax system was that assessment was fixed not on the basis of the actual produce, but on the basis of the standard yield. These measures impoverished the peasantry and led to an agrarian uprising which affected large areas, especially the Doab region. According to Barani, the Hindus set fire to their grain barns and drove away cattle from their homes. The magnitude of the disaster did not soften the Sultan's attitude. Instead, he imposed severe repressive measures ordering the revenue officials like the shiqdars and military officials, faujdars, to lay waste and plunder the country. The entire area from Kanauj to Delhi was ravaged. Grain became scarce and a famine broke out in Delhi. The famine spread to Malwa and eastern Punjab. Begun in 1334-5, the famine lasted for seven years. The situation became so intolerable at Delhi, that the Sultan moved the entire imperial camp to a place on the Ganges, 80 km. away, called Swargadwar. The Sultan lived there for two years.

To cope with the devastating famine, the Sultan adopted relief measures. Relief camps were opened at Delhi, and food was imported from Awadh where there was no famine. Agricultural loans (sondhar) were advanced to buy seed and implements and to dig wells. To improve cultivation, the Sultan appointed diwan-i-amir-i-kohi who took charge of a territory roughly corresponding to 100 km. by 100 km. To extend cultivation and to improve the crops, the Sultan appointed 100 shiqdars. They were given large sums of money for giving agricultural loans (sondhar). However, the entire scheme failed owing to the appointment of incompetent and corrupt men to implement the scheme.

Revolts

Muhammad bin Tughluq had to face serious rebellions in different parts of the empire. The Sultan failed to recover Ma'bar where Sayyid Ahsan Shah founded the independent Madurai Sultanate. During the period from January 1335 to July 1337, five rebellions broke out in the south. The Sultan's prestige suffered an irreparable blow with the foundation of the Hindu kingdom of Vijayanagar in 1336 and the subsequent independence of Warangal and Kampili.

Between 1338 and 1341 Bengal cut itself adrift from the sinking wreck of Sultan Muhammad Tughluq's empire. The most serious uprising was, however, was that of Ain-ul-Mulk, g0vernor of Awadh, in 1340, but he was finally defeated.

Image
MAP 7.1: The Empire of Muhammad bin Tughluq in 1335. Source: C.C. Davies, Historical Atlas of the Indian Peninsula, 1949, p. 35.

Apart from the revolt of the governor, the Sultan had to face the rebellion of the amiran-i-sada (controllers of 100 villages). The Sultan brutally suppressed the rebellion with the help of Aziz Khammar, governor of Malwa. However, the rebels soon regrouped themselves under Taghi and killed Khammar. In January 1344 the Sultan left Delhi to crush the amiran-i-sada's rebellion. The Sultan met the rebels at Daulatabad and defeated them. A more serious rebellion broke out later at Gujarat and at Bidar by Hasan Kangu. The Sultan led a personal expedition to Gujarat and remained there for two and a half years. He spent the later years campaigning in Saurashtra and then moved to Thatta, in pursuit of the rebel, Taghi. Meanwhile, in his absence, Daulatabad was deserted and a new Bahmani Kingdom born. The Sultan pursued the fugitive and while the army was within a short distance of Thatta, he died on 20 March 1351.

Thus ended the career of one of the most remarkable personalities that ever sat on the throne of Delhi. He had extended the Delhi empire to its farthest limits, but before his death he lost everything to the south of the Vindhyas. Like the waves in the sea the empire reached the highest point only to break down.'2 [R.C. Majumdar, ed., History and Culture of the Indian People, The Delhi Sultanate, vol. VI, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1967, p. 80.] Muhammad bin Tughluq's character was probably a mixture of opposites. He was endowed with good qualities and some of his experiments and reforms were, to all intents, meant to strengthen the monarchy. He had progressive ideals for administrative reforms. But in enforcing his schemes, he disgusted the people and emptied his treasury. He lacked practical judgement and wise statesmanship, which in a large way, contributed to the decline of the Delhi Sultanate.

Firuz Tughluq (1351-88)

The long reign of Firuz Tughluq, a cousin of Muhammad Tughluq, is

a watershed in the history of the Delhi Sultanate. He followed a policy of conciliation towards all sections of the people and tried to establish a welfare state. However his administrative reforms, though highly popular in the immediate context, enfeebled the central government in the long run. His narrow, sectarian policy alienated both the Hindus and the Muslims which weakened the fabric of the empire.


Firuz's concept of benevolence has been detailed, in the Fatuhat-i-Firuz Shahi. He abandoned the practice of torture for both Muslims and non-Muslims. His idea was that the State should be based on the willing acceptance of the people, rather than fear or threats of violence. He made no attempt to recover advances of money, amounting to two crore of tankas, which had been made to officials by Muhammad bin Tughluq.

Firuz wanted to create a class of nobility which would be loyal to him. He appointed Khan-i-Jahan Maqbul as the wazir and left much of the work of administration to him. Firuz paid extremely high salaries to the nobles which were given in terms of grants of iqtas. The subservient nobility which the Sultan created was hereditary in character. This policy in the long run weakened the efficiency of administration as it reduced the chances of competent persons being recruited into the service.

Firuz also wanted to strengthen the army for the stability of the state. The regular soldiers should be paid not in cash, but by grants of villages (wajh) in the neighbourhood of Delhi and the Doab. The irregular soldiers (ghair-wajahi) were paid directly from the treasury. Firuz extended the principle of heredity to the army much to its detriment. Thus, if a soldier became old, his son, or son-in-law, or his slave, could be sent in his place. The army became weak as sub-standard horses were produced for mustering. In the latter part of his reign, Firuz enlisted a vast number of slaves, amounting to 1,80,000 men a substantial part of whom were deployed to serve as an armed guard. A separate treasury and a separate diwan was set up for this corp of slaves.

Firuz settled the revenues afresh under the careful supervision of Khwaja Hisamuddin Junaid. Six crore and 75 lakh tankas was fixed on the basis of inspection. Firuz was interested in the economic well-being of the country. Firuz dug two canals to bring water to the new city of Hissar-Firuza (modern Hisar). He dug two canals to bring water to the city from the Sutlej and the Jamuna. Contemporary writers give credit to Firuz for excavating at least six canals which were concentrated in the present Haryana state. Besides canals, Firuz built many dams for purposes of irrigation. He also laid 1,200 gardens around Delhi.

The Sultan abolished various taxes not sanctioned by the Sharia. According to contemporaries, he abolished 21 such taxes. These included the ghari (house tax) prevalent during the time of Alauddin. However, he imposed the Jiziya on the non-Muslims. Even the Brahmins were not spared from the payment of the Jiziya.

Firuz built a number of towns around Delhi. Among the important towns built by him may be mentioned Fatehabad, Hissar, Ferozpur, Jaunpur and Firuzabad. The new towns became centres of trade and handicrafts. Firuz set up a public works department which repaired many old buildings and mausoleums. Qutb Minar was repaired and two Ashokan Pillars were transported to Delhi from Meerut and Topra (in the Ambala district). Firuz established a charity bureau (Diwan-i-Khairat) to help widows and orphans and especially for the marriage of Muslim girls. He also set up an employment bureau to provide employment for clerical and administrative jobs.

Firuz was a great patron of learning. He himself was an accomplished scholar and granted liberal allowances to scholars. He was fond of history and wrote his autobiography, Fatuhat-i- Firuz Shahi. He patronized Barani, Afif and Jalaluddin Rumi. Firuz came across a fine library consisting of 1,300 volumes at the temple of Jvalamukhi in Kangra and ordered a translation of one volume, which treated of philosophy and astrology, into Persian.

Despite all these fine achievements, Firuz's occasional fits of intolerance coupled with the importance given to the orthodox ulamas weakened the basic structure of his benevolent despotism. He 'reversed the trend towards a composite ruling class, consisting of Muslims and Hindus, a trend which had been started by Muhammad bin Tughluq'. In his orthodoxy, he tyrannized the leaders of the Ismaili group of Shias and banned Muslim women from going to the tombs of saints outside Delhi.

Foreign Policy

After his accession, Firuz was faced with the problem of preventing the disintegration of the Delhi Sultanate. The southern states had drifted away from the Sultanate and there were rebellions in Gujarat and Sindh. Bengal, also asserted its independence.

Firuz made spasmodic efforts to regain lost territory. In November 1353, he marched against Shamsuddin Ilyas Shah, the independent ruler of Bengal. Ilyas Shah shut himself up in the strong fort of Ikdala, near Pandua, in the Malda district. Unable to capture the fort, the Sultan returned to Delhi in September 1354. The Sultan undertook a second expedition against Bengal in November 1358 against Ilyas' successor, Sikandar, who survived by taking refuge in the Ikdala fort. The second expedition also proved to be futile. Firuz negotiated a peace settlement and status quo was maintained. 'For nearly two centuries, until the rise of the Afghans, Bengal was not molested by Delhi.'

From Bengal, Firuz returned to Jaunpur, and from there marched against the recalcitrant Raja Gajpati of Jajnagar in Orissa, who had withheld tribute. Firuz seized Cuttack and desecrated the Jagannath temple of Puri. Avoiding battle, the Raja made overtures of peace and agreed to pay regular tribute.

After a stay of four years at Delhi, Firuz led a campaign against Nagarkot in Kangra, reputed to be one of the strongest forts in the country. After a siege of six months, the Raja submitted and agreed to pay tribute.

Firuz led a protracted campaign against Thatta in lower Sindh with an army of 90,000 horses, 480 elephants and a flotilla of 5,000 boats. The Sultan met stiff resistance from the ruler of Thatta, which depleted the strength of his armed forces. Meanwhile famine and pestilence broke out in his camp and Firuz with difficulty retreated to Gujarat. After re-equipping the army, Firuz led a second expedition against Thatta and forced the ruler to submit.

The last years of the Sultan's reign were marked by erosion of central authority. A rebellion in Etawah in 1377-8 was followed by an uprising in Katihar. The death of his eldest son, Fath Khan in 1376 was a profound shock to the Sultan. A senile Sultan became a puppet in the hands of his minister Khan-i-Jahan. However, the Sultan's eldest surviving son, Prince Muhammad, brought about the minister's fall. Firuz abdicated in August 1787 after conferring the royal title on Prince Muhammad. However, a rebellion of Firuz's slaves, numbering 100,000, forced Prince Muhammad to decamp. Firuz now conferred the royal title on his grandson. Tughluq Khan, son of Fath Khan. A few months later on 20 September 1388, Firuz died at the ripe old age of 82.

After the death of Firuz, the government fell into the vortex of anarchy and confusion. A series of puppet Sultans, all equally wanting in personal merit, pass rapidly across the stage. The kingdom, in fact, ceased to exist, and the governor of every province assumed practical independence. For about three years, from 1394 to 1397, two rival Sultans had to find room within the precincts of the Delhi group of cities. Sultan Mahmud, a grandson of Firuz Shah, was recognized as king in Old Delhi, while his relative Nusrat Shah, claimed similar rank in Firuzabad a few miles distant. 'Day by day, battles were fought between these two kings, who were like the two kings in the game of chess.'3 [Vincent A. Smith, Oxford History of India, ed. Percival Spear, OUP, 1976, p. 260.] The authority of the Delhi Sultanate became so shrunken that led an observer to say pithily. 'The orders of the king of the world extend from Delhi to Palam.'

Timur's Invasion

Born in 1336, Timur or Tamerlane ascended the throne of Samarqand in 1369 and became the ruler of a vast empire embracing Transoxiana, a part of Turkistan, Afghanistan, Persia, Syria and a major part of Asia Minor. With a strange admixture of the savage ferocity of Chingiz Khan and the fanaticism of Sultan Mahmud, Timur decided to undertake an expedition to India. His ostensible object was to acquire the vast riches of India and indirectly to punish the infidels.

Before he launched his Indian expedition, his grandson Pir Muhammad, the governor of Kabul, Qandahar and Ghazni, captured Uch and Multan. Leaving Samarqand in April 1398, Timur crossed the Indus in September 1398. The Hindu chiefs of the Salt Range offered no resistance. Only the Rajput fort of Bhatnair offered resistance. The people of Fathabad, Kaythal, Samana and Panipat fled to Delhi. After plundering and massacring the people on the way, Timur crossed the Jamuna on 11 December, and appeared before Delhi. Sultan Muhammad Tughluq and his prime minister Mallu Iqbal endeavoured to oppose him with 10,000 cavalry and 40,000 infantry, but they were hopelessly defeated. Before the occupation of Delhi, Timur butchered one lakh Hindu captives in cold blood. Timur occupied Delhi on 18 December 1398. He ransacked the city and brutally massacred both Hindus and Muslims. Gold and silver ornaments of Hindu women were obtained in such quantities as to exceed all imaginable estimates.

After halting at Delhi for a fortnight, Timur left Delhi on 1 January 1399 to return to Samarqand. Returning through Firuzabad, he plundered Meerut and defeated two Hindu armies near Hardwar. Passing along the Siwalik Hills, he captured Kangra and sacked Jammu. He recrossed the Indus on 19 March 1399. Before his departure, Timur appointed Khizr Khan, as governor of Multan, Lahore and Dipalpur. Thus Timur departed after inflicting 'on India more misery than had ever before been inflicted by any conqueror in a single invasion'. After Timur's exit, Delhi presented a scene of desolation and woe. The Tughluq empire also disintegrated. There followed a chain of independent principalities like Bengal, Gujarat, Malwa, Jaunpur, Lahore, Multan, and Dipalpur. Nasiruddin Mahmud, the last representative of the Tughluq dynasty, died in February 1413, after a nominal reign of about 20 years. Thereupon Khizr Khan occupied Delhi in June 1414 and founded the Sayyid Dynasty.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36183
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Mon Nov 01, 2021 5:27 am

Ziauddin Barani
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 10/23/21

XV. Tarikhi Firoz Shahi of Ziaud Din Barni [Ziauddin Barani]

This History is very much quoted by subsequent authors, and is the chief source from which Firishta draws his account of the period. Barni takes up the History of India just where the Tabakat'i Nasiri leaves it; nearly a century having elapsed without any historian having recorded the events of that interval. In his Preface, after extolling the value of history, he gives the following account of his own work. ["Having derived great benefit and pleasure from the study of history, I was desirous of writing a history myself, beginning with Adam and his two sons. * * * But while I was intent upon this design, I called to mind the Tabakat-i Nasiri, written with such marvellous ability by the Sadar-i Jahan, Minhaju-d din Jauzjani. * * * I then said to myself, if I copy what this venerable and illustrious author has written, those who have read his history will derive no advantage from reading mine; and if I state any thing contradictory of that master's writings, or abridge or amplify his statements, it will be considered disrespectful and rash. In addition to which I should raise doubts and difficulties in the minds of his readers. I therefore deemed it advisable to exclude from this history everything which is included in the Tabakat-i Nasiri, * * * and to confine myself to the history of the later kings of Dehli. * * * It is ninety-five years since the Tabakat-i Nasiri, and during that time eight kings have sat upon the throne of Dehli. Three other persons, rightly or wrongfully, occupied the throne for three or four months each; but in this history I have recorded only the reigns of eight kings, beginning with Sultan Ghiyasu-d din Balban, who appears in the Tabakat-i Nasiri under the name of Ulugh Khan.]

"First. — Sultan Ghiyasu-d din Balban, who reigned twenty years.
"Second. — Sultan M'uizzu-d din Kai-kubad, son of Sultan Balban, who reigned three years.
"Third. — Sultan Jalalu-d din Firoz Khilji, who reigned seven years.
"Fourth. — Sultan Alau-d din Khilji, who reigned twenty years.
"Fifth.— Sultan Kutbu-d din, son of Sultan 'Alau-d din, who reigned four years and four days.
"Sixth. — Sultan Ghiyasu-d din Tughlik, who reigned four years and a few months.
"Seventh. — Sultan Muhammad, the son of Tughlik Shah, who reigned twenty years.
"Eighth. — Sultan Firoz Shah, the present king, whom may God preserve.

"I have not taken any notice of three kings, who reigned only three or four months. I have written in this book, which I have named Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi, whatever I have seen during the six years of the reign of the present king, Firoz Shah, and after this, if God spares my life, I hope to give an account of subsequent occurrences in the concluding part of this volume. I have taken much trouble on myself in writing this history, and hope it will be approved. If readers peruse this compilation as a mere history, they will find recorded in it the actions of great kings and conquerors; if they search in it the rules of administration and the means of enforcing obedience, even in that respect it will not be found deficient; if they look into it for warnings and admonitions to kings and governors, that also they will find nowhere else in such perfection. To conclude, whatever I have written is right and true, and worthy of all confidence.''

Ziau-d din Barni, like many others, who have written under the eye and at the dictation of contemporary princes, is an unfair narrator. Several of the most important events of the reigns he celebrated have been altogether omitted, or slurred over as of no consequence. Thus many of the inroads of the Mughals in the time of Alau-d din are not noticed, and he omits all mention of the atrocious means of perfidy and murder, by which Muhammad Tughlik obtained the throne, to which concealment he was no doubt induced by the near relationship which that tyrant bore to the reigning monarch. With respect, however, to his concealment of the Mughal irruptions, it is to be remarked, as a curious fact, that the Western historians, both of Asia and Europe, make no mention of some of the most important. It is Firishta who notices them, and blames our author for his withholding the truth. Firishta's sources of information were no doubt excellent, and the general credit which his narrative inspires, combines with the eulogistic tone of Ziau-d din Barni's history in proving that the inroads were actually made, and that the author's concealment was intentional. The silence of the authorities quoted by De Guignes, D'Herbelot, and Price, may be ascribed to their defective information respecting the transactions of the Mughal leaders to the eastward of the Persian boundary.

The author did not live to complete his account of Firoz Shah, but towards the close of his work lavishes every kind of encomium, not altogether undeserved, upon that excellent prince. Notwithstanding that Firishta has extracted the best part of the Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi, it will continue to be consulted, as the reigns which it comprises are of some consequence in the history of India. The constant recurrence of Mughal invasions, the expeditions to the Dekkin and Telingana, the establishment of fixed prices for provisions, and the abortive means adopted to avert the effects of famine, the issue of copper money of arbitrary value, the attempted removal of the capital to Deogir, the wanton massacres of defenceless subjects, the disastrous results of the scheme to penetrate across the Himalaya to China, the public buildings, and the mild administration of Firoz; all these measures, and many more, invest the period with an interest which cannot be satisfied from the mere abstract given by Firishta.

[Barni is very sparing and inaccurate in his dates. He is also wanting in method and arrangement. He occasionally introduces divisions into his work, but in such a fitful irregular way that they are useless. In his latter days "he retired to a village in the suburbs of Dehli, which was afterwards the burial place of many saints and distinguished men. He was reduced to such extreme poverty that no more costly shroud than a piece of coarse matting could be furnished for the funeral obsequies." His tomb is not far from that of his friend, the poet Amir Khusru.1 [Col. Lees. Jour., R.A.S., vol. iii., new series, p. 445.]

[Sir H. Elliot had marked the whole of Barni's history for translation, intending probably to peruse it and expunge all trivial and uninteresting passages. The translation had been undertaken by a distinguished member of the Bengal Civil Service, but when required it was not forthcoming. After waiting for some time, the editor, anxious to avoid further delay, set to work himself, and the whole of the translation is from his pen.2 [When a portion of the translation was already in type, and the editor was at work on the last reign, a letter arrived from India with translations of the histories of the second and sixth of the eight kings — too late to be of any service.] It is somewhat freer in style than many of the others, for although the text has been very closely followed, the sense has always been preferred to the letter, and a discretion has been exercised of omitting reiterated and redundant epithets. All passages of little or no importance or interest have been omitted, and their places are marked with asterisks. The Extracts, therefore, contain the whole pith and marrow of the work, all that is likely to prove in any degree valuable for historical purposes. Barni's history of the eighth king, Firoz Shah, is incomplete, and is of less interest than the other portions. In the weakness of old age, or in the desire to please the reigning monarch, he has indulged in a strain of adulation which spoils his narrative. The Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi of Shams-i Siraj, which will follow this work, is specially devoted to the reign of that king. Shams-i Siraj has therefore been left to tell the history of that monarch. But the two writers have been compared, and one or two interesting passages have been extracted from Barni's work.

[The translation has been made from the text printed in the Bibliotheca Indica, and during the latter half of the work two MSS., borrowed by Sir H. Elliot, have been also constantly used,1 [These MSS. being carefully secured by Lady Elliot, could not be obtained while she was absent from home. They have since been examined in respect of several passages in the earlier parts of the translation.] These MSS. prove the print, or the MSS. on which it was based, to be very faulty. A collation would furnish a long list of errata and addenda. One of the two MSS. gives the original text apparently unaltered;2 [This is said to be "a perfect copy, and the autograph of the author. It belongs to the Nawwab of Tonk, by whose father it was plundered from Boolandshahr." It is a good MS., but, so far from being an autograph, the colophon gives the name of the scribe and the date of the transcription, 1019 (1610 A.D.)] but the other has been revised with some judgment. It sometimes omits and sometimes simplifies obscure and difficult passages, and it occasionally leaves out reiterations; but it is a valuable MS., and would have been of great assistance to the editor of the text.]


-- XV. Tarikhi Firoz Shahi of Ziaud Din Barni [[Ziauddin Barani]], Excerpt from The History of India As Told By Its Own Historians: The Muhammadan Period, edited from the posthumous papers of the Late Sir H.M. Elliot, K.C.B., East India Company's Bengal Civil Service, by Professor John Dowson, M.R.A.S., Staff college, Sandhurst, Vol. III, 1871, P. 93.


Ziauddin Barani (1285–1358 CE) was a Muslim political thinker of the Delhi Sultanate located in present-day Northern India during Muhammad bin Tughlaq and Firuz Shah's reign. He was best known for composing the Tarikh-i-Firoz Shahi (also called Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi), a work on medieval India, which covers the period from the reign of Ghiyas ud din Balban to the first six years of reign of Firoz Shah Tughluq and the Fatwa-i-Jahandari which promoted a hierarchy among Muslim communities in the Indian subcontinent, even if historian M. Athar Ali says that it's not on a racialist basis or even like the Hindu caste system, but taking as a model Sassanid Iran, which promoted an idea of aristocracy through birth and which was claimed by Persians to be "fully in accordance with the main thrust of Islamic thought as it had developed by that time", including in the works of his near-contemporary Ibn Khaldun.[1]



Life

Barani was born to a Muslim family in 1285 in which his father, uncle, and grandfather all worked in high government posts under the Sultan of Delhi. His family were natives of Meerut and Bulandsahar. His maternal grandfather Husam-ud-Din, was an important officer of Ghiyas ud din Balban and his father Muwayyid-ul-Mulk held the post of naib of Arkali Khan, the son of Jalaluddin Firuz Khalji. His uncle Qazi Ala-ul-Mulk was the Kotwal (police chief) of Delhi during the reign of Ala-ud-Din Khalji.[2] Barani never held a post, but was a nadim (companion) of Muhammad bin Tughlaq for seventeen years. During this period he was very close to Amir Khusro. After Tughlaq was deposed, he fell out of favor. In "Exile" he wrote two pieces dealing with government, religion, and history, which he hoped would endear him to the new sultan, Firuz Shah Tughluq. He was not rewarded for his works and died poor in 1357.[3]

His gravestone lies in the courtyard of Nizamuddin Auliya's dargah in Delhi, at the entrance of the dalan of Mirdha Ikram, and near the tomb of Amir Khusrau.

Image
Tombstone of Barani

Works

Fatwa-i-Jahandari


The Fatwa-i-Jahandari is a work containing the political ideals to be pursued by a Muslim ruler in order to earn religious merit and the gratitude of his subjects.[2] It is written as nasihat(advices) for the Muslim kings, is a classical work on statecraft which can be compared with Kautilya's Arthashastra and Machiavelli's Prince.[4]

His fatwa would condone segregation of the Muslim ashraf upper castes and ajlaf low castes, in addition to the azral under-castes or the converted Muslims who are regarded as "ritually polluted" by the ashraf.[5][6][7] Muzaffar Alam argues that, contrarily to what many think, through this aristocratic view of power he doesn't follow secular models (Iranian or Indian), "rather, the interests of the Muslim community define the contours of his ideas on the heredity question", as he saw that during times of political troubles "frequent changes within ruling classes lead to the ruination of illustrious Muslim families", and thus preserving these upper class families, themselves at such place for diverse administrative or military qualities, would lead to the advent of more capable rulers and in the longer run help Muslim interests, Alam to conclude that this hierarchization "was a conscious choice exercized by Barani to serve the narrowly sectarian interests of the early Islamic regime in India[8]

The work delves into aspects of religion and government and the meeting of those two, as well as political philosophy. He notes:

Religion and temporal government are twins; that is, head of religion and the head of government are twin brothers.[3][9]


Barani's Fatwa-i-Jahandari provides an example of his extreme views on religion. He states that there is no difference between a Muslim king and a Hindu ruler, if the Muslim king is content in collecting jizya (poll-tax) and khiraj (tribute) from the Hindus. Instead, he recommends that a Muslim king should concentrate all his power on holy wars and completely uproot the "false creeds". According to him, a Muslim king could establish the supremacy of Islam in India only by slaughtering the Brahmins. He recommends that a Muslim king "should make a firm resolve to overpower, capture, enslave and degrade the infidels."[10]

At the same time, the book makes it clear that the kings of the Delhi Sultanate did not hold similar views. Barani rues that they honoured and favoured the Hindus, and had granted them the status of dhimmis (protected persons). The Muslim kings appointed Hindus to high posts, including governorships. Barani further laments that the Muslim kings were pleased with the prosperity of Hindus in their capital Delhi.

Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi

The Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi or Tarikh-i-Firoz Shahi (Firuz Shah's History) (1357) was an interpretation of the history of the Delhi Sultanate up to the then-present Firuz Shah Tughlaq. Then interpretation noted that the sultans who followed the rules of Barani had succeeded in their endeavors while those that did not, or those who had sinned, met the Nemesis.[3] Barani is an unfair narrator and generally considered a very unreliable source.[11]

But, though Barani refers many times to the sources of information, he did not consult his contemporary works. This resulted in the sketchy description of Ala-ud-Din Khalji’s wars in Chittor, Ranthambhor and Malwa and the Deccan campaigns of Malik Kafur. The later medieval historians, Nizam-ud-Din Ahmad, Badaoni, Ferishta and Haji-ud-Dabir depended upon the Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi for their account of history of the period covered in this work. Abdul Haq Dehlvi in his Akhbar-ul-Akhyar depended upon the work for the biographical sketches of Nizam-ud-Din Auliya and the other Sufi saints.[2]

Zawabit[12]

Barani categorized the law into two kinds, the Shariat and the Zawabit. The Zawabit were the state laws formulated by the monarch in consultation with the nobility in the changed circumstances to cater to the new requirements which the Shariat was unable to fulfill.

The Zawabit, he said must be in the spirit of the Shariat and enumerated four conditions for its formulation as guidelines. They are-

• The Zawabit should not negate the Shariat.
• It must increase the loyalty and hope among the nobles and common people towards the Sultan
• Its sources and inspiration should be the Shariat and pious Caliphs
• If at all it had to negate the Shariat out of exigencies, it must follow charities and compensation in lieu of that negation

Other works

• Salvat-i-Kabir (The Great Prayer)
• Sana-i-Muhammadi (Praises of Prophet Mohammad)
• Hasratnama (Book of Regrets)
• Tarikh-i-Barmaki
• Inayat Nama-i-Ilahi (Book of Gods Gifts)
• Maasìr Saadat (Good Deeds of the Sayyids)
• Lubbatul Tarikh.

Fatawa-i-Dindari

Work online

• Elliot, H. M. (Henry Miers), Sir; John Dowson (1867). "15. Táríkh-i Fíroz Sháhí, of Ziauddin Barani". The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians. The Muhammadan Period (Vol 3.). London : Trübner & Co.

See also

• Caste system among South Asian Muslims
• List of Muslim historians

Notes

1. M. Athat Ali, "Elements of Social Justice in Medieval Islamic Thought" in Saiyid Zaheer Husain Jafri, Recording the Progress of Indian History: Symposia Papers of the Indian History Congress, 1992-2010, Primus Books, 2012, p. 197
2. Mahajan, V.D. (1991, reprint 2007). History of Medieval India, Part I, New Delhi: S. Chand, ISBN 81-219-0364-5, pp.174-6
3. A. L. Basham 1958, p. 458.
4. Roy, Himanshu (2020). Indian Political Thought Themes and Thinker. Pearson. p. 81. ISBN 978-93-325-8733-5.
5. Social Stratification Among Muslims in India Archived 18 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine by Zarina Bhatty
6. Partap C. Aggarwal 1978.
7. Bhimrao Ambedkar 1945.
8. Muzaffar Alam, The Languages of Political Islam in India: c. 1200-1800, The University of Chicago Press, 2004, pp. 41-42
9. Barani, Fatawa-yi-Jahandari, folios 247b-248a
10. Banarsi Prasad Saksena 1992, p. 355.
11. [url=https://archive.org/stream/cu31924073036737#page/n107/mode/2up Sir H. M. Elliot (Henry Miers) & John Dowson, "The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians. The Muhammadan Period (Vol 3.)", "chapter 15. Táríkh-i Fíroz Sháhí, of Ziauddin Barani", Trübner & Co., London, pp95]
12. roy;singh, himanshu;M.P. (2020). Indian Political Thought. Pearson. p. 86. ISBN 978-93-325-8733-5.

References

• A. L. Basham (1958). Wm. Theodore de Bary (ed.). Sources of Indian Tradition. Introduction to Oriental Civilizations. 1. Columbia University Press.
• Banarsi Prasad Saksena (1992). "The Khaljis: Alauddin Khalji". In Mohammad Habib and Khaliq Ahmad Nizami (ed.). A Comprehensive History of India: The Delhi Sultanat (A.D. 1206-1526). 5 (Second ed.). The Indian History Congress / People's Publishing House. OCLC 31870180.
• Bhimrao Ambedkar (1945). Pakistan or the Partition of India. Thackers.
• Partap C. Aggarwal (1978). Caste and Social Stratification Among Muslims in India. Manohar.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36183
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

PreviousNext

Return to Articles & Essays

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 65 guests