In the description of the noble attributes and praiseworthy character of the Sultan of the age and period, Firoz Shah al Sultan, whose effects became instrumental in restoring order and ensuring reconciliation in the dominions and the territories of Hind and Sind which was badly ruined turned fresh anew, blossomed and flourished.
The author of the Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi, in accordance with the dictates of justice and to eulogize, brings to the notice of those people who have some knowledge and idea about the annals of the past rulers, that since the day when Delhi was conquered and Islam made its appearance in Hindustan, there has been no ruler after Sultan Muizz ud din Muhammad Sam, who was more mild, bashful, kind, compassionate, grateful, loyal and possessed of purer belief in Islam than the Sultan of the age and time, Firoz Shah al Sultan, who had set his feet on the throne of Delhi. This I have not written out of exaggeration and idle talk, neither have I been motivated by worldly greed but (it may be recalled) that in the introduction of the book I have enumerated truth among the basic requirements of history writing. In spite of the fact that I am not in the enjoyment of ease, prosperity, comforts and pleasures of life and in this particular regard I am a solitary exception from the overwhelming majority of the people of the dominions and I am among those about whom this verse is appropriate, rather it is appropriate about none except me: 'Birds and fishes are content in country but not me.'
It is, however, not material whether I am happy or not. I am bound to write what is true and correct and I must prove what I write with the support of evidence and proof. If some uninformed person, who has no idea about the annals of the past rulers, says out of ignorance and bias while studying that introduction that Zia-i Barani had resorted to flattery and poetry and had written with a sense of exaggeration that no king like the Sultan of the time and age Firoz Shah al Sultan has ever set his feet over the throne of Delhi and had ever been adorned with so many excellent qualities of character, that ignorant person should see the annals of the ancient rulers and past kings of Delhi. He would note that there had been an established rule and firm tradition that on the occasion of the change of rulers bloodshed occurs and families and establishments are uprooted. Until and unless the old and the ones that had struck roots are not uprooted, the fresh and newly sown plants do not strike root.
There has been a firm belief that supporters and helpers of past rulers could not be true helpers and supporters of new rulers. In case this does happen, it is considered among the rarities of the time and wonders of the age. The experienced people had witnessed it in the case of hereditary kingdoms. What to write about kingdoms that had been taken by force -- in which case none of the existing king's fathers, grandfathers and kith and kin had ever been king. Now, until and unless that person who had taken over kingship removes supporters, helpers, well wishers and those who had been sincere to past rulers are removed in whatever manner he could, he does not consider himself as the king. In addition it is also common belief that without capital punishment the terror of the ruler does not get ingrained in the minds of people and his writ does not begin to run. It is also believed that without taking resort to killings, the wicked don't desist from rebellion and mischief. It may be recalled here that after Sultan Muizz ud din Sam, when Sultan Shams ud din Altamash ascended the throne of Delhi he was not able to exercise his full authority as the ruler of Delhi until he removed Qazi Saad, Qazi Imad and Qazi Husam, who were the sister's sons of Shams ul Aimma Gardezi, a number of Ghorid amirs who were assigned 'iqtas in Hindustan by Sultan Muizz ud din; and did not overthrow Taj ud din Yeldoz, who was the adopted son of Sultan Muizz ud dfn and Sultan Nasir ud din Qubacha who was the salahdar of Sultan Muizz ud din.
It is easy to imagine how much blood would have been spilled and how many old families and establishments would have been destroyed in the task of removing and killing such great men. Similarly, after the death of Sultan Shams ud din, during the period of thirty years of his sons' reign when Turkan-i Chihalgani got ascendancy over the affairs of the state, they overthrew and uprooted many great maliks and grandees who had held high positions at the court of Sultan Shams ud din. They caused streams of blood to flow and these slaves took over the 'iqtas, horsemen and foot soldiers of these great maliks and there was much bloodshed which led to the destruction of old and established families. Sultan Balban shed so much blood even while he was still a malik. When he was a Khan he got all his fellow slaves removed by whichever means he could and destroyed their families. These facts could not have been hidden from those who have studied history. Balban's persecution is so well known. Among the punishment awarded by Sultan Balban are included killings of the rebels along with Tughril, his children, women and supporters. He got all of them killed and ordered them to be hanged on gibbets erected in two rows. This incident is very well known.
The bloodshed that took place during the reign of Muizz ud din Kaiqubad and the families and establishments that were uprooted in the process have been witnessed by the old and the aged who are still alive. Such a Muslim of pure faith that Sultan Jalal ud din was, even he could not consolidate his control over the kingship and was not able to rule until he got Sultan Muizz ud din and other great maliks and amirs killed in the very first year of his reign and ultimately destroyed Mughaltai along with his entire establishment and also massacred Sidi Maula and a number of other people, as also his dealings with the rebellion of Malik Chajju. The killings and bloodshed of the reign of Sultan Ala ud Din are beyond description. Many of those who have witnessed this bloodshed and killings are still alive. There is no doubt that during the reigns of Sultan Qutb ud din and Sultan Ghiyas ud din Tughlaq Shah there was less bloodshed, killings and uprooting of families compared to Ala ud Din's reign. As far as the reign of Sultan Muhammad bin Tughlaq Shah is concerned, the bloodshed, killings and uprooting of families that took place is beyond power of speech and writing to describe.
The purpose of the author in describing the bloodshed and killings of the rulers of the seat of the throne Delhi is to illustrate the fact that there is no king who had not resorted to violence for the love of power and in the interest of his authority and there is none whose writ had been obeyed without violence. The only exception is the Sultan of age and time Abul Muzaffar Firoz Shah al Sultan, may God perpetuate his kingdom and authority, who is the rarest of rare among the Sultans of earlier and later kings. It has been possible for him to rule and govern without shedding the blood of monotheists and killing Muslims and uprooting families and establishments. It is since six years that Sultan Firoz Shah, may his age be prolonged to a thousand years, is ruling over the throne of Delhi and reigns over the seat of authority. His writ runs over the dominions of Hind and Sind (there have been no killings during his reign) except for 5-6 persons who had led rebellion and caused upheaval in the affairs of state. Out of dire necessity they were killed in the very beginning of the reign but even in their case, their followers, dependents, sons, daughters, sons-in-law and relatives were not harmed. Besides them a few kitchen staff were also removed, who had planned a serious conspiracy and had been in the forefront of the rebellion for a few days. The total sum of the first and second groups does not add to more than 15-16 people. Besides them no one from among the many criminals had been subjected to capital punishment, no monotheist from among Muslims has ever been killed at the gates of the palace and not even a hair of the financial and political offenders had been harmed and no family uprooted. This is sign of divine favour in the case of Sultan Firoz Shah that the idea of killing a Muslim never comes to his mind and he has been divinely saved from the destruction of any one who recites the kalimah that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is His Prophet. I, Zia ud din Barani, the author of the Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi would like to put on record that since the conquest of Delhi, no Sultan like Sultan Firoz Shah except Sultan Muizz ud din Sam, had ever set foot on the throne of Delhi. God Almighty had not attached the blood of any innocent person to be his responsibility. He was never known to have perpetrated the same kind of persecution that had been witnessed in the case of other kings. This I advance as an argument about the compassion, kindness and forbearance and God-fearing nature of the Sultan and present it as proof of my submission. This is fully based on truth, exactness and accuracy.
I further say and commit to writing that whatever I have witnessed regarding his attitude towards subjects and troops, the two arms of state, and others and continue to witness in the case of Sultan Firoz had not been witnessed from the rulers of Delhi for many generations. Nobody remembers that ever the hulya (descriptive roll) which constitutes the main hurdle in the way of the supply of the troops had been remised. Now the villages which have been assigned to the soldiers in lieu of their salaries, for the purposes of muster they present their slaves, servants and relatives and take their salaries. The resultant prosperity and comfort of their living is too well known to the people. What troopers get as stipend (itlaq), no doubt they get in instalments and that too some of them get in cash while others get it in the form of draft (barat). However, they are never required to report for hunting or begar (forced labour without remuneration). Moreover, the word of recovery (istidrak) does not ever come to the lips of anyone. A number of other measures of convenience have been put in place, so much so that many receive their salaries while they remain sitting in their houses.
If in the case of the stipend holders (itlaqian), the nobles and the clerks give way to their greed and misappropriate something out of it, the troopers still get their full stipends from the royal treasury and the nobles having done it are put to account. During the entire period since the Sultan has been on the throne, the troops have never been tasked for any military expedition that is likely to be difficult and they could be exposed to risk. Similarly, they have not been sent to distant postings from where they could come home only after a year or two. This is but only a small favour and patronage of the Sultan if they appreciate it and would be grateful for it.
As far as the common men are concerned, their prosperity, well being and comfortable way of life defies description. The apparent resources, cash and goods of merchants, traders, carvanian, sahas, shroffs, usurers (murbian) and hoarders (muhtakiran) had virtually crossed the limit of lakhs and touched the extent of crores. The houses of the khuts and muqaddams are so full of horses, cattle, grains and other goods that no place is left for anything else. The subjects are no more in need of anything and everybody had acquired prosperity and affluence in accordance to his status. While I, the author of this history, was in the fort of Bhatnir, there was some rumour (of impending attack of the Mongols) during the season of winter, the people of the surrounding villages converged in the fort. Due to the dust raised by the great numbers of horses and cattle, the bright day was darkened to such an extent that men could not see men and only one out of a thousand people could enter the fort of Bhatnir along with their horses. I counted the horses of the stable of Ikhtiyar ud din Hajjam Madhu, 30 horses worth 2,000 tanka were tethered there.
As far as the bazaar people are concerned, the kind of luxury, ease of life, means to build houses and satisfaction of their desires that are available to them in this blessed reign had not been available in any age. They are masters of market commodities and could buy and sell as they like. They neither pay tax nor are forced to undergo begar and shabkari. About 200 tankas come to their houses daily and not a single piece goes out on any count of taxation. If Zia-i Barani does not record his observations regarding Sultan Firoz's kindness and patronage for the subjects in the Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi that no king had ever set his feet on the throne of Delhi since its conquest like him, it would not be against truth and reality.
Now the preference that I have accorded to Sultan Firoz, may God perpetuate his kingdom and authority, would be proved with evidence. Whatever I have witnessed for myself during the age of Sultan Firoz Shah, may he remain blessed with (long) life, power, throne and kingship, regarding imperial considerations towards khans, maliks, amirs, helpers, supporters, those who enjoy his confidence and those attached to the court, I had not been seen in any other age. The salaries of these people had been fixed at lakhs and crores and for their sons, sons-in-law and old slaves who had their established rights over them; separate stipends, rewards, villages and orchards have been assigned. As far as the khans, maliks and amirs were concerned, they were assigned stipends, gifts, towns, villages, orchards and bhattis besides (meeting their) basic needs and many other favours beyond description. The requirement of permanent presence and pain of continuous attendance was waived in the case of the grandees of the court. The entire class of great nobles of state lead a life of immense ease and luxury due to imperial favours and are in enjoyment of power, authority, ease and comfort. As a result of the great kindness and favours of the king of Islam, no one is afflicted with any kind of distress, misery and pain for any reason whatsoever.
From the date when the king of the age and time Firoz Shah al Sultan had ascended the throne, he enhanced the status of his favourites everyday and did not countenance that the helpers and supporters of state should be allowed to be humiliated and insulted in any way or dishonoured due to demand and being put to account. They are never asked to do any thing that may lead to their discomfiture. Any amount of arbitrariness that would be likely to put the functionaries under stress and cause burden for the elite and the common people is not allowed. He does not like anybody to be in distress and dejected. If Zia-i Barani had written in his Tarikh, out of his concern for truth and reality -- that since the time that I and other old men could remember, no king like the king of the age and the time Sultan Firoz Shah al Sultan had ever set his feet on the throne of Delhi who was adorned with such excellencies of character and virtues of personality -- it is in fact in complete accordance with the facts.
Now in favour of the preference that I have given to him, I would like to advance a stronger argument. Two and half qarn had passed of my age and during this (long) period of time I don't remember any event when in the Diwan-i Wizrat, the auditors, revenue officers, accountants and clerks did not subject some of the amirs and governors to humiliation and disgrace for the recovery of demand through the pain of imprisonment, chaining and punishing by pincers. In fact anybody who was put to recovery in the Diwan was condemned to a bowl of blood. Since I don't see anything like it in the auspicious reign of Sultan Firoz Shah, rather I have seen one out of a hundred or even one out of a thousand like it, therefore if I write in my history that as far as I could remember I have not seen any king like the Sultan of the age and the time Firoz Shah al Sultan, I would be only recording the truth and reality. If some fool and misinformed person attributes this fact which I have proved with so much evidence and proof to exaggeration or thinks it to be false, the fault lies with his lack of awareness and lack of intelligence.
Many of my contemporaries still remember that in earlier times, due to the prying eyes of the munhis (spies), the commonalty and elite were always in turmoil and could not sleep in peace. Only God knows how many households have been destroyed and how many people have been killed when munhis and other investigators implicated people with sins which they did not have any knowledge about and made them falsely admit to having committed under the pain of torture. Now in this auspicious reign of Sultan Firoz Shah I have neither seen any munhi nor any spy get hold of any person and under the pain of torture make him give the names of 200-300 people to the effect that they had made some statement and they wish the Sultan ill, which I and others have so often seen (in the case of earlier reigns). And therefore if I write that I have not seen anyone who could equal the Sultan of the age and the time Firoz Shah al Sultan in the matter of innate good qualities, I would have written it out of concern for the truth and would have only fulfilled the requirements of justice and equity. I, Zia-i Barani, the author of the Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi, had to face many perils after the demise of the late Sultan and mortal enemies. Powerful people who were deadly envious to me sought my blood and with their envious enmity almost drove me to madness and conveyed to the notice of the lord of the world thousands of venomous statements (attributing them to me). So much so that after the grace of Almighty Allah, had it not been for the forbearance, modesty, kindness, compassion and recognition for the loyalty and gratefulness on the part of the Sultan of the age and the time Firoz Shah al Sultan and had he not come to my rescue and allowed poisonous statements of enemies to prevail and give ear to them, I would have been consigned to sleep in the lap of mother earth. In fact, I would not have remained alive till now had the excellent qualities of the king not taken care of this hopeless and helpless destitute. I would not have been alive till today. Since my obligation to the Majesty of this king relates to my life and therefore if I don't use poetry and panegyrics in his praise, at least I should write down those of his excellent virtues and imperial characteristics which had come to my own observation in accordance with the truth and reality and in terms of discharging obligations.
The earliest record of Firuz Shah’s achievements was written by the pre-eminent historian of the age, Ziya’ al-Din Barani. Barani is known from four surviving works, Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi, Fatawa-yi Jahandari, Na’t-i Muhammadi, and Akhbar-i Barmakiyyan. 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. 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 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