Medieval sources Readings

Unknown Author: Historiography during the Sultanate Period.

There is an evolution in terms, from Minhauj’s colourless narrative of events etc. to Barani’s vigorous interpretive arrangement of events, to Afif’s technique of studying the history a reign in various phases, and then Yahya returns to Minhauj’s dry narrative.

MINHAUJ

  1. His work Tabaqat-i-Nasiri, according to Rosenthal is a dynastic historiography.
  2. Basic structure, a short introductory of the story so far, from adam to caliphs
  3. Then several chapters based on various dynasties, dealing with varying brevity on individual rulers in sub chapters, which he ends with comments on the personal traits of the ruler.
  4. In the case of his patron, Nasir-ud-din Mahmud, annual chronicle.
  5. Multiple dynasties led to repetition of events in his accounts, however lead to discrepancies in dating.

BARANI

  1. Dynasties and rulers in the same land… simple coverage from Balban to Firoz Shah Tughlaq’s firs six years.
  2. Each ruler gets his own chapter, introduced by a list of important officials and appended by Barani’s own remarks on the ruler
  3. Chapters are subdivided into several smaller sections for special events etc. These appear only Jalal-ud-din Khalji onwards.
  4. Firoz’s shah’s reing treated in 12 muqadammas, these deal with specific aspects of his reign and not with chronological narratives.
  5. He makes dating mistakes very often, partly because of a failing memory, and partly because he doesn’t feel dates are very important, because essentially history was a lesson independent of chronological accuracy.

AFIF

  1. Tarikh-e-Firuz Shahi: range limited only the reing of Firoz Shah
  2. The work in divided into five qisms with 18 muqaddamas. Of these 4 qisms and 14 muqaddammas of the fifth have survived
  3. Introduced with praises to God, the Sufis and Firuz Tughlaq
  4. Qisms divided seemingly by events or phases, though not arranged chronologically always.
  5. Afif claims only to be adding to Barani, but his technique is new and analytical etc.

AMIR KHUSARO

  1. He wrote history in verse, typically short span of history, dedicated to specific, related evens or only one. Eg: qiran us sadain: meeting between Kaiqubad and Bughra Khan, Ashiqa around doomed love of Dewal Rani nad Khizr Khan.
  2. Gives extreme detail and uses several forms of poetry

ISAMI

  1. Futuh-us-Salatin is an account of the Ghaznavid and Ghorid conquest of india till his own day, using the same meter
  2. It is arranged according to reign and in each reignsubheadings are given to various events.

ANALYSIS

  1. Most works deal with politics alone, however, with changes in the nature of history writing, we see in the horizons of such work as well.
  2. Minhauj: merely narrates political events, such as enthronements, battles etc, with names, occasionally genealogies, and rarely anecdotes.
  3. Barani: similar political fous: but history was to be
    1. Study causes, both generally and individually, and draw conclusions.
    2. Sultan’s nature becomes important, as do administrative and other institutions.
    3. Information about various administrative experiments. Helped to understand the nature of the landed intermediary class.
    4. Sees the conflict between islam and Kingship and advocates the latter.
  4. Afif: tries to reason the defeat to Timur in 1398:
    1. Decided it was because of administrative inefficiency etc. large empire.
    2. Details of cities built, buildings, gardens and canals.
    3. First reference to the total annual revenue of the state.

ATTITUDES OF THESE HISTORIANS

  1. The author divides them into two categories. The first being bare narratives and the second more interpretive.
  2. In the firs category are Minauj’s work and some others.
    1. These are more dependent of research, and sources, though these are usually dubious.
    2. Though most of the events seem to be accurate, there is little deliberate attempt to figure out authenticity
    3. No use of Isnad.
    4. Modern historians handicapped by incomplete info, and that too collected from dubious sources.
  3. Second category seeking to say something with their history
    1. For them history not exactly a progression of events but lesson to be learnt: Barani: sanctity of high birth
    2. Barani: ‘ history is a science that requires no proof if the historian is trustworthy.

TREATMENT OF HISTORY AND HISTORICAL CAUSATION

  1. Minhauj: he writes of the events as happenings in the life of individual rulers, and of their careers as politicians, not so much as historical developments.
    1. His record is thus fragmented into individual units, independent of a larger narrative scheme
    2. His theory of causation depends entirely on human volition.
    3. In dealing with the second battle of tarain for example, he gives exhaustive details of the battle arrangements, and ends with a statement that god gave the musalmans victory… however, in the first battle god is absent.
  2. Barani: history is a lesson.
    1. Events for barani happen against a background, and so he gives importance to it.
    2. His comments at the end of each chapter are extremely useful for comparisons between rules, because sometimes, he critiques not just rulers, but also single policies of events, such as praising Balban for his emphasis on blood, and criticizing him for his tyrannical rule.
    3. He is also interested in administration, and sees as part as the state system, and integral to the progression of history. He criticizes Balban for his measures against the nobles, but admits them against the rebellious situation prior to his ascension.
    4. Very serious about the merit of high birth, and keep on going on about it. He says that education should not be given to those of low birth, including even Muslims, they should just be taught the bare minimum :rules about prayer and the haj pilgrimage with a few lessons of doctrine and other things.
    5. This creates a problem for him, while he follows the developments of history to sultan-ship against the laws of Islam, he will not follow it beyond the doctrine of sanctity of blood.
    6. He interpolates into his own history, giving personages his words… Balban’s thoughts on noble blood are the same as his
    7. Represents one group of the ruling elite.
    8. Causation for him lies in the man at the helm of affairs. He analyzes rulers for their contradictory qualities and sees in these contradiction reasons for success or failure. Muhammad bin Tughlaq is one such failure, while Balban’s was a good one.
    9. In one of the few extra historical explanations in his book, Barani explains the success of Alaudin Khalji because of Nizamuddin Aulia in delhi.
    10. Barani sees the nature of the Sultan in the whole of the reign, not just in events like Minhaj did.
  3. Afif: he phased reigns, seeing changes within the one of Firoz shah Tughlaq.
    1. Writing after the invasion of Timur, he portrayed the past as golden in comparison to now.
    2. Explains Firos Shahs’ dislike for war, by saying that the disadvantages of war were greater than advantages.
    3. Afif also mentions him loosing his way, several times due his army being inefficient and supplies falling short in Thatta.
    4. Talks about Firoz shah’s complete willingness to forgive anything, from army desertions, to embezzlement etc. he created hereditary posts, and granted for the first time, wajah’s which were not very smart at all.
    5. Though he also mentions a state of general peace and prosperity at this time.
    6. He marks the decline to Firoz sha’s mild policy
    7. And it may seem that finding the cause of this decline was his purpose in writing.

THE VIEWPOINT OF THE HISTORIAN

  1. Mainly concerned with the relation of sultan and nobles/courtiers as they aspires to similar status
  2. Advocated a particular kind of state system themselves.
  3. It would appear that a strong ruler would be antithetical to a powerful nobility, which is what they would have wanted. However the historians do not see any conflict between the two institutions, and while a weak ruler might be advantageous in the short run, a strong ruler alone, could keep the empire together, and prevent dissension amongst the nobles. Also a virile and expanding empire would provide nobles with ample opportunity to get rich.
  4. No one supported a weak ruler or royal despotism.
  5. The historian are extremely verbal, and use language that could be interpreted as communal to prevent the entry of ‘hindus’ the chief threat amongst the low born to noble exclusivity, and other muslim threats to this exclusivity.
  6. Conversion was universall denounced. With Khusrau Khan being Barani target, and even Amir Khusro who advocated tolerance of hindoos on the social plane, denounced them on the political one.
  7. The basic question being one of maintaining the status quo.
  8. However, on the whole, the development of the sultanate period followed a trajectory of inclusivity over time, and this is why most of the chronicles except of tabaqat are critical of the sultans.