The Architecture of Firuz Shah Tughluq, by William Jeffrey

That's French for "the ancient system," as in the ancient system of feudal privileges and the exercise of autocratic power over the peasants. The ancien regime never goes away, like vampires and dinosaur bones they are always hidden in the earth, exercising a mysterious influence. It is not paranoia to believe that the elites scheme against the common man. Inform yourself about their schemes here.

The Architecture of Firuz Shah Tughluq, by William Jeffrey

Postby admin » Tue Nov 23, 2021 8:08 am

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.
© by William Jeffrey McKibben 1988

To my father


o Introduction
o Literature Survey
o Notes
o Life of Firuz Shah
o Historical Epigraphy of the Reign of Firuz Shah
o Notes
o Urban Foundations
o Mosques
o Madrasas
o Tombs
o Palaces
o Khanaqah
o Waterworks
o Acts of Restoration to pre-existing monuments
o Notes
o Literary Sources
o Description of the Archaeological Remains
o Inscriptions and the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi
o The Lat Pyramid: Form and Meaning
o Notes
o Firuz Shah’s madrasa in literature
o Description of the Archaeological Remains
o Inscriptions
o Conclusion
o Notes
o Literary Sources
o Description of the Buildings
o Notes
o Stylistic Analysis
o Classes of Structures
o Geographical Factors
o Motives for Building
o Notes
o 1. Map of India.
o 2. Map of Delhi. Reproduced from Burton-Page, "Dihli," Encyclopedia o f Islam, v.n, p.
o 3. Mosque, Firuzabad, drawing of east facade. Reproduced from Page, A Memoir on
Kotla Firoz Shah.
o 4. Mosque, Firuzabad, plan. Reproduced from Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," Figure
o 5. Mosque, Firuzabad, reconstruction drawing. Reproduced from Page, A Memoir on
Kotla Firoz Shah.
o 6. Lat pyramid, plan of first storey.
o 7. Lat pyramid, cross-section. Reproduced from Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs,"
Figure 3.
o 8. Lat pyramid, elevation. Reproduced from Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," Figure
o 9. Lat pyramid, plan of second storey.
o 10. Lat pyramid, plan of third storey.
o 11. Hauz Khas, site plan. Redrawn from plan provided by Howard Crane and revised by
o 12. Hauz Khas, mosque, plan. Redrawn from plan provided by Howard Crane.
o 13. Hauz Khas, tomb of Firuz Shah, plan. Redrawn from plan provided by Howard
o 14. Hissar, Lat-Ki Mosque, plan. Redrawn from drawings provided by Howard Crane.
• LIST OF PLATES (All plates, unless otherwise noted, are by the author.)
o I. Mosque and lat pyramid, Firuzabad, view looking east.
o II. Manuscript illustration depicting arrival of lat beside Firuz Shah’s jami masjid,
Firuzbad, from a sixteenth century copy of the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, Bankipur Library.
Plate reproduced from Page, A Memoir on the Kotla.
o III. Manuscript illustration depicting the building of the first storey of the lat pyramid,
Firuzabad, from a sixteenth century copy of the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, Bankipur Library.
Plate reproduced from Page, A Memoir on the Kotla.
o IV. Manuscript illustration depicting the building of the second storey of the lat pyramid,
Firuzabad, from a sixteenth century copy of the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, Bankipur Library.
Plate reproduced from Page, A Memoir on the Kotla.
o V. Manuscript illustration depicting the building of the third storey of the pyramid,
Firuzabad, from a sixteenth century copy of the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, Bankipur Library.
Plate reproduced from Page, A Memoir on the Kotla.
o VI. Watercolor illustration of the lat pyramid from a nineteenth century diary of Sir
Thomas Metcalf. Plate reproduced from M.M. Kaye, The Golden Calm.
o VII. Mosque, Firuzabad, view to southeast.
o VIII. Mosque, Firuzabad, view from lat pyramid looking south.
o IX. Mosque, Firuzabad, south ground level passage.
o X. Mosque, Firuzabad, west ground level passage.
o XI. Mosque, Firuzabad, west exterior facade.
o XII. Mosque, Firuzabad, east facade.
o XIII. Mosque and lat pyramid, Firuzabad, view looking west (formerly the riverfront).
o XIV. Mosque, Firuzbad, south exterior facade.
o XV. Mosque, Firuzabad, gate, view looking southeast.
o XVI. Mosque, Firuzabad, north interior facade.
o XVII. Khirki Mosque, view of courtyard. Plate reproduced from Welch and Crane, "The
Tughluqs," plate 8.
o XVIII. Mosque, Firuzabad, west interior wall (qibla).
o XIX. Mosque, Firuzabad, northwest corner exterior facade. View looking south.
o XX. Mosque, Firuzabad, northwest corner interior facade. View looking northwest.
o XXI. Mosque, Firuzabad, west interior wall (qibla) elevation.
o XXII. Mosque, Firuzabad, west wall (qibla), five central bays and mihrabs.
o XXIII. Mosque, Firuzbad, west wall (qibla), central mihrab.
o XXIV. Lat Pyramid, Firuzabad, west facade.
o XXV. Lat Pyramid, Firuzabad, view looking northwest.
o XXVI. Lat Pyramid, Firuzabad, view looking northeast
o XXVII. Lat Pyramid, Firuzabad, lat (Asokan column).
o XXVIII. Lat Pyramid, Firuzabad, lat, detail.
o XXIX. Mosque and lat pyramid, Firuzabad, view looking northeast.
o XXX. Lat Pyramid, Firuzabad, second storey, detail.
o XXXI. Lat Pyramid, Firuzabad, third storey, detail.
o XXXII. Hauz Khas, madrasa, view looking southeast from ba'oli.
o XXXIII. Hauz Khas, ba’oli.
o XXXIV. Hauz Khas, madrasa, view from south block looking north.
o XXXV. Hauz Khas, mosque, west facade.
o XXXVI. Hauz Khas, mosque, gate.
o XXXVII. Hauz Khas, mosque, west prayer hall.
o XXXVIII. Hauz Khas, mosque, prayer hall, south arcade looking west
o XXXIX. Hauz Khas, mosque, prayer hall, central bay ((left) and mihrab (center).
o XL. Hauz Khas, madrasa, view from mosque looking south.
o XLI. Hauz Khas, madrasa, view of central section of madrasa and tomb of Firuz Shah
from ba’oli, west and north facades.
o XLII. Hauz Khas, madrasa, central block (south side), upper floor colonnade.
o XLIII. Hauz Khas, madrasa, central block (south side), upper floor colonnade.
o XLIV. Hauz Khas, madrasa, central block (east side), end chamber.
o XLV. Hauz Khas, madrasa, central block (south side), lower floor arcade.
o XLVI. Hauz Khas, madrasa, central block (south side), lower floor arcade.
o XLVII. Hauz Khas, madrasa, central block (south side), north facade.
o XLVIII. Hauz Khas, madrasa, central block (south side), north facade.
o XLIX. Hauz Khas, madrasa, central block (east side), west facade.
o L. Hauz Khas, madrasa, central block (east side), west facade.
o LI. Hauz Khas, madrasa, central block (south side), south facade.
o LII. Hauz Khas, madrasa, central block (east side), east facade.
o LIII. Hauz Khas, madrasa, central block, end chamber, detail of arch spandrel with
roundel of inscription.
o LIV. Hauz Khas, madrasa, east block, view from ba’oli looking east.
o LV. Hauz Khas, madrasa, east block, lower floor, entrance to cell.
o LVI. Hauz Khas, madrasa, east block, lower floor, view looking south.
o LVII. Hauz Khas, madrasa, south block, view from ba’oli looking south.
o LVIII. Hauz Khas, madrasa, south block extension, north facade.
o LIX. Hauz Khas, madrasa, south block extension, view of foundation looking west.
o LX. Hauz Khas, madrasa, south block extension, lower floor, north facade.
o LXI. Hauz Khas, madrasa, south block extension, south facade.
o LXII. Hauz Khas, tomb of Firuz Shah, south facade.
o LXIII. Hauz Khas, tomb of Firuz Shah, south facade.
o LXIV. Hauz Khas, tomb of Firuz Shah, east facade.
o LXV. Hauz Khas, tomb of Firuz Shah, northwest corner.
o LXVI. Hauz Khas, tomb of Firuz Shah, south entrance, arch inscription.
o LXVII. Hauz Khas, tomb of Firuz Shah, inscribed parapet on dome drum.
o LXVIII. Hauz Khas, tomb of Firuz Shah, interior, cenotaphs.
o LXIX. Hauz Khas, tomb of Firuz Shah, interior, east wall.
o LXX. Hauz Khas, tomb of Firuz Shah, interior, northwest corner wall.
o LXXI. Hauz Khas, tomb of Firuz Shah, west wall.
o LXXII. Hauz Khas, tomb of Firuz Shah, dome.
o LXXIII. Hauz Khas, south block, lower floor, end chamber, plaster dome motif.
o LXXIV. Hauz Khas, view from roof of tomb of Firuz Shah looking west.
o LXXV. Hauz Khas, unidentified domed structure at southwest corner of compound.
o LXXVI. Hauz Khas, three-cupola chhatri ("convocation" hall), east side of east block
within compound wall.
o LXXVII. Hauz Khas, view of chhatris on east side of compound from position in front
of tomb of Firuz Shah.
o LXXVIII. Hauz Khas, graveyard on east side of compound.
o LXXIX. Hissar, palace, view looking south toward Lat-ki Mosque.
o LXXX. Hissar, palace, view of interior courtyard.
o LXXXI. Hissar, palace, entrance on northeast side.
o LXXXII. Hissar, palace, subterranean chambers.
o LXXXIII. Hissar, palace, subterranean chambers.
o LXXXIV. Hissar, palace, carved column reused as threshold.
o LXXXV. Hissar, palace, upper floor chamber.
o LXXXVI. Hissar, Lat-ki Mosque, north and west exterior facades.
o LXXXVII. Hissar, Lat-H Mosque, view of courtyard looking northwest
o LXXXVIII. Hissar, Lat-ki Mosque, view of trench looking north.
o LXXXIX. Hissar, Lat-ld Mosque, view of courtyard looking northeast
o XC. Hissar, Lat-ki Mosque, prayer hall, south facade.
o XCI. Hissar, Lat-ki Mosque, courtyard, looking southeast.
o XCII. Hissar, Lat-ki Mosque, view of mosque and courtyard looking southwest.
o XCIII. Hissar, Lat-ki Mosque, west prayer hall.
o XCIV. Hissar, Lat-ki Mosque, north arcade, east facade.
o XCV. Hissar, Lat-ki Mosque, prayer hall, east facade.
o XCVI. Hissar, Lat-ki Mosque, prayer hall, interior, view looking south.
o XCVII. Hissar, Lat-ki Mosque, prayer hall, interior, view looking north.
o XCVIII. Hissar, Lat-ki Mosque, prayer hall, central mihrab.
o XCIX. Hissar, Lat-ki Mosque, prayer hall, northwest bay, lower floor.
o C. Hissar, Lat-ki Mosque, prayer hall, northwest bay, maqsura.
o CI. Hissar, Lat-ki Mosque, prayer hall, carved column.
o CII. Hissar, Lat-ki Mosque, view of domed structure and lat.
o CIII. Hissar, Lat-ld Mosque, view of domed structure and lat.
o CIV. Hissar, Lat-ki Mosque, view from inside domed structure looking west.
o CV. Fathabad, lat.
o CVI. Delhi, kushk-i shikar, lat.
Site Admin
Posts: 33696
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Architecture of Firuz Shah Tughluq, by William Jeffr

Postby admin » Tue Nov 23, 2021 8:14 am


Persian and Arabic words appear in transliterated form in this text. I have followed conventions used in the Encyclopedia of Islam, New Edition (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1960, et seq.), with minor modifications. Diacritical marks have been omitted.
Site Admin
Posts: 33696
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Architecture of Firuz Shah Tughluq, by William Jeffr

Postby admin » Tue Nov 23, 2021 8:14 am


I wish to express my sincere gratitude to the Samuel H. Kress Foundation for supporting my research in India. I am especially thankful to my adviser, Dr. Howard Crane, for his insight, enthusiasm, and direction throughout the course of this project. I also want to thank Drs. Susan Huntington, Stephen Dale and Marilyn Waldman for their advice and support In addition, my appreciation is extended to Drs. Anthony Welch, Catherine Asher, Ebba Koch, Wayne Begley, and to the staff of the Archaeological Survey of India for generously devoting their time to answer my questions. For their encouragement and assistance, I am indebted to Dr. Gary Wells, Deborah Wells, Dennis May, and Mark Ford. I am particularly grateful to my parents. Bill and Gene McKibben, for their love and support.
Site Admin
Posts: 33696
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Architecture of Firuz Shah Tughluq, by William Jeffr

Postby admin » Tue Nov 23, 2021 8:14 am


January 31,1954.............................................. Born - Wheeling, West Virginia
1978..................................................................B.A., The Ohio State University
1980..................................................................M.A., The Ohio State University


1984-1985, Samuel H. Kress Foundation Fellowship in Art History


Major Field: History of Art
Studies in Islamic and Indian art
Site Admin
Posts: 33696
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Architecture of Firuz Shah Tughluq, by William Jeffr

Postby admin » Tue Nov 23, 2021 8:17 am

Part 1 of 2


Among the gifts which God bestowed on me, His humble servant, was a desire to erect public buildings. So I built many mosques and colleges and monasteries, that the learned and the elders, the devout and the holy, might worship God in these edifices, and aid the kind builder with their prayers.

-- Firuz Shah Tughluq, Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi1

Firuz Shah Tughluq (r. 752-790/1351-1388),2 the fourteenth century sultan of Delhi, allegedly had these words inscribed on the jami masjid or Friday mosque of his capital, Firuzabad. He ascended the throne at a time when Muslim rule of northern India had been established for 150 years. During this span of time, the successive rulers of the Delhi sultanate had changed the course of Indian history, culture, and architecture.

Firuz Shah continued a building tradition which commenced at the turn of the twelfth century A.D. with the building of the Quwwat al-Islam mosque.3 The early rulers of the Delhi sultanate quickly built other mosques, fortified cities, founded madrasas (colleges), constructed palaces and many other architectural monuments which still dot the landscape around modern Delhi. This energetic building activity continued under Firuz Shah whose monuments, built 150 years after the Quwwat al-Islam mosque, encompass a wide spectrum of architectural forms.4 The subject of this study is his architecture.

Firuz Shah was a prolific builder and generous benefactor of projects of public welfare. The scope of his building activity reveals that he was a man with broad interests and extensive resources. In fact, one historian of the age remarked that, in his architectural achievements, he surpassed his predecessors and monarchs of all countries.5 Firuz Shah’s monuments represent the last phase of sultanate architecture prior to Timur’s capture of Delhi in 801/1398.

Firuz Shah’s architecture stands in marked contrast to that of his predecessors. The physical characteristic of rubble and plaster construction, which typifies his buildings, is not encountered as frequently in the architecture of the early Delhi sultanate. The reasons for this are uncertain. Whether they include aesthetic concerns or personal preferences, or were the result of more practical concerns such as economic duress, availability of materials, or unavailability of craftsmen or stone masons who possessed the technology is unclear. His buildings possess a simplicity and modest scale compared to the monuments of later epochs. Although his monuments have distinctive architectural features which associate them with indigenous building traditions, many buildings produced under his patronage incorporate architectural forms and manifest stylistic continuities which link them with the architecture of the Islamic west.

Firuz Shah was sovereign of an Islamic state situated in the midst of a predominantly Hindu society -- an infidel society from the Islamic perspective. The architectural monuments of the Muslim rulers of Delhi were created as much from a need to hold up signs to the non-Muslim population as to provide places for religious practices of the Muslim population.6 For example, the Quwwat al-Islam mosque and Qutb Minar, inscribed with Quranic verse, were such monuments. The scale and grandeur of these monuments provided the physical means of expressing ideas of political supremacy and religious dominance. Although modern scholars have suggested specific motives for Firuz Shah’s architecture, which are addressed briefly later, these concerns are beyond the scope of this study.

Firuz Shah is believed to have taken a keen interest in his various projects. For example, his personal involvement and supervision of the construction of the lat pyramid in the kotla (citadel) of Firuzabad is recorded by contemporary historians, and his knowledge and skill in engineering matters were, according to these historians, irrefutable.7 Firuz Shah also took special pride in his efforts to preserve the monuments of his predecessors. The sultan actively repaired and restored earlier Muslim monuments and he records many of these acts in his edicts.8 In addition, Firuz Shah cultivated an environment which permitted others to patronize architectural projects. Several monuments attributed to high court officials survive. These are among the earliest instances of sub-imperial patronage of religious foundations during the period of the Delhi sultanate.9

The attribution of monuments to the patronage of Firuz Shah raises many questions. A large number of buildings have been attributed to Firuz Shah but only a few of these monuments can be identified today. Those which remain are mostly in ruinous conditions. Only one epigraph which specifically associates the foundation of a monument with Firuz Shah survives.10 No waqf document from the reign is known to survive although the sultan refers in an edict to a waqf-nama, a document also noted in a historical chronicle of the reign.11 The historian, Shams al-Din Siraj ‘Afif, describes the revitalization of endowments during his reign but records of these are not extant.12

Among the gifts which God bestowed upon me. His humble servant, was a desire to erect public buildings. So I built many mosques and colleges and monasteries, that the learned and the elders, the devout and the holy, might worship God in these edifices, and aid the kind builder with their prayers. The digging of canals, the planting of trees, and the endowing with lands are in accordance with the directions of the Law. The learned doctors of the Law of Islam have many troubles; of this there is no doubt. I settled allowances upon them in proportion to their necessary expenses, so that they might regularly receive the income. The details of this are fully set forth in the Wakf-nama.

-- 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

In spite of the absence of this critical evidence, however, attributions to Firuz Shah have been made on the basis of references in contemporary literature and the stylistic unity of the architectural forms themselves. Many of these buildings have been neglected in modern scholarship of Tughluq architecture. The structures most frequently discussed by modern art and architectural historians are Firuz Shah’s lat pyramid, an anomalous monument in Indo-Islamic architecture, and the sultan’s tomb at Hauz Khas, referred to as a quintessentially typical sultanate tomb and most representative of Firuz Shah’s use of building materials.

Although Firuz Shah’s reputation as a builder is well-known, the monuments which are commonly pointed to as representative Tughluq architecture of Firuz Shah’s reign are those whose patrons have been identified as high-ranking officials. The Kalan Masjid, built by Firuz Shah’s vizier or chief minister, and the so-called Tilangani tomb, situated on the grounds of Nizamuddin complex, are often singled out as typical examples. Why are Firuz Shah’s monuments ignored? In part, many do not survive, or survive in significantly altered appearances. In this study, three complexes of monuments, are selected for close examination. These complexes -- the sultan’s imperial mosque in Firuzabad, the Hauz Khas madrasa compound, and the frontier town at Hissar -- are most representative of Firuz Shah’s building projects. In all three sites, the monuments have survived nearly unaltered from the fourteenth century. Other structures attributed to Firuz Shah are more problematic. Some have suffered less fortunate fates, while others’ attributions are not widely accepted.

In this study, historical, epigraphic, and art historical evidence is brought together. Questions concerning the basis for attributions to Firuz Shah, the stylistic features of his architecture, and the historical circumstances of his reign are discussed in order to understand the complexities of this unique patron. In Chapter II, a biography of Firuz Shah’s life is summarized in order to provide a historical perspective for his patronage. In Chapter III, the known corpus of monuments, based on literary record, is compiled. Chapter IV focuses on Firuz Shah’s imperial mosque in Firuzabad and the adjacent structure, the lat pyramid. Chapter V examines the sultan’s foundation at Hauz Khas, located on the south perimeter of Firuzabad, site of a madrasa (college), associated structures, and his tomb, which contains the only surviving major corpus of religious epigraphy of the reign. Chapter VI examines the remains of his frontier establishment at Hissar, located 130 kilometers northwest of Delhi. Finally, in Chapter VII, stylistic features of these three complexes are reviewed in the broader contexts of Indo-Islamic and western Islamic architecture, and motives for Firuz Shah’s building are suggested.

Literature Survey

Modern scholarship on Tughluq architecture is still in its infancy. Firuz Shah’s monuments have surprisingly figured less prominently in studies of the architecture of the Delhi sultans than one might expect from the esteemed reputation of the builder given in contemporary sources. The earliest record of Firuz Shah’s achievements was written by the pre-eminent historian of the age, Ziya’ al-Din Barani.13 Barani is known from four surviving works, Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi, Fatawa-yi Jahandari, Na’t-i Muhammadi, and Akhbar-i Barmakiyyan.14 His family was well-connected with the Delhi court since the time his father had risen to prominence under ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji. Barani served Muhammad bin Tughluq for over seventeen years as nadim or court chronicler and continued to serve the court in that capacity under Firuz Shah. However at the beginning of Firuz Shah’s reign, Barani was implicated in a coup attempt and was banished from court.15 He spent his remaining years in exile seeking to be restored to the favor of the sultan. During this time he wrote the Ta'rikh-i Firuz Shahi until his death in 759/1357. The Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi recorded the history of the Delhi sultans from Balban (664-686/1266-1287) through the sixth year of Firuz Shah’s reign. Barani advocated strict adherence to the shari’a and judged the success or failure of the sultans he discussed accordingly. While 101 chapters were planned, Barani had only completed a portion of these at the time of his death. Those chapters which deal with Firuz Shah focus on the events surrounding his accession to the throne and his early reforms. Barani includes in two chapters a discussion of the sultan’s buildings and canals. His description of the madrasa at Hauz Khas is the only contemporary literary record of that institution. (His descriptions of the earlier Tughluq foundations at Jahanpanah and Tughluqabad are included in earlier chapters.) Other matters which he addresses are Firuz Shah’s military feats: the campaign to Bengal (Barani lived to witness only the first expedition) and the repelling of early Chaghatai marauders. He eulogizes the personal character of the sultan and remarks on his fondness for hunting. He also records the occasion of the sultan’s investiture by the Mamluk caliph.

Two editions of the Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi have been published. The Bibliotheca Indica edition, edited by Saiyid Ahmad Khan under supervision of Captain W. Nassau Lees and Maulavi Kabir al-Din, was published in 1862. This edition was a collation of two manuscripts in the possession of Sir H. Elliot, one of which bore a transcription colophon 1010/1610 and was borrowed from the Nawab of Tonk. The second edition was published by Elliot and Dowson, who translated parts of the Ta’rikh in the third volume of The History of India As Told By Its Own Historians. Their translation was largely based on the Bibliotheca Indica edition. Only two chapters of those on Firuz Shah’s reign are translated.

Barani’s other work which is relevant to the reign of Firuz Shah is the Fatawa-yi Jahandari, completed in 1358-1359 A.D. The Fatawa is written in the form of advice from Mahmud of Ghazni to his sons and the rulers of Delhi. The work is his own personal theory of kingship and is representative of the tradition of nasihat literature of the time.16 Barani viewed history as the instrument to teach religious morality through examples of the past. [i]Barani casts Firuz Shah as an ideal ruler. Barani’s interpretation of the sultan’s actions may have been influenced by his own personal misfortune and his desire to be restored to the favor of the sultan.

The Fatawa-yi Jahandari is known from the India Office Library Persian manuscript (Persian MS 1149). An English translation by Dr. Afsar Begum (Mrs. Afsar Umar Salim Khan) from a manuscript in the Commonwealth Library was published in Medieval India Quarterly and was reprinted in Muhammad Habib and Afsar Begum, The Political Theory of the Delhi Sultanate.

Barani’s unexpected death was an occasion of great mourning to Firuz Shah. The sultan despaired to find another historian who could rival Barani’s skills and reputation. His despair prompted him to assume the task himself and he wrote his own account of events of his reign in the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi.

The Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi was a record of the achievements in the religious affairs of the state, not military victories.
By his own testimony, Firuz Shah wrote the Futuhat to express gratitude to God and to provide a model which men could emulate in their lives. In this latter regard, the Futuhat may be categorized as belonging to the nasihat literary tradition. The Futuhat includes a long list of the sultan’s architectural projects and restoration measures.

Firuz Shah’s authorship of the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi is attested to in a number of sources. ‘Afif, for example, states that Firuz Shah wrote his edicts after the death of Barani and had them inscribed in Firuzabad.17

Little is known of Shams-i Siraj ['Afif] beyond what is gleaned from his own work....

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 ... [due] to the fact of its having at a comparatively late period been rescued from some musty record room....

[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.

-- 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

'Afif's statement is repeated by the later historians, Firishta ...

Firishta or Ferešte, full name Muhammad Qasim Hindu Shah, was a Persian historian, who later settled in India and served the Deccan Sultans as their court historian. He was born in 1560 and died in 1620....

Contemporary scholars and historians variously write that the works of Firishta drew from Tabaqat-i-Akbari by Nizamud-din, Tarikh-i-Rashidi by Mirza Haider, and Barani's Tarikh. At least one historian, Peter Jackson, explicitly states that Firishta relied upon the works of Barani and Sarhindi, and that his work cannot be relied upon as a first hand account of events, and that at places in the Tarikh he is suspected of having relied upon legends and his own imagination....

Firishta's account is the most widely quoted history of the Adil Shahi, but it is the only source for asserting the Ottoman origin of Yusuf Adil Shah, the founder of the Adil Shahi dynasty. Devare believes that to be a fabricated story. ...

In 1768, when the East India Company officer and Orientalist Alexander Dow, translated Firishta's text into English language, it came to be seen as an authoritative source of historical information by the English.

-- Firishta, by Wikipedia

and Sayyid Ahmad Khan.

After the failure of the 1857 War of Independence, where reestablishing Bahadur Shah Zafar as the emperor of India was an important objective, the Wahabi movement of 1857–58, under Enayet Ali, did not join hands with the leaders of the 1857 movement. They fought for the establishment of a theocratic Islamic state, or dar-ul-Islam, in India. The Hindus were completely aloof from this long-drawn Wahabi struggle. After this, the Muslims as a community, by and large, did not take active part in any political organizations, including the INC. Being perceived as among the chief conspirators in 1857 further reduced their influence with the British and a general dejection gripped the community. At this point, Sir Syed Ahmed appeared as a beacon of hope. He took it as his mission to both mend fences between the Muslim community and the British, and also introduce the community to modern education. In fact, he published an entire tract, The Loyal Mohammedans of India, in which he took pains to explain that if there was any community in India that could be trusted and were fast bound with Christians, it was the Muslims of the country, who would be their staunch friends and loyalists. Inculcating this sense of loyalty to the British was one of the declared objectives of the Mohammedan Anglo-Oriental College that he set up in Aligarh in 1877. He vehemently opposed those of the community who were against the British—be it ulemas or those associated with the Congress. According to Syed, the Congress was fighting for a representative government on British lines—one in which the majority voice reigned, which would entail a fourth of the population comprising Muslims getting a short shrift. He never tired of emphasizing that India was a conglomerate of several nations and that the Muslims formed a distinctive unit. In a speech, he articulates this belief:

In a country like India where homogeneity does not exist in any one of the fields (nationality, religion, way of living, customs, mores, culture, and historical tradition), the introduction of representative government cannot produce any beneficial results; it can only result in interfering with the peace and prosperity of the land . . . the aims and objects of the Indian National Congress are based upon an ignorance of history and present day realities; they do not take into consideration that India is inhabited by different nationalities; I consider the experiment which the Indian National Congress wants to make fraught with dangers and suffering for all the nationalities of India, specially for the Muslims. The Muslims are in a minority, but they are a highly united minority. At least traditionally they are prone to take the sword in hand when the majority oppresses them. If this happens, it will bring about disasters greater than the ones which came in the wake of the happenings of 1857 . . . the Congress cannot rationally prove its claim to represent the opinions, ideals, and aspirations of the Muslims.3

The thrust of his Aligarh movement was that Hindus and Muslims were separate entities with distinctive outlooks, conflicting interests, and in a way, separate nationalities. In fact, he was the first proponent of the ‘two-nation’ theory that was to have catastrophic results on the future of India. To quote Sir Syed:

In whose hands shall the administration and the Empire of India rest? Now, suppose that all English, and the whole English army, were to leave India, taking with them all their cannon and their splendid weapons and everything, then who would be rulers of India? Is it possible that under these circumstances two nations—the Mahomedans and the Hindus—could sit on the same throne and remain equal in power? Most certainly not. It is necessary that one of them should conquer the other and thrust it down. To hope that both could remain equal is to desire the impossible and the inconceivable.4

Regarding the Congress demand that a section of the viceroy’s council should be elected by the people, Sir Syed debated:

Let us imagine the Viceroy’s Council made in this manner. And let us suppose, first of all, that we have universal suffrage, as in America, and that all have votes. And let us also suppose that all Mohammadan electors vote for a Mohammadan and all Hindu electors for a Hindu member, and now count how many votes the Mohammadan member will have and how many the Hindu. It is certain that the Hindu member will have four times as many, because their population is four times numerous . . . and now how can the Mohammadan guard his interests?5

Thus, democratic representation or appointments based on competition would work to the Muslim detriment and result in a Hindu rule. As a result, British rule was in the best interests of the community, which should also stay away from political agitation and act as a counter to the agitating Hindus, Sir Syed postulated. That the Congress suffered from an acute lack of Muslim participation in its early years is seldom mentioned. Over the first twenty-one years, from 1885 to 1905, the average attendance of Muslim delegates in the first five sessions was 15 per cent; that fell to 5 per cent and below in the subsequent fifteen sessions.6 Muslims of Allahabad, Lucknow, Meerut, Lahore, Madras and other places passed resolutions condemning the Congress. Newspapers such as Mahomedan Observer, Victoria Paper, The Muslim Herald, Rafiq-i-Hind, and Imperial Paper spoke unequivocally against the Congress, as did a powerful Muslim organ of northern India—the Aligarh Institute Gazette.7 Riots over issues such as cow slaughter and processional music in front of mosques further widened the growing gulf between the two communities, which the British took advantage of.

For instance, Lord Curzon managed to win over Muslims who were initially opposed to the Partition of Bengal by convincing them that it was in their favour. Nawab Salimullah of Dacca, one of the most influential Muslim leaders of East Bengal, sided with the British. Many Muslims saw in the creation of the province of East Bengal and Assam a culmination of the dreams of the Aligarh movement—a separate Muslim unit within the Indian body politic. At a meeting held in Dacca on 30 December 1906, a resolution of prominent Muslim leaders upheld the Partition of Bengal plan and criticized the swadeshi movement raging against it.8

The British actively encouraged petitions from prominent Muslim leaders seeking employment of a due proportion from the community in government service, abolition of competitive examinations for the community for recruitment to services, appointments of Muslim judges in every high court and chief court, communal or separate electorates for municipalities and Muslim electoral colleges for elections to legislative councils. Correspondence between Viceroy Lord Minto’s private secretary, Colonel Dunlop Smith, and Muslim leaders clearly demonstrates this, where, among other things, he carefully orchestrates the whole plan of action:

But in all these matters I want to remain behind the screen and this move should come from you. You are aware, how anxious I am for the good of the Musalmans, and I would, therefore, render all help with the greatest pleasure. I can prepare and draft the address for you. If it be prepared in Bombay then I can revise it because I know the art of drawing up petitions in good language. But Nawabsaheb, please remember that if within a short time any great and effective action has to be taken, then you should act quickly.9

This ‘engineered’ deputation submitted its memorandum to Lord Minto who gladly accepted it. Ramsay Macdonald, the future prime minister of Britain, too had reminisced: ‘The Mahomedan leaders are inspired by certain Anglo-Indian officials and that these officials have pulled wires at Simla and in London, and of malice aforethought sowed discord between the Hindu and the Mahomedan communities by showing the Muslims special favours.’10 The British press also picked up and played on this division of interests within the country and that the distinctive Muslim views entitled them to be constituted as a separate entity.

Elated by the favourable reception from the government, the Muslim leadership felt the urgent need of a political association to voice their demands better and also act as a counter to the Congress. There was no pan-Indian organization of the Muslims; all they had were loosely knit local units and groups of nawabs and eminent persons. Nawab Salimullah of Dacca advocated the idea of a Central Muhammadan Association whose chief goals were to support the British government and to look after the rights and interests of all the Muslims of India, in addition to acting as a bulwark against the Congress. The scheme was accepted, and at a meeting held on 30 December 1906, it was resolved that a political association called All India Muslim League should be established. At a meeting held in Karachi on 29 December 1907, the aims of the League were drawn— promoting pro-British feelings and loyalty towards the government among Muslims, protecting the rights and interests of Muslims of India and preventing rise of feelings of hostility towards other communities, without prejudice to the earlier mentioned objectives.11 There was opposition to movements like the Shivaji festival promoting a Hindu leader—more so one who fought against the Mughals—as a national hero was anathema.12 The secretary of the League declared:

We are not opposed to the social unity of the Hindus and the Mussalmans . . . but the other type of unity (political) involves the working out of common political purposes. This sort of our unity with the Congress cannot be possible because we and the Congressmen do not have common political objectives. They indulge in acts calculated to weaken the British Government. They want representative Government, which means death for Mussalmans. They desire competitive examinations for employment in Government services and this would mean the deprivation of Mussalmans of Government jobs. Therefore, we need not go near political unity [with the Hindus]. It is the aim of the League to present Muslim demands through respectful request, before the Government. They should not, like Congressmen, cry for boycott, deliver exciting speeches and write impertinent articles in newspapers and hold meetings to turn public feeling and attitude against their benign Government.13

It was in this context of intense distrust and discord that we had earlier seen the letter from Ziauddin Ahmad—later vice chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University—to Abdullah Suhrawardy who was at India House in London, asking Muslims to refrain from participating in activities of Shyamji, Vinayak and other revolutionaries. The spirit of British loyalty and seeking distinctiveness from the Hindus and the Congress that Sir Syed had induced in the community was to remain for a long time with most leaders, barring a few exceptions. As Sir Percival Joseph Griffiths, a prominent businessman who also worked for Indian Civil Service largely in eastern India, noted: ‘Whatever may have been other effects of the foundation of the Muslim League, it set the seal upon the Muslim belief that their interests must be regarded as completely separate from those of the Hindus and that no fusion of the two communities was possible.’14

In its annual session held at Amritsar in December 1908, the Muslim League expressed vehement opposition to all the ‘mischievous efforts’ to unsettle the settled fact of the Partition of Bengal.15 In the Imperial Council in 1910, when Bhupendra Nath Bose raised the question of reversing the Partition of Bengal, members Shams-ul-Huda of Bengal and Mazhar-ul-Huq of Bihar strongly opposed the move. They warned that if the government meddled with this ‘beneficent measure, it would be committing an act of supreme folly and would create unrest and discontent where none existed now’.16 That the views of prominent leaders of the community remained unchanged is evident from Muhammad Ali’s speech as Congress president in 1923, in which he referred to the government’s policy of reversing the Partition of Bengal as an important cause for the alienation of the Muslims from the British government.17

Throughout 1907 and 1908, heated debates were held regarding separate electorates and the weightage that was proposed by the Muslim deputation and consented to by Viceroy Lord Minto. The Muslim leadership argued that owing to the vast social, cultural and religious differences between the two communities, they feared that a Hindu majority would not be able to deal with them suitably or represent them fairly. It was also pointed out that Muslims should get a greater representation in the different councils than was warranted by their numerical strength in the country’s population. The logic offered for this was rather perverse. The deputation had stated that Muslims had ruled India for 700 years before the British arrival and hence they had a natural claim to greater ‘political importance’, which should be reflected in the councils. They also maintained that the community had played a vital role in defending the country and this enhanced its importance further.

The Morley–Minto Reforms of 1909 not only awarded separate Muslim electorates, but also the number of their members in the council was much more than the numerical strength of their population. The seeds of discord and of being two separate nations had thus been sown several decades before the freedom movement took birth. Gopalkrishna Gokhale lamented:

It was a commonplace of Indian politics that there can be no future for India as a nation unless a durable spirit of cooperation was developed and established between the two great communities . . . the union of all communities is no doubt the goal towards which we have to strive, but it cannot be denied that it does not exist in the country today and it is no use proceeding as though it existed, when in reality it does not 18 . . . over the greater part of India, the two communities had inherited a tradition of antagonism which though it might ordinarily lie dormant, broke forth into activity at the smallest provocation. It was this tradition that had to be overcome.19

-- Savarkar: Echoes from a Forgotten Past: 1883-1924, by Vikram Sampath

Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, KCSI. Awards: Star of India. Institutions: East India Company; Indian Judicial Branch; Aligarh Muslim University; Punjab University; Government College University. Influences: Thomas Walker Arnold....

On 2 June 1869, Syed Ahmad Khan was appointed a Companion of the Order of the Star of India (CSI), for his service as Principal Sadr Amin. He was appointed a fellow of the Calcutta and Allahabad Universities by the Viceroy in the years 1876 and 1887 respectively.
Syed Ahmad was later bestowed with the suffix of 'Khan Bahadur' and was subsequently knighted by the British government in the 1888 New Year Honours as a Knight Commander of the Order of the Star of India (KCSI) for his loyalty to the British crown, through his membership of the Imperial Legislative Council and in the following year he received an LL.D. honoris causa from the Edinburgh University.

-- Syed Ahmad Khan, by Wikipedia

It was Ahmed Khan who, with the help of Captain Nassau Lees and Maulvi Kabiruddin Ahmed, compiled the first printed edition of the Persian text of the Tarikh, using one complete manuscript and three incomplete manuscripts to finish what Ishtiyaq Ahmad Zilli tells us is the first Persian edited text. It was published by the Asiatic Society of Bengal (Calcutta) in 1862 and was one of the achievements which earned him his Fellowship of the Royal Asiatic Society.

-- Traces of the Great: A medieval history of the Delhi Sultanate, by Francis Robinson
Site Admin
Posts: 33696
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Architecture of Firuz Shah Tughluq, by William Jeffr

Postby admin » Tue Nov 23, 2021 8:17 am

Part 2 of 2

The Futuhat thus must date from after the death of Barani, which occurred in 1357, and, because noted achievements of the latter part of the reign are absent, was probably completed within a few years.

Architectural epigraphs recording Firuz Shah’s edicts have long disappeared but the contents of Firuz Shah’s Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi survive in the form of appendices to manuscripts of the Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi by another noted historian, Shams al-Din Siraj ‘Afif, who will be discussed below. One of these manuscripts containing such an appendix is in the British Library (Or.2039), a second in the collection of Aligarh Muslim University (copied 1299/1882), and a third is allegedly in the collection of Khan Bahadur Zafar Hasan. An edited Persian text and English translation by B. De, based on the Aligarh manuscript, was published in the Bibliotheca Indica series in 1927. An English translation of the Futuhat by Elliot and Dowson appears in their History (3: 374-388).

The Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, by an unknown author, is also believed to have been written during the reign of Firuz Shah. The vivid and detailed descriptions suggest that the author possessed firsthand knowledge of the events he recorded.

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.

-- 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

In several passages of the work he relates details of the celebrated occasion of the sultan’s discovery of an Asokan column north of Delhi and his extraordinary efforts to retrieve it and transport it to Delhi.18 He includes a step-by-step description of the building of the monument into which the column was installed. This author also discusses many other engineering projects, particularly waterworks, which Firuz Shah undertook.

As noted, the identity of the author of the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi is unknown and his relationship to the sultan is also not known although he must have been close to the court.19 The Sirat was probably written circa 1370, in the mid-part of the reign, because the author records the year 764/1367 as the time of the completion of the monument just mentioned. The text is known from a Persian manuscript in the Oriental Public Library at Bankipore, Patna dated 1002 A. H. Mohammad Hamid Kuraishi translated a portion of the work that concerned the transport of the Asokan column from Topra to Firuzabad. His translation appears in the monograph on the monument by J. A. Page in the Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India in 1937.

Another valuable source for the period is a collection of documents written by ‘Ain al-Mulk, on behalf of the sultan, to the high-ranking nobles of the empire. These letters and petitions, the Insha-i Mahru or Munshat-i Mahru, provide details of the administrative and political undertakings of the sultan. Collections of Mahru’s letters are presently in the possession of Aligarh Muslim University and the Asiatic Society of Bengal.20

Shams-i Siraj ‘Afif, author of the Ta'rikh-i Firuz Shahi, completed his work after the death of Firuz Shah.21 The work was written after the capture of the city of Delhi by Timur’s army in 1398-1399. ‘Afif's relationship to the court is not known. He was not known to be a nadim like Barani and his patron is not known. ‘Afif devotes several chapters to the architectural endeavors of the sultan, most notably the foundations at Firuzabad and Hissar. He also provides a list of monuments where Firuz Shah undertook restoration and also discusses the transport of the Asokan columns to Delhi. Since ‘Afif witnessed the destruction of Delhi by Timur, his history is a nostalgic recollection of a past era. His account is not always firsthand and he frequently relies on the testimony of other authorities, such as his father, as well as his own memory. According to the author, the Ta’rikh is only part of a larger composition which records the history of the Delhi sultanate from the time of Ghiyath al-Din Tughluq through the time of Timur’s capture. However, the known manuscripts of the work include only the reign of Firuz Shah. The name Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi has been ascribed to the work by modern historians on the basis of the surviving portions. Even these, however, are incomplete according to the author’s table of contents. ‘Afif refers to his work as the Manaqib-i Firuz Shahi.22

The Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi survives in several manuscripts, all imperfect copies. Two copies in India, one formerly in the possession of General Hamilton and another owned by Nawab Zia al-Din Loharu, were the basis for other copies owned by Sir H. Elliot, a certain Mr. Thomas, [Edward Thomas? ] and two copies in the India Office Library (one by way of the Marquis of Hastings). The Bibliotheca Indica edition, edited by Maulavi Vilayat Husain, was published in 1891. Elliot and Dowson published an English translation of the Ta’rikh in their History. Translated abstracts of the work by Lieut. Henry Lewis first appeared in the Journal of the Archaeological Society of Delhi in 1849.

Additional sources for the reign of Firuz Shah which make brief references to his architectural achievements were written after his death. These include Yahya Sihrindi’s Ta’rikh-i Mubarak Shahi, completed ca. 1428, Saraf al-Din ’Ali Yazdi’s Zafarnamah, written ca. 1435, and Timur’s Malfuzat-i Timuri, or Tuzuk-i Timuri, completed by 1405 A.D. Timur is said to have admired the buildings of the Tughluqs. Portions of all these works appear in English translation in the third and fourth volumes of Elliot and Dowson.

Muhammad Qasim Firishta completed the Gulshan-i Ibrahim, also known as the Ta'rikh-i Firishta and Ta'rikh-i Nawras-nama, in 1015/1606-1607. In it he recorded the history of early Indo-Muslim dynasties, from the time of Sebuktigin of Ghazna. Writing under the patronage of Ibrahim ’Adil Shah of Bijapur, Firishta's Ta'rikh is an assimilation of earlier histories and oral tradition.23 In it he draws on Barani and the Tabakat-i Akbari of Nizam al-Din Ahmad Bakshi (1001/1592-93). As a historical source, Firishta was considered by European scholars to be authoritative from the end of the 18th century when parts of his history first appeared in English translation. Alexander Dow translated and published the Ta'rikh in London in 1798 in two volumes as The History of Hindostan, from the Earliest Account of Time, to the Death of Akbar. A Persian manuscript of Firishta's Ta'rikh was edited by John Briggs and Mir Khairat ‘Ali Khan but was not published until 1247/1831-32 in Bombay under its Persian title Ta'rikh-i Firishtah. Briggs published an English translation of the work almost in its entirety in 1829 under the title History of the Rise of the Mohammedan Power in India, which appeared in four volumes. As a historical source, Firishta's account is suspect and his references to the architecture of Delhi are probably secondhand.

The most important source for early modern scholarship on the architectural history of Delhi is the Athar al-Sanadid by Sayyid Ahmad Khan. Written in Urdu, the work remains one of the key documents upon which many subsequent scholars have relied. The work was initially published in 1846 and an abridged and revised edition appeared in 1854. The Athar al-Sanadid includes historical information about key monuments of the Delhi sultans and includes several woodcut illustrations of sketches of these monuments by the artist Mirza Shah Rukh Beg Musawwir. A French translation, "Description des monuments de Delhi an 1852, d'après le texte Hindoustani de Saiyid Ahmad Khan," by M. Garcin de Tassy appeared in Journal asiatique (Juin 1860, pp. 508- 536; Août-Septembre 1860, pp. 190-254; Octobre-Novembre 1860, pp. 392-451; Décembre 1860, pp. 521-543, and Janvier 1861, pp. 77-97). The work was republished in Cawnpore in 1904 shortly after the author’s death in 1898, under the same title Athar al-Sanadid (English title -- Asar-oos-Sanadid, i.e. The first literary venture of Jawad-ud-dowla Arif-i-Jang Dr. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan). Recently, R. Nath has issued an edited English translation, Monuments of Delhi, A Historical Study, published under the auspices of the Indian Institute of Islamic Studies, New Delhi, 1979.

Early scholars’ attention to sultanate architecture focused on the impressive remains in the Delhi region: James Blunt, "A Description of the Cuttub Minar, Asiatick Researches IV (1795) and Walter Ewer, "An Account of the Inscriptions on the Cootub Minar and on the Ruins in its Vicinity," Asiatick Researches XTV (1822).

Firuz Shah’s monuments were first published by Henry Colebrooke in "Translation of one of the Inscriptions on the Pillar at Delhi, called the Lat of Feeroz Shah," Asiatick Researches VII (1801). The Archaeological Survey of India also focused attention on the remains of Firuz Shah’s monuments and reports on them first appear in Arthur Cunningham, "Report of the Proceedings of the Archaeological Surveyor to the Government of India for the season 1862-1863," Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal XXXIII (1864), and then in Reports of the Archaeological Survey of India I (1871), IV (1874), V (1875), and XX (1882-83).

By the mid-nineteenth century, other scholars turned their attention to the urban complexes of Delhi. Henry Lewis and Henry Cope examined the ruins at Firuzabad in "Some Account of the Town and Palace of Feerozabad in the vicinity of Delhi,...," Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal XVI (1847), and the same authors focused on an early mosque in their article "Some Account of the ’Kalan Musjeed" commonly called the ’Kalee Musjeed’ within the new town of Delhi," published in the same issue of Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal XVI (1847). Some years later C. J. Campbell published "Notes on the History and Topography of the Ancient Cities of Delhi," Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal XXXV (1866-1867).

In 1855 James Fergusson first examined the architectural remains in his Illustrated Handbook of Architecture but his well known survey of Indian and East Asian architecture. History of Indian and Eastern Architecture, 2 volumes, did not appear until 1876. His survey offered for the first time to a general audience a view of the material remains of the Indian culture. Alongside J. Briggs’s History of the Rise of Mahomedan Power in India, Fergusson’s survey of Muslim history and architectural history remained undisputed into this century.

One of the most significant works for early sultanate history appeared in 1867- 1877. Sir H. M. Elliot and John Dowson, The History of India as Told Its Own Historians, The Muhammadan Period, in eight volumes, which appeared in London in 1867-1877, continues today to be an invaluable resource for Indo-Muslin history. The volumes include English translations of portions of key historical works of the reign of Firuz Shah Tughluq, including the sultan’s Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi, ‘Afif's Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi, Barani’s Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi, and others. Elliot and Dowson’s history remains a landmark contribution. At the same time, Edward Thomas published The Chronology of the Pathan Kings of Delhi, illustrated by coins, inscriptions, and other antiquarian remains (London, 1871), drawing upon Sayyid Ahmad Khan’s Athar al-Sanadid.

A number of handbooks and guides on the material remains in the Delhi area appear throughout the century. Besides Fergusson’s Illustrated Handbook of Delhi (mentioned above), other guides appeared: Frederick Cooper, The Handbook for Delhi (Delhi 1863), H. G. Keene’s Handbook for Visitors to Delhi, and Carr Stephen’s The Archaeology and Monumental Remains of Delhi (Ludhiana 1876). The latter author derived much of his information from Sayyid Ahmad Khan. All offered annotated descriptions of numerous points of interest in Delhi.

After the turn of the century, H. C. Fanshawe, Delhi, Past and Present (London 1902), G. R. Hearn, The Seven Cities of Delhi (London 1906) and E. A. Duncan’s updated edition of Keene's Handbook for the Visitors to Delhi (Calcutta 1906) appeared. More recently T. G. Percival-Spear published Delhi: Its Monuments and History (London 1943) and Y. D. Sharma prepared Delhi and Its Neighborhood for the XXVI International Congress of Orientalists. The volume was published under the auspices of the Archaeological Survey of India (New Delhi, 1964).

The Archaeological Survey of India published from 1916-1922 the List of Muhammadan and Hindu Monuments: Delhi Province in four volumes. Volumes on Delhi Zail (v. 2, Delhi 1919) and Mahrauli Zail (v. 3, Delhi 1922) include Firuz Shah’s buildings. In addition, the Archaeological Survey also published in its Memoirs a series of monographs on sites of importance. Noted among these are Zafar Hasan, Guide to Nizammudin (1922) and J. A. Page, An Historical Memoir on the Qutb: Delhi (1926). The buildings of Firuz Shah were the focus of Memoir No. 52 (1937) published by J. A. Page in A Memoir on Kotla Firuz Shah, Delhi. This volume includes the English translation of portions of the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi relevant to the buildings of the kotla referred to above. Alongside the Memoirs, the Archaeological Survey continued to publish its Annual Reports of the Archaeological Survey of India (Northern Circle) between 1910-11 and 1920-21.

Two major studies of Indo-Islamic epigraphy were compiled under the auspices of the Archaeological Survey of India; Epigraphica Indo-Moslemica, 9 volumes (1909- 1938) and Epigraphica Indica (Arabic and Persian Supplement), 8 volumes (1955-1968). Of particular interest is Zafar Hasan’s "Inscriptions of Sikandar Shah Lodi in Delhi," EJM . 1919-20 (Calcutta 1924) which includes the historical epigraph of the mausoleum of Firuz Shah.

Other scholars have made significant contributions to the study of epigraphy of early Indian Islamic monuments. These include Maulvi Muhammad Ashraf Husain’s Record of All the Quranic and Non-historical Epigraphs on the Protected Monuments in the Delhi Province published in Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India No. 47 (Calcutta 1936), V. S. Bendrey, A Study of Muslim Inscriptions (Bombay 1944), and relevant sections of Qeyamuddin Ahmad’s Corpus of Arabic & Persian Inscriptions of Bihar (A.H. 640-1200) (Patna 1973). Subhash Parihar published Muslim Inscriptions in the Punjab, Haryana And Himachal Pradesh in 1985 and brought attention to many neglected monuments of those regions.

Much has been written about the architecture of the Delhi sultanate. The best known surveys are found in Percy Brown’s, Indian Architecture: The Islamic Period (Calcutta 1942) and R. Nath’s History of Sultanate Architecture (Delhi 1982). Other accounts include those in R. A. Jairazbhoy, An Outline of Islamic Architecture (New York 1972); Ziya ud-Din Desai, Indo-Islamic Architecture (New Delhi 1970) and Mosques of India (New Delhi 1971); and Satish Grover, The Architecture of India, Islamic 727-1707 AD . (New Delhi 1981). John Marshall’s survey in the Cambridge History of India (1928) and J. Burton-Page’s surveys in the Encyclopedia of Islam, "Dihli," II (1966) pp. 255-266, and "Hind, pt. vii. Architecture," III (1971), pp. 440-454, are all useful. Anthony Welch and Howard Crane published a survey of Tughluq monuments in "The Tughluqs: Master Builders of the Delhi Sultanate," Muqarnas (1983).

The most extensive survey of sultanate architecture published by the University of Tokyo, Institute of Oriental Culture (Tokyo Daigaku. Indo Shiseki Chosa Dan) in 1967-1970 is a three volume work entitled Deri: Deri shoocho-jidai no kenzobutsu no kenkyu (English tide: Delhi: Architectural Remains of the Delhi Sultanate Period). The authors, Tatsuo Yamamoto, Matsuo Ara, Tokifusa Tsukinowa and Taichi Oshima, using photogrammetrical means, compiled plans and elevations of numerous monuments and supplemented these with photographs. The first volume contains a general list of about 400 monuments, classified among mosques, graveyards, tomb-buildings, waterworks, and miscellaneous structures, which are subdivided by form, function, and chronology. The second volume focuses on tomb architecture and discusses the typology, forms, methods of construction, and historical backgrounds of 142 monuments. Four tombs were selected for intensive study: those of Ghiyath al-Din Tughluq, Shaikh Shihab al-Din Taj Khan, Muhammad Shah Saiyid, and an unidentified twelve-pillared tomb near Mehrauli. The third volume focuses on waterworks and lists 52 remains of stepped wells (ba’olis), dams (bands), bridges, and sluices, of which a few are examined more extensively than the rest. Unprecedented in scope, these volumes present a comprehensive inventory and photographic survey of the Delhi sultanate. These volumes were published in limited editions and are difficult to obtain. A reprinted edition, with English translations, is planned.

Several studies of the architecture of other sultanates of India have been published. These are useful for comparative purposes as well as for the fact that they provide occasion reference to the Delhi sultans. Both Brown and Nath include regional developments in their respective surveys. Those surveys whose contents are germane to the study of Firuz Shah include George Michell (Editor), The Islamic Heritage of Bengal (UNESCO 1984); and Ahmad Nabi Khan, Multan: History and Architecture (Islamabad 1983). A. Fiihrer’s early study, Sharqi Architecture ofJaunpur (London 1909), examines the architecture of Jaunpur after Firuz Shah’s foundation. A comprehensive survey of Muslim architecture of the Punjab and Haryana does not exist; however, articles on individual monuments are listed in two bibliographic sources: S. Y. Quraishi, Haryana Rediscovered: A Bibliographical Area Study, v. 1 (1985) and K. C. Yadav and S. R. Phogat, History and Culture of Haryana: A Classified and Annotated Bibliography (1985).

Thus, scholarship on sultanate architecture has included typological and formal studies as well as archaeological and historical surveys. As noted, Firuz Shah’s monuments constitute a small part of these studies of Indo-lslamic architecture. A limited number of historical references have produced a small number of attributions yet the physical remains of many buildings commonly assigned to his patronage are scattered around the Delhi area. Epigraphic evidence which support these attributions is virtually lost. The surviving evidence culled from these sources is brought together here in an attempt to formulate some conclusions about Firuz Shah’s architecture.

In the following pages, the corpus of architectural monuments attributed to Firuz Shah is reconstructed from evidence gleaned from the literary record and scant epigraphy as well as physical evidence of three of his most significant undertakings: the imperial mosque and so-called lat pyramid of his capital, the religious complex at Hauz Khas, and his frontier establishment at Hissar. By doing so, some questions about this important builder should be kept in mind. What are the characteristics of the architectural forms of Firuz Shah’s monuments? What functions or purposes can be ascribed to these architectural forms? What are the prototypes or sources for these forms? What is the basis for associating these forms to Firuz Shah? To what degree does the corpus of extant monuments correspond to the literary record? With these questions in mind, let us first examine the historical events of his life and survey his known monuments.



1 Firuz Shah, Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), p. 382.

2 Both Hijra and Christian era dates are used in this text (Hijra preceding Ciiristian). All dates which stand alone are designated by A.H., A.D., or B.C.

3 The Quwwat al-Islam mosque is examined by J. A. Page, An Historical Memoir on the Qutb: Delhi, Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India No. 52, Delhi, 1937.

4 Firuz Shah’s city of Firuzabad was the fifth of the seven medieval cities of Delhi: Qila Rai Pithora, Siri, Tughluqabad, Jahanpanah, and Firuzabad. The mosque at Qila Rai Pithora had fallen into disrepair by Firuz Shah’s day. See Firuz Shah, Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), p. 383.

5 ‘Afif, Ta'rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 354.

6 See A. Welch, "Qur’an and Tomb," p. 257; and Welch, "Islamic Architecture and Epigraphs in Sultanate India," in Studies in South Asian Art and Archaeology, edited by A. K. Narain (forthcoming).

7 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 350-353; Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, pp. 33-42.

8 Firuz Shah, Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 383-385.

9 The most impressive examples of sub-imperial patronage include the mosques built by Khan-i Jahan Junan Shah, Firuz Shah’s prime minister. Carr Stephen, The Archaeology and Monumental Remains of Delhi, pp. 148-149, lists seven mosques attributed to Khan-i Jahan, based on Sayyid Ahmad Khan’s attributions, but not all of the attributions are accepted. Khan-i Jahan is identified by inscription on two of the seven, the Kali Masjid and Kalan Masjid, dated 772/1370-71 and 789/1387 respectively. Some other examples in Delhi include the dargah of Shaikh Salah al-Din, near Mauda Khirki, dated 754/1353 (Nath, Monuments of Delhi, p. 36) and a saubate tomb dated 777/1375-76, near Hauz Khas (Archaeological Survey of India, Lists of Monuments, v. 3, pp. 73-74, no. 112).

10 Firuz Shah is identified by inscription in the entrance gate of the tomb at the dargah of Hazrat Nasir al-Din Roshan, Chiragh-i Delhi, dated 775/1373. The Lodi inscription on his mausoleum at Hauz Khas identifies him as the occupant, not the builder. See Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 146, footnote.

11 Firuz Shah, Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), p. 382; Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, translated in Rashid, "Firoz Shah’s Investiture," p. 71.

12 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 354-355.

13 Authors whose works predate Firuz Shah’s reign provide descriptions of the topography and monuments of Delhi. Their accounts are useful in setting the stage for Firuz Shah’s reign, one which witnessed a proliferation of architectural monuments.

Most noted among these authors is the poet Amir Khusrau (b. 651/1253) whose Tughluk-nama, one of his many prose works which describes the glorious victories of Khalji and Tughluq rulers makes no reference to their architectural achievements. Amir Khusrau was patronized by ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji, Qutb al-Din Mubarak Shah and Ghiyath al-Din Tughluq. See P. Hardy, "Amir Khusraw Dihlawi," Encyclopedia of Islam I (1960), pp. 444-445.

’Isami, a court poet under Muhammad bin Tughluq, was embittered over his family’s forced migration to Daulatabad so he retired to the court of ‘Ala’ al-Din Hasan Bahman Shah and wrote his Futuh al-Salatin in 750-751/1349-1350 under the patronage of the Bahman sultan. The Futuh, written in the manner of Firdausi’s Shah-nama, recounts the conquests of India since the Ghaznavids (English trans. Agha Mahdi Husain, Bombay 1967). In it, he provides one of the few early descriptions of Delhi. See A.S. Bazmee Ansari, "’Isami," Encyclopedia of Islam IV (1978), pp. 92-93.

Ibn Battuta served as a qadi to the court of Muhammad bin Tughluq between 1333-1343 A.D. In his Rihla, completed in 756/1357, he described the urban landscape of Delhi. See A. Miquel, "Ibn Battuta," Encyclopedia of Islam III (1971), pp. 735-736. Chapters on India translated by C. Defrémery and B.R. Sanguinetti, Voyage d'Ibn Batoutah, 4 vols (Paris, 1853-59); H. A. R. Gibb, The Travels of Ibn Battuta, 2 vols (Cambridge, 1958-62); and Mahdi Husain, TheRehla of Ibn Battuta (Baroda, 1953).

The poet Badr al-Din Chach wrote a panegyric description of Delhi and the palace of Khurrambad in the Qasa’id (portions translated by Elliot and Dowson).

Shihab al-Din ‘Abbas al-’Umari wrote about monuments of Delhi and Daulatabad without having visited the subcontinent. Based on traveler’s descriptions, he completed the Masalik al-absar fi mamalik al-amsar in Damascus (Trans. I.H. Siddiqi and Q.M. Ahmad, Fourteenth Century Account of India under Muhammad bin Tughluq, Aligarh 1971.

14 Biographical details about Barani’s life are provided by Hardy, Historians of Medieval India, pp. 20-39; Hardy, "Diya’ al-Din Barani," Encyclopedia of Islam I, pp. 1036-1037; and Habib, "Life and Thought of Ziauddin Barani," in Political Theory of the Delhi Sultanate, pp. 117-172.

15 Ibid. Details about his banishment are sketchy. Barani himself relates in his Na’t-i Muhammadi that he was confined to the Pahtez fortress for five months.

16 Nasihat literature consisted of books of advice which were paradigms or mirrors for princes to emulate.

17 According to ‘Afif the text of the Futuhat was inscribed on the walls of the Kushk-i Shikar, the dome of the Kushk-i Nuzul, and the minaret of the stone mansion at Firuzabad. Elsewhere he repeats that it was inscribed on the tower of the Kushk-i Nuzul. ‘Afif Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 316.

18 There were two columns ["Asokan" pillars] brought to Delhi but the author of the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi mentions only one. ‘Afif discusses both columns. ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 350-353.

19 Hodivala suggests that the author of the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi may be ‘Abd al- ‘Aziz Shams Bahanuri, author of an alleged work Tawarikh-i Firuz Shahi and translator of a Hindu text, Brihat Samhita of Varahamihira, a text found by Firuz Shah during his plunder of a library in Nagarkot (Kangra). See Hodivala, Studies of Indo-Muslim History, v. 2, p. 130-131.

20 Hodivala, Studies in Indo-Muslim History, v. 1, p. 338. Hodivala discusses the Asiatic Society of Bengal group. The Aligarh University collection is edited by S. A. Rashid assisted by Muhammad Bashir Husain (Lahore, 1965).

21 For a discussion of ‘Afif s work and biographical details, see Hardy, Historians of Medieval India, pp. 40-55.

22 The manaqib ("merit" or "virtue") is a literary genre which is usually reserved for biographies of saints and Muslim holymen. According to Hardy, the application of this genre to a biography of a sultan is unusual and he claims that ‘Afif "superimposes upon events a pattern required by the literary genre..." The same author contends that ‘Afif models the sultan "in conformity with an abstract ideal." See Hardy, Historians of Medieval India, p. 41.

23 Firishta is believed to have depended heavily on Barani’s Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi, but he seems to be unaware of ‘Afif's work. See Hardy, "Firishta," Encyclopedia of Islam 2 (1966), pp. 921-922.

Firuz Shah’s authorship of the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi is attested to in a number of sources. ‘Afif, for example, states that Firuz Shah wrote his edicts after the death of Barani and had them inscribed in Firuzabad. 'Afif's statement is repeated by the later historians, Firishta. [???]

-- 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
Site Admin
Posts: 33696
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Return to Ancien Regime

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests