فيروز شاه طغلق (1351 - 1388)
الكلمة المفتاحية: حكم أسرة طغلق، إنجازات فيروز شاه طغلق، عمارة طغلق، حاكم سلطنة دلهي، عهد فيروز شاه طغلق، حقائق سلالة طغلق، الأثر التاريخي لفيروز شاه طغلق، فترة سلطنة دلهي، إدارة فيروز شاه طغلق
Keyword:
Tughlaq dynasty rule, Firuz Shah Tughlaq
achievements, Tughlaq architecture, Delhi Sultanate ruler, Firuz Shah Tughlaq
reign, Tughlaq dynasty facts, Historical impact of Firuz Shah Tughlaq, Delhi
Sultanate period, Firuz Shah Tughlaq
administration
The death of Muhammad bin Tughluq, during the course of & military campaign, created a perilous situation, and the disorderly retreat of the leaderless army led to chaos and wild confusion. Taking advantage of this, not only the rebels in Sind but also the Mongol mercenaries, who had come to assist the Sultan's army, plundered the imperial camp without any opposition. After suffer- ing this disgrace and humiliation for two days, the officers and nobles present in the camp offered the vacant throne to Firüz, whose father Rajab was the younger brother of Ghiyas-ud-din Tughluq, and who was thus the first cousin of the late Sultan. Firuz, at first unwilling to accept the offer, ultimately yielded to the pressure of the nobles and was hailed as the Emperor on March 23, 1351.
Apart from the immediate necessity of a leader to save the difficult situation in which the imperial army was placed, the choice of the nobles was probably determined by the fact, or at least a general belief, that Muhammad Tughluq, having no son, had nominated Firuz as his successor. A protest was made by Khudāvand-zāda, the sister of Muhammad Tughluq, on behalf of her son, who was more closely related to the late Sultan, but the nobles rejected his claim on the ground that he was incompetent and incapable of governing.
As
soon as the news of Sultan Muhammad's death reached Delhi, the minister, Khvāja
Jahān, raised to the throne a child, whom he gave out as the son and heir of
the late ruler. Some modern historians are of opinion that the infant enthroned
at Delhi was the real son of Sultan Muhammad, and disbelieve the story that the
latter, on his death-bed, declared Firüz as his heir. They hold that possibly
Sultan Muhammad bequeathed to Firüz the regency, and exhorted him to do all in
his power to extricate the army from its dangerous situation,1 But almost all
the contempo rary and non-contemporary writers, including Sujan Rai Bhandari,
the author of the Khulasat-ut-Tavārikh, are in accord that the late Sultan had
left no male issue, and this is also indirectly proved by the claim put forward
by Khudāvand-zäda on behalf of her son. Both the contemporary authorities,
Barani and 'Afif, refer to the nomination of Firuz as his heir-apparent by
Muhammad Tughluq. In view of all these it is reasonable to hold that Firuz was
justified in accepting the throne when it was offered to him in the Sindhu
valley. In any case the real or pretended son of Muhammad Tughluq was not
supported by any party, and Khvāja Jahan submitted to the new Sultan, who at first
pardoned him, but soon changed his mind and had him executed.
After
having driven off the enemy in Sind, Firuz proceeded on his journey to Delhi.
On reaching Sirsuti he heard the happy news of the death of Taghi, the rebel
who had defied Muhammad Tughluq and had tired him to death. The royal journey
was then resumed, and on reaching Delhi the coronation was celebrated in the
month of August, 1351. It was followed by new distribution of offices,
remission of oppressive taxes, and the cancellation of puni- live measures and
sanguinary punishments of the previous regime. Towards the close of A.D. 1353
Firuz set out on an expedition to Bengal for putting down its ruler Hāji Ilyas
Shah, who had assumed independence and styled himself Sultan Shams-ud-din Ilyas
Shāh. As the Sultan approached, the rebel withdrew into the strong for- tress
of Ekdala in East Bengal, protected by rivers and jungles. After a short siege
the Sultan feigned retreat, and Ilyas pursued him with a big force. But he was
defeated and fell back. Ekdālā, however, held out, and as the rainy season was
then fast approaching, the Sultan made peace with Ilyas, practically
recognizing his independ- ence, and returned to the capital in A.D. 1355.2 In
that year he built the city of Firüzābād on the bank of the Yamunā, which be-
came known as New Delhi.
In
A.D. 1356 a robe of honour arrived for the Sultan from the Caliph Al-Hakim of
Egypt with a patent conferring on him the whole of Ilindusthan. Towards the
close of this year there came mes- sengers from Haji Ilyas of Lakhnawati with
splendid presents and gifts. Through the Bengali messengers who had come to
Delhi (1357), the Sultan despatched steeds with foreign fruits to Shams- ud-din
of Lakhnäwati, and sent an embassy. But it was learnt shortly after that Sultan
Shams-ud-din had died and was succeeded by his son Sultan Sikandar. So the
embassy was recalled. But the Sultan's action showed that he formally
acknowledged the independ- ence of Bengal.
Nevertheless
the Sultan resolved to lead a second expedition to Bengal. Zafar Khan, the
son-in-law of Fakhr-ud-din, the inde- pendent ruler of Bengal, had come as a
fugitive to the camp of the Sultan, and complained of the high-handedness of
Shams-ud-din Ilyäs. He begged the Sultan to intercede on his behalf, and the
latter took advantage of it to make a renewed attempt to subdue Bengal.
'Alif's
Tarikh-i-Firüz Shahi, which contains a detailed account of Firuz Shah's
campaign, tends to show that this expedition was undertaken and carried through
more like a pleasure trip than a regular march to extirpate and crush the
enemy. The Sultan had proceeded a few stages from Delhi when he began to
indulge in wine, and loitered six months in the tract between Kanauj and Awadh
to found a new city on the Gumti, which was named Jaunpur, apparently to
commemorate the memory of Muhammad Tughluq, whose name was Jauna. After a long
delay the Sultan at last reached Bengal in A.D. 1359. Sultan Sikandar, like his
father, shut hitasell up in the fortress of Ekdalā. Firüz besieged it, but his
operations were marked by indecision and lack of military skill. According to
'Afif, the Sultan would not give the orders for attack on the enemy, even when
urged by the best of his generals, saying, "although it was very desirable
that the place should be captured, still if it were taken by a sudden assault,
thousands of worthy and respectable women would be subjected to violence and
indignity at the hands of the graceless men." But others hold the view
that the Sultan found the fortress too strong for capture and hence restrained
his men from attempting to take it by assault. The dead- lock sickened both the
partics who thereupon made overtures for peace. Peace was concluded, according
to 'Afif, on condition that Zafar Khan should be established in Sonargaon. But
this seems to be very unlikely. According to other historians, Sikandar pro-
mised only to send an annual tribute of elephants to the Emperor. 'Afif says
that Sikandar was awarded a royal title in return, be- sides a jewelled crown
worth 80,000 tankas and 500 Arab and Turki horses. On the whole, Firuz failed
to recover Bengal as a part of the Delhi Sultanate.
The Sultan had reached Jaunpur on his way back to Delhi from Bengal, when he suddenly conceived the plan of making a raid upon Orissa, referred to as Jajnagar by Muslim chroniclers.3 He set out in October, 1360, with a large cavalry and reached Bihar about December, 1360. Then he marched through modern Pachet to Sikhar in the Manbhum district. The ruler of this place was an important chief with thirty-six minor chiefs as his vassals. He fled, but the garrison in the capital put up a stern fight before they were overpowered. Then Firüz pushed towards the south through the defiles of Manbhum and Singhbhum till he reached Tinanagar within the frontier of Orissa, which had never before been invaded by any Muslim army. The people offered resistance, but were de- feated, and then Firüz proceeded to a prosperous town named Kinianagar, which is probably to be identified with Khiching, the capital of the old Mayurbhanj State. Then marching through Keonjhar, the Sultan reached the frontier of the Cuttack district. The movement was so swilt, that King Bhanudeva II of Oussa, being taken by surprise, fled from the fortress of Saranghar. The garrison, however, put up a brave fight, but were defeated Fiüz then marched to the capital city Cuttack, and later proceeded to the holy city of Puri, where he demolished the temple of Jagannatha and desecrated the images.
After
having achieved this cherished object, the Sultan pro- ceeded to an island near
the sea-coast where "nearly one hundred thousand men of Jajnagar had taken
refuge with their women, child- ren, kinsmen and relations". The locality
no doubt refers to the region round the Chilka Lake. The Sultan converted
"the island into a basin of blood by the massacre of the
unbelievers". Those who survived the massacre, particularly women, were
"pressed as slaves into service in the house of every soldier".
"Women with babies and pregnant ladies were haltered, manacled, fettered
and enchained, and no vestige of the infidels was left except their
blood". After this the "jubilant" Sultan concluded his
victorious campaign by an elephant-hunt at Padamtala (in the old Baramba State
of Orissa).4
According
to 'Afif, the Rājā of Orissa sent envoys to the Sultān offering submission. The
Sultan assured the Raja of his friendly intentions and the latter "agreed
to furnish certain elephants yearly in payment of revenue". This satisfied
the Sultan "who sent robes and insignia to the Ray",5
'Afif
gives a detailed account of the return journey of the army, on the authority of
his father, who accompanied it. The guides lost their way and the army, passing
through unknown hills and jungles, for six months, "were quite in despair
and utterly worn out with the fatigues of the arduous march". To make
matters worse, “provi- sion became very scarce, and the army was reduced to the
verge of destruction".6
According
to a recent writer, "it was an audacious campaign, brilliantly conceived
and mightily executed", and "the successful execution of this
campaign testifies to Firüz's undoubted skill as a general". The campaign
was certainly audacious, but the above description of the return journey leaves
the impression that it was neither planned nor executed in a manner worthy of a
skilful general.
This
brings us to another important question, namely, the object of the expedition.
That it was an afterthought and due to a sudden impulse is clearly proved by
the fact that the Sultan had to retrace his steps to Bihar. Evidently the idea
of such an expedition was formed only after he had reached Jaunpur, or at least
not long be- fore it. Fortunately, the two contemporary official sources which
supply the details of the expedition also mention the objects for which it was
undertaken. According to the Sirat-i-Firuz Shahi, these were: "extirpating
Rai Gajpat, massacring the unbelievers, demolishing their temples, hunting
elephants, and getting a glimpse of their enchanting country.' 'Ain-ul-Mulk
echoes the same senti- ment. "The object of the expedition was," says
he, "to break the idols, to shed the blood of the enemies of Islam (and)
to hunt elephants." Referring to this a modern writer has observed that "Firūz
Shāh's main purpose was elephant-hunting, though hedged round by other
reasons... It is difficult to accept this view. Apart from the commonsense view
that a sober ruler is hardly likely to undertake such a risky expedition
through unknown hills and jungles to a distant land, merely, or even mainly,
for elephant- hunting, the spirit of bigotry which characterized the Sultan
hardly leaves any doubt that the main object of the Sultan was, as expressly
stated by both the contemporary authorities, the destruction of the holy temple
of Jagannatha at Puri, held with the greatest venera- tion all over India. It
bears some analogy to the expedition of Sultan Mahmud to Somanatha, and,
curiously enough, the analogy extends to the sufferings during the return
journeys of both. The argument advanced in support of the view that the
elephant-hunt- ing was the only object of the expedition is that the Sultān
"broke no idol, pillaged no shrine". It is even said that he went to
Puri to view and admire the famous temple of Jagannatha and if he carried the
idol, perhaps he wanted it for his museum. 12
This
ingenious and somewhat puerile attempt to whitewash the conduct of Firuz is
rendered futile by the clear statement in the Sirat-i-Firüz Shāhi that the
temple of Jagannatha was destroyed and the images deliberately desecrated. 13
The terms of the treaty with the ruler of Orissa do not indicate that the
conquest of the country was the main objective of the Sultan. On the whole, it
is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Sultan Firuz was animated by the
spirit of Sultan Mahmud, and the destruction of the temple of Jagannatha and
the chastisement of the Hindus were his main ob- jects. The subjugation of
Orissa and the elephant-hunting were at best subsidiary issues. It is
exceedingly probable that on his way back from Bengal the Sultan heard of the
great sanctity of the temple of Jagannatha at Puri, and decided to destroy this
citadel of infidels. This satisfactorily explains his sudden decision to lead a
campaign against Orissa,
In
1361, Firuz proceeded to Sirhind with the object of invading Nagarkot (Kangra),
which was conquered by Muhammad Tughluq, but whose ruler had since asserted
independence. The sanctity of the temple of Jvälämukhi in Nagarkot, which
attracted thousands of Hindu pilgrims, was probably an additional reason for
this expe- dition. 14 His march to Sirhind was leisurely, and in the course of
it he stopped to construct a canal and a fort. Afterwards he resumed his march
towards Kangra, whose chief submitted and was allowed to keep his territory as
a fief. Next year Firuz undertook an expe- dition against Sind. If we remember
the tragic circumstances amid which Muhammad Tughluq's campaign in that region
ended in A.D. 1351, we need hardly wonder that Firuz should have under- taken a
fresh one to vindicate the imperial prestige. Indeed, from this point of view
it seems to have been long overdue. Apart from the desire of new conquest,
recovering the lost prestige, and aveng- ing the wrongs done to the late Sultan
by the chiefs of Sind- the motives mentioned by 'Afif--the turbulent activities
of those chiefs for years, engendered by a hostile and rebellious spirit, fur-
nished a clear excuse for the Sind campaign. 16
Firüz
set out with a large army of 90,000 horse and 480 elephants. He collected a
large fleet of boats on the Sindhu and besieged Tattah, the capital of the Jams
of Sind. The ruler, Jäm Banhbina, 16 bravely defended the city and made
frequent sorties. The Sultan's army suffered from famine, and a pestilence
carried off nearly three-fourths of the horses. To make matters worse, the
royal fleet fell into the hands of the enemy. Thereupon the Sultan decided to
withdraw, and marched with his troops towards Gujarat. The retreat is said to
have been more calamitous than the siege. Many died for want of the necessaries
of life, and the obnoxious disease among the horses continued in all its fury.
Treacherous guides misled the army into the Rann of Cutch where drinkable water
was not available, and thirst was added to the untold miseries and afflictions
of the soldiers.17 With great difficulty, however, the army reached Gujarat
whence the governor Nizam-ul-Mulk, who had failed to send the much-needed
supplies and guides, was expelled and was replaced by Zafar Khan.
The
greater part of the year 1363 the Sultan spent in recouping his strength in
Gujarat. About this time he received an invitation from Bahram, a rival prince
of the Bahmani dynasty, to intervene and conquer the Deccan. It was a good
opportunity which, if seized, might have enabled the Sultan to conquer the
Bahmani kingdom. But Firüz, who had set his heart on Sind, refused the offer.
He came back and besieged Tattah, whose ruler surrendered and sued for peace.
He accompanied the Sultan to Delhi, but after some time was restored to the
government of Sind on condition of paying an annual tribute. 13 The Sultan was
sorry for having under taken the Sind expedition and swore not to launch any
aggressive campaign in future. To these who had suffered and died in the Raun
of Cutch he made concessions by enabling their heirs to enjoy the property of
the deceased rent-free.
The
year 1374 was a melancholy one in the course of which died Fath Khan the eldest
and most talented of the sons of Firuz. This event almost unhinged the mind of
Firuz, so much so that the efficiency of administration declined considerably
and the empire became decadent. He appointed one Dāmaghānī governor of Gujarat
in place of Zafar Khan, merely because Dāmaghānī had promised to send more
money annually, which the other declared himself unable to do. As soon as
Damaghānī arrived in Gujarāt, his extortionate demands were opposed and,
finding himself unable to fulfil his promisc, he broke into rebellion. But he
was slain by the amīrān-i-sadah, who sent his head to Delhi. The Sultan then
appointed one Malik Mufarrah or Farhat-ul-Mulk to the govern- ment of Gujarāt
(A.D. 1377).
Another
difficult situation arose in 1377 when the zamindārs of Etawa threatened to
rebel. It should be noted that the Etawa district had long been recalcitrant,
and the revenue in that district had almost always to be collected with the
help of armed force. The rebellion of the zamindārs was, however, put down by
the Sultan.
About
the same time the Sultan led an expedition against Kharku, the Rājā of Katehr
(Rohilkhand), who had treacherously murdered the governor of Badaun, Sayyid
Muhammad, and his two brothers. In A.D. 1380, the Sultan marched with an army
to Katehr and perpetrated almost a wholesale massacre of the Hindus. In- deed,
the massacre was so general and indiscriminate that one historian has remarked:
"The spirit of the murdered Sayyids them- selves arose to intercede".
The Sultan then pursued Kharku, who fled into Kumaon. Here, again, although
Kharku could not be seiz- ed, a very large number of Hindus were killed and
23,000 captured and enslaved. Before returning to Delhi, Firüz left a positive
order to devastate Katehr annually for the next five years, and appointed an
Afghan to execute this bloody work. The Sultan himself annu- ally visited the
region during the next five years in order to see that his ferocious order was
duly carried into effect. The result was, as a contemporary chronicler has
observed: "In those years not an acre of land was cultivated, no man slept
in his house, and the death of the three Sayyids was avenged on countless
thousands of Hindus" 19
In
1385 the Sultan founded one more city, called in derision Firüzpur Ikhleri or
Akhirinpür, i.c. the last of his cities, since, seni- lity and decay of
intellect having overtaken him, the Sultan was not able to found any other city
or construct any more works of public utility.
Akhirīnpūr set the seal to the personal history of Sultan Firüz. He had now reached the age of eighty19 and was thoroughly domi- nated by the minister Khan Jahan. The latter became so powerful that he cast covetous eyes on the throne and endeavoured to cap- ture it by removing the legal heir, prince Muhammad Khān. But the scheme failed, and the cunning minister Khan Jahan fled to Mewät, seeking shelter with its chief, Kokā Chauhan. Sultan Firüz then associated prince Muhammad with him in the administration and even gave him the royal title. The joint rule of the father and son-the latter being styled Nasir-ud-din Muhammad Shah-was proclaimed on August 22, 1387.20 Khan Jahan was seized and killed, Muhammad had gone to Sirmur for a hunting excursion, when news reached him that Farhat-ul-Mulk, the governor of Gujarat, had murdered Sikandar Khan, who had been appointed to succeed him. Muhammad hastened back to Delhi, but instead of taking suitable stops to suppress the revolt, gave himself up entirely to pleasure. He dismissed the officers of the court who attempted to rouse him from his lethargy, and filled their places with parasites and flatterers. The nobles of the court thereupon rose against him and were supported by the populace. Being defeated in a bloody battle, they were driven into the city which, for two days, became a scene of civil war with all its attendant horrors. On the third day the rebels, who had secured the palace, brought out the old King in a litter and placed it on the street between the combatants. The soldiers of Muhammad received the Sultan with cries of joy and crowded round him. Muhammad, thus deserted, fled to Sirmur. Firüz again resumed his full authority but, being old and infirm, acceded to the request of his household troops to place on the throne Ghiyas-ud-din, the son of his eldest son Fath Khän. Shortly after this Firüz died in 1388.21
Firüz
Shāh was more than forty years of age when he ascended the throne, and it seems
that he had learnt a good lesson from the reactions and revolts of the
preceding reign. He had been hereto- fore a passive instrument in the hands of
the reactionary 'ulama' and saints; and he continued to play the same role
throughout his reign of 37 years (1351-88). Thus the State under him came under
the influence of the theologians, and this is perhaps the reason of his
popularity. 'Afif, the contemporary historian and author of the Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi,
has painted Firüz in the brightest colour and the author of the
Tärilch-i-Mubarak Shāhi depicted him as an ideal ruler under whom all kinds of
oppression, tyranny, high- handedness, violence, decline of the realm and
rebellion of the people-a curse with which the reign of the late Sultan
Muhammad Tughluq Shah had been afflicted-were replaced by justice, equity,
peace, prosperity and consolidation.22 Learning and knowledge were promoted and
the numbers of 'ulama' and doctors of law in- creased. 'Afif rejoices to record
the deference paid by Firuz to the learned and holy men in the court and the
harmony and good feeling which subsisted between Firuz Shah and his amīrs, a
blessing which could not have been attained without a complete overhaul of the
policy and administration of the preceding reign. Firüz conferred new offices
on the amirs and gained the full co-operation of the 'ulama' and saints by
granting them stipends and aids.
All
these were sure to enlist the sympathy of the Muslims, particularly as Firuz,
orthodox in his belief and practices, offered a striking contrast to his
predecessor, who had shown but scant re- gard to the Muslim divines. But there
were other very good reasons for the great popularity of Firüz. He held many
liberal views, which were far in advance of his age, and was probably the first
Muslim ruler in India, who regarded the promotion of material wel- fare of
subjects as a more important duty of the king than wars and conquests.
Contemporary
records refer to the high principles which Firüz adopted as the basis of his
government. Firüz himself has frankly explained his conception of royal duty in
a small book written by himself and entitled Futühāt-i-Firuz Shahi,23 which
contains a brief summary of the res gestae of his reign, or as he designated
them, his victories. The following passage from this work is worth being quoted
in full in view of the horrors of inhuman torture, which the King, perhaps
alone throughout the middle ages, had expressed so vividly and taken steps to
prevent.
"In
the reigns of former kings the blood of many Musulmans had been shed, and many
varieties of torture employed. Amputa- tion of hands and feet, ears and noses,
tearing out the eyes, pour- ing molten lead into the throat, crushing the bones
of the hands and feet with mallets, burning the body with fire, driving iron
nails into the hands, feet, and bosom, cutting the sinews, sawing men asunder;
these and many similar tortures were practised. The great and merciful God made
me, His servant, hope and seek for His mercy by devoting myself to prevent the
unlawful killing of
Musulmans,
and the infliction of any kind of torture upon them or upon any men.
"Through
the merey which God has shown to me these severities and terrors have been
exchanged for tenderness, kindness and mercy. Fear and respect have thus taken
firmer hold of the hearts of men, and there has been no need of executions,
scourgings, tortures, or terrors", 24
Side
by side with the abolition of mutilation and tortures, we should mention his liberal
and humane attitude towards slaves. The following is culled from the
Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi of Shams-i-Siraj 'Afif: "The Sultan commanded 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. The chiefs and
officers naturally exerted themselves in procuring more and more slaves and a
great number of them were thus collected. When they were found to be in excess,
the Sultan sent them to important cities. In all cases, provision was made for
their support in a liberal manner. Arrange- ment was made for educating the
slaves and training them in various arts and crafts. In some places they were
provided for in the army. It has been estimated that in the city and in the
various fiefs, there were 180,000 slaves for whose maintenance and comfort the
Sultān took special care. About 12,000 slaves became artisans of various kinds,
and 40,000 worked as military guards to Sultan. The Sultan created a separate
department with a number of officers for ad- ministering the affairs of these
slaves. Gradually the slaves in- creased to such a degree that they were
employed in all sorts of domestic duties, so much so that there was no
occupation in which the slaves of Firüz Shāh were not employed. By order of the
Sultan, the great feudal chieftains also treated the slaves like children
providing them with food and raiments, lodging them and training them, and
taking every care for their wants".25
The
Sultan gives a long list of more than twenty "frivolous, unlawful and
unjust cesses", which were collected by his predecessors but were
abolished by him because these sources of revenue were not "recognised by
the sacred law and approved by books of autho- rity". While recording this
he quotes the following couplet.
"Better
a people's weal than treasures vast,
Better an empty chest than hearts downcast".?26
Firüz made many changes in the existing practices and customs in order to bring them into conformity with the sacred Law,27 For this reason he strictly realized Jizya from the non-Muslims, as will be related later.
Firuz
had a love for building new cities. He is said to have founded 300 towns, which
is obviously an exaggeration. Among the important towns founded by him may be
mentioned Fatehabad, Hissar, Firüzpur (near Badaun), Jaunpur, and Firūzābād.
The last-named city, built on the banks of the Yamuna, became his favourite
residence, and is now represented by the ruins of 'Firoz Kotla' a little to the
south of the Red Fort in Delhi. The new city comprised the sites of eighteen
villages and extended from Indarpat (Near Sher Shah's fort) to Kūshk-i-shikār
(on the Ridge), five kos apart. It was crowded with buildings and there were
eight public mosques, each large enough to accommodate 10,000 devotecs.28
Great
credit is due to Firuz for his public works, more parti- cularly the five
canals for irrigation constructed by him. The long- est and most important of
these ran for 150 miles from the Yamuna watering the arid tract as far as the
city of Hissar founded by the Sultan. Another, 96 miles long, connected the
Sutlej with the Ghaghra. Two others ran respectively from the Ghaghrä and the
Yamuna to the town of Firūzābād, another new town established by the Sultan.
The fifth served the tract from the neighbourhood of Sirmur hills to the town
of Hansi. Wolseley Haig very rightly observes: "Firuz Shah is still
remembered as the author of schemes of irrigation, and traces of his canals yet
remain. He also sank 150 wells for purposes of irrigation and for the use of
travellers and indulged in a passion for building which equalled, if it did not
surpass, that of the Roman Emperor Augustus".29 Firishta credits him with
the construction of 50 dams across rivers to promote irri- gation, 40 mosques,
30 colleges with mosques attached, 20 palaces, 100 caravanserais, 200 towns, 30
reservoirs or lakes for irrigating lands, 100 hospitals, 5 mausolea, 100 public
baths, 10 monumental pillars, 10 public wells, and 150 bridges, besides
numerous gardens and pleasure houses. Lands were assigned at the same time for
the maintenance of these public buildings, in order to keep them in thorough
repair,30
Firüz
appointed as assessor of the revenue an amir named Khväja Hisäm-ud-din Junaid,
who made extensive tours for six years and made a comprehensive survey which
enabled the Sultan to re- duce the State-demand of the revenue. Although this
was not made upon the sure basis of measurement of land or an estimate of the
actual produce, the land revenue was fixed more or less on a perma- nent basis,
and this, by itself, was a creditable achievement. The Sultan also abolished
the practice of levying benevolences which the provincial governors had to pay
at the time of their appointment and annually, for they ultimately fell upon
the shoulders of the people. Due to the excavation of irrigation canals an
enormous
area
of land, which had hitherto remained fallow, came under culti- vation. This, as
well as the levy of additional ten per cent of the rent for the use of
irrigation canals, increased the revenue to the extent of two lakhs of tankas.1
Thriving villages were to be seen uniformly in the vicinity of Delhi, besides
twelve hundred gardens, which contained an incalculable number of fruit-bearing
trees. The enormous output of fruits from these and other gardens laid out by
Firuz enabled the treasury to realise the sum of one lakh and eighty thousand
tankas annually.32 Similarly the revenue from the Doab amounted to eighty lakhs
of tankas, and that from the crown lands to six crores and eighty-five lakhs of
tankas.33 The promotion of trade and agriculture was a distinctive feature of
the reign and, in spite of the military expeditions, sieges, and skirmishes, no
recourse was had to increased levy. 'Afif testifies to the all-round prosperity
pre- vailing everywhere in the country and described the cheapness and low
price of food, cloths, and other things. He observes that the necessaries of
life were abundant and grain continued cheap through- out the reign of Firüz,
as in that of 'Ala-ud-din Khalji, but 'without any effort', Le. without any
arbitrary regulations,34
Credit
is also due to Firuz for simplifying the legal system and discouraging the use
of spies, repairing and maintaining the tombs and monuments of his
predecessors, and preservation of the two Aśokan pillars which he brought from
Topra and Mirāt and fitted up carefully in Delhi.35
Firuz
was not only a great patron of learning but was himself an accomplished
scholar. He established thirty madrasas includ- ing three great colleges.
Teachers were liberally paid by the State and stipends were granted to
students. According to Firishta, Firüz encouraged learned men to reside in
different parts of the empire for the sake of imparting instruction to the
people. The same autho- rity tells us that Firuz found a fine library of Hindu
books, con- sisting of 1300 volumes, at the temple of Jvälämukhi, in Kängra and
ordered one of them, which treated of philosophy, astrology, and divination, to
be translated into Persian, and called it Dalāʻil-i Firūz Shāhī.00 He was fond
of history and patronized Baranī, 'Afif and the author of the Strat-i-Firuz
Shahi. Reference has been made above to the Futühāt-i-Fīrüz Shāhi composed by
him. It is said by *Afif that the sum of thirty-six lakhs of tankas was spent
for allow- ances given to learned men and Quran-readers.37
One
of the earliest acts of Firüz was his vicarious atonement for the sins of his
predecessor Muhammad bin Tughluq. He pre- sented gifts to the heirs of those
who had been killed, and to those that were mutilated during the reign of the
latter, and secured written statements from them to the effect that they were
satisfied. The 'written deeds of pardon', duly attested by witnesses, were
collected in a box and placed in the tomb of Muhammad Tughluq in order that God
might pardon him for his misdeeds.38 Incidentally, as noted above, it shows the
contemporary opinion about the charac- ter of Muhammad bin Tughluq and the
light in which it was viewed even by his closest friends and well-wishers.
There is, however, no doubt that in doing this Firuz was actuated by a spirit
of piety and benevolence rarely witnessed among the rulers of the age. The same
spirit marks two other institutions started by him. The first was a 'charity
bureau' (Diwān-i-Khairät) which was established to help the widows and orphans
and give pecuniary help to facilitate marriage of Muslim girls who remained
unmarried for want of dowry.39
Another
was an agency to provide employment, mostly clerical and administrative, to
those who were unemployed.40 It was conducted more on a charitable basis than a
regular bureau of employment. The Sultan also established a charitable hospital
near Delhi, where the patients were treated by skilful physicians and got diet
and medicine free of charge.41
In
view of all this it is no wonder that Firuz has been highly praised by many
Indian writers. There is, however, also a dark side of the picture. It should
be noted that the reign of Fīrūz Shāh was a period of reaction marked by the
revival of influence, even in affairs of State, of those maulavis, muftis,
qāzīs, pirs and religi- ous leaders and dignitaries, who had been humiliated
under his revolutionary predecessor, and by the preponderance of nobles- maliks
and amirs or the amīrān-i-sadah-who had revolted against the latter. The period
also witnessed the re-emergence of the mercenary spirit among that section of
the 'ulama' and saints who were really ignorant of the ethics of Islām.
Firuz
lacked the military skill and warlike spirit which distin- guished his
predecessor and was a sine qua non for successful rule in those days. He also
lacked in energy and enthusiasm. He fail- ed to recover Bengal and made no
attempt to regain authority in the Deccan and South India. He was weak and
irresponsible and, as in Bengal, abandoned the chances of victory on account of
either incapacity or religious scruples which more befitted a darvish than a
ruler.
The
Sultan was too idle and ease-loving to supervise the administration in a proper
manner, and the result was corruption and inefficiency. What was worse, his
spirit of benevolence went even so far as to shield his own corrupt officials.
His misplaced benevolence for old and inefficient soldiers and connivance at
corruption42 gradually destroyed the efficiency of the army and civil
administration, and distinctly lowered the standard of both. The Sultan was
addicted to the pleasures of the harem and his high officials imitated his
folly.
The
Sultan re-introduced the system of granting jāgūrs to civil and military
officers discouraged by his predecessor as well as by 'Alä-ud-din Khalji, and
the system of hereditary appointment abolished by Muhammad Tughluq.43 He also
deviated from their practices by extending the farming system and getting the
land revenue settled with the highest bidder. These considerably impaired the
efficiency of administration, and inflicted hardships on the peasants.
The
weak and vacillating policy of Firuz was conspicuous throughout his reign, in
both civil administration and military affairs. The only occasion on which he
showed strength, resolu- tion and firm determination was in the persecution of
the Hindus. A glaring instance is furnished by his barbarous method of warfare
in Katehr, referred to above, and the tenacity with which he per- seculed the
Hindus of that region offers a striking contrast to his humane attitude towards
Muslim rebels, for example those in Bengal. As he himself said, "he was
resolved never more to make war upon Muslims."44
This
brings us to the question of the bigotry of Firuz Shāh which formed the
blackest spot on his character. Anyone who reads the Futuhät-i-Firuz Shahi15
written by the Sultan himself, cannot avoid the impression that Firuz possessed
both the virtues and vices of an orthodox Muslim ruler. The most prominent of
these vices was the intolerance of any faith other than orthodox Islām. It is
evident from this book that the Sultan divided man- kind into two groups,
Musulmans (by which he meant Musulman of the approved orthodox type), and
non-Musulmans, and regard- ed the former alone as his special concern. This
will be evident, among others, from the passage quoted above45a regarding the
abolition of torture. But the Sultan was not satisfied merely with this
negative attitude. He considered it to be his duty to suppress irreligion and
he takes pride that he laboured diligently "until things repugnant to
religion were set aside." Of course by religion he meant only the orthodox
Muslim faith.
So
far as the Hindus were concerned, the following passage gives an idea of his
bigoted attitude:-
"The
Hindus and idol-worshippers had agreed to pay the money for toleration
(zar-i-zimmiya), and had consented to the poll tax (jizya), in return for which
they and their families enjoyed security.
These
people now erected new idol-temples in the city and the environs in opposition
to the Law of the Prophet which declares that such temples are not to be
tolerated. Under Divine guidance I destroyed these edifices, and killed those
leaders of infidelity who seduced others into error, and the lower orders I
subjected to stripes and chastisement, until this abuse was entirely abolished.
The fol- lowing is an instance:-In the village of Malüh there is a tank which
they call kund (tank). Here they had built idol-temples, and on certain days
the Hindus were accustomed to proceed thither on horseback, and wearing arms.
Their women and children also went out in palankins and carts. There they
assembled in thousands and performed idol worship. This abuse had been so
overlooked that the bāzār people took out there all sorts of provisions, and
set up stalls and sold their goods. Some graceless Musulmans, thinking only of
their gratification, took part in these meetings. When in- telligence of this
came to my ears my religious feelings prompted me at once to put a stop to this
scandal and offence to the religion of Islam. On the day of the assembling 1
went there in person, and I ordered that the leaders of these people and the
promoters of this abomination should be put to death. I forbad the infliction
of any severe punishments on the Hindus in general, but I destroyed their idol
temples, and instead thereof raised mosques".40 Firüz also cites another
concrete instance where the Hindus who had erected new temples were put to
death before the gate of the palace, and their books, the images of deities,
and the vessels used in their worship were publicly burnt. This was to serve
"as a warning to all men, that no zimmi could follow such wicked practices
in a Musulman country".47 Other instances are given by contemporary
writers. 'Afif gives a graphic description of one such case. A Brahman of Delhi
was charged with "publicly performing the wor- ship of idols in his house
and perverting Muhammadan women, leading them to become infidels". The
Brahman was told that according to law he must "either become a Musulmän
or be burned". The Brähman having refused to change his faith, "was
tied hand and foot and cast into a burning pile of faggots". 'Afif, who
wit- nessed the execution, ends his account by saying: "Behold the
Sultan's strict adherence to law and rectitude, how he would not deviate in the
least from its decrees".48
In
two respects, the Sultan was more oppressive to the Hindus than his
predecessors. In the first place, he imposed jizya tax upon the Brähmans, who
were never required to pay them before. The Brahmans went in a body to the
Sultan to protest against this innovation. "They were determined",
they said, "to collect wood and to burn themselves under the walls of the
palace rather than pay the tax". The Sultan "replied that they might
burn and destroy themselves at once, for they would not escape from the payment".
"The Brahmans remained fasting for several days at the palace until they
were on the point of death". The Hindus of the city, in order to save the
lives of the Brahmans, told them that they would undertake to pay it for them.
Ultimately the Brahmans begged the Sultan to reduce the amount of the tax, and
this was agreed.49
In
the second place, the Sultan himself boasts that he adopted every means to
induce the Hindus to adopt Islam. This will be evident from the following
passage:-
"I
encouraged my infidel subjects to embrace the religion of the Prophet, and I
proclaimed that every one who repeated the creed and became a Musulman should
be exempt from the jizya, or poll-tax. Information of this came to the ears of
the people at large and great numbers of Hindus presented themselves, and were
ad- mitted to the honour of Islam. Thus they came forward day by day from every
quarter, and, adopting the faith, were exonerated from the jizya, and were
favoured with presents and honours",50 This is probably the first recorded
instance, after Muslim conquest of India, of the State itself becoming a
proselytising agency.
Attempts
have been made to show that the Sultan was tolerant to the Hindus, by citing
some instances that even when he conquered Hindu kingdoms, he did not destroy
their temples or image. This is belied by the following facts, among others.
The
Sırat-i-Firüz Shāhī, as noted above, was a text written either at the dictation
or at the dictates of Firüz Shäh himself. Ac- cording to this chronicle, two of
the objectives of the Sultan in under- taking the expedition against Jajnagar
or Orissa, as noted above, were "massacring the unbelievers and
demolishing their temples". The detailed account given in this book leaves
no doubt that these objects were pursued with relentless severity. As related
above, Firüz, after the conquest of Orissa, proceeded to Puri, the famous place
of Hindu pilgrimage. Referring to his activities the chronicler
records:-"Allah, who is the only true God and has no other emana- tion,
endowed the king of Islam with the strength to destroy this ancient shrine on
the eastern sea-coast and to plunge it into the sca, and after its destruction,
he ordered the nose of the image of Jagannath to be perforated and disgraced it
by casting it down on the ground. They dug out other idols which were
worshipped by the polytheists in the kingdom of Jajnagar, and overthrew them.
as they did the image of Jagannath, for being laid in front of the mosques
along the path of the Sunnis and way of the musallis (the multitude who offer
their prayers) and stretched them in front of the portals of every mosque, so
that the body and sides of the images might be trampled at the time of ascent
and descent, entrance and exit, by the shoes on the feet of the Muslims",51
When
Firuz invaded Nagarkot he desecrated the famous temple at Jvālāmukhi. We learn
from Firishta that the Sultan "broke the idols of Jvālāmukhi, mixed their
fragments with the flesh of cows, and hung them in nosebags round the necks of
Brahmins, and that he sent the principal idol as a trophy to Medina".2
There may be some exaggeration in all this, but it is impossible to ignore the
evidences cited above and to avoid the conclusion that Firüz was the greatest
bigot of this age and the precursor of Sikandar Lodi and Aurangzeb in this
respect. It is only fair to add, however, that he was equally intolerant
towards heterodox Muslim sects. He himself describes his action against the
Shiahs as follows:---
"The
sect of Shi'as, also called Rawafiz, had endeavoured to make proselytes. They
wrote treatises and books, and gave instruc- tion and lectures upon the tenets
of their sect, and traduced and reviled the first chiefs of our religion (on
whom be the peace of God!). I seized them all and I convicted them of their
error and perversions. On the most zealous I inflicted punishment (siyasat),
and the rest I visited with censure (tūzīr) and threats (lahdib) of public
punishment (tashhir-i-zijr). Their books I burnt in public, and so by the Grace
of God, the influence of this sect was entirely suppressed".53
The
contemporary historians, Barani and 'Afif, are full of praises for Firüz
Tughluq and describe him as a just, merciful, and benevolent ruler. Modern
writers like Elliot 53 and Elphinstone have even gone so far as to regard him
as the Akbar of the Sultanate period. The comparison is odious and, Ishwari
Prasad has very rightly observed, "Firüz had not even a hundredth part of
the genius of that great-hearted and broad-minded monarch",54
Firuz
may justly be regarded as the last of the notable Sultans of Delhi, but it is
difficult to agree with the view that "the reign of Firuz closes the most
brilliant epoch of Muslim rule in India before the reign of Akbar" 55 For
Sher Shah's reign is no less brilliant; besides, as a ruler, he occupies a much
higher place in history, and was really a great king, a title to which Firüz
can certainly lay no claim, either by his character and personality, or by his
achievements.
Firüz
regarded the Sultanate as a Muslim State,66 So, "as far as the beneficent
activities of the State were concerned (e.g. educa- tion, care of the poor,
provision of the unemployed, marriage of the poor girls, religious endowments,
etc.), it was largely the Muslims who benefited". This is clearly admitted
by 'Afif. "Political power remained exclusively in Muslim hands and no
post of influence is known to have been held by any Hindu".57 In all these
respects Firuz offers a striking contrast to Akbar and, to a certain, extent,
to Sher Shah.
Although the reign of Firuz was marked by mildness and bene- ficent activities, in striking contrast to that of his predecessor, it also undermined, to a large extent, the foundation of the Sultanate. The active interest and influence of the 'ulamā' and mushaikhs in affairs of State which Firuz permitted, partly as policy and partly as an article of faith, was a retrograde step. His connivance at the inefficiency of public servants, misplaced leniency in dealing with civil and military officials, and undue favours shown to the nobility weakened the entire administrative machinery. His aversion to war against the Muslims, even when it was imperative,-in striking con- trast to the brutal severity with which he treated the Hindus of Katehr, and particularly his unwillingness (on the specious ground of saving Muslim women from disgrace) or inability to carry the fights to a finish, destroyed the stability of the empire. The orga- nization of the slaves, though promoted by humane consideration, was no doubt partly due also to a desire to create a personal body- guard on which the Sultan could trust for his own safety. But as could be casily foreseen, it developed into something like a Praeto- rian Guard and proved to be a great disturbing factor in the State. On the whole, in spite of peace, prosperity, and contentment that prevailed during the long reign of Firüz Shah, no one can possibly doubt that his policy and administrative measures contributed to a large extent to the downfall of the Delhi Sultanate, and accele- rated the process of decline that had already set in during his predecessor's reign.
Foot Notes
1.
Wolseley Haig is the great protagonist of this view (JRAS, 1922, pp. 365 ff;
CHI, III, 173). The same view is reiterated by Sri Ram Sharma (PIHC, XV, 176).
Haig's view is opposed by Ishwari Prasad (IPMI, 263 ff) and A. C. Banerji (IC,
II, 47 ff) on the grounds stated above in the text, among others,
2.
For a detailed account of the two expeditions to Bengal cf. Chapter X, E. The
Sultan issued an interesting proclamation specifying the grounds of his
invasion of Bengal and holding out inducements to various classes of people of
this pro- vince to seek his favour (JASB, N. S. XIX, (1923) 279).
3.
The details of the campaign are given in two contemporary official sources. The
relevant extract in the first, Sirat-i-Firüz Shāhī, has been summarized and
translated by N. B. Roy (JRASEL, VIII, 57-98), and the account in the text is
mainly based upon it (cf. specially pp. 74-77). Valuable information is sup-
plied by 'Ain-ul-Mulk's account in Inshä-i-Mährú which has been translated by
Abdul Wali in JASB, N, S., XIX, 283 ff.
4.
The whole of this account, including the passages quoted, is taken from the
English
translation of Sirat-i-Firüz Srāhi (JRASBL, VIII, pp. 61 ff).
5.
HIED, III, 315.
6.
Ibid.
7.
JRASBL, VIII. 60,
8.
Ibid, 69.
9.
JASB, N. S., XIX. 285,
10.
Ibid, 288.
11.
Ibid.
12.
Ibid.
13.
JRASEL, VIII. 75. The relevant extract has been quoted below in pp. 105-6. 14.
IPMI (1925) p. 276. This is supported by his speech to the assembled indus and
the desecration of the images of the temple to which reference is made in p.
106 and note 52. 15. This generally accepted view, based on 'Afif's account
(HIED, III, 319-20), is opposed by N. B. Roy. He draws attention to a letter
written by 'Ain-ul- Mulk which shows that as "Banabanaḥ, a chief of Sindh,
allying himsell with hordes of Mughals, made raids into the rich provinces of
the Punjab and Gujarāt," and his "daring and audacity had surpassed
all bounds," Sultan Firüz was approached by the writer to repel the
attacks. N. B. Roy therefore argues that the expedition to Sind "was the
necessary sequel to Babiniya's aggressions and did not spring from either
ambitious schemes of conquest or motives of vengeance as stated by 'Afif
(JRASBL, IV, 285 ff)." That the suppression of the rebels was an object of
the expedition is clearly stated in Sirat-i-Firüz Shahi, but that does not mean
that the other objects were absent. It is hardly likely that an official
chronicle would refer to vengeance or lust for conquest as object of the
expedition. There is also nothing in ‘Ain-ul-Mulk's letter which excludes these
objects.
16.
'Afif mentions Jam and Babiniya as names of two separate persons (HIED, III
322).
But as Ishwari Prasad has pointed out (IPMI, p. 278, f.n. 1), Jām was the title
of Banhbina. For the spelling of the name Banhbina see the Chapter on Sind, n.
21.
17.
Harrowing details are given by ‘Afif (HIED, III, pp. 324 ff).
18.
According to 'Afil, "the son of the Jam and Tamachi, brother of Babiniya,
were placed over Thatta, and titles were conferred upon them. They paid four lacs
of tankas in cash, by way of marking their allegiance, and agreed to pay
several lacs of tankas in money and goods yearly." (HIED, III, 336). But
both Mir Ma'sum and Firishta say that Jam Babiniya was restored to the
government of Sind (Briggs, 1, 455; IPMI, 280).
19.
Briggs, I. 457; CHI, III. 182-3.
19a.
See n. 21.
20.
Though theoretically a joint rule (CHI, III. 184), Firüz virtually abdicated in
favour
of his son who ascended the throne, as Firishta puts it (Briggs, I. 459). 21.
According to 'Afif, Firuz was born in 709 A.H. (A.D. 1309-10) (HIED, III. 271);
therefore he must have been about, 80 years of age at the time of his death.
This age has been put as 83 by Haig (CHI, III. 184) and 90 by Ishwari Prasad
(IPMI, 296).
22.
TMB, 121; HIED, III. 362-3.
23.
For an English translation cf. HIED, III. 374–388.
24.
Ibid, 375-6.
25.
Ibid, 340-2.
26.
Ibid, 377. Afif also refers to many such illegal cesses abolished by him (HIED,
III. 363). A list of these taxes, with explanatory notes, is given by Qureshi
(QAS, Appendix H. p. 228).
27.
HIED, III, 377.
28.
Ibid, 303.
29.
CHI, III. 175.
30.
Briggs, I, 465. 'Afif also gives a detailed account of his buildings including
nine palaces in the different towns and one hundred and twenty khankahs (monas-
leries) in Delhi and Firůzäbäd "in which travellers from all directions
were rereivable as guests for three days" (HIED, III. 354).
31.
HIED, III, 301.
32.
TKB, II. 123, HIED, (III. 346) puts the figure as eighty thousand.
33.
HIED, III. 346.
34.
Ibid, 344. 'Afif draws a rosy picture of the economic condition of common
people. "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 couches. Wealth
abounded and com- forts were general." (HIED, III, 290). This is too
idealized a picture to be taken at its face value.
35.
HIED, III, 351, 354-5.
36.
Briggs, I, 454-462.
37.
HIED. III. 361.
38.
Ibid, 385.
39.
Ibid, 361. 40. Ibid, 355, 41. Ibid, 361. 42. Ibil, 347-9.
43.
Ibid, III. 289.
44.
Ibid, 340.
45.
Ibid, III, 374 Æ.
45a.
Above, pp. 98-99.
46.
Ibid, 380-81.
47.
Ibid, 381. The italics are mine.
48.
Ibid, 365.
49.
Ibid, 365-6.
50.
Ibid, 386.
51.
JRASBL, VIII, 75. See above, pp. 93-94. 'Afif also refers to the desecration of
images
(HIED, III, 314).
52.
Firishta prefaces this assertion with the remark "Some historians state
that" etc. (Briggs, 1, 454). 'Afif does not refer to the desecration but
vigorously refutes the report "spread by the infidels" that the
Sultan "held a golden umbrella over the head of the idol." It should
be noted that 'Afif denied the truth of the report on the authority of his
father who was in the Sultan's retinue. The story that Firüz held a golden
umbrella over the head of a Hindu image, incredible in it- self, may therefore
be dismissed as a myth. 'Afif refutes a similar charge against Muhammad bin
Tughluq and adds that these two Sultans "whenever they took an idol temple
they broke and destroyed it". This evidently supports the dese- cration of
the Jvalamukhi temple by Firüz, of whom 'Afif was a contemporary. According to
'Afif, Firuz addressed the assembled Hindus at Jvālāmukhi temple as follows:
"O fools and weak-minded, how can you pray to and worship this stone, for
our holy law tells us that those who oppose the decrees of our reli- gion will
go to hell" (HIED, JII. 318). Ishwari Prasad translates this passage
somewhat differently (IPMI, 276).
53.
HIED, III. 377-8.
53a.
Ibid, 269.
54.
IPMI, 281.
55.
CHI, III. 188.
56.
Cf. the passage quoted above, on p. 104 where he refers to India as 'Musulman
country'
(HIED, III. 381).
57.
For detailed arguments in support of the view taken in the text, cf. "A
revicw
of
the reign of Firuz Shah" by Riazul Islam in Is. C, XXIII, 285,
Post a Comment