‘The glory of Firuz Shah Tughlaq lies in the assessment made by contemporary writers’. Comment.
There are plenty of sources for the period of Firuz Shah Tughlaq including Barani’s Tarikh-i-Firuzshahi which covers the first six years of his reign, the Futuhat-i-Firuzshahi (the victories of Firuz Shah Tughlaq), an inscription placed by the Sultan himself at the Jama mosque at Firuzabad, the Sirat-i Firuzshahi, a biography written by an anonymous writer who gives information regarding the reforms and regulations made by the Sultan, among others. However, the most complete source for his reign is Afif’s Tarikh-i-Firuzshahi. Afif had intended for this work to be a sequel to Barani’s , comprising the ninety muqqaddims which the older historian had intended to write but never did. Sirhindi and Bihamadkhani become the main sources from the 1380s onwards. Bihamadkhani’s Tarikh-i-Muhammadi offers a different point of view from that of earlier chroniclers as it was composed not at Delhi but at the principality of Kalpi. There is also the letter collection or the Insha-i-Mahru of Ain-i-Mahru, an iqtadar posted in Gujarat, which is another source.
Although there is no dearth of source material, the presentation of the period is slightly problematic; Barani, Afif, Sirhindi and Bihamadkhani have all claimed that the era was characterised by prosperity, peace and stability, claiming the period to be a ‘golden age’.
Barani’s principal motive in redrafting the Tarikh-i-Firuzshahi was to attract the attention of the sultan. When Firuz Shah was elected in Thatta as sultan, Barani at the time was at Delhi. He was caught up in the conspiracy of Khwaja-i-Jahan, and as a result was stripped off his position and property. Therefore, in his attempt to please the sultan, he exaggerates the policies of the king and even attributes divine qualities to him. He says that there had been no milder sovereign ruler than Firuz Shah; that no previous monarch had avoided shedding blood to the extent that he had done with regard to Khwaja Jahan’s supporters. The harsh punishments of previous reigns were now discarded; spies and informers were done away with. The new sultan’s concern for the welfare of the ‘religious class’, to which Barani devotes a whole section of his work, had been demonstrated in the course of his long journey from Thatta to Delhi. He had restored the stipends and other grants to the Sufis and ulema that Muhammad bin Tughlaq had confiscated. At Uchch, he rebuilt the khanaqah of Shaikh Jamal al-Din and returned to his grandsons the lands that Muhammad bin Tughlaq had made khalisa.
Barani was eager to recover his position at court and his writing was thus affected by his own personal desires and judgement. He was conscious of the weakness in the accession of Firuz Shah, and therefore to give legal sanction, states that Muhammad bin Tughlaq had nominated Firuz Shah Tughlaq as his successor.
Picking up from where Barani had left off, Afif wrote not only a political narrative but also gave information on the life of the different classes of society. Throughout his narrative Afif has praised the sultan, and concealed his weaknesses under one cloak or the other. One has to read between the lines to notice Firuz Shah’s weakness when Afif tries to cover them up. The sultan’s lack of military skill was justified on the grounds of idealism.
Afif was writing in the post Tughlaq period, at the time of Timur’s invasion. He along with Sirhindi and Bihamadkhani wrote at the time when the Sultanate’s glorious days were over. The Sultanate had broken up and a number of new regional Sultanates had come into being. Afif had witnessed the chaos following Firuz Shah Tughlaq’s death. For him, Firuz Shah Tughlaq’s period was full of nostalgia. It was a period of peace and stability when the Sultanate extended from Bengal to Gujarat. Also, Afif was a member of the ulema. He painted the sultan as holy man and remarks that it was his existence that kept the city from destruction.
Barani and Afif both try to make us believe that kingship was imposed upon Firuz who was not at all interested in having the throne. According to Afif, the nobles and members of the ulema went to Firuz Shah and pleaded with him to take control of the state. Firuz Shah was averse to being made king and kept refusing to give his consent. He was then taken by the hand and led to the throne.
The accession of Firuz Shah was brought about by a combination of the ulema, mashaikh and the nobles, all of whom who wanted to have a puppet ruler who would submit to their will and serve their interests. Firuz Shah was conscious of his weak position. He had no claims on the ground of natural succession or nomination. He had no army under his direct control. He had not established himself as a military commander. It was thus important that Firuz Shah promote an image that was in contrast with Muhammad bin Tughlaq’s. He had to depend on the support of the elements who had been dissatisfied during the reign of Muhammad bin Tughlaq and, in return he had to adopt a policy of appeasement. Of these groups, the Sufis and the ulema were the most demanding and he had to be careful not to offend them.
On his way to Delhi from Thatta, Barani states that throughout his march the new sultan took efforts to win over the Sufis and ulema. Firuz Shah had entered into an understanding with the Sufis for their compliance with his claim to the throne in return for better treatment than what they had faced in the previous period. Afif covered up this contract by saying that eminent saints like Shaikh Nizam al-Din Awliya and Alauddin Ajudhani had predicted Firuz Shah’s sovereignity
He had seen the results of the opposition of the ulema. He realised that his predecessors’ policy of keeping the ulema and Sufis under control required hard work and constant vigilance. Besides, he had gained the throne with their support and therefore adopted a policy of least resistance to them.
He visited the graves of the sufi saints. He began re-granting the waqf and inam grants which had been stopped by Muhammad bin Tughlaq. He ordered for the reconstruction of the khanqah of sheikh Jamalud-din and made fresh grants for its maintenance. He proved himself benefactor of the Sufis in contrast to what Muhammad bin Tughlaq had been to them. He gave them grants to support their livelihood.
He ordered the remission of 28 taxes including gharai and charai—on the ground that the Sharia had not permitted them. This abolishment of taxes was limited to the region of Delhi alone. The letters of Ain-i Mahru refer to the abolition of the taxes by advising the king that his budget would balance only if he confined his expenditure on those things that were mentioned in the Sharia alongside abolishing taxes that did not find basis in the Sharia. But since the Sharia taxes would not suffice for the expenditure of the present day state, then the sultan would have to follow not what the Sharia prescribes, but what it permits.
He introduced the practice of ‘Khums’ which was in accordance with the Sharia. According to this practice, 4/5th share of the war booty would go to the soldiers, while 1/5th would remain with the state. But it should be remembered that there were hardly any military campaigns in the period.
Barani says that one of the factors which contributed to the stability of Firuz Shah’s reign was the prohibition of Siyasat. Siyasat was the term given to the death penalty for political crimes. It was instrumental in establishing and maintaining power in a situation where there was no law of succession and military force had to be used to emphasise power. The institution of the Siyasat had been practised by rulers such as Balban, Alauddin Khalji and even by Muhammad bin Tughlaq. The inscription Futuhat-i-Firuzshahi put up on the Jama Masjid of Firuzabad states that since the Siyasat was not in accordance with the Sharia, the practice would be abolished.
Afif while praising Firuz Shah’s decision to abolish Siyasat, also mentions that he did not replace it with another punishment regarding political offences.
In his Futuhat he reveals clearly the orthodox Islamic credentials for which he wished to be remembered—the abandonment of punishments and taxes which were not in accordance with the Sharia; the suppression of deviant forms of Islamic practice; the promotion of conversion to Islam; the building of new mosques and madrasas; his attentiveness to saints. The Futuhat-i-Firuzshahi when studied, clearly indicates that it was an attempt made by the sultan to build a support base among the orthodoxy.
Barani states that another factor that led to the successful rule of Firuz Shah Tughlaq was his decision to levy the Jazia. References to this tax can also be found in the inscription at the Jama mosque, where it is implied to being a discriminatory tax on non-Muslims. But we do not know whether the tax was actually collected or whether it was just a reference, to show the ulema that he was concerned with the Sharia. The collection of the Jazia would have required strict state supervision, which was not possible due to the increasingly decentralised nature of the Sultanate.
By constantly referring to the ulema and declaring that his actions were in conformity with the Sharia he stressed the Islamic character of the state. To enhance his position as a champion of the orthodoxy, he sought caliphial sanction. The titles of Sayf al-Khilafat or ‘sword of the Caliphate’ and Qasim Amir al Mu’minin or ‘partner of the commander of the faithful’ were conferred upon him by the caliph. He was declared to be the caliph’s wali. Afif stresses that the caliphial patents that reached Delhi came unsolicited, in contrast with the recognition that Muhammad bin Tughlaq had obtained only on request.
Afif suggests that he continued to identify himself with the orthodox piety and the interests of the religious class throughout his career, even to the extent of having his head shaved like that of a sufi disciple. He prayed at the shrines of saints and past sultans on the eve of all his campaigns. He also visited shrines when he went riding
Afif paints a picture of Firuz Shah’s reign as era of contentment among the aristocracy.
Both Afif and Sirhindi point to the fact that Firuz Shah’s era witnessed only one revolt, by a Muslim noble, Shams al-Din Damghani in 1380-81, and Afif expressly draws a contrast with the turbulence of Muhammad bin Tughlaq’s reign. Damghani, who was the Naib of Gujarat, did not send the fawazil to the court and rose in open rebellion. However the amiran-i-sada remained loyal to the sultan and killed Damghani. Afif dismisses the entire episode as a farce.
Firuz Shah had seen the consequences of the opposition of the ruling class during the reign of Muhammad bin Tughlaq, and in his anxiety to rule carefully, he adopted the policy of settling the ruling class by making the posts hereditary. When Khan Jahan died, his office of wazir and title passed on to his son who came to be known as Khan Jahan (II). He allowed the heir of an amir or muqta to occupy his father’s position, title and iqta. When this policy was applied to provincial governorships, it had the effect of creating regional interests and autonomous principalities.
While Afif only refers to the posts in the army being made hereditary, Firuz Shah in his Futuhat claims that the hereditary principle was applied to all offices. The allusion to the system of hereditary offices in the Futuhat-I Firuzshahi indicates that the sultan took pride in it. The author of the Sirat, gives credit of this policy to the sultan.
Firuz Shah fixed the income of the state at 6,75,00,000 tankas. This was done to protect iqtadars from enhancement. But there was no provision in Firuz Shah’s system to prevent the iqtadars from making large fortunes by overtaxing the peasantry and from withholding money due to the state. Afif records a few such cases where the income of the iqtadar’s income exceeded that of the state’s. Afif covers this as Firuz Shah’s generosity. Afif and Barani assert repeatedly that never the accounts of the provinces were examined in accordance with the correct principles of accountancy. As a result, bribery became rampant and Afif goes on to say that Firuz Shah saw the discrepancies in the accounts but he chose not to acknowledge them.
He reverted back to the practice of granting revenue assignments in lieu of salaries to his officers and soldiers. That the whole army was paid by wajh grants. This practice had been abandoned by earlier sultans like Alauddin Khalji and Muhammad bin Tughlaq who paid the army in cash. Afif claims that Firuz Shah was generous in assignments of land revenue for livelihood; that he made assignments of 10,000, 5000 and 2000 tankas. He goes on to say that Firuz Shah assigned all villages, districts and towns to the army, thus reducing the extent of the khalisa land. The salaries of the khans and the maliks were also higher than in the previous reign as a measure designed to protect them against inflation.
The laws of the sultan allowed for the degeneration of any army. He discontinued the practice of chehra and daag. If a soldier was not able to come for his duty he was to send his agent. Afif refers to incidents where Firuz Shah would give money to people who needed it to bribe officials to let their horses pass the inspection. He calls this act one of generosity, but there is also a subtle indication of the problems that existed in the period.
Financial conditions of the state seem to have deteriorated during the sultan’s last twelve years for we suddenly see him campaigning personally in Katehr and Etawa for the purpose of securing tribute. Afif dresses up these attacks as hunting expeditions.
In military terms his reign was undistinguished. He neither gained nor lost any territories.
Ma’abar, the Deccan and Bengal had been lost in his uncle’s reign and he was obliged to acquiesce in the loss of the deccan. His sole successes were the campaigns of Nagarkot and the submission-after two attempts- of the Jams of Thatta. His longest campaign had been to Thatta and thence to Gujarat.
Modern day scholars refer to him as a weak military leader. These views find ample support from the sultan’s operations in Bengal. Large armies were sent to Bengal in 1353 against Shams al-Din Ilyas Shah and in 1359 against his successor, Sikander. During both invasions, the Delhi armies had forced the enemy into the island fortress of Ikdala, only then to abandon the campaign. In the wake of each campaign, the Bengal ruler sent elephants and other gifts to Firuz Shah, and Afif claims that the sultan remained on friendly terms with Sikander, until his own death. Afif says that on the first occasion, Firuz Shah had been able to occupy the town of Ikdala, but upon hearing the lamentations of the Muslim women in the citadel, rejected his generals’ advice to storm the fort.
Afif says that during the blockade of Thatta, Firuz Shah bitterly regretted the sufferings of his soldiers and vowed not to go on campaign again. At yet later points in the biography, the sultan is said to have given up campaigning after the death of Khan Jahan. These various attempts to account for the sultan’s military inactivity suggest that Afif may have found the matter a source of embarrassment.
Both the Futuhat-i-Firuzshahi and the Sirat-i-Firuzshahi indicate that Firuz Shah was interested in the improvement of agriculture. He established state farms and cultivated high value crops like cotton and sugar. The sources say that a revenue of one lakh tankas was yielded. Afif writes how there had not been the same prosperity in the land during the reign of any other king. But it is important to remember that Firuz Shah reign did not have to grapple with problems of famine and lack of rainfall that Muhammad bin Tughlaq faced.
Afif has praised Firuz Shah Tughlaq for lowering prices of commodities and has attributed this to Firuz Shah’s divine nature, the Khairul Majalis or the ‘Conversations of Shaikh Nasiruddin Chiragh’ refer to the acute economic distress during the early years of his reign. The Shaikh compares the prices of the periods of Firuz Shah and Alauddin Khalji, favouring the latter. While Alauddin Khalji made a conscious effort to control prices, Firuz Shah did not. Prices were stable in his reign due to natural conditions.
It should be remembered that Afif was comparing the prices of Firuz Shah’s period to that of his own. The famine in Muhammad bin Tughlaq’s time also has to be taken into account when comparing prices. When the letters of Ain-i Mahru say that the prices of commodities had come down but not wages, he was probably referring to the famine figures of the previous period.
On becoming sultan, Firuz Shah was shown the records of those who had taken loans amounting to two crore tankas from Muhammad bin Tughlaq for agrarian projects. Firuz Shah, wishing to avoid conflict and unpopularity with the people so soon, took the advice of one of his ministers and cancelled all claims of the state. To make it clear to the people that his policy would be different from Muhammad bin Tughlaq’s, Firuz Shah offered compensation to the relatives of those who had been put to death or tortured in the previous regime, in return for deeds of forgiveness and goodwill (khushnudi) for the late sultan. He mentions this in the inscription, expressing his desires of reconciling the people to the late Sultan.
Firuz Shah spent two and a half years in constructing the fortified city of Hisar-Firuzah and irrigating the entire region by canals. A detailed account of Firuz Shah’s canal system is given in the Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi. In 1355, he dug a canal from the Sutlej to Jahbaz, a distance of 48 karohs. The next year he built a canal from the Jumuna in the area of Mandal and Sirmur, he took it to Hansi and then to Arasin and further on to Hisar-Firuzah.
In his Futuhat, Firuz Shah mentions the following builings that he had repaired—the Jama Mosque of Delhi, the Shamsi Tank, the Ala-i-Tank, the Madrasa of Sultan Shamsuddin Iltutmish and the Jahan Panah. Among the new cities built by the sultan, Afif notes Firuzabad, Tughlaqpur Sapdam and Tughlaqpur Kasna. Barani refers to three constructions that Firuz Shah had undertaken in the early part of his reign including the Jama mosque at Firuzabad, the Madrasa-i Firuz Shahi. Afif gives a list of the nine palaces built by Firuz Shah as well as the list of the seven dams or bands built by the king. He also built khanqahs and traveller’s inns.
Reference is made in the sources to some relief measures of Firuz Shah. Regarding unemployment, the sultan asked the kotwal of Delhi to bring to him those people who wanted employment and efforts were made to help them. Another relief measure that Firuz Shah took was that he built a hospital (Shifa-a-khana) in which a number of physicians were employed to give free treatment to the people. He also opened a department for providing for the dowries of girls whose families could not afford their wedding expenses. They would be given a lump-grant of 50, 30 or 25 tankas according to their need or family status. This was applicable to Muslims only.
If Barani measured Firuz Shah’s success against that of the previous regime, later writers describing his reign as a golden age, did so after comparing it to the period that had ensued. To some degree, Firuz Shah’s policies can be viewed as the policies of a new monarch with an insecure title and a need to buy support. To avoid a recurrence of the troubles that had affected the previous government, the sultan made concessions to the nobility and military class. Ultimately it was his land assignment system and the official corruption as well as the application of the hereditary principle to all posts that were the three main causes for the decline and the decentralisation of the sultanate.
REFERENCES:
S.P. Nigam—Nobility under the Sultans of Delhi
K.A. Nizami—State and Culture in Medieval India
Habib and Nizami—Comprehensive History of India
Peter Jackson—The Delhi Sultanate