Altruistic World Online Library

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

CHAPTER 7: The Tughlaq Dynasty

Ghiyasuddin Tughlaq (1320-25)

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

Domestic Policy

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

Foreign Policy

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

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

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

Muhammad bin Tughluq (1325-51)

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

Relocation of the Capital

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

Introduction of Token Currency

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

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

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

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

Agrarian Reforms

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

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

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

Revolts

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

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


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

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

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

Firuz Tughluq (1351-88)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Foreign Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timur's Invasion

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

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

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

Ziauddin Barani
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 10/23/21

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

XV. Tarikhi Firoz Shahi of Ziaud Din Barni, 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
Pages 93-269
1871

-- Bibliotheca Indica; Collection of Oriental Works, Published by The Asiatic Society of Bengal, New Series, The Tarikhi Feroz-Shahi of Ziaa al-Din Barni, commonly called Ziaa-i Barni, edited by Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Under the Superintendence of Captain W. Nassau Lees, LL.D. and Mawlavi Kabir Aldin, 1862

Life

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

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


Tombstone of Barani

Works

Fatwa-i-Jahandari

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi

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

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

Zawabit[12]

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

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

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

Other works

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

Fatawa-i-Dindari

Work online

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

See also

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

Notes

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

References

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

Part 1 of 3

Khalji dynasty
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 11/3/21

I now return to my narrative of the events of Jalalu-d din's reign. In the year 689 H. (1290 A.D.), the Sultan led an army to Rantambhor. Khan-i Jahan his eldest son was then dead, and he appointed his second son Arkali Khan to be his vicegerent at Kilu-ghari in his absence. He took the [BLANK]1 [It is difficult to say what is here intended. The printed text has [x]. One MS. says [x], and the other [x]. Jhain must be Ujjain.] of Jhain, destroyed the idol temples, and broke and burned the idols. He plundered Jhain and Malwa, and obtained great booty, after which his army rested. The Rai of Rantambhor, with his Rawats and followers, together with their wives and children, all took refuge in the fort of Rantambhor. The Sultan wished to invest and take the fort. He ordered manjaniks2 [The word used is "maghribiha" western (engines).] to be erected, tunnels (sabat) to be sunk, and redoubts (gargach) to be constructed, and the siege to be pressed. He arrived from Jhain, carefully reconnoitred the fort, and on the same day returned to Jhain. Next day he called together his ministers and officers, and said that he had intended to invest the fort, to bring up another army, and to levy forces from Hindustan. But after reconnoitring the fort, he found that it could not be taken without sacrificing the lives of many Musulmans * * * and that he did not value the fort so much as the hair of one Musalman. If he took the place and plundered it after the fall of many Muhammadans, the widows and orphans of the slain would stand before him and turn its spoils into bitterness. So he raised the siege, and next day departed for Dehli. When he announced his intention of retreating, Ahmad Chap protested and said. **** The Sultan replied at length. *** He concluded by saying "I am an old man. I have reached the age of eighty years, and ought to prepare for death. My only concern should be with matters that may be beneficial after my decease.'' ***

In the year 691 H. (1292 A.D.), 'Abdu-llah, grandson of the accursed Halu (Hulaku), invaded Hindustan with fifteen tumans of Mughals (150,000!). The Sultan assembled his forces, and marched from Dehli to meet them, with a large and splendid army. When he reached Bar-ram,1 [Briggs says "Beiram," but thinks it an error.] the outposts of the Mughals were descried, and the two armies drew up in face of each other with a river between them. Some few days were passed in arraying their forces, and the advanced parties of the opposing forces had several skirmishes in which the Musulmans were victorious, and made some prisoners, who were conducted to the Sultan. Shortly after the van of the Mughal army crossed the river. The van of the Musulmans hastened to meet them, and a sharp conflict ensued, in which the Musulman forces were victorious. Many Mughals were put to the sword, and one or two commanders of thousands, and several centurions were made prisoners. Negotiations followed, and it was agreed that war was a great evil, and that hostilities should cease. The Sultan and 'Abdu-llah, grandson of Halu the accursed, had an interview. The Sultan called him son, and he addressed the Sultan as father. Presents were exchanged, and after hostilities had ceased, buying and selling went on between the two armies. 'Abdu'llah departed with the Mughal army, but Ulghu, grandson of Changiz Khan, the accursed, with several nobles, commanders of thousands and centurions, resolved to stay in India. They said the creed and became Muhammadans, and a daughter of the Sultan was given in marriage to Ulghu. The Mughals who followed Ulghu, were brought into the city with their wives and children. Provision was made for their support, and houses were provided for them in Kilu-ghari, Ghiyaspur, Indarpat, and Taluka. Their abodes were called Mughalpur. The Sultan continued their allowances for a year or two, but the climate and their city homes did not please them, so they departed with their families to their own country. Some of their principal men remained in India, and received allowances and villages. They mixed with and formed alliances with the Musulmans, and were called "New Musulmans."

Towards the end of the year, the Sultan went to Mandur, reduced it to subjection, plundered the neighbourhood, and returned home. Afterwards he marched a second time to Jhain, and after once more plundering the country, he returned in triumph.

'Alau-d din at this time held the territory of Karra, and with permission of the Sultan he marched to Bhailasan (Bhilsa). He captured some bronze idols which the Hindus worshipped, and sent them on cars with a variety of rich booty as presents to the Sultan. The idols were laid down before the Badaun gate for true believers to tread upon. 'Alau-d din, nephew and son in-law of the Sultan, had been brought up by him. After sending the spoils of Bhailasan to the Sultan, he was made 'Ariz'i mamalik, and received the territory of Oudh in addition to that of Karra. When 'Alau-d din went to Bhailasan (Bhilsa), he heard much of the wealth and elephants of Deogir. He inquired about the approaches to that place, and resolved upon marching thither from Karra with a large force, but without informing the Sultan. He proceeded to Dehli and found the Sultan more kind and generous than ever. He asked for some delay in the payment of the tribute for his territories of Karra and Oudh, saying that he had heard there were countries about Chanderi where peace and security reigned, and where no apprehension of the forces of Dehli was felt. If the Sultan would grant him permission he would march thither, and would acquire great spoil, which he would pay into the royal exchequer, together with the revenues of his territories. The Sultan, in the innocence and trust of his heart, thought that 'Alau-d din was so troubled by his wife and mother-in-law that he wanted to conquer some country wherein he might stay and never return home. In the hope of receiving a rich booty, the Sultan granted the required permission, and postponed the time for the payment of the revenues of Karra and Oudh.

'Alau-d din was on bad terms with his mother in law, Malika-i Jahan, wife of the Sultan, and with his wife, the daughter of the Sultan. He was afraid of the intrigues of the Malika-i Jahan, who had a great ascendancy over her father. He was averse to bringing the disobedience of his wife before the Sultan, and he could not brook the disgrace which would arise from his derogatory position being made public. It greatly distressed him, and he often consulted with his intimates at Karra about going out into the world to make a position for himself. When he made the campaign to Bhailasan, he heard much about the wealth of Deogir. *** He collected three or four thousand horse, and two thousand infantry, whom he fitted out from the revenues of Karra, which had been remitted for a time by the Sultan, and with this force he marched for Deogir. Though he had secretly resolved upon attacking Deogir, he studiously concealed the fact, and represented that he intended to attack Chanderi. Malik 'Alau-l mulk, uncle of the author, and one of the favoured followers of 'Alau-d din, was made deputy of Karra and Oudh in his absence.

'Alau-d din marched to Elichpur, and thence to Ghatilajaura. Here all intelligence of him was lost. Accounts were sent regularly from Karra to the Sultan with vague statements,1 ["Arajif" -- "false rumours,'' but here and elsewhere it seems to rather mean, vague unsatisfactory news.] saying that he was engaged in chastising and plundering rebels, and that circumstantial accounts would be forwarded in a day or two. The Sultan never suspected him of any evil designs, and the great men and wise men of the city thought that the dissensions with his wife had driven him to seek his fortune in a distant land. This opinion soon spread. When 'Alau-d din arrived at Ghati-lajaura, the army of Ram-deo, under the command of his son, had gone to a distance. The people of that country had never heard of the Musulmans; the Mahratta land had never been punished by their armies; no Musulman king or prince had penetrated so far. Deogir was exceedingly rich in gold and silver, jewels and pearls, and other valuables. When Ram-deo heard of the approach of the Muhammadans, he collected what forces he could, and sent them under one of his ranas to Ghati-lajaura. They were defeated and dispersed by 'Alau-d din, who then entered Deogir. On the first day he took thirty elephants and some thousand horses. Ram deo came in and made his submission. 'Alau-d din carried off an unprecedented amount of booty. * * *

In the year 695 H. (1296 A.D.), the Sultan proceeded with an army to the neighbourhood of Gwalior, and stayed there some time. Rumours (ardaif) here reached him that 'Alau-d din had plundered Deogir and obtained elephants and an immense booty, with which he was returning to Karra. The Sultan was greatly pleased, for in the simplicity of his heart he thought that whatsoever his son and nephew had captured, he would joyfully bring to him. To celebrate this success, the Sultan gave entertainments, and drank wine. The news of 'Alau-d din's victory was confirmed by successive arrivals, and it was said that never had so rich a spoil reached the treasury of Dehli. Afterwards the Sultan held a private council, to which he called some of his most trusty advisers * * * and consulted whether it would be advisable to go to meet 'Alau-d din or to return to Dehli. Ahmad Chap, Naib-barbak, one of the wisest men of the day, spoke before any one else, and said, "Elephants and wealth when held in great abundance are the cause of much strife. Whoever acquires them becomes so intoxicated that he does not know his hands from his feet. 'Alau-d din is surrounded by many of the rebels and insurgents who supported Malik Chhaju. He has gone into a foreign land without leave, has fought battles and won treasure. The wise have said 'Money and strife; strife and money' — that is the two things are allied to each other. * * * My opinion is that we should march with all haste towards Chanderi to meet 'Alau-d din and intercept his return. When he finds the Sultan's army in the way, he must necessarily present all his spoils to the throne whether he likes it or not. The Sultan may then take the silver and gold, the jewels and pearls, the elephants and horses, and leave the other booty to him and his soldiers. His territories also should be increased, and he should be carried in honour to Dehli." *** The Sultan was in the grasp of his evil angel, so he heeded not the advice of Ahmad Chap * * * but said "what have I done to 'Alau-d din that he should turn away from me, and not present his spoils?" The Sultan also consulted Malik Fakhru-d din Kuchi (and other nobles). The Malik was a bad man; he knew that what Ahmad Chap had said was right, but he saw that his advice was displeasing to the Sultan, so he advised * * * that the Sultan should return to Dehli to keep the Ramazan. * * *

The guileless heart of the Sultan relied upon the fidelity of 'Alau-d din, so he followed the advice of Fakhru-d din Kuchi, and returned to Kilu-ghari. A few days after intelligence arrived that 'Alau-d din had returned with his booty to Karra. 'Alau-d din addressed a letter to the Sultan announcing his return with so much treasure and jewels and pearls, and thirty-one elephants, and horses, to be presented to his majesty, but that he had been absent on campaign without leave more than a twelve- month, during which no communications had passed between him and the Sultan, and he did not know, though he feared the machinations of his enemies during his absence. If the Sultan would write to reassure him, he would present himself with his brave officers and spoils before the throne. Having despatched this deceitful letter, he immediately prepared for an attack upon Lakhnauti. He sent Zafar Khan into Oudh to collect boats for the passage of the Saru, and, in consultation with his adherents, he declared that as soon as he should hear that the Sultan had marched towards Karra, he would leave it with his elephants and treasure, with his soldiers and all their families, and would cross the Saru and march to Lakhnauti, which he would seize upon, being sure that no army from Dehli would follow him there. * * * No one could speak plainly to the Sultan, for if any one of his confidants mentioned the subject he grew angry, and said they wanted to set him against his son. He wrote a most gracious and affectionate letter with his own hand, and sent it by the hands of some of his most trusted officers. When these messengers arrived at Karra, they saw that all was in vain, for that 'Alau-d din and all his army were alienated from the Sultan. They endeavoured to send letters informing the Sultan, but they were unable to do so in any way. Meanwhile the rains came on, and the roads were all stopped by the waters. Almas Beg, brother of 'Alau-d din, and like him a son-in-law of the Sultan, held the office of Akhur-bak (Master of the horse). He often said to the Sultan "People frighten my brother, and I am afraid that in his shame and fear of your majesty he will poison or drown himself." A few days afterwards 'Alau-d din wrote to Almas Beg, saying that he had committed an act of disobedience, and always carried poison in his handkerchief. If the Sultan would travel jarida (i.e. speedily, with only a small retinue), to meet him, and would take his hand, he should feel re-assured; if not, he would either take poison or would march forth with his elephants and treasures to seek his fortune in the world. His expectation was that the Sultan would desire to obtain the treasure, and would come with a scanty following to Karra, when it would be easy to get rid of him.*** Almas Beg showed to the Sultan the letter which he had received from his brother, and the Sultan was so infatuated that he believed this deceitful and treacherous letter. Without further consideration he ordered Almas Khan to hasten to Karra, and not to let his brother depart, promising to follow with all speed. Almas Beg took a boat and reached Karra in seven or eight days. When he arrived, 'Alau-d din ordered drums of joy to be beaten, saying that now all his apprehensions and fears were removed.

The crafty counsellors of 'Alau-d din, whom he had promoted to honours, advised the abandonment of his designs upon Lakhnauti, saying that the Sultan, coveting the treasure and elephants, had become blind and deaf, and had set forth to see him in the midst of the rainy season — adding, "after he comes, you know what you ought to do." The destroying angel was close behind the Sultan, he had no apprehension, and would listen to no advice. He treated his advisers with haughty disdain, and set forth with a few personal attendants, and a thousand horse from Kilu-ghari. He embarked in a boat at Dhamai, and proceeded towards Karra. Ahmad Chap, who commanded the army, was ordered to proceed by land. It was the rainy season, and the waters were out. On the 15th Ramazan, the Sultan, arrived at Karra, on the hither side of the Ganges.

'Alau-d din and his followers had determined on the course to be adopted before the Sultan arrived. He had crossed the river with the elephants and treasure, and had taken post with his forces between Manikpur and Karra, the Ganges being very high. When the royal ensign came in sight he was all prepared, the men were armed, and the elephants and horses were harnessed. 'Alau-d din sent Almas Beg in a small boat to the Sultan, with directions to use every device to induce him to leave behind the thousand men he had brought with him, and to come with only a few personal attendants. The traitor Almas Beg, hastened to the Sultan, and perceived several boats full of horsemen around him. He told the Sultan that his brother had left the city, and God only knew where he would have gone to if he, Almas Beg, had not been sent to him. If the Sultan did not make more haste to meet him he would kill himself, and his treasure would be plundered. If his brother were to see these armed men with the Sultan he would destroy himself. The Sultan accordingly directed that the horsemen and boats should remain by the side of the river, whilst he, with two boats and a few personal attendants and friends, passed over to the other side. When the two boats had started, and the angel of destiny had come still nearer, the traitor, Almas Beg, desired the Sultan to direct his attendants to lay aside their arms, lest his brother should see them as they approached nearer, and be frightened. The Sultan, about to become a martyr, did not detect the drift of this insidious proposition, but directed his followers to disarm. As the boats reached mid-stream, the army of 'Alau-d din was perceived all under arms, the elephants and horses harnessed, and in several places troops of horsemen ready for action. When the nobles who accompanied the Sultan saw this, they knew that Almas Beg had by his plausibility brought his patron into a snare, and they gave themselves up for lost. * * * Malik Khuram wakildar asked * * * what is the meaning of all this? and Almas Beg, perceiving that his treachery was detected, said his brother was anxious that his army should pay homage to his master.

The Sultan was so blinded by his destiny, that although his own eyes saw the treachery, he would not return; but he said to Almas Beg, "I have come so far in a little boat to meet your brother, cannot he, and does not his heart induce him to advance to meet me with due respect." The traitor replied, "My brother's intention is to await your majesty at the landing place, with the elephants and treasure and jewels, and there to present his officers." *** The Sultan trusting implicitly in them who were his nephews, sons-in-law, and foster-children, did not awake and detect the obvious intention. He took the Kuran and read it, and proceeded fearless and confiding as a father to his sons. All the people who were in the boat with him saw death plainly before them, and began to repeat the chapter appropriate to men in sight of death. The Sultan reached the shore before afternoon prayer, and disembarked with a few followers. 'Alau-d din advanced to receive him, he and all his officers showing due respect. When he reached the Sultan he fell at his feet, and the Sultan treating him as a son, kissed his eyes and cheeks, stroked his beard, gave him two loving taps upon the cheek, and said "I have brought thee up from infancy,1 [The Sultan's exact words are expressive enough, but are somewhat too precise and familiar for European taste.[!!!]] why art thou afraid of me?" **** The Sultan took 'Alau-d din's hand, and at that moment the stony-hearted traitor gave the fatal signal. Muhammad Salim, of Samana, a bad fellow of a bad family, struck at the Sultan with a sword, but the blow fell short and cut his own hand. He again struck and wounded the Sultan, who ran towards the river, crying, "Ah thou villian, 'Alau-d din! what hast thou done?" Ikhtiyaru-d din Hud ran after the betrayed monarch, threw him down, and cut off his head, and bore it dripping with blood to 'Alau-d din. **** Some of those persons who accompanied the Sultan had landed, and others remained in the boats, but all were slain. Villainy and treachery, and murderous feelings, covetousness and desire of riches, thus did their work.2 [The writer goes on condemning the murder in strong terms.] ****

The murder was perpetrated on the 17th Ramazan, and the venerable head of the Sultan was placed on a spear and paraded about. When the rebels returned to Karra-Manikpur it was also paraded there, and was afterwards sent to be exhibited in Oudh. **** While the head of the murdered sovereign was yet dripping with blood, the ferocious conspirators brought the royal canopy and elevated it over the head of 'Alau-d din. Casting aside all shame, the perfidious and graceless wretches caused him to be proclaimed king by men who rode about on elephants. Although these villains were spared for a short time, and 'Alau-d din for some years, still they were not forgotten, and their punishments were only suspended. At the end of three or four years Ulugh Khan (Almas Beg), the deceiver, was gone, so was Nusrat Khan, the giver of the signal, so also was Zafar Khan, the breeder of the mischief, my uncle, 'Alau-l Mulk, kotwal, and *** and ***. The hell-hound Salim, who struck the first blow, was a year or two afterwards eaten up with leprosy. Ikhtiyaru-d din, who cut off the head, very soon went mad, and in his dying ravings cried that Sultan Jalalu-d din stood over him with a naked sword, ready to cut off his head. Although 'Alau-d din reigned successfully for some years, and all things prospered to his wish, and though he had wives and children, family and adherents, wealth and grandeur, still he did not escape retribution for the blood of his patron. He shed more innocent blood than ever Pharaoh was guilty of. Fate at length placed a betrayer in his path, by whom his family was destroyed, *** and the retribution which fell upon it never had a parallel even in any infidel land. ***

When intelligence of the murder of Sultan Jalalu-d din reached Ahmad Chap, the commander of the army, he returned to Dehli. The march through the rain and dirt had greatly depressed and shaken the spirits of the men, and they went to their homes. The Malika-i Jahan, wife of the late Sultan, was a woman of determination, but she was foolish and acted very imprudently. She would not await the arrival from Multan of Arkali Khan, who was a soldier of repute, nor did she send for him. Hastily and rashly, and without consultation with any one, she placed the late Sultan's youngest son, Ruknu-d din Ibrahim, on the throne. He was a mere lad, and had no knowledge of the world. With the nobles, great men, and officers she proceeded from Kilu-ghari to Dehli, and, taking possession of the green palace, she distributed offices and fiefs among the maliks and amirs who were at Dehli, and began to carry on the government, receiving petitions and issuing orders. When Arkali Khan heard of his mother's unkind and improper proceedings, he was so much hurt that he remained at Multan, and did not go to Dehli. During the life of the late Sultan there had been dissensions between mother and son, and when 'Alau-d din, who remained at Karra, was informed of Arkali Khan's not coming to Dehli, and of the opposition of the Malika-i Jahan, he saw the opportunity which this family quarrel presented. He rejoiced over the absence of Arkali Khan, and set off for Dehli at once, in the midst of the rains, although they were more heavy than any one could remember. Scattering gold and collecting followers, he reached the Jumna. He then won over the maliks and amirs by a large outlay of money, and those unworthy men, greedy for the gold of the deceased, and caring nothing for loyalty or treachery, deserted the Malika-i Jahan and Ruknu-d din and joined 'Alau-d din. Five months after starting, 'Alau-d din arrived with an enormous following within two or three kos of Dehli. The Malika-i Jahan and Ruknu-d din Ibrahim then left Dehli and took the road to Multan. A few nobles, faithful to their allegiance, left their wives and families and followed them to Multan. Five months after the death of Jalalu-d din at Karra, 'Alau-d din arrived at Dehli and ascended the throne. He scattered so much gold about that the faithless people easily forgot the murder of the late Sultan, and rejoiced over his accession. His gold also induced the nobles to desert the sons of their late benefactor, and to support him. * * *

Iskandar-i sani Sultanu-l'azam 'Alaud-d dunya wau-d din Muhammad Shah Tughlik.

Sultan 'Alau-d din ascended the throne in the year 695 H. (1296 A.D.). He gave to his brother the title Ulugh Khan, to Malik Nusrat Jalesari that of Nusrat Khan, to Malik Huzabbaru-d din t hat of Zafar Khan, and to Sanjar, his wife's brother, who was amir-i majlis, that of Alp Khan. He made his friends and principal supporters amirs, and the amirs he promoted to be maliks [a chief or leader (as in a village) in parts of the subcontinent of India.]. Every one of his old adherents he elevated to a suitable position, and to the Khans, maliks, and amirs he gave money, so that they might procure new horses and fresh servants. Enormous treasure had fallen into his hands, and he had committed a deed unworthy of his religion and position, so he deemed it politic to deceive the people, and to cover the crime by scattering honours and gifts upon all classes of people.

He set out on his journey to Dehli, but the heavy rains and the mire and dirt delayed his march. His desire was to reach the capital after the rising of Canopus, as he felt very apprehensive of the late Sultan's second son, Arkali Khan, who was a brave and able soldier. News came from Dehli that Arkali Khan had not come, and 'Alau-d din considered this absence as a great obstacle to his (rival's) success. He knew that Ruknu-d din Ibrahim could not keep his place upon the throne, for the royal treasury was empty and he had not the means of raising new forces, 'Alau-d din accordingly lost no time, and pressed on to Dehli, though the rains were at their height. In this year, through the excessive rain, the Ganges and the Jumna became seas, and every stream swelled into a Ganges or a Jumna; the roads also were obstructed with mud and mire. At such a season 'Alau-d din started from Karra with his elephants, his treasures, and his army. His khans, maliks, and amirs were commanded to exert themselves strenuously in enlisting new horsemen, and in providing of all things necessary without delay. They were also ordered to shower money freely around them, so that plenty of followers might be secured. As he was marching to Dehli a light and moveable manjanik was made. Every stage that they marched five mans of gold stars1 [[x]] were placed in this manjanik, which were discharged among the spectators from the front of the royal tent. People from all parts gathered to pick up "the stars," and in the coarse of two or three weeks the news spread throughout all the towns and villages of Hindustan that 'Alau-d din was marching to take Dehli, and that he was scattering gold upon his path and enlisting horsemen and followers without limit. People, military and unmilitary, flocked to him from every side, so that when he reached Badaun, notwithstanding the rains, his force amounted to fifty-six thousand horse and sixty thousand foot. ****

When 'Alau-d din arrived at Baran, he placed a force under Zafar Khan, with orders to march by way of Kol, and to keep pace while he himself proceeded by way of Badaun and Baran. Taju-d din Kuchi, and ** and ** other maliks and amirs who were sent from Dehli to oppose the advancing forces, came to Baran and joined 'Alau-d din, for which they received twenty, thirty, and some even fifty mans of gold. All the soldiers who were under these noblemen received each three hundred tankas, and the whole following of the late Jalala-d din was broken up. The nobles who remained in Dehli wavered, while those who had joined 'Alau-d din loudly exclaimed that the people of Dehli maligned them, charging them with disloyalty, with having deserted the son of their patron and of having joined themselves to his enemy. They complained that their accusers were unjust, for they did not see that the kingdom departed from Jalalu-d din on the day when he wilfully and knowingly, with his eyes wide open, left Dehli and went to Karra, jeopardizing his own head and that of his followers. What else could they do but join 'Alau-d din?

When the maliks and amirs thus joined 'Alau-d din the Jalali party broke up. The Malika-i Jahan, who was one of the silliest of the silly, then sent to Multan for Arkali Khan. She wrote to this effect — "I committed a fault in raising my youngest son to the throne in spite of you. None of the maliks and amirs heed him, and most of them have joined 'Alau-d din. The royal power has departed from our hands. If you can, come to us speedily, take the throne of your father and protect us. You are the elder brother of the lad who was placed upon the throne, and are more worthy and capable of ruling. He will acknowledge his inferiority. I am a woman, and women are foolish. I committed a fault, but do not be offended with your mother's error. Come and take the kingdom of your father. If you are angry and will not do so, 'Alau-d din is coming with power and state; he will take Dehli, and will spare neither me nor you." Arkali Khan did not come, but wrote a letter of excuse to his mother, saying, "Since the nobles and the army have joined the enemy, what good will my coming do?" When 'Alau-d din heard that Arkali Khan would not come, he ordered the drums of joy to be beaten.

'Alau-d din had no boats, and the great height of the Jumna delayed his passage. While he was detained on the banks of the river, Canopus rose, and the waters as usual decreased. He then transported his army across at the ferries, and entered the plain of Judh.1 [The print has "Judh." One MS. writes "Khud" t he other omits the name.] Ruknu-d din Ibrahim went out of the city in royal state with such followers as remained to oppose 'Alau-d din, but in the middle of the night all the left wing of his army deserted to the enemy with great uproar. Ruknu-d din Ibrahim turned back, and at midnight he caused the Badaun gate (of Dehli) to be opened. He took some bags of gold tankas from the treasury, and some horses from the stables. He sent his mother and females on in front, and in the dead of the night he left the city by the Ghazni gate, and took the road to Multan. Malik Kutbu-d din 'Alawi, with the sons of Malik Ahmad Chap Turk, furnished the escort, and proceeded with him and the Malika-i Jahan to Multan. Next day 'Alau-d din marched with royal state and display into the plain of Siri,2 [See Cunningham's Archaeological Report for 1862-3, page 38.] where he pitched his camp. The throne was now secure, and the revenue officers, and the elephant keepers with their elephants, and the kotwah with the keys of the forts, and the magistrates and the chief men of the city came out to 'Alau-d din, and a new order of things was established. His wealth and power were great; so whether individuals paid their allegiance or whether they did not, mattered little, for the khutba was read and coins were struck in his name.

Towards the end of the year 695 H. (1296) 'Alau-d din entered Dehli in great pomp and with a large force. He took his seat upon the throne in the daulat-khana-i julus, and proceeded to the Kushk'i l'al (red palace), where he took up his abode. The treasury of 'Alau-d din was well filled with gold, which he scattered among the people, purses and bags filled with tankas and jitals were distributed, and men gave themselves up to dissipation and enjoyment. [Public festivities followed.] 'Alau-d din, in the pride of youth, prosperity, and boundless wealth, proud also of his army and his followers, his elephants and his horses, plunged into dissipation and pleasure. The gifts and honours which he bestowed obtained the good will of the people. Out of policy he gave offices and fiefs to the maliks and amirs of the late Sultan. Khwaja Khatir, a minister of the highest reputation, was made wazir, etc., etc. *** Malik 'Alau-l Mulk, uncle of the author, was appointed to Karra and Oudh, and Muyidu-l Mulk, the author's father, received the deputyship and khwajagi of Baran. * * * People were so deluded by the gold which they received, that no one ever mentioned the horrible crime which the Sultan had committed, and the hope of gain left them no care for anything else. ****

After 'Alau-d din had ascended the throne, the removal of the late king's sons engaged his first attention. Ulugh Khan and Zafar Khan, with other maliks and amirs, were sent to Multan with thirty or forty thousand horse. They besieged that place for one or two months. The kotwal and the people of Multan turned against the sons of Jalalu-d din, and some of the amirs came out of the city to Ulugh Khan and Zafar Khan. The sons of the late Sultan then sent Shaikhu-l Islam Shaikh Ruknu-d din to sue for safety from Ulugh Khan, and received his assurances. The princes then went out with the Shaikh and their amirs to Ulugh Khan. He received them with great respect and quartered them near his own dwelling. News of the success was sent to Dehli. There the drums were beaten. Kabas1 [Booths erected for the distribution of food and drink on festive occasions.] were erected, and the despatch was read from the pulpit and was circulated in all quarters. The amirs of Hindustan then became submissive to 'Alau-d din, and no rival remained. Ulugh Khan and Zafar Khan returned triumphant towards Dehli, carrying with them the two sons of the late Sultan, both of whom had received royal canopies. Their maliks and amirs were also taken with them. In the middle of their journey they were met by Nusrat Khan, who had been sent from Dehli, and the two princes, with Ulghu Khan, son in law of the late Sultan, and Ahmad Chap, Naib-amir-i hajib, were all blinded. Their wives were separated from them, and all their valuables and slaves and maids, in fact everything they had was seized by Nusrat Khan. The princes1 [Both the MSS. say "sons," while the print incorrectly uses the singular.] were sent to the fort of Hansi, and the sons of Arkali Khan were all slain. Malika-i Jahan, with their wives, and Ahmad Chap were brought to Dehli and confined in his house.

In the second year of the reign Nusrat Khan was made wazir. 'Alau-l Mulk, the author's uncle, was summoned from Karra, and came with the maliks and amirs and one elephant, bringing the treasure which 'Alau-d din had left there. He was become exceedingly fat and inactive, but he was selected from among the nobles to be kotwal of the city. In this year also the property of the maliks and amirs of the late Sultan was confiscated, and Nusrat Khan exerted himself greatly in collecting it. He laid his hands upon all that he could discover, and seized upon thousands, which he brought into the treasury. Diligent inquiry was made into the past and present circumstances of the victims. In this same year, 696 H. (1296), the Mughals crossed the Sind and had come into the country. Ulugh Khan and Zafar Khan were sent with a large force, and with the amirs of the late and the present reign, to oppose them. The Musulman army met the accursed foe in the vicinity of Jalandhar2 [So in the print; but the MSS. have "Jadawa o Manjur" and "Jarat-mahud."] and gained a victory. Many were slain or taken prisoners, and many heads were sent to Dehli. The victory of Multan and the capture of the two princes had greatly strengthened the authority of 'Alau-d din; this victory over the Mughals made it still more secure. * * * The maliks of the late king, who deserted their benefactor and joined 'Alau-d din, and received gold by mans and obtained employments and territories, were all seized in the city and in the army, and thrown into forts as prisoners. Some were blinded and some were killed. The wealth which they had received from 'Alau-d din, and their property, goods, and effects were all seized. Their houses were confiscated to the Sultan, and their villages were brought under the public exchequer. Nothing was left to their children; their retainers and followers were taken in charge by the amirs who supported the new regime, and their establishments were overthrown. Of all the amirs of the reign of Jalalu-d din, three only were spared by 'Alau-d din. *** These three persons had never abandoned Sultan Jalalu-d din and his sons, and had never taken money from Sultan 'Alau-d din. They alone remained safe, but all the other Jalali nobles were cut up root and branch. Nusrat Khan, by his fines and confiscations, brought a kror of money into the treasury.

At the beginning of the third year of the reign, Ulugh Khan and Nusrat Khan, with their amirs, and generals, and a large army, marched against Gujarat. They took and plundered Nahrwala and all Gujarat. Kuran, Rai of Gujarat, fled from Nahrwala and went to Ram Deo of Deogir. The wives and daughters, the treasure and elephants of Rai Karan, fell into the hands of the Muhammadans. All Gujarat became a prey to the invaders, and the idol which, after the victory of Sultan Mahmud and his destruction of (the idol) Manat, the Brahmans had set up under the name of Somnath, for the worship of the Hindus, was removed and carried to Dehli, where it was laid down for people to tread upon. Nusrat Khan proceeded to Kambaya1 [The printed text has [x], but there can be no doubt that Cambay is the place.] (Cambay), and levied large quantities of jewels and precious articles from the merchants of that place, who were very wealthy. He also took from his master (a slave afterwards known as) Kafur Hazar-dinari, who was made Malik-naib, and whose beauty captivated 'Alau-d din. Ulugh Khan and Nusrat Khan returned with great booty; but on their way they provoked their soldiers to revolt by demanding from them a fifth of their spoil, and by instituting inquisitorial inquiries about it. Although the men made returns (of the amount), they would not believe them at all, but demanded more. The gold and silver, and jewels and valuables, which the men had taken, were all demanded, and various kinds of coercion were employed. These punishments and prying researches drove the men to desperation. In the army there were many amirs and many horsemen who were "new Muhammadans." They held together as one man, and two or three thousand assembled and began a disturbance. They killed Malik A'zzu-d din, brother of Nusrat Khan, and amir-i hajib of Ulugh Khan, and proceeded tumultuously to the tent of Ulugh Khan. That prince escaped, and with craft and cleverness reached the tent of Nusrat Khan; but the mutineers killed a son of the Sultan's sister, who was asleep in the tent, whom they mistook for Ulugh Khan. The disturbance spread through the whole army, and the stores narrowly escaped being plundered. But the good fortune of the Sultan prevailed, the turmoil subsided, and the horse and foot gathered round the tent of Nusrat Khan. The amirs and horsemen of "the new Musulmans" dispersed; those who had taken the leading parts in the disturbance fled, and went to join the Rais and rebels. Further inquiries about the plunder were given up, and Ulugh Khan and Nusrat Khan returned to Dehli with the treasure, and elephants, and slaves, and spoil, which they had taken in Gujarat.

When intelligence of this outbreak of the new Muhammadans reached Dehli, the crafty cruelty which had taken possession of 'Alau-d din induced him to order that the wives and children of all the mutineers, high and low, should be cast into prison. This was the beginning of the practice of seizing women and children for the faults of men. Up to this time no hand had ever been laid upon wives and children on account of men's misdeeds. At this time also another and more glaring act of tyranny was committed by Nusrat Khan, the author of many acts of violence at Dehli. His brother had been murdered, and in revenge he ordered the wives of the assassins to be dishonoured and exposed to most disgraceful treatment; he then handed them over to vile persons to make common strumpets of them. The children he caused to be cut to pieces on the heads of their mothers. Outrages like this are practised in no religion or creed. These and similar acts of his filled the people of Dehli with amazement and dismay, and every bosom trembled.

In the same year that Ulugh Khan and Nusrat Khan were sent to Gujarat, Zafar Khan was sent to Siwistan, which Saldi,1 [So in the print, and supported by one MS. The other has "Sadari."] with his brother and other Mughals, had seized upon. Zafar Khan accordingly proceeded to Siwistan with a large army, and besieged the fort of Siwistan, which he took with the axe and sword, spear and javelin, without using either Westerns (maghribe), manjaniks or balistas ('aradah), and without resorting to mines (sabat), mounds (pashib), or redoubts (gargaj). This fort had been taken by the Mughals, and they maintained such a continuous discharge of arrows that no bird could fly by. For all this Zafar Khan took it with the axe and sword. Saldi and his brother, with all the Mughals and their wives and children, were taken prisoners, and sent in chains to Dehli. This victory inspired awe of Zafar Khan in every heart, and the Sultan also looked askance at him in consequence of his fearlessness, generalship, and intrepidity, which showed that a Rustam had been born in India. Ulugh Khan, the Sultan's brother, saw that he had been surpassed in bravery and strategy, and so conceived a hatred and jealousy of Zafar Khan. In the same year he (Zafar Khan) received the fief of Samana, and as he had become famous the Sultan, who was very jealous, began to revolve in his mind what was best to be done. Two modes of dealing with him seemed open for the Sultan's choice. One was to send him, with a few thousand horse, to Lakhnauti to take that country, and leave him there to supply elephants and tribute to the Sultan; the other was to put him out of the way by poison or by blinding.  

At the end of this year Katlagh Khwaja, son of the accursed Zud,1 [Firishta (vol. i., p. 329) says "son of Amir Daud Khan, king of Mawarau-n nahr."] with twenty tumans of Mughals, resolved upon the invasion of Hindustan. He started from Mawarau-n Nahr, and passing the Indus with a large force he marched on to the vicinity of Dehli. In this campaign Dehli was the object of attack, so the Mughals did not ravage the countries bordering on their march, nor did they attack the forts. * * * Great anxiety prevailed in Dehli, and the people of the neighbouring villages took refuge within its walls. The old fortifications had not been kept in repair, and terror prevailed, such as never before had been seen or heard of. All men, great and small, were in dismay. Such a concourse had crowded into the city that the streets and markets and mosques could not contain them. Everything became very dear. The roads were stopped against caravans and merchants, and distress fell upon the people.

The Sultan marched out of Dehli with great display and pitched his tent in Siri. Maliks, amirs, and fighting men were summoned to Dehli from every quarter. At that time the anther's uncle, 'Alau-l Mulk, one of the companions and advisers of the Sultan, was kotwal of Dehli, and the Sultan placed the city, his women and treasure, under his charge. **** 'Alau-l Mulk went out to Siri to take leave of the Sultan, and in private consultation with him [advised a temporising policy.] The Sultan listened and commended his sincerity. He then called the nobles together and said * * * yon have heard what 'Alau-l Malk has urged * * * now hear what I have to say. *** If I were to follow your advice, to whom could I show my face? how could I go into my harem? of what account would the people hold me? and where would be the daring and courage which is necessary to keep my turbulent people in submission? Come what may I will to-morrow march into the plain of Kili.*** 'Alau-d din marched from Siri to Kili and there encamped. Katlagh Khwaja, with the Mughal army, advanced to encounter him. In no age or reign had two such vast armies been drawn up in array against each other, and the sight of them filled all men with amazement. Zafar Khan, who commanded the right wing, with the amirs who were under him, drew their swords and fell upon the enemy with such fury that the Mughals were broken and forced to fall back. The army of Islam pursued, and Zafar Khan, who was the Rustam of the age and the hero of the time, pressed after the retreating foe, cutting them down with the sword and mowing off their heads. He kept up the pursuit for eighteen kos, never allowing the scared Mughals to rally. Ulugh Khan commanded the left wing, which was very strong, and had under him several distinguished amirs. Through the animosity which he bore to Zafar Khan he never stirred to support him.

Targhi, the accursed, had been placed in ambush with his tuman. His Mughals mounted the trees and could not see any horse moving up to support Zafar Khan. When Targhi ascertained that Zafar Khan had gone so far in pursuit of the Mughals without any supporting force in his rear, he marched after Zafar Khan, and, spreading out his forces on all sides, he surrounded him as with a ring, and pressed him with arrows. Zafar Khan was dismounted. The brave hero then drew his arrows from the quiver and brought down a Mughal at every shaft. At this juncture, Katlagh Khwaja sent him this message, "Come with me and I will take thee to my father, who will make thee greater than the king of Dehli has made thee." Zafar Khan heeded not the offer, and the Mughals saw that he would never be taken alive, so they pressed in upon him on every side and despatched him. The amirs of his force were all slain, his elephants were wounded, and their drivers killed. The Mughals thus, on that day, obtained the advantage, but the onslaught of Zafar Khan had greatly dispirited them. Towards the end of the night they retreated, and marched to a distance of thirty kos from Dehli. They then continued their retreat by marches of twenty kos, without resting, until they reached their own confines. The bravery of Zafar Khan was long remembered among the Mughals, and if their cattle refused to drink they used to ask if they saw Zafar Khan.1 [See D'Ohsson Hist. des Mongols, iv., 560.] No such army as this has ever since been seen in hostile array near Dehli. 'Alau-d din returned from Kili, considering that he had won a great victory: the Mughals had been put to flight, and the brave and fearless Zafar Khan had been got rid of without disgrace.

In the third year of his reign 'Alaud-d din had little to do beyond attending to his pleasures, giving feasts, and holding festivals. One success followed another; despatches of victory came in from all sides; every year he had two or three sons born, affairs of State went on according to his wish and to his satisfaction, his treasury was overflowing, boxes and caskets of jewels and pearls were daily displayed before his eyes, he had numerous elephants in his stables and seventy thousand horses in the city and environs, two or three regions were subject to his sway, and he had no apprehension of enemies to his kingdom or of any rival to his throne. All this prosperity intoxicated him. Vast desires and great aims, far beyond him, or a hundred thousand like him, formed their germs in his brain, and he entertained fancies which had never occurred to any king before him. In his exaltation, ignorance, and folly, he quite lost his head,2 [Lit, "hands and feet." Here, and occasionally elsewhere, I have been obliged to prune the exuberant eloquence of the author.] forming the most impossible schemes and nourishing the most extravagant desires. He was a man of no learning and never associated with men of learning. He could not read or write a letter. He was bad tempered, obstinate, and hard-hearted, but the world smiled upon him, fortune befriended him, and his schemes were generally successful, so he only became the more reckless and arrogant.

During the time that he was thus exalted with arrogance and presumption, he used to speak in company about two projects that he had formed, and would consult with his companions and associates upon the execution of them. One of the two schemes which he used to debate about he thus explained, ''God Almighty gave the blessed Prophet four friends, through whose energy and power the Law and Religion were established, and through this establishment of law and religion the name of the Prophet will endure to the day of judgment. Every man who knows himself to be a Musulman, and calls himself by that name, conceives himself to be of his religion and creed. God has given me also four friends, Ulugh Khan, Zafar Khan, Nusrat Khan, and Alp Khan, who, through my prosperity, have attained to princely power and dignity. If I am so inclined, I can, with the help of these four friends, establish a new religion and creed; and my sword, and the swords of my friends, will bring all men to adopt it. Through this religion, my name and that of my friends will remain among men to the last day like the names of the Prophet and his friends." *** Upon this subject he used to talk in his wine parties, and also to consult privately with his nobles. * * * His second project he used to unfold as follows: "I have wealth, and elephants, and forces, beyond all calculation. My wish is to place Dehli in charge of a vicegerent, and then I will go out myself into the world, like Alexander, in pursuit of conquest, and subdue the whole habitable world." Over-elated with the success of some few projects, he caused himself to be entitled "the second Alexander" in the khutba and on his coins. In his convivial parties he would vaunt, "Every region that I subdue I will intrust to one of my trusty nobles, and then proceed in quest of another. Who is he that shall stand against me?" His companions, although they saw his * * * folly and arrogance, were afraid of his violent temper, and applauded him. * * * These wild projects became known in the city; some of the wise men smiled, and attributed them to his folly and ignorance; others trembled, and said that such riches had fallen into the hands of a Pharaoh who had no knowledge or sense. * * *

(cont'd below)

(cont'd from above)

My uncle 'Alau-l Mulk, kotwal of Dehli, through his extreme corpulence, used to go (only) at the new moon to wait upon the Sultan, and to take wine with him. On one occasion the Sultan began to consult him about these two extravagant delusions. 'Alau-l Mulk had heard how the king used to talk about these projects at his feasts, and how the guests used to coincide with him, and refrain from speaking the truth through fear of his hot temper and violence. When the questions were put to him by the Sultan, he said, "If your Majesty will order the wine to be removed, and all persons to withdraw except the four nobles, Ulugh Khan, Zafar Khan, Nusrat Khan, and Alp Khan, I will then open my mind to your Majesty." The Sultan gave the order * * * and 'Alau-l Mulk, after apologizing for his boldness, said "Religion, and law, and creeds, ought never to be made subjects of discussion by your Majesty, for these are the concerns of prophets, not the business of kings. Religion and law spring from heavenly revelation; they are never established by the plans and designs of man. From the days of Adam till now they have been the mission of Prophets and Apostles, as rule and government have been the duty of kings. The prophetic office has never appertained to kings, and never will, so long as the world lasts, though some prophets have discharged the functions of royalty. My advice is that your Majesty should never talk about these matters. *** Your Majesty knows what rivers of blood Changiz Khan made to flow in Mahammadan cities, but he never was able to establish the Mughal religion or institutions among Muhammadans. Many Mughals have turned Musulmans, but no Musulman has ever become a Mughal." * * * The Sultan listened, and hung down his head in thought. His four friends heartily approved what 'Alau-l Mulk had said, and looked anxiously for the Sultan's answer. After awhile he said * * * "From henceforth no one shall ever hear me speak such words. Blessings be on thee and thy parents, for thou hast spoken the truth, and hast been loyal to thy duty. But what dost thou say about my other project?" 'Alau-l Mulk said, "The second design is that of a great monarch, for it is a rule among kings to seek to bring the whole world under their sway * * * but these are not the days of Alexander * * * and where will there be found a wazir like Aristotle?'' *** The Sultan replied, "What is the use of my wealth, and elephants and horses, if I remain content with Dehli, and undertake no new conquests? and what will be said about my reign?" 'Alau-l Mulk replied that "there were two important undertakings open to the King, which ought to receive attention before all others * * * One is the conquest and subjugation of all Hindustan, of such places as Rantambhor, Chitor, Chanderi, Malwa, Dhar, and Ujjain, to the east as far as the Saru, from the Siwalik to Jalor, from Multan to Damrila,1 [''Marila'' in the print.] from Palam to Lohor and Deopalpur; these places should all be reduced to such obedience that the name of rebel should never be heard. The second and more important duty is that of closing the road of Multan against the Mughals.'' *** Before closing his speech, 'Alau-l Mulk said "What I have recommended can never be accomplished unless your Majesty gives up drinking to excess, and keeps aloof from convivial parties and feasts. *** If you cannot do entirely without wine, do not drink till the afternoon, and then take it alone without companions." *** When he had finished the Sultan was pleased, and commending the excellence of the advice which he had given, promised to observe it. He gave him a brocaded robe of honour with a gold waistband weighing half a man, ten thousand tankas, two horses fully caparisoned, and two villages in in'am. The four Khans who were present added to these gifts three or four thousand tankas, and two or three horses with trappings. The advice which 'Alau-l Mulk had given was greatly praised by all the wazirs and wise men of the city. This happened while Zafar Khan was alive, upon his return from Siwistan, before he went to fight with Katlagh Khwaja.

'Alau-d din now first resolved upon the capture of Rantambhor, which was near Dehli. This fort had been taken, and was held by Hamir Deo, grandson of Rai Pithaura of Dehli.2 [Pithaura was killed in 1192, and here we are in 1299 A.D. Nabasa, the word used, probably here means loosely "descendant."] Ulugh Khan, who held Bayana, was ordered to Rantambhor, and Nusrat Khan, who held Karra that year, was ordered to collect all the forces of Karra, and that part of Hindustan, and to march to the assistance of Ulugh Khan. They captured Jhain,1 [Here it is evident that Jhain was close to Rantambhor, so that it cannot be Ujjain as suggested in p. 146 supra.] and invested Rantambhor. One day Nusrat Khan approached the fort to direct the construction of a mound (pashib), and a redoubt (gargaj). A stone discharged from a Maghribi in the fort struck him, and so wounded him that he died two or three days after. When this intelligence was brought to the Sultan, he departed from Dehli in great state for Rantambhor.

The Sultan proceeded from Dehli towards Rantambhor, and halted for some days at Til-pat.2 [See Elliot's Glossary, II., 122.] He went out daily to hunt and a nargah3 [A large circle or sweep made by hunters for driving the game together.] was drawn. One day be was benighted, and alighted with only ten horsemen at the village of Badih, where he remained for the night. Next day before sunrise he gave orders to close up the circle. The huntsmen and horsemen went forth to draw it together, and the Sultan remained sitting on a stool with only a few attendants, waiting until the beasts were driven up. At this time Akat Khan, the Sultan's brother's son, who held the office of Wakildar, rose up against the Sultan. Conceiving that if he killed the monarch he might, as his nephew, aspire to the throne, he plotted with sundry new Musulman horsemen, who had been long in his service. These men now approached the Sultan, shouting tiger! tiger! and began to discharge arrows at him. It was winter, and the Sultan was wearing a large over-coat. He jumped up just as he was, and seizing the stool on which he had been sitting, he made a shield of it. He warded off several arrows; two pierced his arm, but none reached his body. A slave of the Sultan, by name Manik, threw himself before his master, and made his own body a shield. He was struck by three or four arrows, The paiks (footmen) who stood behind the Sultan now covered him with their bucklers. Akat Khan galloped up with his confederates, intending to cut off the Sultan's head; but finding the paiks standing firm with their swords drawn, they dared not alight to lay hands on him. The paiks cried out that the Sultan was dead. Akat Khan was young, rash, and foolish. He had made a violent attack on his sovereign, but he lacked the decision and resolution to carry it through, and cut off the Sultan's head. In his folly and rashness he took another course. Believing what the paiks said, he went with all speed to the plain of Til-pat, and seated himself on the throne of 'Alau-d din, proclaiming to the people of the court with a loud voice that he had slain the Sultan. The people could not believe that the horsemen would have come to the royal residence, or that Akat Khan would have dared to seat himself on the throne and hold a court if the Sultan had not been killed. A tumult broke out in the army, and everything was getting into confusion. The elephants were accoutred and brought before the royal tent. The attendants of the court assembled and took up their respective positions, * * * and the chief men of the army came to pay their respects to the new sovereign. They kissed the hand of that evil doer and did homage. Akat Khan, in his egregious folly, attempted to go into the harem, but Malik Dinar armed himself and his followers, and, taking his stand at the door, told Akat Khan that he should not enter until he produced the head of 'Alau-d din.

When 'Alau-d din was wounded his Turk horsemen dispersed, raising a clamour. About sixty or seventy men, horse and foot, remained with him. After Akat Khan had left, the Sultan recovered his senses; he was found to have received two wounds in the arm, and to have lost much blood. They bathed the wounds and placed his arm in a sling. When he reflected on what had happened, he came to the conclusion that Akat Khan must have had many supporters among the maliks, amirs, and soldiers, for he would never have ventured on such a step without strong support. He therefore determined to leave his army, and to proceed with all speed to his brother, Ulugh Khan, at Jhain, in order to concert with him measures for securing his position. Malik Hamidu-d din, naib-wakil-dar, boh of Umdata-l Mulk, opposed this plan, and advised the Sultan to proceed at once to his army. *** The Malik's reasoning convinced the Sultan, and he started at once for the army. As he went along every trooper whom he fell in with joined him, so that on reaching the army he had an escort of five or six hundred men. He immediately showed himself on a rising ground, and being recognized, the assembly at the royal tent broke up, and his attendants came forth with elephants to receive him. Akat Khan rushed out of the tents and fled on horseback to Afghanpur. The Sultan then came down, entered his tents, and, seating himself upon the throne, held a public court. He sent two officers in pursuit of Akat Khan, who came up with him at Afghanpur, and beheaded him. His head was carried to the Sultan, who ordered it to be exhibited to the army on a spear, and then to be sent to Dehli for exhibition, after which it was to be sent to Ulugh Khan at Jhain, with an account of the Sultan's escape. Katlagh Khwaja, younger brother of Akat Khan, was also killed. *** The Sultan remained some days with the army, diligently seeking out all who had connived at or had been aware of Akat Khan's attempt. Those who were discovered were scourged to death with thongs of wire, their property was confiscated, and their wives and children sent prisoners to various forts. The Sultan then proceeded to Rantambhor, and after punishing the rest of those who were concerned in Akat Khan's conspiracy, he devoted himself to the business of the siege. Bags were made and distributed to the soldiers, who filled them with sand and threw them into the holes (ghar). The traverses, of the pashib were formed, the redoubts (gargaj) raised, and stones were discharged from the maghribis. The besieged1 [There is a line omitted from the print here. The following is a literal translation of Firishta's account: ("The Sultan) having assembled numerous forces from all quarters distributed bags among them. Each man filled his bag with sand, and cast it into the trench (darra), which they call raran, until they obtained command (over the walls), and struck down the defenders inside."] battered the pashib with stones from their maghribis, and scattered fire from the summit of the fort. Many men were killed on both sides. The territories of Jhain were attacked and subdued as far as Dhar.

After the conspiracy of Akat Khan was suppressed, news was brought to the army that 'Umar Khan and Mangu Khan, taking advantage of the Sultan's absence and the difficulties of the siege of Rantambhor, had broken out in revolt and had obtained a following among the people of Hindustan. The Sultan sent some officers against them, who made them prisoners before they had effected anything, and carried them to Rantambhor. The Sultan's cruel implacable temper had no compassion for his sister's children, so he had them punished in his presence. They were blinded by having their eyes cut out with knives like slices of a melon. Their families and dependants were overthrown. Of the horse and foot who had supported them, some fled, and others fell into the hands of the amirs of Hindustan and were imprisoned.

While the Sultan was prosecuting the siege of Rantambhor, a revolt of some importance broke out at Dehli. * * * There was a person named Haji, a maula or slave of the late Kotwal, Amiru-l umara Fakhru-d din. He was a man of violent, fearless, and malignant character * * * and he was charged with the guard of the exchequer.1 [The words are [x]. The two MSS., however, read [x]. This word is not intelligible. The context seems to imply that the Maula was stationed in the city, otherwise Khalsah-i ratol might signify "the government lands of Ratol."] A man called Turmuzi was kotwal of the city and greatly oppressed the people. * * * 'Alau-d din Ayaz, father of Ahmad Ayaz, was kotwal of the New Fort. Haji Maula, seeing the city empty, and the inhabitants distressed by the violence and tyranny of Turmuzi the kotwal * * * knowing also that not a man could be spared from the army * * * he thought the people would support him. He secured the support of the old kotwali officers, and excited a somewhat formidable revolt. It was the month of Ramazan, and the sun was in Gemini. The weather was very hot, and at midday people kept indoors taking their siesta, so there were few in the streets. At this time Haji Maula, with several armed followers, went to the house of kotwal, carrying with them as a blind a letter which he pretended to have received from the Sultan. The kotwal was taking his nap, and had none of his men with him. When he was called he roused himself, put on his slippers, and came to the door. Haji Maula instantly gave the signal, and his followers cut off the unsuspecting victim's head. He then brought out the pretended royal farman, and, showing it to the crowd, he said that he had killed the kotwal in obedience to orders received from the Sultan. The people were silent. The keepers of the gates were creatures of Haji Maula, so they closed them. After killing kotwal Turmuzi, he sent to summon 'Alau-d din Ayaz, intending to kill him also. * * * But Ayaz had been informed of the outbreak, so, instead of coming out, he gathered his followers round him, placed guards, and refused to open the gates of the New Fort. Haji Maula then proceeded with his riotous followers to the Red Palace, seated himself upon a balcony, and set fee all the prisoners, some of whom joined his followers. Bags of gold tankas were brought out of the treasury and scattered among the people. Arms also were brought from the armoury, and horses from the royal stables, and distributed among the rioters. Every one that joined them had gold tankas thrown into his lap. There was an 'Alawi (descendant of 'Ali) in Dehli who was called the grandson of Shah Najaf,1 [A very doubtful passage. The print says: [x]. One MS. writes [x]. The other MS. omits the words.] who, by his mother's side, was grandson of Sultan Shamsu-d din. The Maula set off from the Red Palace with a party of horse, and went to the house of the poor 'Alawi. They carried him off by force and seated him on the throne in the Red Palace. The principal men of the city were brought by force and made to kiss his hand. * * * These riotous proceedings went on for seven or eight days, and intelligence was several times conveyed to the Sultan, but he kept it secret, and it did not become known to the army.

On the third or fourth day of the riot, Malik Hamidu-d din, Amir of Koh, with his sons and relations, all valiant men, opened the Ghazni gate and went into the city. They proceeded towards the gate of Bhandar-kal, and arrows began to fly between them and the rioters, who became desperate and obtained gold from Haji Maula. After Hamidu-d din, the Amir of Koh, had been in the city two days, he and his loyal followers prevailed over the rebels. A party of the friends of Zafar Khan, who had come from Amroha, joined him. He then entered the gate of Bhandar kal, and a struggle ensued between him and the shoemakers, and between him and Haji Maula. The Amir of Koh alighted from his horse, dashed Haji Maula to the ground, and sat upon his breast. Swords and clubs were aimed at him all round and he was wounded, but he never quitted his fallen foe till he had despatched him. After this the victors proceeded to the Red Palace. They decapitated the miserable 'Alawi and carried his head about the city on a spear.

A despatch announcing the death of Haji Maula was sent to the Sultan at Rantambhor. Intelligence of the revolt and of the anarchy prevailing at Dehli had in several ways reached the Sultan, but he had resolved upon the reduction of the fort, and so he would not be shaken from his purpose and leave it to go to Dehli. All his forces were engaged in pressing the siege, and were severely tried and distressed. But such was the fear felt for the Sultan that no one dared to set off for Dehli or any other place. In the course of five or six days every one in the city who had supported Haji Maula, or had taken money from him, was cast into prison. The gold which had been distributed among the people was brought back again to the treasury. A few days after, Ulugh Khan arrived from Rantambhor and took up his residence in the Muizzi palace. The rioters were brought before him and he decreed their punishments, so that blood ran in streams. The sons and grandsons of the old kotwal Maliku-l umara had no guilty knowledge of the revolt, but they and every one belonging to that family were put to death. No name or trace of them was left — a sad warning to politicians.

From the revolt of the "new Musalmans" in Gujarat to that of Haji Maula, four insurrections had successively troubled Sultan 'Alau-d din. These routed him from his dreams of security and pride, and he exerted all his powers for the reduction of Rantambhor. He held privy consultations with * * * arguing with them and inquiring into the causes of the insurrections, declaring that if the real reasons could be ascertained he would remove them, so that no revolt should afterwards occur. After considering for some nights and days, these great men agreed that the causes were four. 1, The Sultan's disregard of the affairs (both) of good and bad people. 2. Wine. Parties are formed for wine-drinking, and those who attend them talk openly of what passes in these meetings. They strike up friendships and excite disturbances. 3. The intimacy, affection, alliances, and intercourse of maliks and amirs with each other. So that if anything happens to one of them, a hundred others get mixed up in it. 4. Money, which engenders evil and strife, and brings forth pride and disloyalty. If men had no money, they would attend to their own business, and would never think of riots and revolts. And if rioters and rebels had no money, they could never count upon the assistance of low and turbulent people.1 [These "counsels of the wise," which so frequently appear, are, in most cases, only expositions of the author's own opinions. I have translated these replies in order that it may be seen how a subsequent writer deals with them. Firishta uses the passage. The first reason he quotes verbatim, but the other three he modifies and embellishes. The fourth reason, as he gives it, is: "Abundance of money and wealth. For whenever men of low origin acquire the material means of greatness, vain imaginations spring up in them, and they lay pretensions to royalty." This is further improved by Firishta's translator, who says, "The last, and not the least, cause they thought arose from the unequal division of property: they considered that the wealth of a rich empire, if confined to a few persons, only rendered them, as governors of provinces, more like independent princes than subjects of the state." -- Briggs, I., 345.]

Some time after this revolt, the Sultan succeeded in reducing Rantambhor, but with much bloodshed and difficulty. He slew Hamir deo, the Rai, and all the "new Musulmans" who had fled from the rebellion in Gujarat, and had taken refuge with him. The fort and all its territories and appurtenances were placed under the charge of Ulugh Khan, and the Sultan returned to Dehli. He was angry with the citizens and had exiled many of their chiefs; so he did not enter the city, but stopped in the suburbs ('umranat).

Four or five months after the Sultan left Rantambhor, Ulugh Khan collected a large force with the intention of attacking Tilang and Ma'bar, but his time was come, and the angel of destiny took him to the blessed city. His corpse was conveyed to Dehli and buried in his own house. The Sultan grieved for him and made many offerings for his soul.

The Sultan next directed his attention to the means of preventing rebellion, and first he took steps for seizing upon property. He ordered that, wherever there was a village held by proprietary right (milk), in free gift (in'am), or as a religious endowment (wakf), it should by one stroke of the pen be brought back under the exchequer. The people were pressed and amerced, money was exacted from them on every kind of pretence. Many were left without any money, till at length it came to pass that, excepting maliks and amirs, officials, Multanis, and bankers, no one possessed even a trifle in cash. So rigorous was the confiscation that, beyond a few thousand tankas, all the pensions, grants of land (in'am wa mafruz), and endowments in the country were appropriated. The people were all so absorbed in obtaining the means of living, that the name of rebellion was never mentioned. Secondly, he provided so carefully for the acquisition of intelligence, that no action of good or bad men was concealed from him. No one could stir without his knowledge, and whatever happened in the houses of nobles, great men, and officials, was communicated to the Sultan by his reporters. Nor were the reports neglected, for explanations of them were demanded. The system of reporting went to such a length, that nobles dared not speak aloud even in the largest palaces,1 ["Hazdr-sutun," a palace of 1000 columns.] and if they had anything to say they communicated by signs. In their own houses, night and day, dread of the reports of the spies made them tremble. No word or action which could provoke censure or punishment was allowed to transpire. The transactions in the bazars, the buying and selling, and the bargains made, were all reported to the Sultan by his spies, and were kept under control. Thirdly, he prohibited wine-drinking and wine-selling, as also the use of beer and intoxicating drugs. Dicing also was forbidden. Many prohibitions of wine and beer were issued. Vintners and gamblers and beer-sellers were turned out of the city, and the heavy taxes which had been levied from them were abolished. The Sultan directed that all the china and glass vessels of his banqueting room should be broken, and the fragments of them were thrown out before the gate of Badaun, where they formed a heap. Jars and casks of wine were brought out of the royal cellars, and emptied at the Badaun gate in such abundance, that mud and mire was produced as in the rainy season. The Sultan himself entirely gave up wine parties. He directed the maliks to mount elephants and to go to the gates of Dehli, through the streets and wards, bazars and sarais, proclaiming the royal command that no one should drink, sell, or have anything to do with wine. Those who had any self-respect immediately gave up drinking; but the shameless, the dissolute, and vile characters used to make and distil wine2 [Sharab, wine; but it evidently includes spirits.] in the distilleries, and to drink and sell it clandestinely at a great price. They put it into leather bottles, and conveyed it hidden in loads of hay, firewood, and such like. By hundreds of tricks and devices, and by all sorts of collusion, wine was brought into the city. Informers searched diligently, and the city gate-keepers and spies exerted themselves to seize the wine, and apprehend the contrabandists. When seized, the wine was sent to the elephant-stables and given to those animals. The sellers, the importers, and drinkers of wine, were subjected to corporal punishment, and were kept in prison for some days. But their numbers increased so much that holes for the incarceration of offenders were dug outside the Badaun gate, which is a great thoroughfare. Wine-bibbers and wine-sellers were placed in these holes, and the severity of the confinement was such that many of them died. Many others were taken out half dead, and were long before they recovered their health and strength. The terrors of these holes deterred many from drinking. Those who were unable to give up their habit went out to the fords of the Jumna, and to villages ten or twelve kos distant to procure their liquor. In Ghiyaspur, Indarpat, Kilughari, and towns four or five kos from Dehli, wine could not be sold or drunk publicly. Still some desperate men used to keep it, drink it, and even sell it privately. They thus disgraced themselves and got confined in the pits. The prevention of drinking being found to be very difficult, the Sultan gave orders that if the liquor was distilled privately, and drunk privately in people's own houses; if drinking parties were not held, and the liquor not sold, then the informers were not to interfere in any way, and were not to enter the houses or arrest the offenders. After the prohibition of wine and beer in the city, conspiracies diminished, and apprehension of rebellion disappeared. Fourthly, the Sultan gave commands that noblemen and great men should not visit each other's houses, or give feasts, or hold meetings. They were forbidden to form alliances without consent from the throne, and they were also prohibited from allowing people to resort to their houses. To such a length was this last prohibition carried that no stranger was admitted into a nobleman's house. Feasting and hospitality fell quite into disuse. Through fear of the spies, the nobles kept themselves quiet; they gave no parties and had little communication with each other. No man of a seditious, rebellious, or evil reputation was allowed to come near them. If they went to the sarais, they could not lay their heads together, or sit down cosily and tell their troubles. Their communications were brought down to a mere exchange of signs. This interdict prevented any information of conspiracy and rebellion coming to the Sultan, and no disturbance arose.

After the promulgation of these interdicts, the Sultan requested the wise men to supply some rules and regulations for grinding down the Hindus, and for depriving them of that wealth and property which fosters disaffection and rebellion. There was to be one rule for the payment of tribute applicable to all, from the khuta to the balahar,1 [[x]] and the heaviest tribute was not to fall upon the poorest. The Hindu was to be so reduced as to be left unable to keep a horse to ride on, to carry arms, to wear fine clothes, or to enjoy any of the luxuries of life. To effect these important objects of government two regulations were made. The first was that all cultivation, whether on a small or large scale, was to be carried on by measurement at a certain rate for every biswa. Half (of the produce) was to he paid without any diminution, and this rule was to apply to khutas and balahars, without the slightest distinction. The khutas were also to be deprived of all their peculiar privileges. The second related to buffaloes, goats, and other animals from which milk is obtained. A tax for pasturage, at a fixed rate, was to be levied, and was to be demanded for every inhabited house, so that no animal, however wretched, could escape the tax. Heavier burdens were not to be placed upon the poor, but the rules as to the payment of the tribute were to apply equally to rich and poor. Collectors, clerks, and other officers employed in revenue matters, who took bribes and acted dishonestly, were all dismissed. Sharaf Kai naib wazir-i mamalik, an accomplished scribe and a most honest and intelligent man, who had no rival either in capacity or integrity, exerted himself strenuously for some years in'enforcing these regulations in all the villages and towns. * * * They were so strictly carried out that the chaudharis and khuts and mukaddims were not able to ride on horseback, to find weapons, to get fine clothes, or to indulge in betel. The same rules for the collection of the tribute applied to all alike, and the people were brought to such a state of obedience that one revenue officer would string twenty khuts, mukaddims, or chaudharis together by the neck, and enforce payment by blows. No Hindu could hold up his head, and in their houses no sign of gold or silver, tankas or jitals or of any superfluity was to be seen. These things, which nourish insubordination and rebellion, were no longer to be found. Driven by destitution, the wives of the khuts and mukaddims went and served for hire in the houses of the Musulmans. Sharaf Kai, naib-wazir, so rigorously enforced his demands and exactions against the collectors and other revenue officers, and such investigations were made, that every single jital against their names was ascertained from the books of the patwaris (village accountants). Blows, confinement in the stocks, imprisonment and chains, were all employed to enforce payment. There was no chance of a single tanka being taken dishonestly, or as bribery, from any Hindu or Musulman. The revenue collectors and officers were so coerced and checked that for five hundred or a thousand tankas they were imprisoned and kept in chains for years. Men looked upon revenue officers as something worse than fever. Clerkship was a great crime, and no man would give his daughter to a clerk. Death was deemed preferable to revenue employment. Ofttimes fiscal officers fell into prison, and had to endure blows and stripes.

'Alau-d din was a king who had no acquaintance with learning, and never associated with the learned. When he became king, he came to the conclusion that polity and government are one thing, and the rules and decrees of law are another. Royal commands belong to the king, legal decrees rest upon the judgment of kazis and muftis. In accordance with this opinion, whatever affair of state came before him, he only looked to the public good, without considering whether his mode of dealing with it was lawful or unlawful. He never asked for legal opinions about political matters, and very few learned men visited him. * * Kazi Maghisu-d din, of Bayanah, used to go to court and sit down in private audience with the amirs. One day, when the efforts were being made for the increase of the tribute and of the fines and imposts, the Sultan told the Kazi that he had several questions to ask him, and desired him to speak the plain truth. The Kazi replied, "The angel of my destiny seems to be close at hand, since your Majesty wishes to question me on matters of religion; if I speak the truth you will be angry and kill me." The Sultan said he would not kill him, and commanded him to answer his questions truly and candidly. The Kazi then promised to answer in accordance with what he had read in books. The Sultan then asked, "How are Hindu designated in the law, as payers of tribute (kharaj-guzar) or givers of tribute (kharaj-dih)?" The Kazi replied, "They are called payers of tribute, and when the revenue officer demands silver from them, they should, without question and with all humility and respect, tender gold. If the officer throws dirt into their mouths, they must without reluctance open their mouths wide to receive it. By doing so they show their respect for the officer. The due subordination of the zimmi (tribute-payer) is exhibited in this humble payment and by this throwing of dirt into their mouths. The glorification of Islam is a duty, and contempt of the Religion is vain. God holds them in contempt, for he says, 'Keep them under in subjection.' To keep the Hindus in abasement is especially a religious duty, because they are the most inveterate enemies of the Prophet, and because the Prophet has commanded us to slay them, plunder them, and make them captive, saying, 'Convert them to Islam or kill them, enslave them and spoil their wealth and property.' No doctor but the great doctor (Hanifa), to whose school we belong, has assented to the imposition of the jizya (poll tax) on Hindus. Doctors of other schools allow no other alternative but 'Death or Islam.'"

The Sultan smiled at this answer of the Kazi's, and said, "I do not understand any of the statements thou hast made; but this I have discovered, that the khuts and mukaddims ride upon fine horses, wear fine clothes, shoot with Persian bows, make war upon each other, and go out hunting; but of the kharaj (tribute), jizya (poll tax), kari (house tax), and chari (pasture tax), they do not pay one jital. They levy separately the Khuts (landowner's) share from the villages, give parties and drink wine, and many of them pay no revenue at all, either upon demand or without demand. Neither do they show any respect for my officers. This has excited my anger, and I have said to myself, 'Thou hast an ambition to conquer other lands, but thou hast hundreds of leagues of country under thy rule where proper obedience is not paid to thy authority. How, then, wilt thou make other lands submissive?' I have, therefore, taken my measures, and have made my subjects obedient, so that at my command they are ready to creep into holes like mice. Now you tell me that it is all in accordance with law that the Hindus should be reduced to the most abject obedience." Then the Sultan said, "Oh, doctor, thou art a learned man, but thou hast had no experience; I am an unlettered man, but I have seen a great deal; be assured then that the Hindus will never become submissive and obedient till they are reduced to poverty. I have, therefore, given orders that just sufficient shall be left to them from year to year, of corn, milk, and curds, but that they shall not be allowed to accumulate hoards and property."

Secondly. — The Sultan next put the following question: "Is there any reference made in the Law to revenue officers and clerks who are guilty of dishonesty, peculation, or receiving bribes?" The Kazi answered, "There is no mention made of this, nor have I read of it in any book; but if revenue officers are insufficiently paid,1 [Kadar i kifayat na-yaband. The negative seems superfluous, and it is rejected by Nizamu-d din and by Firishta.] and they appropriate the revenue belonging to the treasury, or receive bribes, then the ruler can inflict punishment upon them, either by fine or imprisonment; but it is not allowable to cut off hands for robbing the treasury." The Sultan said, "I have given orders to recover from the various revenue officers whatever they have misappropriated or received in excess, punishing them with sticks, pincers, the rack, imprisonment, and chains. I now hear that alienations of the revenue1 [Dihhai, lit: villages.] and bribery have diminished. I have ordered such stipends to be settled on the various revenue officers as will maintain them in respectability, and if, notwithstanding, they resort to dishonesty and reduce the revenue, I deal with them as thou hast seen."

Thirdly, The Sultan put this question, "That wealth which I acquired while I was a malik, with so much bloodshed at Deogir, does it belong to me or to the public treasury!" The Kazi replied, "I am bound to speak the truth to your Majesty. The treasure obtained at Deogir was won by the prowess of the army of Islam, and whatever treasure is so acquired belongs to the public treasury. If your Majesty had gained it yourself alone in a manner allowed by the law, then it would belong to you." The Sultan was angry with the Kazi and said, "What sayest thou? Let thy head beware of what thou utterest. That wealth which I won at the risk of my own life and of the lives of my servants, from Hindus whose names had never been heard of in Delhi, and before I became king, that wealth I have retained and have not brought it into the public treasury. How can treasure won like this belong to the state?" The Kazi answered, "Your Majesty has put to me a question of law; if I were not to say what I have read in the book, and your Majesty, to test my opinion, were to ask some other learned man, and his reply, being in opposition to mine, should show that I had given a false opinion, to suit your Majesty's pleasure, what confidence would you have in me, and would you ever afterwards consult me about the law?"

Fourthly, The Sultan asked the Kazi what rights he and his children had upon the public treasury. The Kazi replied, "The time of my death is at hand," and upon the Sultan inquiring what he meant, he said, "If I answer your question honestly you will slay me, and if I give an untrue reply I shall hereafter go to hell." The Sultan said, "State whatever the law decrees, I will not kill thee." The Kazi replied, "If your Majesty will follow the example of the most enlightened Khalifas, and will act upon the highest principle, then you will take for yourself and your establishment the same sum as you have allotted to each fighting man: two hundred and thirty-four tankas. If you would rather take a middle course and should think that you would be disgraced by putting yourself on a par with the army in general, then you may take for yourself and your establishment as much as you have assigned to your chief officers, such as Malik Kirin, etc. ** If your Majesty follows the opinions of politicians,1 ['Ulama-i dunya, wise-men of the world.] then you will draw from the treasury more than any other great man receives, so that you may maintain a greater expenditure than any other and not suffer your dignity to be lowered. I have put before your Majesty three courses, and all the krors of money and valuables which you take from the treasury and bestow upon your women you will have to answer for in the day of account." The Sultan was wroth, and said, ''Fearest thou not my sword when thou tellest me that all my great expenditure upon my harem is unlawful?" The Kazi replied, "I do fear your Majesty's sword, and I look upon this my turban as my winding-sheet; but your Majesty questions me about the law, and I answer to the best of my ability. If, however, you ask my advice in a political point of view, then I say that whatever your Majesty spends upon your harem no doubt tends to raise your dignity in the eyes of men; and the exaltation of the king's dignity is a requirement of good policy."

After all these questions and answers, the Sultan said to the Kazi, "You have declared my proceedings in these matters to be unlawful. Now see how I act. When troopers do not appear at the muster, I order three years pay to be taken from them.2 [[x]. Firishta's version of this is [x], which Briggs translates, "I am in the habit of stopping one month's pay for three successive years."] I place wine-drinkers and wine-sellers in the pits of incarceration. If a man debauches another man's wife, I effectually prevent him from again committing such an offence, and the woman I cause to be killed.1 [[x].] Rebels, good and bad, old hands or novices (tar 0 khusk), I slay; their wives and children I reduce to beggary and ruin. Extortion I punish with the torture of the pincers and the stick, and I keep the extortioner in prison, in chains and fetters, until every jital is restored. Political prisoners I confine and chastise. Wilt thou say all this is unlawful?" The Kazi rose and went to the entrance of the room, placed his forehead on the ground, and cried with a loud voice, "My liege! whether you send me, your wretched servant, to prison, or whether you order me to be cut in two, all this is unlawful, and finds no support in the sayings of the Prophet, or in the expositions of the learned."

The Sultan heard all this and said nothing, but put his slippers on and went into his harem. Kazi Mughisu-d din went home. Next day he took a last farewell of all his people, made a propitiatory offering, and performed his ablutions. Thus prepared for death he proceeded to the court. The Sultan called him forward, and showed him great kindness. He gave him the robe he was wearing, and presented him with a thousand tankas, saying, "Although I have not studied the Science or the Book, I am a Musulman of a Musulman stock. To prevent rebellion, in which thousands perish, I issue such orders as I conceive to be for the good of the State, and the benefit of the people. Men are heedless, disrespectful, and disobey my commands; I am then compelled to be severe to bring them into obedience. I do not know whether this is lawful or unlawful; whatever I think to be for the good of the State, or suitable for the emergency, that I decree. ***

After the Sultan returned from Rantambhor to Dehli, he dealt very harshly with the people, and mulcted [extract money from (someone) by fine or taxation.] them. Shortly afterwards Ulugh Khan died while on his journey to the city. Malik 'Azzu-d din Burkhan became wazir in the New City (shahr'i tnu), and the tribute of the New City was assessed by measurement at a certain rate per biswa, as in the environs of the capital. The Sultan then led forth an army and laid siege to Chitor, which he took in a short time, and returned home. New troubles now arose on account of the Mughals in Mawarau-n nahr. T hey had learned that the Sultan had gone with his army to lay siege to a distant fort, and made but slow progress with the siege, while Dehli remained empty. Targhi assembled twelve tumans of cavalry, with which he marched with all speed to Dehli, and reached that neighbourhood very soon. At this time the Sultan was engaged in the siege of Chitor. Malik Fakhru-d din Juna, dadbak-i hazrat, and Malik Jhaju of Karra, nephew of Nusrat Khan, had been sent with all the officers and forces of Hindustan against Arangal. On their arrival there the rainy season began, and proved such a hindrance that the army could do nothing, and in the beginning of winter returned, greatly reduced in numbers, to Hindustan.

The Sultan now returned from the conquest of Chitor, where his army had suffered great loss in prosecuting the siege during the rainy season. They had not been in Dehli a month, no muster of the army had been held, and the losses had not been repaired, when the alarm arose of the approach of the Mughals. The accursed Targhi, with thirty or forty thousand horse,1 [[x]. Firishta says "120,000," and our author has above rated them at the same number, viz. "twelve tumans." Perhaps he here intended to say, "three times forty thousand."] came on ravaging, and encamped on the banks of the Jumna, preventing all ingress and egress of the city. Affairs were in this extraordinary position; the Sultan had just returned from Chitor, and had had no time to refit and recruit his army after his great losses in the siege; and the army of Hindustan had returned from Arangal to the districts of Hindustan dispirited and reduced in numbers. The Mughals had seized the roads, and were so encamped that no reinforcements could reach the city from the army of Hindustan. There were no forces in Multan, Samana, and Deopalpur sufficient to cope with the Mughals, and join the Sultan at Siri. The army of Hindustan was pressed to advance; but the enemy was too strong, and they remained in Kol and Baran. All the passages of the Jumna were in the hands of the enemy. The Sultan, with his small army of horse, left the capital and encamped at Siri, where the superior numbers and strength of the enemy compelled him to entrench his camp. Round the entrenchments he built block houses, and other erections, to prevent the enemy from forcing a way in, and he kept his forces constantly under arms and on the watch to guard against the dreaded attack, and to delay any great engagement. In every division of the army, and in each line of entrenchment, there were five elephants fully armed, supported by a body of infantry. The Mughals came up on every side, seeking opportunity to make a sudden onslaught and overpower the army. Such fear of the Mughals and anxiety as now prevailed in Dehli had never been known before. If Targhi had remained another month upon the Jumna, the panic would have reached to such a height that a general flight would have taken place, and Dehli would have been lost. It was difficult to procure water, fodder, and fuel from without, for the convoys of grain were prevented from reaching the city, and the utmost terror prevailed. The enemy's horse approached the suburbs, and quartered themselves in the neighbourhood, where they drank wine, and sold at a low price grain and other articles plundered from the royal stores, so that there was no great scarcity of grain.1 [[x].] Two or three times the advanced guards met and combats ensued, but without advantage to either party. By the mercy of God the Mughal was unable to find any means of forcing the camp, and overpowering the royal army. After two months the prayers of the wretched prevailed, and the accursed Targhi retreated towards his own country.

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

This article is about the Khalji dynasty centered in Delhi between 1290 and 1320. For the Khalji dynasty in Bengal between 1204 and 1227, see Khalji dynasty of Bengal.


Khalji Sultanate
1290–1320
Territory controlled by the Khaljis (dark green) and their tributaries (light green).[1]
Capital: Delhi
Common languages: Persian (official)[2]
Religion: Sunni Islam (official); Hinduism
Government: Sultanate
Sultan
• 1290–1296: Jalal ud din Firuz Khalji
• 1296–1316: Alauddin Khalji
• 1316: Shihab ad-Din Umar
• 1316–1320: Qutb ad-Din Mubarak
History
• Established: 1290
• Disestablished: 1320
Preceded by: Mamluk dynasty of Delhi; Vaghela dynasty
Succeeded by: Tughlaq dynasty

The Khalji or Khilji[a] (Pashto: غلجيان‎) dynasty was a Turko-Afghan[3][4][5][6] dynasty which ruled on the Delhi sultanate, covering large parts of the Indian subcontinent for nearly three decades between 1290 and 1320.[7][8][9] Founded by Jalal ud din Firuz Khalji as the second dynasty to rule the Delhi Sultanate of India,[10] it came to power through a revolution that marked the transfer of power from the monopoly of Turkic nobles to Afghans.[11][12] Its rule is known for conquests into present day South India[7] and successfully fending off the repeated Mongol invasions of India.[13][14]

Origins


Copper coin of Alauddin Khalji

The Khaljis of the Khalji Dynasty were of Turko-Afghan[3][4][5][6] origin whose ancestors, the Khalaj, are said to have been initially a Turkic people who migrated together with the Iranian Huns and Hephthalites[15] from Central Asia, into the southern and eastern regions of modern-day Afghanistan as early as 660CE where they ruled the region of Kabul as the Buddhist Kabul Shahis.[16] The Khalaj were from the very beginning going through a process of assimilation into the Pashtun tribal system, during their reign in India they were already treated entirely as Afghans by the Turkic nobles of the Delhi Sultanate.[11][17][18]

The modern Pashto-speaking Ghilji Pashtuns, who make up the majority of the Pashtuns in Afghanistan, are the modern result of the Khalaj assimilation into the Pashtuns. Between the 10th and 13th centuries, some sources refer to the Khalaj people as of Turkic, but some others do not.[19] Minorsky argues that the early history of the Khalaj tribe is obscure and adds that the identity of the name Khalaj is still to be proved.[20] Mahmud al-Kashgari (11th century) does not include the Khalaj among the Oghuz Turkic tribes, but includes them among the Oghuz-Turkman (where Turkman meant "Like the Turks") tribes. Kashgari felt the Khalaj did not belong to the original stock of Turkish tribes but had associated with them and therefore, in language and dress, often appeared "like Turks".[19] The 11th century Tarikh-i Sistan and the Firdausi's Shahnameh also distinguish and differentiate the Khalaj from the Turks.[21] Minhaj-i-Siraj Juzjani (13th century) never identified Khalaj as Turks, but was careful not to refer to them as Pashtuns. They were always a category apart from Turks, Tajiks and Pashtuns.[19] Muhammad ibn Najib Bakran's Jahan-nama explicitly describes them as Turkic,[22] although he notes that their complexion had become darker (compared to the Turks) and their language had undergone enough alterations to become a distinct dialect. The modern historian Irfan Habib has argued that the Khaljis were not related to the Turkic people and were instead ethnic Pashtuns. Habib pointed out that, in some 15th-century Devanagari Sati inscriptions, the later Khaljis of Malwa have been referred to as "Khalchi" and "Khilchi", and that the 17th century chronicle Padshahnama, an area near Boost in Afghanistan (where the Khalaj once resided) as "Khalich". Habib theorizes that the earlier Persian chroniclers misread the name "Khalchi" as "Khalji" . He also argues that no 13th century source refers to the Turkish background of the Khalji. However, Muhammad ibn Najib Bakran's Jahan-nama (c. 1200-1220) described the Khalaj people as a "tribe of Turks" that had been going through a language shift.[22]

History

Jalal-ud-din Khalji

Main article: Jalaluddin Firuz Khalji

Khaljis were vassals of the Mamluk dynasty of Delhi and served the Sultan of Delhi, Ghiyas ud din Balban, as a minor part of the Muslim nobility. The last major Turkic ruler, Balban, in his struggle to maintain power over his insubordinate Turkish officers, destroyed the power of the Forty. However this indirectly damaged the Turkish integrity of the nobility, which had opposed the power of the non-Turks. This left them vulnerable to the Khalji and Indo-Muslim faction, which had been strengthening due to the ever-growing number of converts, to take power through a series of assassinations.[23] One by one the Mamluk officers were murdered, and the last ruler of the Turkic Mamluk dynasty - the 17-year old Muiz ud din Qaiqabad - was killed in the Kailu-gheri Palace during the coup by Jalal ud din Firuz Khalji.[24]

Jalaluddin Firuz Khalji, who was around 70 years old at the time of his ascension, was known as a mild-mannered, humble and kind monarch to the general public.[25][26]

Jalaluddin succeeded in overcoming the opposition of the Turkish nobles and ascended the throne of Delhi in January 1290. Jalal-ud-din was not universally accepted: During his six-year reign (1290–96), Balban's nephew revolted due to his assumption of power and the subsequent sidelining of nobility and commanders serving the Mamluk dynasty.[27] Jalal-ud-din suppressed the revolt and executed some commanders, then led an unsuccessful expedition against Ranthambhor and repelled a Mongol force on the banks of the Sind River in central India with the help of his nephew Juna Khan.[28]

Part 3 of 3

Alauddin Khalji

Main article: Alauddin Khalji

Alauddin Khalji was the nephew and son-in-law of Jalal-ud-din. He raided the Deccan peninsula and Deogiri - then the capital of the state of Maharashtra, looting their treasure.[24][29] He returned to Delhi in 1296, murdered Jalal-ud-din and assumed power as Sultan.[30] He would appoint his Indo-Muslim allies such as Zafar Khan(Minister of War),[31] Nusrat Khan (Wazir of Dehli),[32][33] Ayn al Mulk Multani,[34] Malik Karfur, Malik Tughlaq,[35] and Malik Nayk(Master of the Horse)[36] who were famous warriors but non-Turks, which resulted in the emergence of an Indo-Muslim state.

To secure a route to Gujarat's trading ports, Ayn al-Mulk Multani was sent to conquer the Paramara kingdom of Malwa. Its Rai defended it with a large Rajput army, but he was defeated by Multani who became the governor of the province.[37] Then Nusrat Khan was sent to conquer Gujarat itself, where he defeated its Solanki king.[38] Nusrat Khan plundered its chief cities and sacked its temples, such as the famous temple of Somnath which had been rebuilt in the twelfth century. It was here where Nusrat Khan captured Malik Kafur who would later become a military general.[39] Alauddin continued expanding Delhi Sultanate into South India, with the help of generals such as Malik Kafur and Khusraw Khan, collecting large war booty (Anwatan) from those they defeated.[40] His commanders collected war spoils from conquered kingdoms and paid khums (one fifth) on ghanima (booty collected during war) to Sultan's treasury, which helped strengthen the Khalji rule.[41]


The Koh-i-Noor diamond was seized by Alauddin Khalji's army in 1310, from the Kakatiya dynasty in Warangal.[41]

Alauddin Khalji reigned for 20 years. He attacked and seized states of Ranthambhor (1301 AD), Chittorgarh (1303), Māndu (1305) and plundered the wealthy state of Devagiri.[42] He also withstood two Mongol raids.[43] Alauddin was also known for his cruelty against attacked kingdoms after wars. Historians note him as a tyrant, and that anyone Alauddin Khalji suspected of being a threat to this power was killed, along with the women and children of that family. In 1298, between 15,000 and 30,000 people near Delhi, who had recently converted to Islam, were slaughtered in a single day, due to fears of an uprising.[44] He also killed his own family members and nephews, in 1299–1300, after he suspected them of rebellion, by first gouging out their eyes and then beheading them.[29]

In 1308, Alauddin's lieutenant, Malik Kafur captured Warangal, overthrew the Hoysala Empire south of the Krishna River and raided Madurai in Tamil Nadu.[42] He then looted the treasury in capitals and from the temples of south India. Among these loots was the Warangal loot that included one of the largest known diamond in human history, the Koh-i-Noor.[41] Malik Kafur returned to Delhi in 1311, laden with loot and war booty from Deccan peninsula which he submitted to Alauddin Khalji. This made Malik Kafur, born in a Hindu family and who had converted to Islam before becoming Delhi Sultanate's army commander, a favorite of Alauddin Khalji.[28]

In 1311, Alauddin ordered a massacre of Mongols in the Delhi Sultanate wherein between 15,000 and 30,000 Mongol settlers, who had recently converted to Islam, were killed after Khalji suspected them of plotting an uprising against him.[44][45]

The last Khalji sultans

Main articles: Shihabuddin Omar, Qutbuddin Mubarak Shah, and Khusro Khan

Alauddin Khalji died in December 1315. Thereafter, the sultanate witnessed chaos, coup and succession of assassinations.[24] Malik Kafur became the sultan but lacked support from the amirs and was killed within a few months.

Over the next three years following Malik Kafur's death, another three sultans assumed power violently and/or were killed in coups. First, the amirs installed a six-year-old named Shihab-ud-din Omar as sultan and his teenage brother, Qutb ud din Mubarak Shah, as regent. Qutb killed his younger brother and appointed himself sultan; to win over the loyalty of the amirs and the Malik clan he offered Ghazi Malik the position of army commander in the Punjab. Others were given a choice between various offices and death. After ruling in his own name for less than four years, Mubarak Shah was murdered in 1320 by one of his generals, Khusraw Khan. Amirs persuaded Ghazi Malik, who was still army commander in the Punjab, to lead a coup. Ghazi Malik's forces marched on Delhi, captured Khusraw Khan, and beheaded him. Upon becoming sultan, Ghazi Malik renamed himself Ghiyath al-Din Tughluq, becoming the first ruler of the Tughluq dynasty.[29]

Economic policy and administration

Main articles: Revenue reforms of Alauddin Khalji and Market reforms of Alauddin Khalji

Alauddin Khalji changed the tax policies to strengthen his treasury to help pay the keep of his growing army and fund his wars of expansion.[46] He raised agriculture taxes from 20% to 50% – payable in grain and agricultural produce (or cash),[47] eliminating payments and commissions on taxes collected by local chiefs, banned socialization among his officials as well as inter-marriage between noble families to help prevent any opposition forming against him; he cut salaries of officials, poets and scholars in his kingdom.[46]

Alauddin Khalji enforced four taxes on non-Muslims in the Sultanate - jizya (poll tax), kharaj (land tax), kari (house tax), and chari (pasture tax).[48][49] He also decreed that his Delhi-based revenue officers assisted by local Muslim jagirdars, khuts, mukkadims, chaudharis and zamindars seize by force half of all produce any farmer generates, as a tax on standing crop, so as to fill sultanate granaries.[50][51] His officers enforced tax payment by beating up middlemen responsible for rural tax collection.Furthermore, Alauddin Khalji demanded, state Kulke and Rothermund, from his "wise men in the court" to create "rules and regulations in order to grind down the common man, so as to reduce them to abject poverty and deprive them of wealth and any form of surplus property that could foster a rebellion;[48] At the same time, he confiscated all landed property from his courtiers and officers.[48] Revenue assignments to Muslim jagirdars were also cancelled and the revenue was collected by the central administration.[52] Henceforth, state Kulke and Rothermund, "everybody was busy with earning a living so that nobody could even think of rebellion."[48]

Alauddin Khalji taxation methods and increased taxes reduced agriculture output and the Sultanate witnessed massive inflation. In order to compensate for salaries that he had cut and fixed for Muslim officials and soldiers, Alauddin introduced price controls on all agriculture produce, goods, livestocks and slaves in the kingdom, as well as controls on where, how, and by whom these could be sold. Markets called shahana-i-mandi were created.[52][53][54] Muslim merchants were granted exclusive permits and monopoly in these mandi to buy and resell at official prices. No one other than these merchants could buy from farmers or sell in cities. Alauddin deployed an extensive network of Munhiyans (spies, secret police) who would monitor the mandi and had the power to seize anyone trying to buy or sell anything at a price different than the official controlled prices.[54][55] Those found violating these mandi rules were severely punished, such as by cutting out their flesh.[28] Taxes collected in form of seized crops and grains were stored in sultanate's granaries.[56] Over time, farmers quit farming for income and shifted to subsistence farming, the general food supply worsened in north India, shortages increased and Delhi Sultanate witnessed increasingly worse and extended periods of famines.[28][57] The Sultan banned private storage of food by anyone. Rationing system was introduced by Alauddin as shortages multiplied; however, the nobility and his army were exempt from the per family quota-based food rationing system.[57] During these famines, Khalji's sultanate granaries and wholesale mandi system with price controls ensured sufficient food for his army, court officials and the urban population in Delhi.[46][58] Price controls instituted by Khalji reduced prices, but also lowered wages to a point where ordinary people did not benefit from the low prices. The price control system collapsed shortly after the death of Alauddin Khalji, with prices of various agriculture products and wages doubling to quadrupling within a few years.[59]

Historical impact

The tax system introduced during the Khalji dynasty had a long term influence on Indian taxation system and state administration,

Alauddin Khalji's taxation system was probably the one institution from his reign that lasted the longest, surviving indeed into the nineteenth or even the twentieth century. From now on, the land tax (kharaj or mal) became the principal form in which the peasant's surplus was expropriated by the ruling class.

— The Cambridge Economic History of India: c.1200-c.1750, [60]

Slavery

Within Sultanate's capital city of Delhi, during Alauddin Khalji's reign, at least half of the population were slaves working as servants, concubines and guards for the Muslim nobles, amirs, court officials and commanders.[61] Slavery in India during the Khalji dynasty, and later Islamic dynasties, included two groups of people - persons seized during military campaigns, and people who defaulted on their taxes.[62][63] The institution of slavery and bondage labor became pervasive during the Khalji dynasty; male slaves were referred to as banda, qaid, ghulam, or burdah, while female slaves were called bandi, kaniz or laundi.[citation needed]

Architecture

Alauddin Khalji is credited with the early Indo-Mohammedan architecture, a style and construction campaign that flourished during Tughlaq dynasty. Among works completed during Khalji dynasty, are Alai Darwaza - the southern gateway of Qutb complex enclosure, the Idgah at Rapri, and the Jamat Khana Masjid in Delhi.[64] The Alai Darwaza, completed in 1311, was included as part of Qutb Minar and its Monuments UNESCO World Heritage site in 1993.[65]

Perso-Arabic inscriptions on monuments have been traced to the Khalji dynasty era.[2]

Disputed historical sources

Historians have questioned the reliability of historical accounts about the Khalji dynasty. Genuine primary sources and historical records from 1260 to 1349 period have not been found.[66] One exception is the short chapter on Delhi Sultanate from 1302 to 1303 AD by Wassaf in Persia, which is duplicated in Jami al-Tawarikh, and which covers the Balban rule, start of Jalal-ud-din Chili's rule and circumstances of the succession of Alauddin Khalji. A semi-fictional poetry (mathnawi) by Yamin al-Din Abul Hasan, also known as Amir Khusrau, is full of adulation for his employer, the reigning Sultan. Khusrau's adulation-filled narrative poetry has been used as a source of Khalji dynasty history, but this is a disputed source.[66][67] Three historical sources, composed 30 to 115 years after the end of Khalji dynasty, are considered more independent but also questioned given the gap in time. These are Isami's epic of 1349, Diya-yi Barani's work of 1357 and Sirhindi's account of 1434, which possibly relied on now lost text or memories of people in Khalji's court. Of these Barani's text is the most referred and cited in scholarly sources.[66][68]

List of rulers of Delhi (1290–1320)

Titular Name / Personal Name / Reign[69]

Shāyista Khān (Jalal-ud-din)/ Malik Fīroz/ 1290–1296

Ala-ud-din / Ali Gurshasp / 1296–1316

Shihab-ud-din / Umar Khan / 1316

Qutb-ud-din / Mubarak Khan / 1316–1320

Khusro Khan ended the Khalji dynasty in 1320.

See also

• Ikhtiyar Uddin Muhammad Bin Bakhtiyar Khalji
• Persianate society
• List of Sunni Muslim dynasties

Notes

1. In medieval Persian manuscripts, the word can be read as either "Khalji" or "Khilji" because of the omission of short vowel signs in orthography,[70] but "Khalji" is the correct name.[71]

References

1. Schwartzberg, Joseph E. (1978). A Historical atlas of South Asia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 147, map XIV.3 (i). ISBN 0226742210.
2. "Arabic and Persian Epigraphical Studies - Archaeological Survey of India". Asi.nic.in. Archived from the original on 29 September 2011. Retrieved 14 November 2010.
3. Khan, Yusuf Husain (1971). Indo-Muslim Polity (Turko-Afghan Period). Indian Institute of Advanced Study.
4. Society, Pakistan Historical (1995). Journal of the Pakistan Historical Society. Pakistan Historical Society. Bengal long before the formal Turco - Afghan conquest conducted by Bakhtiyar Khalji * at the end of the twelfth century . Although Islamic state power came to Bengal by ...
5. Fisher, Michael H. (18 October 2018). An Environmental History of India: From Earliest Times to the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-11162-2. In 1290, the Turk-Afghan Khalji clan ended the first mamluk dynasty and then ruled in Delhi until one of their own Turkish mamluk commanders rebelled and established his own Tugluq dynasty
6. Bose, Saikat K. (20 June 2015). Boot, Hooves and Wheels: And the Social Dynamics behind South Asian Warfare. Vij Books India Pvt Ltd. ISBN 978-93-84464-54-7. ... by the Turco–Afghan dynasty of the Khiljis.5 Aybak and Iltutmish, who campaigned with ambivalent success in Rajputana, had encouraged an independent adventurer called Muhammad b. Bakhtyar Khilji (different from the Khilji sultans and ..
7. "Khalji Dynasty". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 13 November 2014. This dynasty, like the previous Slave dynasty, was of Turkish origin, though the Khaljī tribe had long been settled in Afghanistan. Its three kings were noted for their faithlessness, their ferocity, and their penetration to the South of India.
8. Dynastic Chart The Imperial Gazetteer of India, v. 2, p. 368.
9. Sen, Sailendra (2013). A Textbook of Medieval Indian History. Primus Books. pp. 80–89. ISBN 978-9-38060-734-4.
10. Mohammad Aziz Ahmad (1939). "The Foundation of Muslim Rule in India. (1206-1290 A.d.)". Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. Indian History Congress. 3: 832–841. JSTOR 44252438.
11. Ashirbadi Lal Srivastava 1966, p. 98: "His ancestors, after having migrated from Turkistan, had lived for over 200 years in the Helmand valley and Lamghan, parts of Afghanistan called Garmasir or the hot region, and had adopted Afghan manners and customs. They were, therefore, looked upon as Afghans by the Turkish nobles in India as they had intermarried with local Afghans and adopted their customs and manners. They were looked down as non Turks by Turks."
12. Abraham Eraly (2015). The Age of Wrath: A History of the Delhi Sultanate. Penguin Books. p. 126. ISBN 978-93-5118-658-8:"The prejudice of Turks was however misplaced in this case, for Khaljis were actually ethnic Turks. But they had settled in Afghanistan long before the Turkish rule was established there, and had over the centuries adopted Afghan customs and practices, intermarried with the local people, and were therefore looked down on as non-Turks by pure-bred Turks."
13. Mikaberidze, Alexander (2011). Conflict and Conquest in the Islamic World: A Historical Encyclopedia: A Historical Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 62. ISBN 978-1-5988-4337-8. Retrieved 13 June 2013.
14. Barua, Pradeep (2005). The state at war in South Asia. U of Nebraska Press. p. 437. ISBN 0-8032-1344-1. Retrieved 23 August 2010.
15. "ḴALAJ i. TRIBE – Encyclopaedia Iranica". iranicaonline.org. Retrieved 15 January 2021.
16. Rezakhani, Khodadad (15 March 2017). ReOrienting the Sasanians: East Iran in Late Antiquity. Edinburgh University Press. p. 165. ISBN 978-1-4744-0030-5. A Bactrian Document (BD T) from this period brings interesting information about the area to our attention. In it, dated to BE 476 (701 AD), a princess identified as `Bag-aziyas, the Great Turkish Princess, the Queen of Qutlugh Tapaghligh Bilga Sävüg, the Princess of the Khalach, the Lady of Kadagestan offers alms to the local god of the region of Rob, known as Kamird, for the health of (her) child. Inaba, arguing for the Khalaj identity of the kings of Kabul, takes this document as a proof that the Khalaj princess is from Kabul and has been offered to the (Hephthalite) king of Kadagestan, thus becoming the lady of that region. The identification of Kadagestan as a Hephthalite stronghold is based on Grenet's suggestion of the survival of Hephthalite minor stares in this region,' and is in con-
17. Abraham Eraly (2015). The Age of Wrath: A History of the Delhi Sultanate. Penguin Books. p. 126. ISBN 978-93-5118-658-8:"The prejudice of Turks was however misplaced in this case, for Khaljis were actually ethnic Turks. But they had settled in Afghanistan long before the Turkish rule was established there, and had over the centuries adopted Afghan customs and practices, intermarried with the local people, and were therefore looked down on as non-Turks by pure-bred Turks."
18. Radhey Shyam Chaurasia (2002). History of medieval India: from 1000 A.D. to 1707 A.D.Atlantic. p. 28. ISBN 81-269-0123-3:"The Khaljis were a Turkish tribe but having been long domiciled in Afghanistan, had adopted some Afghan habits and customs. They were treated as Afghans in Delhi Court. They were regarded as barbarians. The Turkish nobles had opposed the ascent of Jalal-ud-din to the throne of Delhi."
19. Sunil Kumar 1994, p. 36.
20. Ahmad Hasan Dani 1999, pp. 180–181.
21. Ahmad Hasan Dani 1999, pp. 180.
22. Sunil Kumar 1994, p. 31.
23. Mohammad Aziz Ahmad (1939). "The Foundation of Muslim Rule in India. (1206-1290 A.d.)". Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. Indian History Congress. 3: 841. JSTOR 44252438.
24. Peter Jackson 2003.
25. Ashirbadi Lal Srivastava 1966, p. 141.
26. A. B. M. Habibullah (1992) [1970]. "The Khaljis: Jalaluddin Khalji". In Mohammad Habib; Khaliq Ahmad Nizami (eds.). A Comprehensive History of India. 5: The Delhi Sultanat (A.D. 1206-1526). The Indian History Congress / People's Publishing House. p. 312. OCLC 31870180.
27. Peter Jackson 2003, pp. 81–86.
28. Vincent A Smith, The Oxford History of India: From the Earliest Times to the End of 1911, Chapter 2, Oxford University Press
29. Jump up to:a b c William Wilson Hunter, The Indian Empire: Its Peoples, History, and Products, p. 334, at Google Books, WH Allen & Co., London, pp 334-336
30. P. M. Holt et al. 1977, pp. 8–14.
31. Satish Chandra (2004). Medieval India: From Sultanate to the Mughals-Delhi Sultanat (1206-1526). Har-Anand Publications. p. 269. ISBN 9788124110645.
32. Yasin Mazhar Siddiqi (1972). "the Kotwals under the Sultans of Delhi". Indian History Congress: 194. JSTOR 44145331. Nusrat Khan Jalesari who was the Kotwal in the first year of the Alai reign was an Indian Muslim
33. The Life and Works of Sultan Alauddin Khalji. Atlantic Publishers & Dist. 1992. ISBN 9788171563623. the Sultan appointed his Wazir Nusrat Khan to deal with the Jalali nobles...Nusrat Khan confiscated property worth about one crore. This brought to an end the influence of the Jalali nobles and strengthened the government trreasury. Also the Sultan got a happy riddance from a nobility, whose loyalty was always doubtful. After this he created a new nobility whose distinctive feature was its loyalty and friendship of Ala-ud-Din
34. SHAIKH ABDUL LATIF (1993). "The Indian Elements in the Bureaucracy of the Delhi Sultanate". Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. Indian History Congress. 54: 159. JSTOR 44142942.
35. Fouzia Farooq Ahmed (27 September 2016). Muslim Rule in Medieval India: Power and Religion in the Delhi Sultanate. p. 151. ISBN 9781786730824.
36. Kaushik Roy (2003). Warfare in Pre-British India - 1500BCE to 1740CE. Routldge. ISBN 9781317586913. Malik Naik(a Hindu convert to Islam)
37. Satish Chandra (2004). Medieval India: From Sultanat to the Mughals-Delhi Sultanat (1206-1526) = Part One. Har-Anand Publications. ISBN 9788124110645.
38. AL. P. Sharma (1987). History of medieval India (1000-1740 A.D.). TKonark Publishers.
39. Old NCERT History Medieval India by Satish Chandra (Class 11). Mocktime Publications.
40. Frank Fanselow (1989), Muslim society in Tamil Nadu (India): an historical perspective, Journal Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, 10(1), pp 264-289
41. Hermann Kulke & Dietmar Rothermund 2004.
42. Sastri (1955), pp 206–208
43. "Khalji Dynasty". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 13 November 2014.
44. Vincent A Smith, The Oxford History of India: From the Earliest Times to the End of 1911, p. 217, at Google Books, Chapter 2, pp 231-235, Oxford University Press
45. The Life and Works of Sultan Alauddin Khalji- By Ghulam Sarwar Khan Niazi
46. P. M. Holt et al. 1977, pp. 9–13.
47. Irfan Habib 1982, pp. 61–62.
48. Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund (1998), A History of India, 3rd Edition, Routledge, ISBN 0-415-15482-0, pp 161-162
49. Peter Jackson 2003, pp. 196–202.
50. Elliot and Dowson (1871), The History of India as told by its own Historians, p. 182, at Google Books, Vol. 3, pp 182-188
51. N. Jayapalan (2008), Economic History of India: Ancient to Present Day, Atlantic Publishers, pp. 81-83, ISBN 978-8-126-90697-0
52. Kenneth Kehrer (1963), The Economic Policies of Ala-ud-Din Khalji, Journal of the Punjab University Historical Society, vol. 16, pp. 55-66
53. Ashirbadi Lal Srivastava 1953, pp. 156–158.
54. Peter Jackson 2003, pp. 244–248.
55. M.A. Farooqi (1991), The economic policy of the Sultans of Delhi, Konark publishers, ISBN 978-8122002263
56. Irfan Habib (1984), The price regulations of Alauddin Khalji - a defense of Zia Barani, Indian Economic and Social History Review, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 393-414
57. K.S. Lal (1967), History of the Khaljis, Asian Publishing House, ISBN 978-8121502115, pp 201-204
58. Vincent A Smith (1983), The Oxford History of India, Oxford University Press, pp 245-247
59. Irfan Habib 1982, pp. 87–88.
60. Irfan Habib 1982, pp. 62–63.
61. Raychaudhuri et al (1982), The Cambridge Economic History of India: c. 1200-1750, Orient Longman, pp 89-93
62. Irfan Habib (January 1978). "Economic History of the Delhi Sultanate - An Essay in Interpretation". The Indian Historical Review. IV (2): 293.
63. Scott Levi (November 2002). "Hindus beyond the Hindu Kush: Indians in the Central Asian Slave Trade". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 12 (3): 281–283. JSTOR 25188289.
64. Alexander Cunningham (1873), Archaeological Survey of India, Report for the year 1871-72, Volume 3, page 8
65. UNESCO, Qutb Minar and its Monuments, Delhi, World Heritage Site
66. Peter Jackson 2003, pp. 49–52.
67. Elliot and Dawson (1871), The History of India as told by its own Historians, Vol. 3, pp 94-98
68. Irfan Habib (1981), "Barani's theory of the history of the Delhi Sultanate", Indian Historical Review, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp 99-115
69. Kishori Saran Lal 1950, p. 385.
70. Peter Gottschalk (27 October 2005). Beyond Hindu and Muslim: Multiple Identity in Narratives from Village India. Oxford University Press. p. 99. ISBN 978-0-19-976052-7.
71. Heramb Chaturvedi (2016). Allahabad School of History 1915-1955. Prabhat. p. 222. ISBN 978-81-8430-346-9.

Bibliography

• Abraham Eraly (2015). The Age of Wrath: A History of the Delhi Sultanate. Penguin Books. p. 178. ISBN 978-93-5118-658-8.
• Ahmad Hasan Dani (1999). History of Civilizations of Central Asia: The crossroads of civilizations: A.D. 250 to 750. Motilal Banarsidass. ISBN 978-81-208-1540-7.
• Ashirbadi Lal Srivastava (1966). The History of India, 1000 A.D.-1707 A.D. (Second ed.). Shiva Lal Agarwala. OCLC 575452554.
• Ashirbadi Lal Srivastava (1953). The Sultanate of Delhi. S. L. Agarwala. OCLC 555201052.
• Hermann Kulke; Dietmar Rothermund (2004). A History of India. Psychology Press. ISBN 978-0-415-32919-4.
• Irfan Habib (1982). "Northern India under the Sultanate: Agrarian Economy". In Tapan Raychaudhuri; Irfan Habib (eds.). The Cambridge Economic History of India. 1, c.1200–c.1750. CUP Archive. ISBN 978-0-521-22692-9.
• Kishori Saran Lal (1950). History of the Khaljis (1290-1320). Allahabad: The Indian Press. OCLC 685167335.
• Marshall Cavendish (2006). World and Its Peoples: The Middle East, Western Asia, and Northern Africa. Marshall Cavendish. ISBN 0-7614-7571-0.
• Peter Malcolm Holt; Ann K. S. Lambton; Bernard Lewis, eds. (1977). The Cambridge History of Islam. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-29138-5.
• Peter Jackson (2003). The Delhi Sultanate: A Political and Military History. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-54329-3.
• Radhey Shyam Chaurasia (2002). History of medieval India: from 1000 A.D. to 1707 A.D. Atlantic. ISBN 81-269-0123-3.
• Sunil Kumar (1994). "When Slaves were Nobles: The Shamsi Bandagan in the Early Delhi Sultanate". Studies in History. 10 (1): 23–52. doi:10.1177/025764309401000102. S2CID 162388463.

External links

• Media related to Khalji dynasty at Wikimedia Commons
• Khilji - A Short History of Muslim Rule in India I. Prasad, University of Allahabad
• The Role of Ulema in Indo-Muslim History, Aziz Ahmad, Studia Islamica, No. 31 (1970), pp. 1–13

Seleucid–Mauryan war
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 6/22/21

-- Seleucus I Nicator, by Wikipedia

Seleucid–Mauryan War
Alexander the Great's Satrapies in Northern India.
Date 305–303 BCE
Location
Northwestern India; Chiefly the Indus River Valley
Result: Mauryan victory[1][note 1]
Treaty of the Indus[4]; Seleucid Empire's eastern satrapies ceded to Mauryan Empire; Seleucus gives the hand of his daughter to Chandragupta [No, Sandrocottus!] , founding a dynastic alliance; Chandragupta [No, Sandrocottus!] gives 500 war elephants to Seleucus; Establishment of diplomatic relations

Chapter 1: India – Diplomacy and Ethnography at the Mauryan Empire, Excerpt from "The Land of the Elephant Kings: Space, Territory, and Ideology in the Seleucid Empire", by Paul J. Kosmin

Belligerents:
Maurya Empire / Seleucid Empire
Commanders and leaders:
Chandragupta Maurya ; Chanakya / Seleucus I Nicator
Strength:
Unknown / Unknown
Casualties and losses:
unknown / unknown

The Seleucid–Mauryan War was fought between 305 and 303 BCE. It started when Seleucus I Nicator, of the Seleucid Empire, sought to retake the Indian satrapies of the Macedonian Empire which had been occupied by Emperor Chandragupta [No, Sandrocottus!], of the Maurya Empire.

The war ended in a settlement resulting in the annexation of the Indus Valley region and parts of Afghanistan and Iran to the Mauryan Empire, with Chandragupta [No, Sandrocottus!] securing control over the areas that he had sought, and a marriage alliance between the two powers. After the war, the Mauryan Empire emerged as the dominant power of the Indian Subcontinent, and the Seleucid Empire turned its attention toward defeating its rivals in the west.

Background

Main article: Conquest of the Nanda Empire


Territorial evolution of Magadha and the Maurya Empire between 600 and 180 BCE, including territorial gains from Seleucid-Mauryan War, 303 BCE.

Chandragupta Maurya established himself as ruler of Magadha around 321 BCE. He decided to conquer the Nanda Dynasty, rulers at the time of the Gangetic Plain. He fought the empire for eleven years with successful guerrilla campaigns, and captured the Nanda capital of Pataliputra. This led to the fall of the empire and the eventual creation of the Maurya Empire under Emperor Chandragupta Maurya.

The Persian provinces in what is now modern Afghanistan, together with the wealthy kingdom of Gandhara and the states of the Indus Valley, had all submitted to Alexander the Great and become part of his empire. When Alexander died, the Wars of the Diadochi ("Successors") split his empire apart; as his generals fought for control of Alexander's empire. In the eastern territories one of these generals, Seleucus I Nicator, was taking control and was starting to establish what became known as the Seleucid Empire. According to the Roman historian Appian, Seleucus,

always lying in wait for the neighboring nations, strong in arms and persuasive in council, he acquired Mesopotamia, Armenia, 'Seleucid' Cappadocia, Persis, Parthia, Bactria, Arabia, Tapouria, Sogdia, Arachosia, Hyrcania, and other adjacent peoples that had been subdued by Alexander, as far as the river Indus, so that the boundaries of his empire were the most extensive in Asia after that of Alexander. The whole region from Phrygia to the Indus was subject to Seleucus.

— Appian, History of Rome, The Syrian Wars 55

Alexander had appointed satraps in control of his territories. Similarly satraps were appointed to govern the Indus Valley. The Mauryans had annexed the areas governed by four such satraps: Nicanor, Phillip, Eudemus and Peithon. This established Mauryan control to the banks of the Indus. Chandragupta's victories convinced Seleucus that he needed to secure his eastern flank. Seeking to hold the Macedonian territories there, Seleucus thus came into conflict with the emerging and expanding Mauryan Empire over the Indus Valley.[5]

War

Details of the conflict are lacking. Per Appian,

Seleucus crossed the Indus and waged war with Sandrocottus [Maurya], king of the Indians, who dwelt on the banks of that stream, until they came to an understanding with each other and contracted a marriage relationship. Some of these exploits were performed before the death of Antigonus and some afterward.

— Appian, History of Rome, The Syrian Wars 55

It is unknown if there was in fact a pitched battle.[4] Military historian John D. Grainger has argued that Seleucus, upon crossing the Indus, "would find himself in a trap, with a large river at his back and a hostile continent before him," and consequently could not have advanced much farther than the Indus. According to Grainger, the details of the conflict are unclear, but the outcome clearly must have been "a decisive Indian victory," with Chandragupta driving back Seleucus' forces as far as the Hindu Kush and consequently gaining large territories in modern-day Afghanistan.[6] According to Wheatley and Heckel, the level of friendly Maurya-Seleucid relations established after the war imply that the hostilities were probably "neither prolonged nor grievous".[3]

Consequences

Seleucus Nicator ceded the Hindu Kush, Punjab and parts of Afghanistan to Chandragupta Maurya.[7] In consequence of their arrangement, Seleucus received 500 war elephants from Chandragupta Maurya, which subsequently influenced the Wars of the Diadochi in the west.

The otherwise inexplicable silence of the classical writers, as well as the net result of the expedition, however, clearly indicate that Seleucus met with a miserable failure. For he had not only to finally abandon the idea of reconquering the Panjab, but had to buy peace by ceding Paropanisartai, Arachosia, and Aria, three rich provinces with the cities now known as Kabul, Kandahar and Herat respectively as their capitals, and also Gedrosia (Baluchistan), or at least a part of it. The victorious Maurya king probably married the daughter of his Greek rival, and made a present of five hundred elephants to his royal father-in-law. Some Greek writers have represented this gift as the price of the rich provinces ceded by Seleucus, which is of course absurd. It is difficult to believe that Seleucus would have readily agreed to part with his rich provinces for such paltry gifts unless he were forced to do so. It is therefore legitimate to hold that Seleucus was worsted in his fight with Chandragupta.[??]

-- Ancient India, by Ramesh Chandra Majumdar

Sovereigns, like Kutbu-d din Aibak and Shamsu-d din ...conquered Jhain, Malwa, Ujjain, Gujarat, and other distant countries, and carried off treasure and valuables, and elephants and horses from the Rais and Ranas...

The Sultan frequently observed to his associates that elephants and horses were the strength of Hindustan, and that one elephant was worth five hundred horsemen. *** In the first year of the reign, sixty-three elephants were sent by Tatar Khan, son of Arslan Khan, from Lakhnauti to Dehli, which greatly pleased the people, and was the occasion of great public rejoicing....

Tughril Khan, on being appointed to Lakhnauti, was successful in several enterprises. He attacked Jajnagar and carried off great spoil in valuables and elephants....The nobles of Hindustan had no leader, they were wanting in soldiers and retainers, in elephants and wealth, and they were quite incapable of marching to Lakhnauti and opposing Tughril....The spoil and elephants which he had captured at Jajnagar he kept for himself, and sent none to Dehli... Many people joined him through fear of the Sultan's vengeance; and he carried off with him treasure and elephants, a picked body of troops, his officers, relations, and adherents, with their wives and children...

'Alau-d din ... then entered Deogir. On the first day he took thirty elephants and some thousand horses...

'Alau-d din addressed a letter to the Sultan announcing his return with so much treasure and jewels and pearls, and thirty-one elephants, and horses, to be presented to his majesty...

'Alau-d din, in the pride of youth, prosperity, and boundless wealth, proud also of his army and his followers, his elephants and his horses, plunged into dissipation and pleasure....

'Alau-l Mulk, the author's uncle, was summoned from Karra, and came with the maliks and amirs and one elephant, bringing the treasure which 'Alau-d din had left there....

At the beginning of the third year of the reign, Ulugh Khan and Nusrat Khan, with their amirs, and generals, and a large army, marched against Gujarat. They took and plundered Nahrwala and all Gujarat. Kuran, Rai of Gujarat, fled from Nahrwala and went to Ram Deo of Deogir. The wives and daughters, the treasure and elephants of Rai Karan, fell into the hands of the Muhammadans....

His second project he used to unfold as follows: "I have wealth, and elephants, and forces, beyond all calculation. My wish is to place Dehli in charge of a vicegerent, and then I will go out myself into the world, like Alexander, in pursuit of conquest, and subdue the whole habitable world." Over-elated with the success of some few projects, he caused himself to be entitled "the second Alexander" in the khutba and on his coins. In his convivial parties he would vaunt, "Every region that I subdue I will intrust to one of my trusty nobles, and then proceed in quest of another. Who is he that shall stand against me?"...

In every division of the army, and in each line of entrenchment, there were five elephants fully armed, supported by a body of infantry....

Devoting his attention to political matters, he made ready his army for the destruction of the Rais and zamindars of other lands, and for the acquisition of elephants and treasure from the princes of the South....He made Ramdeo and his sons prisoners, and took his treasures, as well as seventeen elephants....

If the Rai consented to surrender his treasure and jewels, elephants and horses, and also to send treasure and elephants in the following year, Malik Naib Kafur was to accept these terms and not press the Rai too hard...

Laddar Deo perceived that all hope was gone, and that the fort was tottering to its fall. He therefore sent some great brahman and distinguished basiths, with presents to Malik Kafur, to beg for quarter, promising to give up all the treasures and elephants and horses, jewels and valuables, that he had, and to send regularly every year a certain amount of treasure and a certain number of elephants to Dehli. Malik Kafur agreed to these terms, and raised the siege of the fort. He took from Laddar Deo all the treasure which he had accumulated in the course of many years, — a hundred elephants, seven thousand horse, and large quantities of jewels and valuables. He also took from him a writing, engaging to send annually treasure and elephants....

Towards the end of the year 710 H. (1310 A.D.) the Sultan sent an army under Malik Naib Kafur against Dhur-samundar and Ma'bar. The Malik, with Khwaja Haji, Naib-i 'ariz, took leave of the Sultan and proceeded to Rabari, where the army collected. They then proceeded to Deogir, where they found that Ramdeo was dead, and from Deogir to the confines of Dhur-samundar. At the first onslaught Billal Rai fell into the hands of the Muhammadans, and Dhur-samundar was captured. Thirty-six elephants, and all the treasures of the place, fell into the hands of the victors....

A despatch of victory was sent to the Sultan, and in the early part of 711 H. (1311 A.D.) the army reached Dehli, bringing with it six hundred and twelve elephants, ninety-six thousand mans of gold, several boxes of jewels and pearls, and twenty thousand horses. Malik Naib Kafur presented the spoil to the Sultan in the palace at Siri on different occasions, and the Sultan made presents of four mans, or two mans, or one man, or half a man of gold to the maliks and amirs. The old inhabitants of Dehli remarked that so many elephants and so much gold had never before been brought into Dehli. No one could remember anything like it, nor was there anything like it recorded in history.

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

Seleucus and Chandragupta also agreed to a marriage alliance, probably the marriage of Seleucus' daughter to Chandragupta. According to Strabo, the ceded territories bordered the Indus:

The geographical position of the tribes is as follows: along the Indus are the Paropamisadae, above whom lies the Paropamisus mountain: then, towards the south, the Arachoti: then next, towards the south, the Gedroseni, with the other tribes that occupy the seaboard; and the Indus lies, latitudinally, alongside all these places; and of these places, in part, some that lie along the Indus are held by Indians, although they formerly belonged to the Persians. Alexander [III 'the Great' of Macedon] took these away from the Arians and established settlements of his own, but Seleucus Nicator gave them to Sandrocottus [Chandragupta], upon terms of intermarriage and of receiving in exchange five hundred elephants. — Strabo 15.2.9[8]

Sophytes may have been the Mauryan Empire satrap of Arachosia, succeeding Sibyrtius, after Seleucus had ceded the Hellenistic territory of Arachosia to Chandragupta Maurya in the Seleucid–Mauryan war (305–303 BCE).[9]

From this, it seems that Seleucus surrendered the easternmost provinces of Arachosia, Gedrosia, Paropamisadae and perhaps also Aria. On the other hand, he was accepted by other satraps of the eastern provinces. His Iranian wife, Apama, may have helped him implement his rule in Bactria and Sogdiana .[10][11] This would tend to be corroborated archaeologically, as concrete indications of Mauryan influence, such as the inscriptions of the Edicts of Ashoka which are known to be located in, for example, Kandhahar in today's southern Afghanistan.

Some authors claim that the argument relating to Seleucus handing over more of what is now southern Afghanistan is an exaggeration originating in a statement by Pliny the Elder referring not specifically to the lands received by Chandragupta, but rather to the various opinions of geographers regarding the definition of the word "India":[12]

Most geographers, in fact, do not look upon India as bounded by the river Indus, but add to it the four satrapies of the Gedrose, the Arachotë, the Aria, and the Paropamisadë, the River Cophes thus forming the extreme boundary of India. According to other writers, however, all these territories, are reckoned as belonging to the country of the Aria. — Pliny, Natural History VI, 23[13]

The arrangement proved to be mutually beneficial.[14] The border between the Seleucid and Mauryan Empires remained stable in subsequent generations, and friendly diplomatic relations are reflected by the ambassador Megasthenes, and by the envoys sent westward by Chandragupta's grandson Ashoka. Chandragupta's gift of war elephants "may have alleviated the burden of fodder and the return march"[5] and allowed him to appropriately reduce the size and cost of his large army, since the major threats to his power had now all been removed.[15]

With the war elephants acquired from the Mauryas, Seleucus was able to defeat his rival, Antigonus, along with his allies at the Battle of Ipsus. Adding Antigonus's territories to his own, Seleucus would found the Seleucid Empire, which would endure as a great power in the Mediterranean and the Middle East until 64 BCE.

Mauryan control of territory in Afghanistan helped guard against invasion of India from the northwest.[16] Chandragupta Maurya went on to expand his rule in India southward into the Deccan.[7]

Notes

1. Hartmut Scharfe (1971) had argued that Seleucus had gained the upper hand and retained overlordship of the eastern satrapies, which were put under Chandragupta's charge in exchange for the elephants as tribute; but according to Trautmann,[2] no other scholars have agreed with this conclusion; Wheatley and Heckel state that Scharfe's argument "does not convince."[3]

References

1. Grainger 2014, pp. 108–109: "Such fighting as there was produced a decisive Indian victory. [...] There is little or no evidence for the [detailed] account [...] The career of Chandragupta is as unclear as that of Seleukos in the east."
2. Trautmann 2015, p. 235.
3. Wheatley and Heckel 2011, p. 296.
4. Kosmin 2014, p. 33.
5. Kosmin 2014, p. 34.
6. Grainger 2014, pp. 108–109
7. [R.G. Grant: Commanders pg. 49https://books.google.com/books?id=tFQcwH2StsMC&q=chandragupta#v=snippet&q=chandragupta&f=false]
8. Strabo, Geography, xv.2.9
9. Bernard, Paul; Pinault, Georges-Jean; Rougemont, Georges (2004). "Deux nouvelles inscriptions grecques de l'Asie centrale". Journal des Savants. 2 (1): 301 ff. doi:10.3406/jds.2004.1686.
10. Vincent A. Smith (1998). Ashoka. Asian Educational Services. ISBN 81-206-1303-1.
11. Walter Eugene Clark (1919). "The Importance of Hellenism from the Point of View of Indic-Philology", Classical Philology 14 (4), p. 297-313.
12. Debated by Tarn, "The Greeks in Bactria and India", p. 100
13. Pliny, Natural History VI, 23
14. Kosmin 2014, p. 33–34.
15. Grainger 2014, p. 110.
16. Grainger 2014, p. 108,110.

Sources

• Grainger, John D. (2014), Seleukos Nikator: Constructing a Hellenistic Kingdom, Routledge, ISBN 978-1-317-80099-6
• Kosmin, Paul J. (2014), The Land of the Elephant Kings: Space, Territory, and Ideology in Seleucid Empire, Harvard University Press, ISBN 978-0-674-72882-0
• Majumdar, Ramesh Chandra (2003) [1952], Ancient India, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 81-208-0436-8
• Trautmann, Thomas (2015), Elephants and Kings: An Environmental History, University of Chicago Press, ISBN 978-0-226-26453-0
• Wheatley, Pat; Heckel, Waldemar (2011), ""Commentary (Book 15)"", Justin: Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus: Volume II, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-927759-9

British identity and society: White mischief
The British weren't quite as standoffish in India as the history books may suggest - many married locals in the early 19th century, although their families later learned to keep quiet about it. When William Dalrymple began to research the subject, he was surprised to find he too had Indian blood
by William Dalrymple
The Guardian
Sun 8 Dec 2002 21.29 EST

Towards the end of the autumn of 1801, a major scandal broke out in Calcutta over the behaviour of James Achilles Kirkpatrick, the British resident (in effect, ambassador) at the court of Hyderabad. Some of the stories circulating about Kirkpatrick were harmless enough. It was said that he had given up wearing English clothes for all but the most formal of occasions, and now habitually swanned around the British residency in what one surprised visitor had described as "a Musselman's dress of the finest texture". Another noted that Kirkpatrick had hennaed his hands in the manner of a Mughal nobleman, and wore Indian "mustachios, though in most other respects he is like an Englishman".

These eccentricities were, in themselves, hardly a matter for alarm. The British in India - particularly those at some distance from the thoroughly Anglicised presidency towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay - had long adapted themselves to Mughal customs, shedding their Britishness like an unwanted skin, and wearing Indian dress, writing Urdu poetry, taking harems and adopting the ways of the Mughal governing class that they slowly came to replace, a process that Salman Rushdie, talking of modern multiculturalism, has called "chutnification". Although by 1801 this had become a little unfashionable, it was hardly something which could affect a man's career. But other charges against Kirkpatrick were of a much more serious nature.

First, there were consistent reports that Kirkpatrick had "connected himself with a female" of one of Hyderabad's leading noble families. The girl in question, Khair un-Nissa, was said to be little more than 14 years old at the time. Moreover, she was a Sayyeda, a descendant of the prophet, and thus, like all her clan, kept in the very strictest purdah. Despite these powerful taboos, the girl had somehow managed to become pregnant by Kirkpatrick and was said to have given birth to his child. Worse still, the girl's grandfather was said to have "expressed an indignation approaching to frenzy at the indignity offered to the honour of his family by such proceedings, and had declared his intention of proceeding to the Mecca Masjid [the principal mosque of the city]" where he threatened to raise the Muslims of the Deccan against the British.

Finally, and perhaps most alarmingly for the authorities in Bengal, it was said that Kirkpatrick had formally married the girl, which meant embracing Islam, and that he had become a practising Shi'a Muslim. These rumours had led some of his colleagues to wonder whether his political loyalties could still be depended on. More than a year earlier, the young Colonel Arthur Wellesley, the future Duke of Wellington, had written to Calcutta that he had heard that Kirkpatrick now seemed to be so solidly "under the influence" of the Hyderabadis that "it was to be expected that he would attend more to the objects of the Nizam's court than those of his own government"; that Kirkpatrick might, in other words, have gone over to the other side, to become, to some extent, a double-agent.

I first came across Kirkpatrick's story on a visit to Hyderabad in February 1997. I thought it was most extraordinary, and by the time I left the city I was captivated. It seemed so different from what one expected of the British in India. Little did I know then that it was to be the start of an obsession that would take over my life for the next five years.

I had been working in the India Office library on the papers of Kirkpatrick for several months before members of my own Scottish family started popping up in the story. At first they sounded a remarkably dour and unpromising lot. James Dalrymple was the first of my kinsmen to make an appearance, but entered stage left as the principal gooseberry of the plot, doing all he could to keep Kirkpatrick apart from his beloved, and scheming with Khair's grandfather to stop the two from seeing each other. Dalrymple's sister-in-law, Margaret, was an even less promising proposition, described by Kirkpatrick as "an affected, sour, supercilious woman".

My relations suddenly became a lot more interesting, however, with the appearance in the story of a Muslim princess with the somewhat unexpected name of Mooti Begum Dalrymple, a woman whose name had certainly been rigorously removed from all the family records I had seen at home. Mooti turned out to be the daughter of the Nawab of the nearby port of Masulipatam, and was married to James Dalrymple. It seems to have been a measure of the strangeness of their marriage that the two agreed to split the upbringing of their children according to sex: the boys were sent to Madras to be brought up as Christians, eventually to be sent back to East Lothian and reabsorbed into Scottish society, while the only girl from the marriage, Noor Jah Begum, was brought up as a Hyderabadi Muslim and remained in India, where she eventually married one of her father's sepoy officers.

Kirkpatrick's children, who were roughly the same age as my long-lost cousin Noor Jah Begum, also made a similarly strange journey across cultural frontiers: brought up as Muslims in Hyderabad with the names Sahib Allum and Sahib Begum, they were shipped off to London where they were baptised and took the names James and Kitty Kirkpatrick. There, Kitty's tutor fell in love with her, but was turned down; he was, after all, only a tutor. This, in retrospect, was a mistake on Kitty's part, as the heartbroken tutor was the young Thomas Carlyle, who later went on to immortalise her as Blumine, the Rose Goddess, in his novel, Sartor Resartus.

The period seemed to be full of unexpected collisions and intermixings. With brothers and sisters in cross-cultural marriages apparently routinely divided between Christianity and Islam, this was not an era when notions of clashing civilisations would have made sense to anyone. The world inhabited by Sahib Begum/Kitty Kirkpatrick was far more hybrid, and had far less clearly defined ethnic, national and religious borders, than we have all been conditioned to expect. It is certainly unfamiliar to anyone who accepts at face value the usual rigid caricature of the Englishman in India, presented over and over again in films and television dramas, of the imperialist incarnate: the narrow-minded sahib in a sola topee, dressing for dinner in the jungle while raising a disdainful nose at both the people and the culture of India.

As I progressed in my research, it was not long before I discovered that I had a direct Indian ancestor, was the product of a similar interracial liaison from this period, and had Indian blood in my veins. No one in my family seemed to know about this, though it should not have been a surprise: we had all heard the stories of how our beautiful, dark-eyed, Calcutta-born great-great-grandmother, Sophia Pattle, with whom the painter Sir Edward Burne-Jones had fallen in love, used to speak Hindustani with her sisters and was painted by Frederick Watts with a rakhi - a Hindu sacred thread - tied around her wrist. But it was only when I poked around in the archives that I discovered that she was descended from a Hindu Bengali woman from Chandernagore, who had converted to Catholicism, taken the name Marie Monica, and married a French officer. No wonder her contemporaries in Calcutta had made jokes about her name: Pattle was not a version of Patel, but it was easy to see from her appearance and behaviour why people thought it might be.

I am sure that I am hardly alone in making this sort of discovery. The wills of East India Company officials, now in the India Office library, clearly show that in the 1780s, more than one-third of the British men in India were leaving all their possessions to one or more Indian wives, or to Anglo-Indian children - a degree of cross-cultural mixing which has never made it into the history books. It suggests that, 200 years before Zadie Smith made it on to the telly and multiculturalism became a buzzword politically correct enough to wake Norman Tebbit and the Tory undead from their coffins at party conferences, the India of the East India Company was an infinitely more culturally, racially and religiously mixed place than modern Britain can even dream of being.

The wills of the period also suggest perhaps surprising ties of intense affection and loyalty on both sides, with British men asking their close friends to be executors and to care for their Indian partners, referring to them as "well beloved" or "worthy friend", and even - as Kirkpatrick's will has it - "the excellent and respectable Mother of my two children for whom I feel unbounded love and affection and esteem".

In the more loving relationships of this period, Indian wives often retired with their husbands to England. The Mughal travel writer, Mirza Abu Taleb Khan, who published in Persian an account of his journey to Europe in 1810, described meeting in London several completely Anglicised Indian women who had accompanied their husbands and children to Britain. One of them in particular, Mrs Ducarroll, surprised him every bit as much as Kirkpatrick tended to surprise his English visitors: "She is very fair," wrote Khan, "and so accomplished in all the English manners and language, that I was some time in her company before I could be convinced that she was a native of India." He added: "The lady introduced me to two or three of her children, from 16 to 19 years of age, who had every appearance of Europeans." A great many such mixed-blood children must have been quietly and successfully absorbed into the British establishment, some even attaining high office: Lord Liverpool, the early-19th-century prime minister, was of Anglo-Indian descent.

Much, however, depended on skin colour. As a Calcutta agent wrote to Warren Hastings, the governor-general of India, when discussing what to do with his Anglo-Indian step-grandchildren: "The two eldest - [who] are almost as fair as European children - should be sent to Europe. I could have made no distinction between the children if the youngest was of a complexion that could possibly escape detection; but as I daily see the injurious consequences resulting from bringing up certain [darker-skinned] native children at home, it has become a question in my own mind how far I should confer a service in recommending the third child" to proceed to England. It was decided, in the end, that the "dark" child should stay in India, while the others were shipped to Britain.

The future of such children depended very much on the whims of their parents. One of the most unashamedly enthusiastic British embracers of Mughal culture during this period was General Sir David Ochterlony: every evening, all 13 of his Indian wives went around Delhi in a procession behind their husband, each on the back of her own elephant. But beneath this enviably carefree-sounding exterior seems to have lain the sort of tensions that affect anyone who straddles two very different and diverging worlds.

One of the most moving of Ochterlony's letters concerns his two daughters, and the question of whether he should bring them up as Muslim or Christian. If Christian, they would be constantly derided for their "dark blood", but Ochterlony also hesitated to bring them up as Muslims. A letter, written to another Scot in a similar position, who has opted to bring up his children as Muslim Indians, ends rather movingly: "In short my dear M[ajor] I have spent all the time since we were parted in revolving this matter in my mind but I have not yet been able to come to a positive decision."

This period of intermixing did not last: the rise of the Victorian Evangelicals in the 1830s and 40s slowly killed off the intermingling of Indian and British ideas, religions and ways of life. The wills written by dying East India Company servants show that the practice of marrying or cohabiting with Indian bibis quickly began to decline: from turning up in one-in-three wills between 1780 and 1785, they are present in only one-in-four between 1805 and 1810. By 1830, it is one-in-six; by the middle of the century, they have all but disappeared.

Biographies and memoirs of prominent 18th-century British Indian worthies that mentioned their Indian wives were re-edited in the mid-19th century so that the consorts were removed from later editions. The mutiny of 1857 merely finished off the process. Afterwards, nothing could ever be as it was. With the British victory, and the genocidal spate of hangings and executions that followed, the entire top rank of the Mughal elite was swept away and British culture was unapologetically imposed on India.

The story of mixed-race families such as my own and the Kirkpatricks seems to raise huge questions about Britishness and the nature of empire, faith and personal identity; indeed, about how far all of these matter, are fixed and immutable - and to what extent they were flexible, tractable and negotiable. It is significant, moreover, that all this surprises us as much as it does: it is as if the Victorians succeeded in colonising not just India but also, more permanently, our imaginations, to the exclusion of all other images of the Indo-British encounter. Yet at a time when east and west, Islam and Christianity, appear to be engaged in another major confrontation, this unlikely group of expatriates provides a timely reminder that it is very possible - and has always been possible - to reconcile the two worlds and build bridges across cultures. Only bigotry, prejudice, racism and fear drive them apart. But they have met and mingled in the past; and they will do so again.

· The White Mughals: Love & Betrayal in Eighteenth Century India by William Dalrymple is published by HarperCollins. For more information, go to ww.williamdalrymple.uk.com

Jamshid
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 11/11/21

One day, Bughra Khan, after telling his son a story about Jamshid, said, "Oh, my dear son, how far wilt thou carry thy addiction to pleasure and dissipation, and how long wilt thou disregard the sayings of great and powerful kings?" *** When the Khan had finished his counsels he wept, and pressing his son to his bosom bade him farewell; and as he did so, he secretly whispered to him his advice that he should remove Nizamu-d din as soon as possible, otherwise that man would one day seize an opportunity to remove him from the throne. So saying, and shedding many tears, he parted from his son. * * * When he reached his own camp he said to his friends, "I have said farewell to my son and to the kingdom of Dehli; for I know full well that neither my son nor the throne of Dehli will long exist."

***

Insurrection followed upon insurrection. During the four or five days of Ramazan that the Sultan halted at Sultanpur, late one evening he sent for the author of this work, Zia Barni. When he arrived the Sultan said, "Thou seeest how many revolts spring up. I have no pleasure in them, although men will say that they have all been caused by my excessive severity. But I am not to be turned aside from punishment by observations and by revolts. You have read many histories; hast thou found that kings inflict punishments under certain circumstances?" I replied, "I have read in royal histories that a king cannot carry on his government without punishments, for if he were not an avenger God knows what evils would arise from the insurrections of the disaffected, and how many thousand crimes would be committed by his subjects. Jamshid was asked under what circumstances punishment is approved. He replied, 'under seven circumstances, and whatever goes beyond or in excess of these causes, produces disturbances, trouble, and insurrection, and inflicts injury on the country: 1. Apostasy from the true religion, and persistence therein; 2. Wilful murder; 3. Adultery of a married man with another's wife; 4. Conspiracy against the king; 5. Heading a revolt, or assisting rebels; 6. Joining the enemies or rivals of the king, conveying news to them, or aiding and abetting them in any way; 7. Disobedience, productive of injury to the State. But for no other disobedience, as detriment to the realm is an essential. The servants of God are disobedient to him when they are disobedient to the king, who is his vicegerent; and the State would go to ruin, if the king were to refrain from inflicting punishment in such cases of disobedience as are injurious to the realm.'" The Sultan then asked me if the Prophet had said anything about these seven offences in respect of their punishment by kings. I replied "that the Prophet had declared his opinion upon three offences out of these seven — viz., apostasy, murder of a Musulman, and adultery with a married woman. The punishment of the other four offences is a matter rather of policy and good government. Referring to the benefits derivable from the punishments prescribed by Jamshid, it has been remarked that kings appoint wazirs, advance them to high dignity, and place the management of their kingdoms in their hands in order that these wazirs may frame regulations and keep the country in such good order that the king may be saved from having to stain himself with the blood of any mortal." The Sultan replied, ''Those punishments which Jamshid prescribed were suited to the early ages of the world, but in these days many wicked and turbulent men are to be found. I visit them with chastisement upon the suspicion or presumption of their rebellious and treacherous designs, and I punish the most trifling act of contumacy with death. This I will do until I die, or until the people act honestly, and give up rebellion and contumacy. I have no such wazir as will make rules to obviate my shedding blood. I punish the people because they have all at once become my enemies and opponents. I have dispensed great wealth among them, but they have not become friendly and loyal. Their temper is well known to me, and I see that they are disaffected and inimical to me."

-- XV. Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi, of Ziaud Din Barni [Ziauddin Barani], Excerpt from The History of India As Told By Its Own Historians: The Muhammadan Period, edited from the posthumous papers of the Late Sir H.M. Elliot, K.C.B., East India Company's Bengal Civil Service, by Professor John Dowson, M.R.A.S., Staff college, Sandhurst, Vol. III, P. 93-269, 1871

Persian painting, depicting Jamshid halved before Zahhak

Jamshid is the fourth Shah of the mythological Pishdadian dynasty of Iran according to Shahnameh.

The Shahnameh or Shahnama ('The Book of Kings'') is a long epic poem written by the Persian poet Ferdowsi for Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni between c. 977 and 1010 CE and is the national epic of Greater Iran. Consisting of some 50,000 "distichs" or couplets (two-line verses), the Shahnameh is one of the world's longest epic poems. It tells mainly the mythical and to some extent the historical past of the Persian Empire from the creation of the world until the Muslim conquest in the seventh century.

-- Shahnameh, by Wikipedia

In Persian mythology and folklore, Jamshid is described as the fourth and greatest king of the epigraphically unattested Pishdadian Dynasty (before the Kayanian dynasty). This role is already alluded to in Zoroastrian scripture (e.g. Yasht 19, Vendidad 2), where the figure appears as Yima(-Kshaeta) "(radiant) Yima" and from which the name 'Jamshid' is derived.

Jamshid remains a common Iranian and Zoroastrian male name that is also popular in surrounding areas of Iran. Edward FitzGerald transliterated the name as Jamshyd. In the eastern regions of Greater Iran, Central Asia, and by the Zoroastrians of the Indian subcontinent it is rendered as Jamshed.

Etymology

The name Jamshid is originally a compound of two parts, Jam and shid, corresponding to the Avestan names Yima and Xšaēta, derived from the proto-Iranian *Yamah Xšaitah ('Yama, the brilliant/majestic').[1] Yamah and the related Sanskrit Yama are interpreted as "the twin," perhaps reflecting an Indo-Iranian belief in a primordial Yama and Yami pair. By regular sound changes (y → j, and the loss of the final syllable) an Old Persian form equivalent to Avestan Yima became Middle Persian Jam, which was subsequently continued into New Persian.

There are also a few functional parallels between Avestan Yima and Sanskrit Yama, for instance, Yima was the son of Vivaŋhat, who in turn corresponds to the Vedic Vivasvat, "he who shines out", a name for the sun-god Surya. Both Yamas in Iranian and Indian myth guard Hell with the help of two four-eyed dogs.[2][3]

Oettinger, when talking about how the story of Yima was originally a flood myth, and how original Sanskrit flood myths had their protagonist as yama, mentions that even the Norse had their own cognate of Yima and Yama, named Ymir, who was a primordial giant whose death caused a great flood and was a basis behind the formation of the world.[4] Ymir was still associated with a flood, as Snorri recorded that they believed that the death of Ymir caused a great flood killing all of the Frost Giants except one named Bergelmir, who floated on some wooden object with his wife and from him the Frost Giants come, although the Bergelmir Aspect may be due to Christianization. However, the myth still has Ymir connected to a flood.[5] Oettinger's main argument was on how Ymir's cognates Yama and Yima also related to the flood.[6]

*Xšaitah meant "bright, shining" or "radiant". By regular sound changes (initial xš → š (sh); ai → ē; t → d between vowels; and dropping of the final syllable) *xšaitah became Persian shēd. In Iranian Persian, the vowel /ē/ is pronounced as /i/. Consequently, Jamshēd (as it is still pronounced in Afghanistan and Tajikistan) is now pronounced Jamshid in Iran. The suffix -shid is the same as that found in other names such as khorshid ("the Sun" from Avestan hvarə-xšaēta "radiant Sun").

The modern Turkish name Cem is derived from Persian Jam.

One contributor[who?][where?] has posited that Persian jam is the root of Arabic ajam, assuming that this Arabic word for the Persian-speaking population was derived from a Persian endonym, meaning the people of Jam. However, this is incorrect. ʿAjam comes from the Arabic root ʿ(ʿayn) ج (jim) م (mim), meaning to speak incomprehensibly, and was used among Arabs, initially, for all peoples who spoke languages that were incomprehensible to Arabic speakers, whether they spoke Persian, Fulani, or a Turkic language. Later, Arabs used this word as a derogatory term for Persian speakers to distinguish them from Arabic speakers. The word ʿajam or ʿajami is still used in other parts of the Islamic world to denote languages other than Arabic, particularly in the Saharan and sub-Saharan regions.

In scripture

Source:[7]

In the second chapter of the Vendidad of the Avesta, the omniscient Creator Ahura Mazda asks Yima, a good shepherd, to receive his law and bring it to men. However, Yima refuses, and so Ahura Mazda charges him with a different mission: to rule over and nourish the earth, to see that the living things prosper. This Yima accepts, and Ahura Mazda presents him with a golden seal and a dagger inlaid with gold.

Yima rules as king for three hundred years, and soon the earth was full of men, flocks of birds and herds of animals. He deprived the daevas, who were demonic servants of the evil Ahriman, of wealth, herds and reputation during his reign. Good men, however, lived lives of plenty, and were neither sick nor aged. Father and son walked together, each appearing no older than fifteen. Ahura Mazda visits him once more, warning him of this overpopulation. Yima, shining with light, faced southwards and pressed the golden seal against the earth and boring into it with the poniard, says "O Spenta Armaiti, kindly open asunder and stretch thyself afar, to bear flocks and herds and men."

The earth swells and Yima rules for another six hundred years before the same problem occurred once more. Once again he pressed the seal and dagger to the earth and asked the ground to swell up to bear more men and beasts, and the earth swells again. Nine hundred years later, the earth was full again. The same solution is employed, the earth swelling again.

The next part of the story tells of a meeting of Ahura Mazda and the Yazatas in Airyanem Vaejah, the first of the "perfect lands". Yima attends with a group of "the best of mortals", where Ahura Mazda warns him of an upcoming catastrophe: "O fair Yima, son of Vivaŋhat! Upon the material world the evil winters are about to fall, that shall bring the fierce, deadly frost; upon the material world the evil winters are about to fall, that shall make snow-flakes fall thick, even an arədvi deep on the highest tops of mountains."

The Vedivdad mentions that Ahura Mazda warns Yima that there will come a harsh winter storm followed by melted snow.[8] Ahura Mazda advises Yima to construct a Vara (Avestan: enclosure) in the form of a multi-level cavern, two miles (3 km) long and two miles (3 km) wide. This he is to populate with the fittest of men and women; and with two of every animal, bird and plant; and supply with food and water gathered the previous summer. Yima creates the Vara by crushing the earth with a stamp of his foot, and kneading it into shape as a potter does clay. He creates streets and buildings, and brings nearly two thousand people to live therein. He creates artificial light, and finally seals the Vara with a golden ring.

Henry Corbin interprets this story as a spiritual event and describes it as follows: Yima "received the order to build the enclosure, the Var, where were gathered together the elect from among all beings, the fairest, the most gracious, that they might be preserved from the mortal winter unleashed by the demonic Powers, and some day repopulate a transfigured world. Indeed, the Var of Yima is, as it were, a city, including houses, storehouses, and ramparts. It has luminescent doors and windows that themselves secrete the light within, for it is illuminated both by uncreated and created lights."[9]

Norbert Oettinger argues that the story of Yima and the Vara was originally a flood myth, and the harsh winter was added in due to the dry nature of Eastern Iran, as flood myths didn't have as much of an effect as harsh winters. He has argued that the Videvdad 2.24's mention of melted water flowing is a remnant of the flood myth.[10]

In tradition and folklore


Jamshid in the Shahnameh of Shah Tahmasp


Ferdowsi Shahnameh

They say the Lion and the Lizard keep
The Courts where Jamshyd gloried and drank deep;
And Bahrám, that great Hunter—the Wild Ass,
Stamps o'er his Head, but cannot break his Sleep.

—quatrain 18, Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám.
1884 (2nd ed.) FitzGerald translation

Over time, the Avestan hero Yima Xšaēta became the world-ruling Shāh Jamshid of Persian legend and mythology.

According to the Shāhnāma of the poet Firdausī, Jamshid was the fourth king of the world. He had command over all the angels and demons of the world, and was both king and high priest of Hormozd (middle Persian for Ahura Mazda). He was responsible for a great many inventions that made life more secure for his people: the manufacture of armor and weapons, the weaving and dyeing of clothes of linen, silk and wool, the building of houses of brick, the mining of jewels and precious metals, the making of perfumes and wine, the art of medicine, the navigation of the waters of the world in sailing ships. The sudreh and kushti of the Zoroastrianism are also attributed to Jamshid. Traditional mythology also credits him with the invention of music.[11] From the skin-clad followers of Keyumars, humanity had risen to a great civilization in Jamshid's time.

Jamshid also divided the people into four groups:

1. Kātouzians: The priests who conducted the worship of Hormozd
2. Neysārians: The warriors who protected the people by the might of their arms
3. Nāsoudians: The farmers who grew the grain that fed the people
4. Hotokhoshians: The artisans, who produced goods for the ease and enjoyment of the people

Jamshid had now become the greatest monarch the world had ever known. He was endowed with the royal farr (Avestan: khvarena), a radiant splendor that burned about him by divine favor. One day he sat upon a jewel-studded throne and the divs who served him raised his throne up into the air and he flew through the sky. His subjects, all the peoples of the world, marvelled and praised him. On this day, which was the first of the month of Farvardin, they first celebrated the holiday of Nawrōz ("new day"). In the variant of the Zoroastrian calendar followed by the Zoroastrians of India, the first day of the month of Farvardin is still called Jamshēd-i Nawrōz.

Jamshid was said to have had a magical seven-ringed cup, the Jām-e Jam which was filled with the elixir of immortality and allowed him to observe the universe.

Jamshid's capital was erroneously believed to be at the site of the ruins of Persepolis, which for centuries (down to 1620 CE) was called Takht-i Jamshēd, the "Throne of Jamshid". However, Persepolis was actually the capital of the Achaemenid kings and was destroyed by Alexander. Similarly, the sculptured tombs of the Achaemenids and Sāsānians near Persepolis were believed to be images of the legendary hero Rostam, and so were called Naqsh-e Rustam.

Jamshid ruled well for three hundred years. During this time longevity increased, sicknesses were banished, and peace and prosperity reigned. But Jamshid's pride grew with his power, and he began to forget that all the blessings of his reign were due to God. He boasted to his people that all of the good things they had came from him alone, and demanded that he should be accorded divine honors, as if he were the Creator.

From this time the farr departed from Jamshid, and the people began to murmur and rebel against him. Jamshid repented in his heart, but his glory never returned to him. The vassal ruler of Arabia, Zahhāk, under the influence of Ahriman, made war upon Jamshid, and he was welcomed by many of Jamshid's dissatisfied subjects. Jamshid fled from his capital halfway across the world, but he was finally trapped by Zahhāk and brutally murdered. After a reign of seven hundred years, humanity descended from the heights of civilization back into a Dark Age.

Legend of the discovery of wine

King Jamshid is featured prominently in one apocryphal tale associated with the history of wine and its discovery. According to Persian legend, the king banished one of his harem ladies from his kingdom, causing her to become despondent and wishing to commit suicide. Going to the king's warehouse, the girl sought out a jar marked "poison" which contained the remnants of grapes that had spoiled and were deemed undrinkable. Unbeknownst to her, the "spoilage" was actually the result of fermentation caused by the breakdown of the grapes by yeast into alcohol. After drinking the so-called poison, the harem girl discovered its effects to be pleasant and her spirits were lifted. She took her discovery to the king, who became so enamored with this new "wine" beverage that he not only accepted the girl back into his harem but also decreed that all grapes grown in Persepolis would be devoted to winemaking. While most wine historians view this story as pure legend, there is archaeological evidence that wine was known and extensively traded by the early Persian kings.[12]

See also

• Arnavāz
• Yama—Hindu god

References

1. Daryaee, Touraj, and Soodabeh Malekzadeh. “King Huviška, Yima, and the Bird: Observations on a Paradisiacal State.” In: Central Asia and Iran - Greeks, Parthians, Kushans and Sasanians. Edited by Edward Dąbrowa. Jagiellonian University Press, 2015. p. 108.
2. "Indian Myth and Legend: Chapter III. Yama, the First Man, and King of the Dead".
3. Sherman, Josepha (August 2008). Storytelling: An Encyclopedia of Mythology and Folklore. Sharpe Reference. pp. 118–121. ISBN 978-0-7656-8047-1.
4. N. Oettinger, Before Noah: Possible Relics of the Flood myth in Proto-Indo-Iranian and Earlier, [in:] Proceedings of the 24th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, ed. S.W. Jamison, H.C. Melchert, B. Vine, Bremen 2013, p. 169–183
5. Lindow, John. Norse Mythology a Guide to the Gods, Heroes, Rituals, and Beliefs. Oxford University Press, 2002
6. N. Oettinger, Before Noah: Possible Relics of the Flood myth in Proto-Indo-Iranian and Earlier, [in:] Proceedings of the 24th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, ed. S.W. Jamison, H.C. Melchert, B. Vine, Bremen 2013, p. 169–183
7. Quotations in the following section are from James Darmesteter's translation [1]of the Vendidad , as published in the 1898 American edition of Max Müller's Sacred Books of the East
8. Skjærvø, Prods Oktor. An Introduction to Zoroastrianism. 2006.
9. Corbin, Henry (1977). Spiritual Body and Celestial Earth: From Mazdean Iran to Shi'ite Iran. Princeton University Press. pp.22-23.
10. N. Oettinger, Before Noah: Possible Relics of the Flood myth in Proto-Indo-Iranian and Earlier, [in:] Proceedings of the 24th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, ed. S.W. Jamison, H.C. Melchert, B. Vine, Bremen 2013, p. 169–183
11. Farhat, Hormoz (2012). "An Introduction to Persian Music" (PDF). Catalogue of the Festival of Oriental Music. Durham: University of Durham.
12. T. Pellechia (2006). Wine: The 8,000-Year-Old Story of the Wine Trade. London: Running Press. ISBN 1-56025-871-3. pp. XI–XII.

Further reading

• 2nd Fargard of James Darmesteter's translation of the Vendidad
• The Heroic Age of Persia

External links

• A king's book of kings: the Shah-nameh of Shah Tahmasp, an exhibition catalog from The Metropolitan Museum of Art (fully available online as PDF), which contains material on Jamshid

Part 1 of 2

Islamic socialism
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 11/13/21

Thirteenth Mukaddama. — Arrival of Sultan Firoz Shah at Dehli.

When the Sultan reached Dehli, the drums of joy were beaten, and the citizens decked themselves out in their jewels and best clothes. Pavilions (kaba) were erected and were decorated according to the custom prevailing in the times of former kings. Six of these pavilions were raised, and for twenty-one days a continual festival was maintained. One lac of tankas was expended in each pavilion in food and sherbet, and no one was excluded....

Fourteenth Mukaddama. — The Sultan's fostering care of the people of Dehli and his remission of arrears.

*** In those days Khwaja Fakhr Shadi was accountant-general. After Sultan Muhammad returned from Daulatabad, he lent the people of Dehli property equivalent to two krors (of tankas?) for the purpose of restoring the land, villages, and quarters which had fallen into ruin during the days of the famine. This money remained in the hands of the people, and Khwaja-i Jahan, after the death of Sultan Mohammad, took the people of Dehli under his protection, and they in their greediness joined themselves to him. When Sultan Firoz ascended the throne at Thatta, the Khwaja distributed jewels and diamonds among them. All the money lent and the jewels stood against the names of the parties concerned in the government books. FakhrShadi, the accountant, brought the fact to the notice of Firoz Shah. After thinking over the matter, the Sultan consulted Kiwamu-l Mulk as to what ought to be done, * * * and that minister replied, "That Sultan Muhammad had deemed it expedient to make loans to the people, and that the Khwaja-i Jahan had squandered the jewels and wealth in prosecution of his projects and vain desires; therefore it would not be seemly to demand their restoration. The people were in great distress and poverty; if such a claim were made, they would be reduced to utter helplessness and ruin, and not one jot of the debt and jewels would be realized." *** The Sultan then asked him how he ought to proceed, and the Khan advised him to have all the accounts brought into the public court, and there to destroy them in the presence of all the people, so that they might be relieved from their great anxiety. The Sultan heartily approved of this advice, and by his direction the records of the debt and of the jewels were brought into his court, where they were publicly cancelled.*** At this time the Sultan appointed Kiwamu-l Mulk his wazir, and bestowed upon him the insignia of his office. * * * The revenues of Dehli, during the forty years which Sultan Firoz reigned, amounted to six krors and seventy-five lacs of tankas (67,500,000).

Fifteenth Mukaddama. — Sultan Firoz makes new rules for grants of revenue.

The Sultan showed great liberality in his grants of revenue, and excited the cupidity of a host of expectants. To some he gave 10,000 tankas, to others 5,000, and to others 2,000, according to the respective ranks and claims of the different office-bearers. This method (of paying officials) was introduced by Sultan Firoz, and remains as a memorial of him. In the reigns of former rulers of Dehli it had never been the rule to bestow villages as stipends upon office-bearers....

[D]uring the forty years of his reign he devoted himself to generosity and the benefit of Musulmans, by distributing villages and lands among his followers. In the whole of these forty years not one leaf of dominion was shaken in the palace of sovereignty. These facts are among the glories of his reign. ***

Another law made by Firoz Shah was this: If an officer of the army died, he was to be succeeded by his son; if he had no son, by his son-in-law; if he had no son-in-law, by his slave (ghulam); if he had no slave, by his nearest relation; and if he had no relations, by his wives. During the whole of his reign he made it a rule that, under all circumstances, the succession of every person should be clearly defined. ***

Sixteenth Mukaddama. — Sultan Firoz's fostering care of his subjects.

* * * Unwise regulations had been made in former reigns, and the raiyats and subjects were oppressed in the payment of the revenue. Several writers told the author of this work that it was the practice to leave the raiyat one cow and take away all the rest. Sultan Firoz made the laws of the Prophet his guide, acting zealously upon the principles they laid down, and prohibiting all that was inconsistent therewith.

No demand in excess of the regular government dues was to be made, and the officer who made any such exaction was to make full reparation. Brocades, silks, and goods required for the royal establishments were to be purchased at the market price, and the money paid. *** Such rules were made that the raiyats grow rich, and were satisfied. *** Their homes were replete with grain, property, horses, and furniture; every one had plenty of gold and silver; no woman was without her ornaments, and no house was wanting in excellent beds and coaches. Wealth abounded and comforts were general. The whole realm of Dehli was blessed with the bounties of the Almighty....

Second Mukaddama. — The Sultan's care to provide slaves (bandagan).

The Sultan was very diligent in providing slaves, and he carried his care so far as to command his great fief-holders and officers to capture slaves whenever they were at war, and to pick out and send the best for the service of the court. When the feudatories went to court, each one according to his ability took with him beautiful slaves, dressed and ornamented in the most splendid style. They also, when they paid their annual visit, brought other presents suited to their means and station — high-priced horses of the best breeds, fine elephants, valuable garments of every kind, vessels of gold and silver, arms, camels and mules,— each man according to the extent of his fief, some as many as a hundred, some fifty, some twenty, and some eleven. They also brought slaves. Under an edict of the Sultan, all the presents which the feudatories brought were valued, and the amount was deducted from the dues payable by them to the Government. This was a regulation established by Sultan Firoz. Before his time, in the reigns of his predecessors, the feudatories brought whatever they could, but no remission in their payments was made in consideration of their presents. Sultan Firoz saw that the expenses of his feudatories were very large, and decreed that they should not be required to make presents.

From this arrangement two advantages were expected — the chieftains' pride would be spared (the fear of being outdone), and the gifts themselves would be more worthy of the Sultan's notice. This regulation remained in force for forty years throughout the reign. Those chiefs who brought many slaves received the highest favour, and those who brought few received proportionately little consideration. When the chiefs perceived the Sultan's eagerness for slaves, and that their efforts to get them were highly appreciated, they exerted themselves in providing them, and the numbers brought every year exceed description. Great numbers of slaves were thus collected, and when they were found to be in excess, the Sultan sent them to Multan, Dipalpur, Hisar-Firozah, Samana, Gujarat, and all the other feudal dependencies. In all cases provision was made for their support in a liberal manner. In some places they were provided for in the army, and villages were granted to them; those who were placed in cities had ample allowances, varying from 100 down to 10 tankas, which was the lowest amount. These allowances were paid in full, without any deduction, at the treasury, every six, four, or three months.

Some of the slaves spent their time in reading and committing to memory the holy book, others in religious studies, others in copying books. Some, with the Sultan's leave, went to the temple at Mecca. Some were placed under tradesmen and were taught mechanical arts, so that about 12,000 slaves became artisans (kasib) of various kinds. Forty thousand were every day in readiness to attend as guards in the Sultan's equipage or at the palace. Altogether, in the city and in the various fiefs there were 180,000 slaves, for whose maintenance and comfort the Sultan took especial care. The institution took root in the very centre of the land, and the Sultan looked upon its due regulation as one of his incumbent duties. To such an extent were matters carried that there was a distinct muster-master (majmu'-dar) of the slaves, a separate treasury for the payment of their allowances, a separate jao-shughuri, and deputy jao-shughuri,1 [The signification of this is obscure, and the copyists seem to have so deemed it. The word by the majority is written [x]; but one varies, and gives it as [x].] and a distinct diwan, that is to say, the officers for administering the affairs of the slaves (ashab-i diwan-i bandagan), were entirely distinct from those under the Prime Minister (ashab-i diwan-i 'ala-e wizarat).

When the Sultan went out in state the slaves accompanied him in distinct corps — first the archers, fully armed, next the swordsmen, thousands in number (hazar hazar), the fighting men (bandagan-i award), the bandagan-i mahili1 [[x].] riding on male buffaloes, and slaves from the Hazara, mounted on Arab and Turki horses, bearing standards and axes. These all, thousands upon thousands, accompanied the royal retinue. The slaves increased to such a degree that they were employed in all sorts of domestic duties, as water coolers, butlers [etc., etc.]. In fact there was no occupation in which the slaves of Firoz Shah were not employed. None of the Sultan's predecessors had ever collected so many slaves. The late Sultan 'Alau-d din had drawn together about 50,000 slaves, but after him no Sultan had directed his attention to raising a body of them until Sultan Firoz adopted the practice. *** When the slaves under the great feudal chieftains became too numerous, some of them, by order of the Sultan, were given into the charge of amirs and maliks, that they might learn the duties of their respective employments. These amirs and maliks treated them like children, providing them with food and raiment, lodging them and training them, and taking every care for their wants. Each year they took their slaves to court, and reported upon their merits and abilities. These reports were received by the Sultan with great interest. Such was the care and attention which Sultan Firoz devoted to his slaves; but after his death, the heads of these his favoured servants were cut off without mercy, and were made into heaps in front of the darbar, as I will describe in my chapter on the reign of Sultan Muhammad bin Firoz...

Fifth Mukaddama. — Prosperity and happiness of the nobles.

During the reign of Firoz Shah *** all men, high and low, bond and free, lived happily and free from care. *** When the Sultan went to the palace, at the "grand city" of Firozabad, the Khan-i Jahan used to make preparations some days beforehand for his reception, by having the palace whitewashed and ornamented with pictures. Every possible care was taken by the Khan for the proper reception of the Sultan. [Splendour and ceremonial of the Court. Easy condition of the people.] Things were so plentiful and cheap; and the people were so well to do, and enjoyed much ease, that the poorest married their daughters at a very early age. Nothing in the least degree unpleasant or disagreeable happened during his reign; how wonderful is it that, since his decease, the city of Dehli has been turned upside down. Those who survive will ever call to mind the reign of Firoz Shah, and exclaim, "The reign of Firoz will always dwell upon the memory, and can never be forgotten."

Sixth Mukaddama. -- The plenty and cheapness in the reign of Firoz Shah.

By the blessing of God favourable seasons and abundance of the necessaries of life prevailed in the reign of Firoz Shah, not only in the capital, but throughout his dominions. During the whole forty years of his reign there was no appearance of scarcity, and the times were so happy that the people of Dehli forgot the reign of 'Alau-d din, although no more prosperous times than his had ever fallen to the lot of any Muhammadan sovereign. 'Alau-d din took such pains to keep down the price of the necessaries of life, that his exertions have found a record in famous histories. To the merchants he gave wealth, and placed before them goods in abundance, and gold without measure. He showed them every kingly favour, and fixed on them regular salaries.1 [Mawajib, salaries, allowances, or pensions.]

In the reign of 'Alau-d din the necessaries of life were abundant through excellent management,1 [["Ba hikmat'i kibriyai." These words may be translated "by Divine wisdom," but they are evidently used antithetically to the ''baghair koshish," or "absence of effort" on the part of Firoz].] but through the favour of God grain continued cheap throughout the reign of Firoz Shah, without any effort on his part. Grain was so cheap that, in the city of Dehli, wheat was eight jitals a man, and gram and barley four jitals a man. A camp follower could give his horse a feed of ten sirs of corn (dalida) for one jital. Fabrics of all kinds were cheap, and silk goods, both white and coloured, were of moderate price. Orders were given for the reduction of the price of sweetmeats, in unison with the general fall of prices.

During the forty years of this sovereign's reign, cheapness prevailed. If occasionally prices rose from bad seasons, or from scarcity of rain, and reached one tanka per man, it was only for a short time. The good fortune of the Sultan prevailed, so that no dearth occurred. Such was the prosperity that, throughout the Doab, from the hill of Sakrudih and Kharla to Kol, not one village remained waste, even in name, nor one span of land uncultivated. In the Doab there were fifty-two parganas flourishing, and a similar (state of prosperity) prevailed elsewhere. The like prosperity prevailed in every fief (ikta'a) and district (shikk). Thus, in the district of Samana, there were four prosperous villages within one kos, and the inhabitants were happy and free from care. Such perfect happiness did the kingdom enjoy in those days.

Sultan Firoz had a great liking for the laying out of gardens, which he took great pains to embellish. He formed 1,200 gardens in the vicinity of Dehli. Such of them as were private property, or were religious endowments, after2 [Three of the MSS. have ''[x], without;" while the fourth (East India Library, No. 1002) says "[x], after" verification of titles. The latter is certainly most probable.] due investigation of the titles, he settled for with their owners. All gardens received abundant proofs of his care,1 [The text is a little confused here. I have ventured upon one emendation in reading [x], instead of [x], etc., etc. All the MSS. concur in the latter reading, although it seems to make nonsense.] and he restored thirty gardens which had been commenced by 'Alau-d din. In the neighbourhood of Salaura he made eighty gardens, and in Chitur forty-four gardens. In every garden there were white and black grapes, of seven [named] varieties. They were sold at the rate of one jital per sir. Of the various articles grown in the gardens, the government share of the produce amounted to 80,000 tankas, without taking into account the dues of the owners and gardeners.

The revenues of the Doab in this reign amounted to eighty lacs of tankas; and under the fostering care of this religious sovereign, the revenues of the territories of Dehli were six krors and eighty-five lacs of tankas (60,850,000). The Sultan, throughout his reign, in his great sagacity and prudence, endeavoured to circumscribe the extent of his dominions, but still the revenues amounted to the sum stated. All this large revenue was duly apportioned out; each Khan received a sum suitable to his exalted position, the amirs and maliks also obtained allowances according to their dignity, and the officials were paid enough to provide a comfortable living. The soldiers of the army received grants of land, enough to support them in comfort, and the irregulars (ghair wajh) received payment from the government treasury. Those soldiers who did not receive their pay in this manner were, according to necessity, supplied with assignments (itlak) upon the revenues. When these assignments of the soldiers (wajh-dars) arrived in the fiefs (ikta'at), the holders used to get about half of the total amount from the holders of the fiefs. It was the practice of certain persons in those days to buy up these assignments, which was an accommodation to both parties. They used to give one-third of the value for them in the city, and receive one half in the districts. The purchasers of these assignments carried on a traffic in them, and gaining a good profit, many of them got rich and made their fortunes.

Sultan Firoz, under Divine inspiration, spread all the revenues of his territories among his people. The various districts of the fiefs were also divided. Khan-i Jahan, the wazir, exclusive of the allowances for his retainers, friends, and sons, received a sum of thirteen lacs of tankas, or instead of it sundry fies and districts. Other chiefs were similarly provided for, according to their merit; some receiving eight lacs of tankas, others six lacs, and others four lacs. All the khans and maliks grew rich in his reign, and had vast stores of wealth, and jewels and diamonds of great value. When Malik Shahin Shahna, who was naib-amir of the majlis-i khass, died, and his effects were examined, a sum of fifty lacs of tankas, in cash, was taken out of his house, besides horses, valuables, and jewels in abundance. The enormous wealth left by 'Imadu-l Mulk, Bashir-i Sultani, was well known, and is well remembered. An account of it will be given in the fifth book of this work. The Sultan being thus beneficent, all men, high and low, were devoted to him....

Twelfth Mukaddama. — Consideration of the Sultan for the unemployed.

*** The Sultan gave directions that when there were any workmen out of employ in the city they were to be sent to him. The kotwal used to call his district officers before him, and make enquiries of them. The most respectable people, out of shame, would not make their necessities known, and such gentlemen as these were brought to the kotwal by his officers.*** When they were brought before the Sultan they were all placed in employ. Men of the pen were sent into the Government establishments (kar-khana), intelligent men of business were placed under the Khan-i Jahan, if any one expressed a desire to be made the slave (banda) of any particular nobleman, the Sultan himself used to send a letter of recommendation to that noble; and if one desired to be made the slave (banda) of an amir who held a fief (ikta'), a farman was sent to that amir, and the applicant proceeded thither. So, few persons remained without employment, and wherever one of the unemployed was sent, there he found a comfortable settlement....

Fifteenth Mukaddama. — Establishment of a House of Charity and a Hospital.

Sultan Firoz founded an establishment (diwan-i khairat) for the promotion of marriages. Many needy Musulmans were distressed at having marriageable daughters, for whom they could provide no marriage portion. *** Notice was given that any man having a marriageable daughter might apply at the diwan-i khairat and state his case and his poverty to the officers of that establishment, *** who, after due enquiry, might fix an allowance of fifty tankas for the first class of recipients, thirty for the second, and twenty-five for the third. *** People, small and great, flocked to the city from all parts of the country, and received grants for purchasing housekeeping requisites for their daughters. ***

The Shifa-khana, or Hospital, also called, Sihhat-khana. *** The Sultan, in his great kindness and humanity, established a hospital for the relief of the sick and afflicted, whether natives (ashna) or strangers. Able physicians and doctors were appointed to superintend it, and provision was made for the supply of medicines. The poor afflicted went to the hospital and stated their cases. The doctors duly considered and applied their skill to the restoration of health. Medicines, food, and drinks were supplied at the expense of the treasury. ***

When the Sultan founded these institutions for the public benefit he settled some rich and well cultivated villages upon them, to provide for their expenses. Allowances were also granted to learned men and Kuran readers. The author has understood from the best authority that the sum of thirty-six lacs of tankas out of the revenues of the kingdom were appropriated to the payment of wages (idrar), and that 4,200 afflicted persons received these monthly allowances.

-- 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

Islamic socialism is a political philosophy that incorporates Islamic principles into socialism. As a term, it was coined by various Muslim leaders to describe a more spiritual form of socialism. Islamic Socialists also often use the Quran to defend their positions. A Turkish Islamic socialist organisation, Anti-capitalist Muslims, openly challenged right-wing Muslims to read the Quran and "try to disprove the fact that it is leftist".[1]

Muslim socialists believe that the teachings of the Quran and Muhammad—especially the zakat—are not only compatible with principles of socialism, but also very supportive of them. They draw inspiration from the early Medinan welfare state established by Muhammad. Muslim socialists found their roots in anti-imperialism. This can especially be seen in the writings of Salama Moussa [1887 – 4 August 1958], who wrote extensively both about socialism, and about Egyptian Nationalism against British rule.[2]

Muslim socialist leaders believe in the derivation of legitimacy from the public, and wish to implement a government based on social welfare and the concept of zakat. In practice, this has been seen through guaranteed incomes, pensions, and welfare. These practical applications of the idea of Islamic Socialism have a history going back to Muhammad and the first few Caliphates, to modern political parties founded in the 1970s.

Abū Dharr al-Ghifārī, a companion of Muhammad, is credited by some scholars, like Muhammad Sharqawi and Sami Ayad Hanna, as a principal antecedent of Islamic socialism.[3][4][5][6][7] He protested against the accumulation of wealth by the ruling class during Uthman's caliphate and urged the equitable redistribution of wealth. The first Muslim Caliph Abu Bakr introduced a guaranteed minimum standard of income, granting each man, woman and child ten dirhams annually—this was later increased to twenty dirhams.[8]

According to Sami A. Hanna and Hanif Ramay, one of the first expressions of Islamic socialism was the Wäisi movement in Tatarstan, Russia in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

The Wäisi movement was a religious, social and political movement in Tatarstan and other Tatar-populated parts of Russia which took place in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It also incorporated elements of class struggle and nationalism. The primary founder of the movement was Bahawetdin Wäisev. It was related to other movements among Muslims in the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, such as the Jadid movements.

This movement enjoyed widespread popularity and united Tatar farmers, craftsmen and petty bourgeoisie. After the arrest of Bahawetdin Wäisev in 1884, the number of members remained high. In 1908, there were nearly 15,000 followers in the Kazan Governorate (especially Kazan, Sviyajsk, Arsk uyezds), Orenburg, and other guberniyas, in Central Asia.

The main doctrines of Wäisi were disobedience to civil laws and administration, adherence to the Sharia and Qur'an rather than government regulations, evasion of service in the "kafir" army and of paying imposition, and refusal to obtain the Russian passport featuring a double-headed eagle. After the arrest of Bahawetdin Wäisev and some other leaders, the remaining membership switched to underground work. In 1897, 100 followers of Wäisi were arrested and exiled after they encouraged people not to participate in the population census. Bahawetdin Wäisev died in 1893 during his incarceration. At the beginning of the 20th century his son Gainan assumed the leadership of the movement.

After the First Russian revolution in 1905-1907 the Wäisi movement increased in size and was renovated and reconstituted as Islamic Socialism. After the October Revolution of 1917, Waisi followers supported the Soviet government. Mirsaid Sultan-Galiev and Mullanur Waxitov were among its most influential followers, organising the Muslim Socialist Committee of Kazan. During the Civil War in Russia, Wäisi followers organized a regiment in the Red Army. On February 28th, 1918, Ğainan Wäisev was assassinated by unknown assailants. In the 1920s, Wäisi movement followers founded the Yaña Bolğar (New Bolghar) commune in Chistopol canton in order to foster the growth of an autonomous Wäisi community. But in the 1930s during the Great Purge, the Wäisis were repressed and the movement faded away.

-- Wäisi movement, by Wikipedia

The movement opposed the rule of the Russian Empire and was supported by Muslim farmers, peasants and petite bourgeoisie. It suffered repression by the Russian authorities and went underground in the early 20th century, when it started cooperating with communists, socialists and social democrats in anti-government activity, and started identifying itself as an Islamic socialist movement in the wake of the 1905 Russian Revolution. The movement aligned with the Bolsheviks during the Russian Revolution of 1917,[9] during which the movement also established the first experimental Islamic commune. The Muslim Socialist Committee of Kazan was also active at this time. After the death of Lenin in 1924, the Wäisi movement asserted its independence from the Communist Party, however it was suppressed during the Great Purge in the 1930s.[9]

Soviet decision makers recognized that revolutionary activity along the Soviet Union's southern border would draw the attention of capitalist powers and invite them to intervene. It was this understanding which prompted the Russian representation at the Baku Congress in September 1920 to reject the arguments of the national communists as impractical and counterproductive to the revolution in general, without elaborating their fear that the safety of Russia lay in the balance. It was this understanding, coupled with the Russian Bolsheviks' displeasure at seeing another revolutionary center proposed in their own domain revolutionary, that galvanized them into action against the national communists.[10]

The Iranian intellectual Muhammed Nakhshab is credited with the first synthesis between Shi'ism and European socialism.[11] Nakhshab's movement was based on the tenet that Islam and socialism were not incompatible since both sought to accomplish social equality and justice. His theories had been expressed in his B.A. thesis on the laws of ethics.[12] In 1943, Nakhshab founded the Movement of God-Worshipping Socialists, one of six original member organizations of the National Front.[13]

The National Front of Iran is an opposition political organization in Iran, founded by Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1949. It is the oldest and arguably the largest pro-democracy group operating inside Iran despite having never been able to recover the prominence it had in the early 1950s.

Initially, the front was an umbrella organization for a broad spectrum of forces with nationalist, liberal-democratic, socialist, bazaari, secular and Islamic tendencies, that mobilized to successfully campaign for the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry. In 1951, the Front formed a government which was deposed by the 1953 Iranian coup d'état and subsequently repressed. Members attempted to revive the Front in 1960, 1965 and 1977.

Before 1953 and throughout the 1960s, the Front was torn by strife between secular and religious elements; over time its coalition split into various squabbling factions, with the Front gradually emerging as the leading organization of secular liberals with nationalist members adhering to liberal democracy and social democracy.

During the Iranian Revolution, the Front supported the replacement of the old monarchy by an Islamic Republic and was the main symbol of the "nationalist" tendency in the early years of post-revolutionary government. It was banned in July 1981, and although it remains under constant surveillance and officially it is still illegal, it is still active inside Iran.

-- National Front (Iran), by Wikipedia

The organization was founded through the merger of two groupings, Nakhshab's circle of high school students at Dar al-Fanoun and Jalaleddin Ashtiyani's circle of about 25 students at the Faculty of Engineering at Tehran University. The organization was initially known as League of Patriotic Muslims. It combined religious sentiments, nationalism and socialist thoughts.[14] After the 1953 coup against the National Front-led government of Mohammad Mosaddegh, Islamic socialism in Iran took a more radical turn, with the People's Mujahedin of Iran formed in 1965 fusing Islamic imagery and language with Marxist ideas under the influence of Ali Shariati and engaging in armed struggle against the government of the Shah of Iran, culminating in its participation in the Iranian Revolution which overthrew the Shah in 1979. However the movement fell foul of the Islamic Republic established after the Revolution, and took up arms against the new government.[9]

In South Asia, the Deobandi scholar and Indian independence activist Ubaidullah Sindhi travelled to Russia via Afghanistan in the 1910s. He remained in post-revolution Russia until 1923, where he studied socialism and engaged in discussions with communist revolutionaries. From Russia he moved on to Turkey, where he developed his ideas on Islamic socialism, drawing parallels between Islam and communism in their emphasis on the fair distribution of wealth.[9]

Maulana Ubaidullah Sindhi

Buta Singh Uppal, later known as Maulana Ubaidullah Sindhi, (10 March 1872 – 21 August 1944) was a political activist of the Indian independence movement and one of its vigorous leaders. According to Dawn, Karachi, Maulana Ubaidullah Sindhi struggled for the independence of British India and for an exploitation-free society in India. He was also Home Minister of first Provisional Government of India established in Afghanistan in 1915.[4]

Maulana Ubaidullah Sindhi was the Life Member of Jamia Millia Islamia, A Central University in New Delhi, India.

Jamia Millia Islamia is a central university located in New Delhi, India. Originally established at Aligarh, United Provinces (present day Uttar Pradesh, India) during the British Raj in 1920, it moved to its current location in Okhla in 1935....

Jamia Millia Islamia was established in Aligarh on 29 October 1920 by Mohammad Ali Jauhar, Hakim Ajmal Khan, Mukhtar Ahmed Ansari, Abdul Majeed Khwaja, and Zakir Hussain under the presidency of Mahmud Hasan Deobandi. It was established mainly in response to the demand of some students of the Aligarh Muslim University for a new National Muslim University which would be free from government influence as they felt that the administration of Aligarh Muslim University was of pro-British stance.

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

It was conceived as a national institution that would offer progressive education and an emphasis on Indian nationalism to students from all communities, particularly Muslims. Zakir Hussain described "the movement of Jamia Millia Islamia as a struggle for education and cultural renaissance that aims to prepare a blueprint for Indian Muslims which may focus on Islam but simultaneously evolve a national culture for common Indian. It will lay the foundation of the thinking that true religious education will promote patriotism and national integration among Indian Muslims, who will be proud to take part in the future progress of India, which will play its part in the comity of nations for peace and development. The objective of establishment of Jamia Millia Islamia will be to lay down the common curriculum for Indian Muslims taking into account the future challenges and will prepare the children to be masters of future"[3] The emergence of Jamia was supported by Mahatma Gandhi[9][10][11][12] and Rabindranath Tagore who felt that Jamia Millia Islamia could shape lives of hundreds and thousands of students on the basis of a shared culture and worldview.

In 1925, Jamia Millia Islamia moved from Aligarh to Karol Bagh, New Delhi. On 1 March 1935, the foundation stone for a school building was laid at Okhla, then a nondescript village in the southern outskirts of Delhi. In 1936, all institutions of Jamia Millia Islamia except Jamia Press, the Maktaba, and the library moved to the new campus.

-- Jamia Millia Islamia, by Wikipedia

He served the Jamia Millia Islamia for a long period of time on a very low salary. A boys' hostel in Dr. Zakir Husain Hall of Boys' Residence in Jamia Millia Islamia has been named after him....

Buta Singh Uppal converted to Islam at age 15 and chose "Ubaidullah Sindhi" as his new name, and later enrolled in the Darul Uloom Deoband, where he was, at various times, associated with other noted Islamic scholars of the time, including Maulana Rasheed Gangohi and Maulana Mahmud al-Hasan. Maulana Sindhi returned to the Darul Uloom Deoband in 1909, and gradually involved himself in the Pan-Islamic movement. During World War I, he was among the leaders of the Deoband School, who, led by Maulana Mahmud al-Hasan, left India to seek support among other nations of the world for a Pan-Islamic revolution in India in what came to be known as the Silk Letter Conspiracy.

Ubaidullah had reached Kabul during the war to rally the Afghan Amir Habibullah Khan, and after a brief period there, he offered his support to Raja Mahendra Pratap's plans for revolution in British India with German support. He joined the Provisional Government of India formed in Kabul in December 1915, and remained in Afghanistan until the end of World War I, and then left for Russia. He subsequently spent two years in Turkey and, passing through many countries, eventually reached Hijaz (Saudi Arabia) where he spent about 14 years learning and pondering over the philosophy of Islam especially in the light of Shah Waliullah Dehlawi's works. In his career, he was a Pan-Islamic thinker....

When he was at school, a Hindu friend gave him the book Tufatul Hind to read. It was written by a converted scholar Maulana Ubaidullah of Malerkotla. After reading this book and some other books like Taqwiyatul Eeman and Ahwaal ul Aakhira, Ubaidullah's interest in Islam grew, leading eventually to his conversion to Islam. In 1887, the year of his conversion, he moved from Punjab to Sindh area where he was taken as a student by Hafiz Muhammad Siddique of Chawinda (Bhar Chandi Shareef). He subsequently studied at Deen Pur Shareef (a village near Khanpur, Distt Rahim Yar Khan) under Maulana Ghulam Muhammad R.A, Where he delved deeper into Islamic education and training in the mystical order. In 1888, Ubaidullah was admitted to Darul Uloom Deoband, where he studied various Islamic disciplines in depth under the tutelage of noted Islamic scholars of the time including Maulana Abu Siraj, Maulana Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi and Maulana Mahmud al Hasan. He took lessons in Sahih al-Bukhari and Tirmidhi from Maulana Nazeer Husain Dehalvi and read logic and philosophy with Maulana Ahmad Hasan Cawnpuri.

In 1891, Ubaidullah graduated from the Deoband school. He left for Sukkur area in Sindh province, and started teaching in Amrote Shareef under, or with, Maulana Taj Mohammad Amrothi, who became his mentor after the death of Hafiz Muhammad Siddique of Bhar Chandi. Ubaidullah married the daughter of Maulana Azeemullah Khan, a teacher at Islamiyah High School, at that time. In 1901, Ubaidullah established the Darul Irshaad in Goth Peer Jhanda village in Sindh. He worked on propagating his school for nearly seven years. In 1909, at the request of Mahmud Al Hasan, he returned to Deoband School in Uttar Pradesh. Here, he accomplished much for the student body, Jamiatul Ansaar. Ubaidullah was now very active in covert anti-British propaganda activities, which led to him alienating a large number of the Deoband School leaders. Subsequently, Ubaidullah moved his work to Delhi at Mahmud al Hasan's request. At Delhi, he worked with Hakim Ajmal Khan and Dr. Ansari. In 1912, he established a madrassah, Nazzaaratul Ma'arif, which was successful in propagating and spreading Islam among the people.

With the onset of World War I in 1914, efforts were made by the Darul Uloom Deoband to forward the cause of Pan-Islam in British India with the help of the other sympathetic nations of the world. Led by Mahmud al Hasan, plans were sketched out for an insurrection beginning in the tribal belt of North-West Frontier Province of British India. Mahmud al Hasan, left India to seek the help of Galib Pasha, the Turkish governor of Hijaz, while at Hasan's directions, Ubaidullah proceeded to Kabul to seek Emir Habibullah's support there. Initial plans were to raise an Islamic army (Hizb Allah) headquartered at Medina, with an Indian contingent at Kabul. Maulana Hasan was to be the General-in-chief of this army. Some of Ubaidullah's students went to Kabul to explore things before Ubaidullah arrived there. While at Kabul, Ubaidullah came to the conclusion that focusing on the Indian Freedom Movement would best serve the pan-Islamic cause. Ubaidullah had proposed to the Afghan Emir that he declare war against British India. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad is known to have been involved in the movement prior to his arrest in 1916.

Maulana Ubaidullah Sindhi and Mahmud al Hasan (principal of the Darul Uloom Deoband) had proceeded to Kabul in October 1915 with plans to initiate a Muslim insurrection in the tribal belt of British India. For this purpose, Ubaid Allah was to propose that the Amir of Afghanistan declares war against Britain while Mahmud al Hasan sought German and Turkish help. Hasan proceeded to Hijaz. Ubaidullah, in the meantime, was able to establish friendly relations with Emir Habibullah of Afghanistan. At Kabul, Ubaidullah along with some of his students, were to make their way to Turkey to join the Caliph's "Jihad" against Britain. But it was eventually decided that the pan-Islamic cause was to be best served by focusing on the Indian Freedom Movement.

In late 1915, Sindhi was met in Kabul by the 'Niedermayer-Hentig Expedition' sent by the Indian Independence Committee in Berlin and the German war ministry. Nominally led by the exiled Indian prince Raja Mahendra Pratap, it had among its members the Islamic scholar Abdul Hafiz Mohamed Barakatullah, and the German officers Werner Otto von Hentig and Oskar Niedermayer, as well as a number of other notable individuals. The expedition tried to rally Emir Habibullah's support, and through him, begin a campaign into British India. It was hoped that it would initiate a rebellion in British India. On 1 December 1915, the Provisional Government of India was founded at Emir Habibullah's 'Bagh-e-Babur palace' in the presence of the Indian, German, and Turkish members of the expedition. It was declared a 'revolutionary government-in-exile' which was to take charge of independent India when British authority is overthrown. Mahendra Pratap was proclaimed its President, Barkatullah the Prime minister, Ubaidullah Sindhi the Minister for India, another Deobandi leader Moulavi Bashir its War Minister, and Champakaran Pillai was to be the Foreign Minister. The Provisional Government of India obtained support from Galib Pasha and proclaimed Jihad against Britain. Recognition was sought from the Russian Empire, Republican China and Japan. This provisional government would later attempt to obtain support from Soviet leadership. After the February Revolution in Russia in 1917, Pratap's government corresponded with the nascent Soviet government. In 1918, Mahendra Pratap met Trotsky in Petrograd before meeting the Kaiser in Berlin, urging both to mobilise against British India.

However, these plans faltered, Emir Habibullah remained steadfastly neutral while he awaited a concrete indication where the war was headed, even as his advisory council and family members indicated their support against Britain. The Germans withdrew their support in 1917, but the 'Provisional Government of India' stayed behind at Kabul. In 1919, this government was ultimately dissolved under British diplomatic pressure on Afghanistan. Ubaidullah had stayed in Kabul for nearly seven years. He even encouraged the young King Amanullah Khan, who took power in Afghanistan after Habibullah's assassination, in the Third Anglo-Afghan War. The conclusion of the war, ultimately, forced Ubaidullah Sindhi to leave Afghanistan as King Amanullah came under pressure from Britain.

Ubaidullah then proceeded from Afghanistan to Russia, where he spent seven months at the invitation of the Soviet leadership, and was officially treated as a guest of the state. During this period, he studied the ideology of socialism. According to an article in a major newspaper of Pakistan, titled 'Of socialism and Islam', "Islam showed not only deep sympathy for the poor and downtrodden but also condemned strongly the concentration of wealth in a number of Makkan surahs. Makkah, as an important centre of international trade, was home to the very rich (tribal chiefs) and the extremely poor." In Russia, however, he was unable to meet Lenin who was severely ill at the time. Some people, at that time, thought that Sindhi was impressed by Communist ideals during his stay in Russia, however that is not true at all. In 1923, Ubaidullah left Russia for Turkey where he initiated the third phase of the 'Shah Waliullah Movement' in 1924. He issued the 'Charter for the Independence of India' from Istanbul. Ubaidullah then left for Mecca, Arabia in 1927 and remained there until 1929. During this period, he brought the message of the rights of Muslims and other important religious issues to the people of Arabia. During his stay in Russia, he was not impressed by the Communist ideas but rather, after the Soviet revolution, he presented his belief to the Soviet government that: "Communism is not a natural law system but rather is a reaction to oppression, the natural law is offered by Islam". He attempted to convince them in a very systematic and logical manner. But he could not give an answer at that time, when he was asked to provide an example of a state which was being run according to the laws of Islam.

-- Ubaidullah Sindhi, by Wikipedia

Islamic socialism was also essential to the ideology of Pakistan, as its founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, to a crowd in Chittagong on March 26, 1948 declared that "you are only voicing my sentiments and the sentiments of millions of Musalmans when you say that Pakistan should be based on sure foundations of social justice and Islamic socialism which emphasizes equality and brotherhood of man", while Pakistan's first Prime Minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, on 25 August 1949, said in the same vein that:

There are a number of 'isms' being talked about now-a-days, but we are convinced that for us there is only one 'ism', namely Islamic Socialism, which in a nutshell, means that every person in this land has equal rights to be provided with food, shelter, clothing, education and medical facilities. Countries which cannot ensure these for their people can never progress. The economic programme drawn up some 1,350 years back is still the best economic programme for us. In fact, whatever systems people may try out they all ultimately return to Islamic Socialism by whatever name they may choose to call it.

Jinnah's Muslim League, which was the first ruling party in Pakistan, contained a number of Islamic socialists, although they were relatively marginal in the party. Also influential in Pakistan was Ghulam Ahmed Perwez, an Islamic scholar who advocated Quranism and a focus on the study of modern sciences. Although he was criticised by more conservative scholars, he became aligned with Jinnah and Muhammad Iqbal, the former of whom appointed him as the editor of the magazine Talu-e-Islam, where he wrote and published articles espousing a socialistic interpretation of the Quran, arguing that "socialism best enforces Qur’anic dictums on property, justice and distribution of wealth", and advocating a progressive, non-theocratic government and the application of science and agrarian reform to further economic development.[9] Perwez, as a part of his application of qur'anic thought to political ideology, stated that hell was a "... society in which men, dominated by its evil socio-economic system, struggle to accumulate wealth."[17]

During the dictatorship of Ayub Khan in Pakistan in the 1960s, Hanif Ramay led a group of intellectuals in Lahore in developing Islamic socialist ideas, drawing on the thought of Perwez and Khalifa Abdul Hakim, along with Ba'athist thinkers such as Michel Aflaq. Ramay and his co-thinkers influenced Zulfikar Ali Bhutto when he founded the Pakistan Peoples Party with Jalaludin Abdur Rahim, and they were the primary ideological influence on the party's manifesto. Ramay outlined the priorities for the PPP's brand of Islamic socialism as including elimination of feudalism and uncontrolled capitalism, greater state regulation of the economy, nationalisation of major banks, industries and schools, encouraging participatory management in factories and building democratic institutions. They contextualised these policies as a modern extension of principles of equality and justice contained in the Quran and practiced under the authority of Muhammad in Medina and Mecca. However, during Bhutto's time in power during the 1970s, he scaled back his reform programme and deepened Pakistan's ties with the conservative, oil-rich Gulf monarchies following the 1973 oil crisis, and purged the PPP's radical left and made concessions to Islamist parties in an effort to appease them.[9]

In Indonesia, former Communist Tan Malaka was an influential Islamic socialist thinker during the country's independence struggle, arguing that communism and Islam were compatible and that they should form the foundation for Indonesia's national revolution, and believing that Islam could be used to unify the working classes across the Muslim world. Although Malaka died in 1949, the same year that Indonesia achieved independence, the nation's first president Sukarno drew upon his ideas: he espoused ideological concepts which incorporated both religious and socialistic ideas, such as Pancasila and Nasakom.[9]

Although it was Marxist, the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan which took power after the country's Saur Revolution started utilising rhetoric stressing similarities between socialism and Islam after its reforms provoked opposition from religious conservatives and landowners.[9]

From the Quran itself, the quote "Man is entitled only to what is due to his effort" has been used to in argument for Islamic Socialism, as an argument against the accretion of wealth through the manipulation of capital.[18][19] Sura 7:128, "the land belongs to God," has also been used in a similar purpose.[18]

Part 2 of 2

Zakat

Main article: Zakat

One of the Five Pillars of Islam, zakāt is the practice of imposition (not charity) giving based on accumulated wealth (approximately 2.5% of all financial assets owned over the course of one lunar year). It is obligatory for all financially able Muslim adults and is considered to be an act of piety through which one expresses concern for the well-being of fellow Muslims as well as preserving social harmony between the wealthy and the poor.[20] The zakat promotes a more equitable redistribution of wealth and fosters a sense of solidarity amongst members of the ummah (meaning "community").[21]

Zakat is meant to discourage the hoarding of capital and stimulate investment. Because the individual must pay zakat on the net wealth, wealthy Muslims are compelled to invest in profitable ventures, or otherwise see their wealth slowly erode. Furthermore, means of production such as equipment, factories and tools are exempt from zakat, which further provides the incentive to invest wealth in productive businesses.[22] Personal assets such as clothing, household furniture and one residence are not considered zakatable assets.

According to the Quran, there are eight categories of people (asnaf) who qualify to receive zakat funds:[23][24]

1. Those living in absolute poverty (Al-Fuqarā').
2. Those restrained because they cannot meet their basic needs (Al-Masākīn).
3. The zakat collectors themselves (Al-Āmilīna 'Alaihā).
4. Non-Muslims who are sympathetic to Islam or wish to convert to Islam (Al-Mu'allafatu Qulūbuhum).
5. People whom one is attempting to free from slavery or bondage. Also includes paying ransom or blood money, i.e. diya (Fir-Riqāb).
6. Those who have incurred overwhelming debts while attempting to satisfy their basic needs (Al-Ghārimīn).
7. Those fighting for a religious cause or a cause of God (Fī Sabīlillāh)[25] or for the jihad in the way of Allah[26] or those not a part of salaried soldiers.[27][28]
8. Children of the street, or travellers (Ibnus-Sabīl).

According to the Hadith, the family of Muhammad should not consume any zakat. Zakat should not be given to one's own parents, grandparents, children, grandchildren, or spouses. Also it is forbidden to disburse zakat funds into investments instead of being directly given to those who are in need.[29] Some scholars disagree whether the poor who qualify should include non-Muslims. Some state that zakat may be paid to non-Muslims, but only after the needs of Muslims have been met.[29] Fi Sabillillah is the most prominent asnaf in Southeast Asian Muslim societies, where it broadly construed to include funding missionary work, Quranic schools, and anything else that serves the community in general.[30] Zakat can be used to finance a jihad effort in the path of Allah. Zakat money should be used, provided the effort is to raise the banner of Islam.[31][32] Additionally, the zakat funds may be spent on the administration of a centralized zakat collection system.

Historically, Abul A'la Maududi championed the concept of Zakat.[19] According to Maududi, Zakat should be primarily in the form of taxation from a position called the exchequer, who would manage the Zakat collected and make sure that it was distributed correctly.[19] Should someone die with no family to pass on their wealth, then this wealth would be given to the exchequer for management.[19]

In the United Kingdom and according to a self-reported poll of 4000 people conducted by Zarine Kharas, Muslims today give more to charity than people of other religions.[33] Today, conservative estimates of annual zakat are estimated to be 15 times global humanitarian aid contributions.[34]

Welfare state

Main article: Bayt al-mal

The concepts of welfare and pension were introduced in early Islamic law as forms of zakat, or charity. Zakat is one of the Five Pillars of Islam, and was implemented under the Rashidun Caliphate in the 7th century. This practice continued well into the Abbasid era of the caliphate. The taxes (including zakat and jizya) collected in the treasury of an Islamic government were used to provide income for the needy, including the poor, elderly, orphans, widows and the disabled. According to the Islamic jurist Al-Ghazali (1058–1111), the government was also expected to stockpile food supplies in every region in case a disaster or famine occurred.[35][36]

During the Rashidun Caliphate, various welfare programs were introduced by Caliph Umar. Under his rule, equality was extended to all citizens, even to the caliph himself, as Umar believed that "no one, no matter how important, should live in a way that would distinguish him from the rest of the people." Umar himself lived "a simple life and detached himself from any of the worldly luxuries," like how he often wore "worn-out shoes and was usually clad in patched-up garments," or how he would sleep "on the bare floor of the mosque." Limitations on wealth were also set for governors and officials, who would often be "dismissed if they showed any outward signs of pride or wealth which might distinguish them from the people." This was an early attempt at erasing "class distinctions which might inevitably lead to conflict." Umar also made sure that the public treasury was not wasted on "unnecessary luxuries" as he believed that "the money would be better spent if it went towards the welfare of the people rather than towards lifeless bricks."[36]

Umar's innovative welfare reforms during the Rashidun Caliphate included the introduction of social security. This included unemployment insurance, which did not appear in the Western world until the 19th century. In the Rashidun Caliphate, whenever citizens were injured or lost their ability to work, it became the state's responsibility to make sure that their minimum needs were met, with the unemployed and their families receiving an allowance from the public treasury.[36] Retirement pensions were provided to elderly people,[35] who had retired and could "count on receiving a stipend from the public treasury." Babies who were abandoned were also taken care of, with one hundred dirhams spent annually on each orphan's development. Umar also introduced the concept of public trusteeship and public ownership when he implemented the Waqf, or charitable trust, system, which transferred "wealth from the individual or the few to a social collective ownership," in order to provide "services to the community at large." For example, Umar bought land from the Banu Harithah and converted it into a charitable trust, which meant that "profit and produce from the land went towards benefiting the poor, slaves, and travelers."[36]

During the great famine of 18 AH (638 CE), Umar introduced further reforms such as the introduction of food rationing using coupons, which were given to those in need and could be exchanged for wheat and flour. Another innovative concept that was introduced was that of a poverty threshold, with efforts made to ensure a minimum standard of living. This made sure that no citizen across the empire would suffer from hunger. In order to determine the poverty line, Umar ordered an experiment to test how many seers of flour would be required to feed a person for a month. He found that 25 seers of flour could feed 30 people and so he concluded that 50 seers of flour would be sufficient to feed a person for a month. As a result, he ordered that the poor each receive a food ration of 50 seers of flour per month. In addition, the poor and disabled were guaranteed cash stipends. However, in order to avoid some citizens taking advantage of government services "begging and laziness were not tolerated" and "those who received government benefits were expected to be contributing members in the community."[36]

Further reforms later took place under the Umayyad Caliphate. Registered soldiers who were disabled in service received an invalidity pension, while similar provisions were made for the disabled and poor in general. Caliph Al-Walid I assigned payments and services to the needy, which included money for the poor, guides for the blind, servants for the crippled, and pensions for all disabled people so that they would never need to beg. The caliphs Al-Walid II and Umar ibn Abdul-Aziz supplied money and clothes to the blind and crippled as well as servants for the latter. This continued with the Abbasid caliph Al-Mahdi.[37] Tahir ibn Husayn, governor of the Khurasan province of the Abbasid Caliphate, stated in a letter to his son that pensions from the treasury should be provided to the blind, to look after the poor and destitute in general, to make sure not to overlook victims of oppression who are unable to complain and are ignorant of how to claim their rights and that pensions should be assigned to victims of calamities and the widows and orphans they leave behind. The "ideal city" described by the Islamic philosophers, Al-Farabi and Avicenna, also assigns funds to the disabled.[38]

When communities were stricken by famine, rulers would often support them though measures such as the remission of taxes, importation of food and charitable payments, ensuring that everyone had enough to eat. However, private charity through the trust institution often played a greater role in the alleviation of famines than government measures did.[39] From the 9th century, funds from the treasury were also used towards the charitable trusts for the purpose of building and supporting public institutions, often Madrassah educational institutions and Bimaristan hospitals.[40]

Niqula Haddad, brother in law to Farah Antun, was a Syrian writer who arguably wrote the first book on socialism in Arabic called al-Ishtirakiyah.[2] Haddad believed in a welfare state where the government would supply employment, medicine, school, and old age pensions.[2] Haddad, along with Antun and Shibli Shumayyil, are credited with influencing the works of Salama Moussa, a well-known Egyptian writer that wrote about Egyptian Nationalism, and would later found a short-lived socialist party in Egypt.[2]

Guaranteed minimum income

Main article: Guaranteed minimum income

A guaranteed minimum income is a system[41] of social welfare provision that guarantees that all citizens or families have an income sufficient to live on, provided they meet certain conditions. Eligibility is typically determined by citizenship, a means test and either availability for the labour market or a willingness to perform community services. The primary goal of a guaranteed minimum income is to combat poverty. If citizenship is the only requirement, the system turns into a universal basic income. The first Muslim Caliph Abu Bakr introduced a guaranteed minimum standard of income, granting each man, woman and child ten dirhams annually—this was later increased to twenty dirhams.[42] Some, but not all Islamic socialists advocate the renewal and expansion of this policy.

Islamic socialist ideologies

Muslim socialists believe that socialism is compatible with Islamic teachings and usually embrace secular forms of socialism. However, some Muslim socialists believe that socialism should be applied within an Islamic framework and numerous Islamic socialist ideologies exist.

In the modern era, Islamic socialism can be divided into two: a left-wing and a right-wing form. The left wing (Siad Barre, Haji Misbach, Ali Shariati, Yasser Arafat, Abdullah al-Alayli, and Jalal Al-e Ahmad) advocated proletarian internationalism, the implementation of Islamic Sharia, whilst encouraging Muslims to join or collaborate with international socialist or Marxist movements. Right-wing socialists (Mohammed Iqbal, Agus Salim, Jamal ad-Din Asad-Abadi, Musa al-Sadr, and Mahmud Shaltut) are ideologically closer to third positionism, supporting not just social justice, egalitarian society and universal equality, but also Islamic revivalism and implementation of Sharia. They also reject a full adoption of a class struggle and keep a distance from other socialist movements.

Gaddafism

Main article: The Green Book (Muammar Gaddafi)

Muammar Gaddafi outlined his version of Islamic socialism in The Green Book, which was published in three parts (1975, 1977, 1978).[43][44] The Green Book was heavily influenced by the pan-Arab, Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser and served as the basis for the Islamic Legion.[45]

The Green Book rejects modern liberal democracy based on electing representatives as well as capitalism and instead it proposes a type of direct democracy overseen by the General People's Committee which allows direct political participation for all adult citizens.[46] The book states that "freedom of expression is the right of every natural person, even if a person chooses to behave irrationally, to express his or her insanity". The Green Book states that freedom of speech is based upon public ownership of book publishers, newspapers, television and radio stations on the grounds that private ownership would be undemocratic.

A paragraph in the book about abolishing money is similar to a paragraph in Frederick Engels' "Principles of Communism",[47] Gaddafi wrote: "The final step is when the new socialist society reaches the stage where profit and money disappear. "It is through transforming society into a fully productive society, and through reaching in production a level where the material needs of the members of society are satisfied. On that final stage, profit will automatically disappear and there will be no need for money".[48]

In practical terms, although Gaddafi opposed Islamist movements, he pursued socially conservative policies such as banning the sale and consumption of alcohol, closing nightclubs and suppressing Marxist activity in universities and colleges.[9]

According to Raymond D. Gastil, the RUF was influenced by Gaddafi's Islamic Socialist philosophy.[49]

Anatolian Socialism (Kuva-yi Seyyare)

Main article: Kuva-yi Seyyare

Anatolian Islamic Socialism was initially supported by Çerkes Ethem who was an Ottoman militia leader of Circassian origin who initially gained fame for fighting and gaining victories against the Allied powers invading Anatolia in the aftermath of World War I and afterwards during the Turkish War of Independence.[50][51][52]

The Kuvâ-yi Seyyâre was established a force of Circassian and Abkhazian volunteers led by Çerkes Ethem. The group saw themselves as a police force to fight against those who cause disturbance to the greater good of Anatolia.[53][54] In time, as Ethem's Islamic Socialist views grew larger, it distanced itself from Kemal Atatürk's Turkish National movement and eventually opposed it.[54][55][56]

Islamic economy

Wäisi movement

Main article: Wäisi movement

Founded by Bahawetdin Wäisev, the Wäisi movement was a religious, social, and political movement that took place in late-nineteenth and early-twentieth-century Tatarstan and other Tatar-populated parts of Russia. Wäisi doctrines promoted disobedience to civil law and authority in favor of following the Quran and Sharia. Supporters of the movement evaded military service and refused to pay imposition or carry a Russian passport. The movement also incorporated elements of class struggle and nationalism. The Wäisi movement united Tatar farmers, craftsmen and petty bourgeoisie and enjoyed widespread popularity across the region.

Despite going underground in the aftermath of Bahawetdin Wäisev's arrest in 1884, the movement continued to maintain a strong following. Bahawetdin Wäisev's son Ğaynan Wäisev led the movement after his death in 1893. An estimated 100 members were arrested and exiled in 1897 after encouraging people not to participate in the population census. The Wäisi movement increased in size after the first Russian revolution in 1905–1907 and by 1908 there were nearly 15,000 followers in the Kazan Governorate, Orenburg and other guberniyas in Central Asia. Wäisi followers supported the Soviet government in the aftermath of the October Revolution of 1917 and organized a regiment in the Red Army during the Russian Civil War. Members of the movement distanced themselves from the Russian Bolsheviks and founded the autonomous commune of Yaña Bolğar in Chistopol during the 1920s, but were persecuted and disbanded during the Great Purge of the 1930s.

Islamic Marxism

Islamic Marxism attempts to apply Marxist economic, political, and social teachings within an Islamic framework. Traditional forms of Marxism are anti-religious and promote state atheism, which has led many Muslims to reject Marxism. However, the affinity between Marxist and Islamic ideals of social control has led some Muslims to embrace their own forms of Marxism since the 1940s. Islamic Marxists believe that Islam meets the needs of society and can accommodate or guide the social changes Marxism hopes to accomplish. Islamic Marxists are also dismissive of traditional Marxist views on materialism and religion.[57]

As a term, it has been used to describe Ali Shariati (in Shariati and Marx: A Critique of an "Islamic" Critique of Marxism by Assef Bayat). It is also sometimes used in discussions of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, including parties such as the People's Mujahideen of Iran (MEK), a formerly designated terrorist organization by the United States, Canada, Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Iran that advocates of overthrow of the latter.

Somali revolutionary socialism

Main article: Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party

The Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party (SRSP) was created by the military regime of Siad Barre in the Somali Democratic Republic under Soviet guidance in 1976 as an attempt to reconcile the official state ideology with the official state religion by adapting Marxist–Leninist precepts to local circumstances. Emphasis was placed on the Muslim principles of social progress, equality and justice, which the government argued formed the core of scientific socialism and its own accent on self-sufficiency, public participation and popular control as well as direct ownership of the means of production. As part of Barre's socialist policies, major industries and farms were nationalized, including banks, insurance companies and oil distribution farms. While the SRSP encouraged private investment on a limited scale, the administration still considered itself to be essentially socialist.

Notable Muslim socialists

• Ethem Dipsheu
• Bagautdin Vaisov
• Abd al-Rahman al-Kawakibi
• Oemar Said Tjokroaminoto
• Haji Misbach
• Muhammad Iqbal
• Mullanur Waxitov
• Mirsaid Sultan-Galiev
• Tan Malaka
• Agus Salim
• Rafi Ahmed Kidwai
• Mustafa al-Siba'i
• Mahmud Shaltut
• Jalal Al-e-Ahmad
• Mohammad Nakhshab
• Ali Shariati
• Abdul Hamid Khan Bhashani
• Mohammad Natsir
• Siad Barre
• Maslah Mohammed Siad Barre
• Muammar Gaddafi
• Kazem Sami
• Habibollah Peyman
• Yasser Arafat
• Ibrahim Shoukry
• Mohammad Najibullah
• Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri

Islamic socialist or leftist organisations

Sunni socialist groups

• Homeland Party
• Egyptian Arab Socialist Party
• Egyptian Islamic Labour Party
• Social Justice Party
• Umma Party
• Young Egypt Party
• Libyan Popular National Movement
• Mauritanian People's Party
• Pakistan Awami Tehreek
• Pakistan Peoples Party
• Qaumi Watan Party
• Jamaat-e-Islami
• Muslim Socialist Committee of Kazan
• Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party
• Islamic Socialist Party
• Socialist Cooperation Party
• Anti-capitalist Muslims
• Kuva-yi Seyyare
• Green Army Organisation
• Young Bukharians

Shia socialist groups

• Unity Party
• Muslim Social Democratic Party
• Islamic Labour Party
• Islamic Nations Party
• Liberation Movement of People of Iran
• Mojahedin of the Islamic Revolution of Iran Organization
• Movement of God-Worshipping Socialists
• Movement of Militant Muslims
• Office for the Cooperation of the People with the President
• Party of the Iranian People
• People's Mujahedin of Iran
• Houthis

See also

• Islam portal
• Socialism portal
• Arab socialism
• Capitalism and Islam
• Christian communism
• Christian socialism
• Islamic economics
• Islamic feminism
• Islamo-leftism
• Jewish left
• Progressive Muslim vote
• Qarmatians
• Religious socialism
• Zanj Rebellion

References

1. "Antikapitalist Müslümanlar: Hem muhafazakar hem de sol kesim kendisini sorgulamalı". T24 (in Turkish). Retrieved 2020-12-22.
2. Reid, Donald M. "The Syrian Christians and Early Socialism in the Arab World." International Journal of Middle East Studies, vol. 5, no. 2, 1974, pp. 177–193. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/162588.
3. Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic sWorld. New York: Oxford University Press. 1995. p. 19. ISBN 0-19-506613-8. OCLC 94030758.
4. "Abu Dharr al-Ghifari". Oxford Islamic Studies Online. Retrieved 23 January2010.
5. And Once Again Abu Dharr. Retrieved 15 August 2011.
6. Hanna, Sami A.; George H. Gardner (1969). Arab Socialism: A Documentary Survey. Leiden: E.J. Brill. pp. 273–274. Retrieved 23 January 2010.
7. Hanna, Sami A. (1969). "al-Takaful al-Ijtimai and Islamic Socialism". The Muslim World. 59 (3–4): 275–286. doi:10.1111/j.1478-1913.1969.tb02639.x. Archived from the original on September 13, 2010.
8. "Social Wage - Medialternatives". Retrieved 4 May 2015.
9. Paracha, Nadeem F. (21 February 2013). "Islamic Socialism: A history from left to right". dawn.com. Retrieved 21 November 2020.
10. Bennigsen, Alexandre A. (15 September 1980). Muslim National Communism in the Soviet Union: A Revolutionary Strategy for the Colonial World. University of Chicago Press. p. 76. ISBN 978-0-226-04236-7. Retrieved 10 July 2013.
11. Abrahamian, Ervand. Iran between Two Revolutions. Princeton studies on the Near East. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1982. p. 463
12. Rāhnamā, ʻAlī. An Islamic Utopian: A Political Biography of Ali Shari'ati. London: I.B. Tauris, 1998. p. 26.
13. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-07-19. Retrieved 2009-04-10.
14. Rāhnamā, ʻAlī. An Islamic Utopian: A Political Biography of Ali Shari'ati. London: I.B. Tauris, 1998. p. 25.
15. Mirza Abol Hassan Ispahani, Qaid-e-Azam Jinnah as I Knew Him, Forward Publications Trust (1966), p. 236
16. Muhammad Reza Kazimi, Liaquat Ali Khan: His Life and Work, Oxford University Press (2003), pp. 326-327
17. CONN, HARVIE M. "ISLAMIC SOCIALISM IN PAKISTAN: AN OVERVIEW." Islamic Studies, vol. 15, no. 2, 1976, pp. 111–121. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20846988.
18. CONN, HARVIE M. (1976). "Islamic Socialism in Pakistan: An Overview". Islamic Studies. 15 (2): 111–121. ISSN 0578-8072. JSTOR 20846988.
19. ABUL ALA MAUDUDI, The Economic Problem of Man and Its Islamic Solution. (Lahore, 1955)https://islamicstudies.info/literature/ ... lution.pdf Accessed 3 Oct.
20. Scott, James C. (1985). Weapons of the weak: everyday forms of peasant resistance. Yale University Press. p. 171. ISBN 978-0-300-03641-1.
21. Jawad, Rana (2009). Social welfare and religion in the Middle East: a Lebanese perspective. The Policy Press. p. 60. ISBN 978-1-86134-953-8.
22. Abdallah al-Shiekh, Devin J. Stewart, "Zakāt", The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World.
23. Ariff, Mohamed (1991). The Islamic voluntary sector in Southeast Asia: Islam and the economic development of Southeast Asia. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. p. 38. ISBN 981-3016-07-8.
24. De Waal, Alexander (2004). Islamism and its enemies in the Horn of Africa. Indiana University Press. pp. 148–149. ISBN 978-0-253-34403-8.
25. M.A. Mohamed Salih (Editor: Alexander De Waal) (2004). Islamism and its enemies in the Horn of Africa. Indiana University Press. pp. 148–149. ISBN 978-0-253-34403-8.
26. Jonsson, David J. (May 2006). Islamic Economics and the Final Jihad. ISBN 9781597819800. Retrieved 4 May 2015.
27. Benda-Beckmann, Franz von (2007). Social security between past and future: Ambonese networks of care and support. LIT Verlag, Münster. p. 167. ISBN 978-3-8258-0718-4. Quote: Zakat literally means that which purifies. It is a form of sacrifice which purifies worldly goods from their worldly and sometimes impure means of acquisition, and which, according to God's wish, must be channelled towards the community.
28. T.W. Juynboll, Handleiding tot de Kennis van de Mohaamedaansche Wet volgens de Leer der Sjafiitische School, 3rd Edition, Brill Academic, pp 85-88
29. Visser, Hans & Visser, Herschel (2009). Islamic finance: principles and practice. Edward Elgar Publishing. p. 29. ISBN 978-1-84542-525-8.
30. Ariff, Mohamed (1991). The Islamic voluntary sector in Southeast Asia: Islam and the economic development of Southeast Asia. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. p. 39. ISBN 981-3016-07-8.
31. "Zakat (Alms)".
32. "Islam Basics".
33. "Muslims give more to charity than others, UK poll says". nbcnews.com. 22 July 2013. Retrieved 29 July 2013.
34. "Analysis: A faith-based aid revolution in the Muslim world?". irinnews.org. 2012-06-01. Retrieved 2012-12-02.
35. Crone, Patricia (2005), Medieval Islamic Political Thought, Edinburgh University Press, pp. 308–9, ISBN 0-7486-2194-6
36. Hamid, Shadi (August 2003), "An Islamic Alternative? Equality, Redistributive Justice, and the Welfare State in the Caliphate of Umar", Renaissance: Monthly Islamic Journal, 13 (8) (see online)
37. Crone, Patricia (2005), Medieval Islamic Political Thought, Edinburgh University Press, p. 307, ISBN 0-7486-2194-6
38. Crone, Patricia (2005), Medieval Islamic Political Thought, Edinburgh University Press, p. 308, ISBN 0-7486-2194-6
39. Crone, Patricia (2005), Medieval Islamic Political Thought, Edinburgh University Press, p. 309, ISBN 0-7486-2194-6
40. Crone, Patricia (2005), Medieval Islamic Political Thought, Edinburgh University Press, pp. 309–310 and 312, ISBN 0-7486-2194-6
41. History of Basic Income Archived 21 June 2008 at the Wayback Machine, Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), retrieved on 18 June 2009
42. Grace Clark: Pakistan's Zakat and 'Ushr as a Welfare System
43. John L. Esposito, "The Islamic Threat: Myth Or Reality?" Oxford University Press, Oct 7, 1999, Political Science, 352 pp., pp. 77-78.
44. John L. Espósito, "The Islamic threat: myth or reality?," Oxford University Press, Sep 9, 1993, 247 pp., pp. 80-82
45. "US Officials Regard Chad Conflict As Big Test Of Wills With Khadafy." Gainesville Sun, August 19, 1983. New York Times News Service
46. Vandewalle, Dirk J. (2006). A history of modern Libya. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-85048-7. Retrieved 26 August 2011. revoutionary committees.
47. Principles of Communism, Frederick Engels, 1847, Section 18. "Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain."
48. al-Gaddafi, Muammar (1976) The Green Book, The Solution of the Economic Problem: Socialism People's Committee, Libya.
49. Raymond D. Gastil, "Freedom in the World: The Annual Survey of Political Rights & Civil Liberties 1997-1998," Transaction Publishers, Jan 1, 1997, 610 pp., p. 453
50. Çerkes Ethem [attributed] (2014). Hatıralarım (Çerkes trajedisinin 150. yılında)[My Memoirs] (in Turkish). Istanbul: Bizim Kitaplar. ISBN 9786055476465.
51. "Çerkes Ethem Kendini Savunuyor: Vatan İçin İlk Ben Yola Çıktım" [Ethem the Circassian defends himself: I Took the Initiative for the Homeland]. Radikal (in Turkish). Istanbul. 9 November 2014.
52. Salihoğlu, M. Latif (21 September 2015). "Çerkes Ethem'e Resmen İade-i İtibar" [Official Restoration of Honour for Ethem the Circassian]. Yeni Asya (in Turkish). Istanbul.
53. Uğurlu, Nurer (2007). Çerkez Ethem Kuvvetleri Kuvayı Seyyare. Örgün Yayınları. ISBN 9789757651574.
54. Şener, Cemal (2007). Çerkes Ethem Olayı. Altın Kitaplar. ISBN 9789752108356.
55. Kurşun, Zekeriya. "Çerkez Ethem". TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi (in Turkish). Retrieved 2021-07-15.
56. Uğurlu, Nurer (2007). Kuvayı Seyyare. Örgün Yayınevi. p. 357. ISBN 9789757651574.
57. "Marxism and Islam". Retrieved 4 May 2015.
• Esposito, John, ed. (1995). "Socialism and Islam". Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World. vol. 4. Oxford University Press. pp. 81–86. ISBN 0-19-506613-8. OCLC 94030758.
• Maxime Rodinson, Marxism and the Muslim World, Zed Press, 1979, 229 pages, ISBN 978-0-905762-21-0 (transl. from the French reference book Maxime Rodinson, Marxisme et monde musulman, Paris, Éditions du Seuil, 1972, 698 pages).