محمد بن طغلق (1325-51م)
الكلمات المفتاحية: محمد بن طغلق، سلطنة دلهي، حكام العصور الوسطى، أسرة طغلق، التاريخ الهندي، الإصلاحات الإدارية، السياسات الاقتصادية، تغييرات العملة
Keywords:
Muhammad bin Tughlaq, Delhi Sultanate, Medieval Rulers, Tughlaq Dynasty, Indian
History, Administrative Reforms, Economic Policies, Coinage Changes
Three days after the death of his father, Ulugh Khän (also called Jauna) ascended the throne (February or March, 1325). He is designated variously as Muhammad Tughluq, Muhammad bin Tughluq, or simply Muhammad Shah. Following the existing prac- tice it would be convenient to refer to him as simply Muhammad or Muhammad Tughluq. Whatever view we might take regarding the part played by Muhammad in the tragic death of his father, there is no doubt that his accession was, generally speaking, accepted without demur by all concerned; in any event, there is nothing to show that there was any opposition or even popular discontent against the new ruler on that account.
Of
all the monarchs that ever sat on the throne of Delhi the personality and
activities of Muhammad bin Tughluq have proved to be the greatest puzzle both
in ancient and modern times, and have evoked the most lively discussion among
historians of all ages. His reign was full of stirring events, some of which
were strange, and even bizarre in the extreme. But, curiously enough, although
we possess fairly detailed accounts of his reign written by three eminent
contemporary authors, we do not know, not only the dates, but even the
sequence, of these events. What is worse still, even in respect of the major
schemes launched by the great Sultan, we cannot form any definite idea, either
of their precise nature or of the motives that inspired them. There is, in
consequence, a wide divergence of opinion among scholars regarding the proper
recon- struction of the reign and a proper estimate of the character and personality
of the monarch. It will be our endeavour to present a detached view of the
Sultan and his reign with the help of such reliable evidence as we possess,
without any attempt at hypothetical reconstruction based on speculation, but
incidentally referring to the different views on controversial points as far as
possible,'
One
of the earliest events in the reign is the rebellion of Baha- ud-din Gurshäsp,2
the son of Tughluq's sister, who held the fief of Sagar, near Gulburga in the
Deccan, He had amassed vast wealth and having gained over many of the nobles of
his principality, at- tacked those who remained loyal to the Sultān (A.D.
1326-7). The imperial army defeated him at Devagiri and pursued him up to
Sägar. But Gurshäsp, unable to defend himself, fled with his family and
treasure to the kingdom of Kampili, and sought shelter with its Hindu ruler.
As
noted above, this small kingdom, comprising Bellary, Raichur and Dharwar
districts, was originally a dependency of the Yadava kingdom of Devagiri, and when
this was annexed by ‘Ala- ud-din Khalji, the ruler of Kampili declared his
independence, and successfully resisted the invasion of Malik Käfür (A.D.
1313-15) The kingdom had since grown in power and prestige, and now in- cluded
parts of Anantapur, Chitaldrug and Shimoga districts.4 The Raja, called
Kampilideva in Muslim chronicles, welcomed the fugitive Gurshasp and gave him
protection. Whether he was actuated by purely humanitarian consideration and
traditional Hindu ideas of hospitality, or there was any political motive
behind it, it is difficult to say. The statement of Firishta that Gurshasp had
maintained a friendly intercourse with the Räjā of Kampilī secms to support the
latter view. The Raja of Kampili had been an avowed enemy of the Muslims, and
might have some understanding with a chief disaffected towards the Sultan.5
But
whatever might have been the motive of Kampilideva, his action brought a
veritable disaster upon him and his kingdom. As could be expected, the Sultan
sent a powerful force against the defiant Hindu king. But Kampilideva offered a
heroic resistance. He twice defeated the imperial troops, but when fresh
reinforce- ments arrived from Devagiri, he was forced to shut himself up in the
fort of Hosadurg (Anagondi). It was invested by the enemy on all sides and lack
of provision made it impossible for Kampilideva to hold out for more than a
month. But he died like a hero. On his advice the ladies of the royal family
died by the fearful Jauhar ceremony and the wives of ministers and noblemen
followed their example. Then Kampilideva and his followers sallied forth and
died fighting to the last. Kampili was annexed and constituted into a separate
province with Malik Muhammad as its governor. The surviving sons of the king
and his officers were carried to Delhi as prisoners and were forced to embrace
Islam. Among these were the two brothers, Harihara and Bukka, the founders of
the kingdom of Vijayanagara. So the unique self-sacrifice of Kampilideva for
the sake of protecting a guest did not go in vain. From the ruins of his
kingdom rose a mighty Hindu empire in the south, as will be related later.
When
Kampilideva found his situation helpless he managed to send the rebel Gurshäsp
with his family to the Hoysala court and commended him to the care and
protection of King Balläla III. So, after the fall of Kampili, the imperial
troops proceeded towards Dvarasamudra,
the Hoysala capital. Ballala III evidently took lesson from the fate of
Kampilideva. According to Firishta he seized Gurshasp and sent him bound to the
Muslim general, and at the same time acknowledged the supremacy of the Sultan
of Delhi. But there are good grounds to believe that Firishta did not tell the
whole truth. According to some authorities, Dvarasamudra was destroyed by the
Muslims in A.D. 1327, and if so, it is very likely that Balläla III did not
yield without fight.7 Besides, an inscription, dated A.D. 1328, proves that
Ballāla III ruled as an independent king in that year, and this is at variance
with Firishta's statement that he acknowledged the supremacy of Delhi. The
probability is that Balläla III offered some resistance at first but, being
defeated, made peace by surrendering the fugitive rebel Gurshāsp. He evidently
submitted to the Sultan, but was permitted to rule over at least a part of his
kingdom.
The
rebellion of Gurshäsp thus completed the expansion of the Delhi Sultanate to
the southernmost limit of India. 'Ala-ud-din's policy, like that of
Samudra-gupta nearly a thousand years before, was merely to establish his
suzerainty over the distant provinces of the south. He laid low the four great
Hindu powers of the south, namely, the Kākatīyas, the Yadavas, the Hoysalas and
the Pandyas, but was content to leave them in possession of their dominions so
long as they acknowledged the suzerainty of Delhi. Though cir- cumstances
forced him to annex the Yadava kingdom, he did not attempt to annex the other
three kingdoms. The Tughluqs, however, pursued the policy of exterminating the
Hindu rule in the south. Warangal and Madura had already been incorporated in
their dominions and now Kampili and a large part of the Hoysala domi- nions
shared the same fate. To Muhammad bin Tughluq, either as crown-prince, or as
Sultan, belongs the credit of all these conquests which completed the triumph
of Islam and seemed to have finally put an end to Hindu independence in the
South. The authority of the Sultan was acknowledged all over India, save
Kashmir, Orissa, Rajasthan and a strip of Malabar coast, and he established an
effec- tive system of administration over this vast empire. It has been
observed that even 'the remote provinces like Malabar and Telin- gäna were as
effectively under his control as the villages in the vicinity of Delhi'.
But
the rebellion of Gurshasp, which brought into prominent relief the brighter
side of Muhammad bin Tughluq, particularly his military abilities and the
efficiency of administration, also displayed the darker side of his character.
When Gurshasp was carried as prisoner to the Sultan, he ordered the rebel to be
flayed alive. But he was not satisfied with this; Gurshasp's flesh, cooked with
rice, was sent to his wife and children, while his skin, stuffed with straw,
was exhibited in the principal cities of the kingdom. This revolting cruelty
gave a foretaste of the barbarous, if not fiendish, spirit which characterized
the Sultan, and it was not long before he displayed it on a massive scale.
One
of the earliest administrative acts of the Sultan was the enhancement of
taxation in the Doäb (A.D.1325-7). This created a terrible situation which
throws a lurid light on the policy and cha- racter of the Sultan. The
contemporary historian Barani gives a vivid picture of the whole affair which
leaves on the minds of his reader a very deep impression of the atrocious
regime of the Sultan. His account may be summed up as follows:9
"The
taxation in the Doab was increased ten and twenty times, and the royal
officials consequently created such abwäbs or cesses and collected them with
such rigour that the ryots were reduced to impotence, poverty and ruin. There
were rebellions on all sides, the land was ruined, and cultivation was greatly
diminished. All this produced a famine in Delhi and its neighbourhood and the
Doab. Rains failed at the same time, and the famine continued for several
years. Thousands of people perished, and when they tried to escape, the Sultan
led punitive expeditions to various places and hunted them like wild
beasts."
Barani
is the only contemporary writer who refers to this painful episode, and paints
it in vivid colours. His account leaves no doubt that the result of the policy
of the Sultan and the method of its execution had created utmost distress and
almost devastated large parts of the kingdom. It also brings into prominence
the inhuman cruelty of the Sultān. But there are some grounds to doubt the
accuracy of Barani's version of the troubles in the Doab. He does not specify
the exact amount of tax which was sought to be levied from the peasants, and
the increment was not probably tenfold or twentyfold as he says. Firishta's
statement that it was increased threefold or fourfold is probably nearer the
truth.
Badǎünī
states that the enhancement of assessment was both a punitive measure and a
means of replenishing the treasury, and this view has been accepted by Wolseley
Haig. Gardner Brown thinks that the taxation imposed by the Sultan was not
heavy, and that the picture drawn by Barani about the cruel deeds of the Sultan
is highly exaggerated. Some other writers also seem to be inclined to this
view. But even making due allowance for possible exaggera- tion, there is no
doubt that there was widespread distress by the increased taxation and this was
aggravated by famine. According were more due to want of rain than to heavy
taxation. But, then, no steps were taken to relieve the famine-stricken people,
and there was no reduction in the taxation. The people who suffered severely
naturally tried to escape from their homes to avoid the heavy taxes, and they
were severely punished for this. The rendering of Barani's expression that the
Sultan 'hunted men like wild beasts' may be wrong, 10 or the statement may be
exaggerated, but we may well believe that they were severely and mercilessly
punished. On the whole it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the step
taken by the Sultan was highly reprehensible, and the method of its execution,
extremely cruel. They inflicted terrible hardships upon the people, devastated
a fertile province, and created disorder and confusion over a wide area
The date of the increase of taxation is a matter of dispute, as different dates are given by older authorities.11 Among modern scholars, some place the event in A.D. 1326-27,12 while others place it three years later. Assuming this later date to be true, Dr. M. Husain has sought to give a new interpretation to the whole episode. He thinks that the rank of the cultivators was swelled by the dis- banded soldiers of the army recruited for expedition to Khuräsän. When the tax was increased, they not only refused to pay the taxes but also ceased to work. This amounted to rebellion, since the peasants' duty was to till the soil. Besides, they defied the tax- collectors and, as Hāji-ud-Dabīr informs us, even killed them. Hence the Sultan called the local Hindu chiefs to account and inflicted exemplary punishments on them. The amiran-i-sadah were then fitted out to crush the rebellion, but they were also killed by the rebels. Fearing the consequences, the ringleaders then fled into the forests, with which parts of the Doab were still covered; and when they fraternized with the hitherto independent Rajput clans of Dalmau, the Sultan pursued them over the whole area from Baran to Kanauj.13 Dr. Husain's reconstruction of the episode is highly speculative. But even if we adopt his view of the case, it is necessary to point out that the original fault lay with the Sultan, though he could not possibly foresee all the consequences.
Dr.
Husain refers to Haji-ud-Dabir's statement in support of his theory of
rebellion. But this writer clearly says that when the officers of the State
employed rigour in collecting the taxes and practised oppression, the people
rebelled in despair and abandoned their fields.14
About
the same time when land tax was increased in the Doab, or perhaps a little
earlier, the Sultan launched two big projects, namely, the change of the
capital to Daulatābād (Devagiri or Deo- gir), and the introduction of a token
currency. Both these require somewhat detailed consideration.
For the transfer of the capital from Delhi to Daulatābād (A.D. 1326-27) and the ruthless manner in which it was done, we possess a detailed account from all the three contemporary authors, Barani, Ibn Batutah, and 'Isami. The account of Barani runs as follows:
"The
second project of Sultan Muhammad, which was ruinous to the capital of the
empire, and distressing to the chief men of the country, was that of making
Deogir his capital, under the title of Daulatābād. This place held a central
situation: Delhi, Gujarät, Lakhanauti, Saiganw, Sunargānw, Tilang, Ma'bar,
Dhūrsamundar. and Kampila were about equi-distant from thence, there being bui
a slight difference in the distances. Without any consultation, and without
carefully looking into the advantages and disadvantages on every side, he brought
ruin upon Delhi, that city which, for 170 or 180 years, had grown in
prosperity, and rivalled Baghdad and Cairo. The city with its sārāïs, and its
suburbs and villages, spread over four or five kos. All was destroyed. So
complete was the ruin, that not a cat or a dog was left among the buildings of
the city, in its palaces or in its suburbs. Troops of the natives, with their
families and dependents, wives and children, men-scrvants and maid- servants,
were forced to remove. The people, who for many years and for generations had
been natives and inhabitants of the land, were broken-hearted. Many, from the
toils of the long journey, perished on the road, and those who arrived at
Deogir could not en- dure the pain of exile. In despondency they pined to death.
All around Deogir, which is infidel land, there sprung up graveyards of
Musulmans. The Sultan was bounteous in his liberality and favours to the
emigrants, both on their journey and on their arrival; but they were tender,
and they could not endure the exile and suffering. They laid down their heads
in that heathen land, and of all the multitudes of emigrants, few only survived
to return to their home. Thus this city, the envy of the cities of the
inhabited world, was reduced to ruin”. 15
Ibn
Batutah refers to the same event as follows:-
"One of the most serious reprehensions against the Sultan is that he forced the inhabitants of Delhi into exile. The cause of it was this. They used to write letters containing abuses and scandals, and they would seal the letters writing on the cover-By the head of His Majesty none except he should read the letter.' These letters they used to throw into the council hall in the course of the night. When he tore them open, he found abuses and scandals in the contents. So he resolved to lay Delhi waste. He bought the houses and dwellings from all the inhabitants of Delhi and paid the price for them. Then he ordered the inhabitants to leave Delhi and move on to Daulatābād, but they refused to do so. Thereupon his crier went forth proclaiming that no one should remain in Delhi after three days. As a result, most of the people went away; but some concealed themselves in their houses. The Sultan ordered a search for those who still lingered; and in the lanes of the city his slaves lighted upon two men-one being a cripple and the other a blind man. Both were brought to the court and the Sultan order- ed the cripple to be thrown up in the air by means of the ballista (minjaniq) and the blind inan to be dragged from Delhi to Daula- tābād—a distance of forty days' journey. He was torn to pieces on the way, and only a leg of his reached Daulatabad. When the Sultān had done that, all the inhabitants of Delhi came out leaving behind their property and baggage, and the city was reduced to a desert. I was informed on reliable authority that in the night the Sultan mounted the roof of his palace and looked round Delhi. When neither a light nor even a smoke or a lamp came into sight he re- marked, 'Now my heart is pleased and my soul is al rest'. Then he wrote to the inhabitants of other provinces to repair to Delhi to repeople it. As a result, those provinces were destroyed, but Delhi was not repeopled on account of its vastness and immensity. It is one of the greatest cities of the world, and when we entered it we found it in the stale above referred to; it was emply and was but scantily inhabited".10
In spite of the concurrent testimony of these two contemporary witnesses, with which the other contemporary, 'Isami, agrees,17 it has been urged by some modern scholars that the account given by them is an exaggerated one. They argue that the statement that the city of Delhi was altogether deserted is in conflict with Ibn Batutah's description of the city of Delhi as populous in the year A.D. 1334, i.e. three years before the restoration of Delhi as the capital city. This completely ignores the last three sentences of the extract quoted above from Ibn Batutah's Rehla. Again, it is pointed out that constructive works were designed and carried out in Delhi by the Sultan during the very years in which he is supposed to have removed all the inhabitants of Delhi to Deogir. On these and other grounds Dr. M. Husain has made an elaborate and vigorous plea in defence of his contention that the city of Delhi never ceased to be the capital, and as such, was never depopulated or deserted.18 His arguments have been considered by Prof. N. B. Roy whose con- clusion seems to be a more reasonable one. "The old capital," he says, "was not, however, reduced to utter desolation; it continued to remain a scat of administration and a mint-town, coins being issued from Delhi in 728, 729 and 730 A.H. (A.D. 1327-30). And dur- ing these years the royal palace too often buzzed with noise at the occasional visits of the Sultan required by the outbreak of rebellions. The city, however, wore a deserted appearance; and in spite of the Sultan's efforts to re-people it by bringing in men from other places, Ibn Batutah, 'found it empty and depopulated' save for a few in- habitants, when he visited Delhi six years after this event".19
Thus
although the city of Delhi might not have been absolutely depopulated and
deserted, the story of the removal of the people en masse and the
"incalculable magnitude of the suffering" caused thereby cannot be
doubted.20
At
the same time it is only fair to remember that the Sultan made various
arrangements to alleviate the sufferings of the emi- grants. "The two
distant citics were connected by a good road bordered with rows of trees to
give shade to travelling men and beasts. Couriers who maintained an efficient
service of carrying despatches by relays were set up at every coss, rest-houses
and hospices were built at successive stages. Each was placed in charge of a
Shaikh and provision was made for supplying food, cold drink and betels to the
travelling multitude at these stations. These mea- sures undoubtedly offered
partial relief from the pangs of thirst and hunger, but they could not protect
the men from the scorching blaze of the tropical sun, nor could they assuage
the home-sickness which 'kills an Indian in exile' " 21
Some
modern writers hold that the reason advanced by Ibn Batütah for the removal of
the capital is unworthy of credence, and that given by Barani is also not
perhaps quite accurate. They point out that the cessation of the invasion of
the Mongols and the exten- sion of the Delhi Sultanate to the southernmost
extremity of India diminished the importance of Delhi as the capital city and
increased the necessity of having a centre of political activity in a more cen-
tral place like Daulatäbäd. Dr. M. Husain is of the opinion that Sultan
Muhammad probably decided to remove to Deogir on account of the paucity of
Muslims in the Deccan and wanted to make Daulatābād a centre of Muslim culture,
planting there a colony of Muslim saints, 'ulama' and nobles; and this view has
been shared by others, 22
According to the Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi there were two migrations to Daulatābād, one, of the notables, in A.D. 1327, and the other, of the inhabitants of Delhi as a punitive measure, about two years later.23 Dr. M. Husain also holds that the transfer of the people to Deogir was effected in two stages, but he holds that only the leading Muslims, and not "the common people--the masses or the Hindus"-were forced to migrate there. He further asserts that "Delhi was never deserted and, in fact, never ceased to be the capital". In his opinion Sultan Muhammad never intended to leave Delhi, much less to destroy it. What he wanted was to have two capitals for his far-flung empire, namely, Delhi and Daulatābād,24 But this view is not shared by others and is not supported even by the Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi to which Dr. Ilusain refers, for it distinctly speaks of a forcible mass migration and evacuation of Delhi about A.D. 1329, which was carried out so thoroughly that not even the cry of dogs or cats was heard in the city 24
Shortly
after the transfer of the capital the Sultan marched against the impregnable
hill-fort of Simhhagarh (then called Kondana), eight miles south of Poona. In
spite of the heroic re- sistance of its Koli chieftain, the fort was besieged
for eight months and practically starved into submission (A.D. 1327-28).
This
was followed by the rebellion of Bahrām Aiba, surnamed Kishlu Khän, who was a
close friend of Ghiyäs-ud-din Tughluq, and highly respected by Muhammad. As
Kishlü held the fiefs of Uch, Sind and Multan which guarded the north-western
frontier of the empire, his rebellion was a serious affair. Different causes of
his rebellion are given by different authorities. The most probable view seems
to be the refusal of the chief to send his family to the newly established
capital Daulatābād and his quarrel with the mes- senger who brought to him the
Sultan's order to this effect. Kishlu gathered a large army, but was defeated
by the Sultan who hurried- ly advanced from the Deccan with a large army (A.D. 1327-28).
Kishlu fled, but was captured and executed. His head was hung up at the gate of
the city as a warning to others.
Troubles
also broke out in Bengal, where Muhammad Tughluq had introduced a new system of
administration.24b He had divided the province into three administrative units,
with capitals respec- tively at Lakhnawati, Sonärgãon, and Satgāon. He
appointed Qadr Khän as joint ruler at Lakhnäwati with the Sultan Nasir-ud-din,
whom Ghiyas-ud-din Tughluq had left in independent charge of the province.
Qadr, though nominally subordinate to Nasir-ud-din, was the de facto ruler,
directly responsible to the Sultan of Delhi. Muhammad Tughluq introduced a
similar policy of check and balance also in eastern Bengal. Ghiyäs-ud-din
Bahadur who, as mentioned above, was brought captive to Delhi by Ghiyās-ud-din
Tughluq, was released by Muhammad Tughluq and was sent back to Sonargaon to
rule jointly with Bahräm Khän. A new governor was appointed for Sätgãon.
Nasir-ud-din, whose power was gradually reduced to nullity, accepted the
position without demur. But Ghiyās- ud-din, warned by the fate of his brother
Nasir-ud-din, rebelled after three years, in 728 A.H. (A.D. 1327-8). He was,
however, defeated and captured by Bahram Khan, who killed him, flayed his skin,
and sent it to Muhammad Tughluq.
The
only exception to the brilliant military successes of the Sultan is furnished
by his wars with the Rajputs and the invasion of the Mongols, and as opinions
differ on both these episodes, they require a somewhat detailed treatment.
According to the Rajput chronicles, Rāņā Hammira had taken advantage of the
confusion in the Delhi Sultanate after the death of 'Alä-ud-din Khalji to in-
crease his power and seized Chitor in A.D. 1326. He gradually established his
authority over the whole of Mewar and assumed the title of Mahārāņā. The
Chauhan ruler Jaiza, son of Maldev, who was ruling Mewar as a feudatory of the
Sultan, fled to Muhammad Tughluq at Delhi. Thereupon the latter marched against
the Mahā- rāņā, but was defeated in a battle near the village of Singoli and
was taken prisoner by the Mahārānā. Three months later, he was released by the
Mahārāṇā after he coded to him Ajmer, Ranthambor, Nagaur and Sooespur, paid 50
lakhs of rupees, and gave 100 elephants.
This
circumstantial narrative is not directly corroborated by any other evidence,
but according to a Jain temple inscription, dated A.D. 1438, a Muslim army was
defeated by Iammira. That Mewär acknowledged the suzerainty of Tughluq Shah is
proved by an inscription in the fort of Chitor. So the Muslim-Rajput clash evi-
dently took place in the reign of Muhammad. It is also quite clear from
contemporary chronicles that Muhammad Tughluq and the later Sultāns practically
left Rajputāna severely alone, and the various Rajput principalities recognised
Mewar as the paramount power at least in name. The story of Hammira's success
against the Muslims cannot, therefore, be regarded as altogether baseless. We
may accept the conclusion of Ojha that not only Mewar but nearly the whole of
Rajputana became practically independent of Delhi Sulta- nate, but, as he
rightly observes, the story of the defeat and impri- sonment of Muhammad
Tughluq cannot be regarded as true in the absence of corroborative evidence.
Possibly the Muslim army was led by some general and not the Sultan himself.26
Some
time about A.D. 1327, India was invaded by the Mongols under the Chaghatai
chief Tarmäshirin (Dharmasri) of Transoxiana, who was a Buddhist but later
converted to Islam. According to Firishta, Tarmäshirin marched with a huge army
towards India with a view to conquering it, and having subdued Lamghän, Multän
and other regions, advanced rapidly towards Delhi. Sultan Muham- mad humiliated
himself before him and purchased peace by giving the invader a huge quantity of
wealth. On receiving almost the price of the kingdom, Tarmāshirin retreated,
after having plundered Gujarat and Sind and taking many prisoners.
According
to other, and earlier, accounts, the Sultan pursued the Mongols, after they had
retreated, as far as Kalanor (in Gujarāt district, Punjab), and though no
actual engagement is mentioned, Tarmāshirin is described as a vanquished enemy.
But that the Mongols ravaged the territory almost up to the gates of Delhi, if
not further to the cast, and Muhammad could not oppose their ad- vance, seems
to be the general view. This is clearly stated in the Tārīkh-i-Mubärak Shāhī20
and, curiously enough, is fully supported by a passage in the autobiography of
Timur. We learn from this work that "Tarmäshirin with a host beyond all
number and com- pute had assailed Meerut".27 According to the
Tarikh-i-Mubārak Shahi, Muhammad Tughluq encamped in his capital and did not
come out until the Mongols had turned back of their own accord after the
devastation of the country,28
Dr.
Ishwari Prasad accepts Firishta's account as more probable than others,29 but
some modern historians do not accept this view. Sir Wolseley Haig accepts the
story of the invasion, but rejects the account of the Sultan's surrender and
his attempt to bribe the invader.30 Dr. M. Husain puts an entirely different
construction on the whole episode. According to him Tarmāshirin came to India
as a refugee, because of the defeat he had suffered in A.D. 1326 at the hands
of Amir Choban near Ghazni. He fled with a large part of his army into the
Punjab and came through Multan to Delhi. The Sultan gave him 5,000 dinārs by
way of help, and he retired.31 This extremely speculative view is unsupported
by any reliable testi- mony and opposed to almost all the evidence that we
possess.
The
most remarkable experiment of the Sultan which took place shortly after this
was the issue of his fictitious currency (A.D. 1329-30). It is probable that he
borrowed this idea from the paper currency prevalent in China and Persia. He
issued brass or copper tokens32 and also a decree to the effect that they
should pass current for the silver tanka of 140 grains. There is no unanimity
of opinion about the object or the wisdom of this policy. The contemporary
historian Barani remarks that the Sultan's bounty and munificence had caused a
great deficiency in the treasury and he wanted large amount of money for his
ambitious plan to conquer the whole world. So he introduced his copper money.
Many later chroniclers hold the same view, and the policy has been severely
condemned. But some modern writers are of opinion that the token currency was
introduced not to refill the empty coffers but to remove the diffi- culty
caused by the shortage in the world's supply of silver and the consequent scarcity
of the silver currency. They believe that the Sultān's treasury was still quite
rich, as is proved by Barani's own statement that the token coins were later
exchanged at their face value.
As
regards the wisdom of the measure, Mr. Thomas held that the measure cannot be
regarded as unjust, and Dr. M. Husain regards the scheme as "on the whole
quite good and statesmanlike"; but others hold less favourable view.33
There is, however, unani- mity of opinion that the result of the introduction
of token coins was most disastrous and that it was mainly due to the way in
which the plan was executed. It should be noted that the ordinary gold and
silver coins were also legal tender along with the token coins. The result was
that the people paid their revenues in the token currency, and the foreign
merchants paid for their expenses in the token currency, but refused to take
them in payment for their goods. The evil results of this were increased
hundred times by the fact that there was no special machinery to mark the dif-
ference of the fabric of the royal mint and the handiwork of the moderately
skilled artisans. Unlike the precautions taken to pre- vent imitation of the
Chinese paper notes, there was practically no check on the unauthorized issue
of the copper token and no limit to the power of production of the masses at
large. The result of all this was almost the wholesale counterfeiting of the
token coins, and Barani refers to it in his cryptic remark that the house of
every Hindu was turned into a mint and every goldsmith struck copper coins in
his workshop. Although the token coins were not current for more than three or
four years, there was a very heavy loss to the treasury. But it must be said to
the credit of the Sultan that he gave the public gold (and possibly also
silver) coins in ex- change for the token copper coins. It is pointed out by
contemporary chroniclers that mountains of these copper coins arose at the
different treasuries of the government and lay there for years; the remains of
them were to be seen even a century later.
Shortly
after the invasion of Tarmäshirin, the Sultan formed the ambitious design of
conquering Transoxiana, Khuräsän and Iraq. With this object in view he began to
raise a new army. Barani says that 3,70,000 troops were collected and paid for
one year, but then the king disbanded them. According to Barani, this was one
of the measures which diminished his treasury and brought distress upon his
kingdom. Many have condemned the action of the Sultan and even denounced the project
as a mad one. Some modern historians, however, have taken a more lenient view.
They are of the opinion that considering the power and prestige of the Sultān
there was nothing inherently absurd in his plan of conquering neighbour- ing
countries, particularly as the distracted political condition of Khurasan at
that time appeared to be favourable to such an enter- prise.34 But even
admitting this point of view, one might wonder what good could be expected from
such an expedition. While there was no reasonable prospect of permanently
holding the distant land, there was the great risk that the army of invasion
might suffer terrible loss in the steppe that separates India from that
region,36 It is also admitted on all hands that at a time when the kingdom was
suffering from the effects of the transfer of capital, token cur- rency, and
rebellions, it was highly impolitic to undertake such an expedition. Besides,
as events proved, the Sultan had very little knowledge about the real state of
affairs in Khurāsān.
Although
the Sultan abandoned the idea of conquering Khură sän, he did not give up
altogether the idea of foreign conquests. A few years later, he conquered
Nagarkot (A.D. 1337) in the Kangra district. Next he undertook an expedition in
the Himalayan region, the object of which has been held by many, on the
authority of Firishta, to be the conquest of China. But this view is not
confirm. ed by any contemporary or any other later reliable authorities, and we
must reject it. Both Barani and Ibn Batutah state that the expedition was aimed
against Qurachal mountain, which lies bet- ween India and China, and there is
no doubt that this view is the correct one. The name of the State is written in
various ways such as Qurachal, Qarajal and Farajal. Some later writers write it
as Himachal. It has been suggested that the name Himachal and also the other
names are derived from the Himalaya (mountains). Others hold that the name
Qarachil is derived from Kumachal or Kürmā- chal which is the name of Kumaon.
But, whatever may be the correct form of the name, or its derivation, there is
no doubt that the State was situated at the foot of the Himalayas, most
probably in the region now comprised in the Kumaon Division, and extended up to
the Terai,38
As
regards the object of the expedition, also, the authorities differ
considerably. According to Baranï, it was a preliminary step to the conquest of
Khurasan and Transoxiana, but this view may be rejected, as Kumaon does not lie
on the way from India to those regions. The most probable reason seems to be
that the Sultan wanted to extend the suzerainty of Delhi over the hill chiefs
who gave him troubles and with whom Indian rebels, when defeated, found
shelter. As a matter of fact, the expedition to Qarachal may be regarded as due
to the same policy which led the Sultan to invade Nagarkot, namely, the
security of the northern frontier. But whatever may be the object or ultimate
destination, the expedition proved to be one of the greatest calamities.
According
to all accounts, the Sultan sent a large army for the expedition. Ibn Batutah
says that it consisted of "a hundred thou- sand horsemen besides a large
number of infantry". It seems that the expedition passed through the
Moradābād district. The royal troops captured the city of Jidya, which lay at
the foot of the moun- tain, along with the adjacent territories, and burnt the
country. The people here, all Hindus, left their hearth and home and took
refuge in the mountain heights. There was only one road leading up to the hill-top
and only a single horseman could pass through it. The royal troops climbed by
this way and captured the city of Warangal. They wrote about their victory to
the Sultan who or- dered them to remain there.37 But when the rains set in, a
disease broke out in the army. Accordingly, with the permission of the Sultan,
the troops began to descend, but the people took their stand in the gorges and
occupied the pass before them. Then they throw down pieces of huge trees which
killed a large number of the Sultan's army. Those who survived were captured
and the people plundered the wealth, horses and the arms of the royal army.
Only three officers of this army escaped, and the rest perished. This is the
account left by Ibn Batutah,38 and it is substantially corrobo- rated by other
writers. The consequences of this ill-judged military expedition proved highly
disastrous, and so seriously affected the military strength of the Sultan that
he could never again collect a large force against his enemies. But, on the
other hand, as the hill people could not cultivate the low lands at the foot of
the hill without acknowledging the authority of the Sultan of Delhi, a peace
was concluded with the mountain chief who agreed to pay tribute. Thus though
the object of the expedition was partially fulfilled, it may be easily
concluded that the military disaster was one of the primary causes of the
revolts and disturbances that oc- curred almost throughout the empire. For,
while the military re- sources of the empire were being exhausted in the
expeditions against Nagarkot and Qarachal, the disintegration of the mighty
empire had already begun in the south.
Sayyid
Ahsan Shah, the kotwal of Ma'bar, the southernmost province of the empire with
its headquarters in Madurā, declared independence in A.D. 1334-5. According to
Barani,39 "the army sent from Delhi to recover Ma'bar remained
there." This evidently means that it was won over by Ahsan Shah. The
Sultan then per- sonally advanced against him via Daulatabad and Warangal. At the
former place he levied heavy taxes and his oppressive exactions drove many
persons to kill themselves. There was a cholera epi- demic at Warangal, and the
Sultan himself was attacked. In the meantime famine broke out in Delhi and
Malwa, and there were rebellions in Lahore. So the Sultan gave up the campaign
and re- turned to Delhi. Ma'bar became independent and Ahsan Shah founded the
Madura Sultanate.
But
far more serious was the rising of the Hindus in Telingana, Andhra and the
territory to the south of the Krishna-Tungabhadra. Though the exact details are
lacking, it appears that the organization of a sort of Hindu confederacy was
attempted in the south in order to free the country from the yoke of the
Muslims. This is quite natural and easily intelligible, for the first Muslim
inroad into this region, which was more of the nature of a raid than of a
conquest, took place during the reign of 'Alä-ud-din Khalji, barely a quarter
of a century ago, and the destruction of the Kakatiya kingdom and the firm
establishment of Muslim rule in the Deccan and South India were only a recent
event barely five years old. The Muslim chronicles either ignore this movement
among the Hindus or merely view it as one more rebellion against the Sultan. In
any case their reference to it is brief and casual. This shows how much we are
liable to misread or misinterpret Indian history so long as we have to derive
our information from Muslim chronicles alone.
Though
the ruling houses and many noble families in the Deccan perished on account of
the Muslim raids, some of the chief- tains who survived the catastrophe joined
hands with the object of freeing their country from the Muslim yoke. According
to con- temporary Hindu records, Prolaya Nayaka drew his sword against the
Musulmans to re-establish the Hindu dharma, to restore the worship of the gods,
and to protect the Brahmana and the cow. Prolaya pro- bably hailed from
Musunuru in Paka-nādu in the southern Andhra country. He was supported by two
other leaders, namely, Prolaya Vema, the founder of the Reddi kingdom of
Addanki and Kondavīdu, and Bhaktirāja, the Telugu Choda Prince of Eruva. People
from all parts joined their standard, and under their inspiring leader- ship
defeated the Muslims in a series of battles. As a result of these victories
Prolaya Nayaka drove the Muslim garrison from the coastal districts of Andhra
and established himself at Ekapalli in the Bhadrachalam taluk in the East
Godavari district.
Prolaya
died between A.D. 1330 and 1335 and was succeeded by his nephew (brother's
son), Kāpaya Nayaka, the Kanāya or Krishna Nayak of the Muslim historians. The
successful rebellion of Maʼbar at this time served both as an inspiration and
opportunity to him. As already mentioned above, Muhammad. Tughluq, advanced up
to Warangal in course of his campaign against the rebellious governor of
Ma'bar. He must have been aware of the Hindu re- surgence in this region and
made a new arrangement for the adminis- tration of Tiling or Telingana. He
divided it into two parts and placed the eastern division, with its capital at
Warangal, under Malik Maqbul, a general of the old Käkatiya kingdom, called
Nagaya Gauna, who had embraced Islām. As we shall see, he followed with success
a similar policy in similar circumstances at Kampili, and no doubt hoped that a
native of the locality, once holding a high office there, would be in a
position to exercise great influence over the people. But the anticipated
result did not follow in Telingana.
Kāpaya
Nāyaka was a shrewd statesman and could easily read the signs of the time. He
was the leader of a confederacy of seventy-five chiefs, and in order to hasten
the impending ruin of the Sultanate, he tried to organize a league of all the
Hindu chiefs of the South. With this object in view he visited Vira Ballāla III,
the powerful Hoysala king and the only independent Hindu ruler in the south.
Ballāla readily lent his support to the sacred cause. was agreed that he should
fortify a strategic place on the northern frontier of his kingdom and also send
a body of troops to the help of Kapaya. The plan was eminently successful.
Kāpaya Nāyaka, accompanied by the Hoysala troops, invaded Tiling and stirred up
a Hindu rebellion. In the face of this national revolt, backed up by a regular
army, Malik Maqbul found himself unable to protect Warangal. He fled from the
province and the Andhra country was thus lost to the Sultan. Ballāla III and
Käpaya next invaded the northern districts of Ma'bar, or the recently founded
Sultanate of Madura. They expelled the Muslims from Tondaimandalam and handed
it over to Venrumankoṇḍān Sāmbuvaraya who established himself at Känchi.
A
similar national movement of the Hindus had also been working in the region
along the Krishna under the leadership of Chalukya Somadeva, the progenitor of
the Aravidu family. He belonged to the Kurnool district and was probably
supported by Prolaya Vema and other leaders of the similar movement on the
eastern coast; indeed both may be regarded as part of one and the same
movement. Somadeva is said to have captured a number of forts and won many
battles. But his greatest achievement was his vic- tory over Malik Muhammad who
was appointed governor of Kam- pili after it was conquered by Muhammad Tughluq
only a few years before, as noted above in connection with the rebellion of
Gurshäsp. That the victory over the governor of Kampili was the result of a
national uprising of the Hindus is supported by the testimony of Nuniz,
According to this Portuguese chronicler the people of Kampili, who rose in
rebellion against the Muslim governor, with- held the payment of taxes,
surrounded him in his headquarters, and allowed no provisions to reach him.
But here Muhammad Tughluq tried with success the method which failed him at Warangal. He appointed Harihara and Bukka who, as mentioned above, were taken prisoners from Kampili and forced to embrace Islam, as governor and deputy-governor of Kam- pili, and sent them with an army to restore order. They were opposed by Ballāla III who probably came to the support of Someś- vara. At first Harihara and Bukka were defeated, and perhaps they wandered about the country as refugees. It was during this period that they secured the help of the sage Vidyaranya, and thanks to his advice, ultimately succeeded in establishing them- selves at Anegundi on the northern bank of the Tungabhadrā.
The
movement initiated by Somadeva with the support of Vira Balläla III failed for
the time being, but the resounding success of the Hindus under Kāpaya Nayaka in
the coastal region, mentioned above, gave fresh impetus to the people of
Kampili. What is more important, even the Muslim governor of Kampili fell under
the influence of the Hindu nationalist movement. Harihara and Bukka, under the
inspiration of Vidyaranya, renounced Islām, took the lead of the new movement,
and founded the kingdom of Vijaya- nagara in A.D. 1336 as will be related
later,40
As
noted above, Muhammad Tughluq had succeeded, by A.D. 1328, in establishing his
authority almost up to the southern extremity of Indian Peninsula. But in less
than ten years he lost the entire region to the south of the
Krishna-Tungabhadra line, and even a part of Telingana and the coastal
districts of Andhra. It marked the disintegration of the empire in a manner
which no one could fail to notice. This was further signalized by the series of
rebellions that took place about this time, in Lahore, Daulatābād, Sarsuti and
Hänsi. These were all put down, but as a result of the rebellion of
Fakhr-ud-din in Bengal, to which detailed reference will be made later, that
province was lost to the Delhi Sultanate. Thus big cracks appeared in the
mighty fabric of the Delhi Sultan- ate, and it was no longer a question of
whether but when that great structure would fall.
When
the Sultan returned from Warangal to Delhi famine was raging in Delhi and its
neighbourhood in a severe form, and men and cattle died in thousands. Even the
Sultan felt it necessary to remove his family and court from Delhi to a newly
founded town called Saragdwäri (gate of heaven) on the Ganga near modern Shamsābād.
But he had to deal with several rebellions, namely,
THE
DELHI SULTANATE
those
of Nizäm Main at Kara, Nusrat Khan at Bidar, 'Ali Shah at Gulburga, and
'Ain-ul-Mulk in Awadh, which were all put down.40a
The
Sultan personally marched against Shāhū Afghãn who had killed the governor of
Multan and seized the city. The rebel fled, but on his return to Delhi the
Sultan found the distress in the Doâb unbearable. As the contemporary
authorities tersely put it, "man was devouring man". The Sultan tried
to alleviate the sufferings, but with no success. Ile was soon faced with
popular outbreaks in Sannam, Sāmāna, Kaithal, and Kuhran, The Jat and Rajput
tribes in this region in east Punjab formed mandals (strong- holds), withheld
the tribute, and created disturbances. The situa- tion was probably similar to
that in the Doab.+1 The Sultan stern- ly repressed the rebellions and took
their ringleaders to Delhi. Barani says that many of them became Musulmans,
which probably means that they were forced to embrace Islam.
But
these revolts were not the only causes which distracted the mind of the Sultan.
He found to his dismay that his authority was defied even by Muslim divines,
the 'ulama', qāzīs etc. Muhammad Tughluq put many of them ruthlessly to death.
But such acts of cruelty shocked the rank and file of the Muslims and further
estranged them from the Sultan. He not unnaturally connected the rebellions
with this feeling and decided to reinforce his authority by seeking recognition
from the 'Abbasid Caliph in Egypt. Barani's account may be summed up as
follows:-
It
occurred to the mind of the Sultan that no king could exercise regal power
without confirmation by the Khalifa. So he sent despatches to Egypt while he
was at Saragdwäri. On returning to Delhi he had his own name and style removed
from his coins and that of the Khalifa substituted. In the year 744 A.H. (A.D.
1343-4) an envoy from Egypt brought to the Sultan honours and a robe from the
Khalifa. The Sultan with all his nobles went forth to meet him and walked
before him barefoot for some distance. From that date it was ordered that in
mentioning the name of the kings in the khutba they should be declared to have
reigned under the authority and confirmation of the 'Abbasid Khalifa.12
The
motive attributed to Muhammad Tughluq by Barani may be correct, but there may
be some truth in the view held by other early writers that the Sultan hoped
that his receiving the patent from the Caliph would strike fear into the hearts
of his enemies. But such anticipations were not fulfilled.43
The
Sultan now turned to a new device to pacify the country. He introduced new
economic and administrative measures which aimed at lessening the burden of
taxes, development of agriculture, increased supervision of the administration
of justice, and other laud- able objects. 4 But though the plan was good, the
method of execution rendered it ineffective. In order to ensure efficient
working of the new policy he dismissed the old officials and replaced them by
new employees of humble birth. Barani calls them all upstarts and stigmatizes
them as barber, cook, gardener, weaver, drunkards, rogues etc.
The
removal of a veteran official like Qutlugh Khan, Governor of Daulatäbäd, caused
dismay and disgust among the people, and many of them broke into rebellion.45
The appointment of 'Aziz Himär46 as governor of Malwa was another fatal step.
Barani tells us that while investing the base-born 'Aziz with this office the
Sultan warned him against the amirän-i-sudah (centurions). Most of them were
turbulent, selfish and unscrupulous, and always ready to create chaos as
friends of rebels and promoters of mischief. The Sultan told 'Aziz that if he
came to know that any of the centurions of Dhar was rebellious he must try to
get rid of him in the best way he could. 'Azîz carried out the instructions of
his master to the letter. Shortly after his arrival at Dhar he beheaded eighty
centurions in front of his palace on a got-up charge of rebellion. According to
Barani, the Sultan honoured ‘Aziz for the horrid massacre; but "this
slaughter of the foreign amirs of Dhar on the mere ground of their being
foreigners caused those of Deogir and Gujarāt and every other place to unite
and to break out into insurrection".48
Indeed
this was the beginning of the end. In A.D. 1345 the centurions of Gujarat
revolted, and the Sultan proceeded against them via Patan and Mt. Abu. After a
severe contest resulting in heavy casualties the rebels fled towards
Daulatabad. The Naib Wazir pursued and dispersed them, but treacherously killed
a large number of amirs of Broach under instruction of the Sultan.
The
Sultan encamped at Broach and sent orders to Deogir to send fifteen hundred
horsemen with the most noted of the "foreign amirs". These amirs
accordingly started for Broach, but had not proceeded far when they suspected
treachery and revolted. They returned, killed the officials, captured the
treasury, and proclaimed one of them, Makh Afghan as king. They were joined by
the centurions of Dabhoi and Baroda and established their authority over a
large part of Mahāräshṭra.
The
Sultan marched with a large army to Daulatäbäd and defeated the rebels who took
to flight. He then besieged the fort of Daulatābād where Makh Afghãn had shut
himself up. But as there was a fresh rebellion in Gujarät led by Taghi, the
Sultan left Daulatābād to punish him. He spent the remaining days of his life
in vainly trying to suppress the rebellion of Taghi, and could not return to
the Deccan. As a result of this, rebellion in the Deccan could not be checked
and led to the foundation of an in- dependent kingdom in the Deccan known as
the Bahmani kingdom whose history will be treated in detail in another chapter.
Taghi,
supported by the muqaddams and the centurions of Gujarat, slew the governor and
deputy-governor of Gujarāt, plunder- ed Cambay, and besieged the fort of
Broach. It appears that Taghĩ had the sympathy and support of the people, both
Hindu and Muslim, and his revolt was really a general outbreak of the people.
When the Sultan arrived at Broach, Taghi avoided an open fight, and by
brilliant guerilla tactics moved to Cambay, Aswal, and Patan. But being
overtaken at Takalpur, and defeated by the Sultan after a severe engagement, he
went to Tattah and sought shelter with the Sumräs of Sind who had also broken
out into rebellion.
The
Sultan spent some time in Gujarat, cleared it of rebels, and re-established
peace and order. He then proceeded towards Tattah in pursuit of Taghi. He
planned to attack the town by land and sea and crossed the Sindhu with his
whole army, which was strengthened by four or five thousand Mongol horse sent
by the chief of Ferghana. But on the way he contracted fever, and while the
army was within a short distance of Tattah, he died on March 20, 1351.
Thus
ended the career of one of the most remarkable personali- ties 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 Vindhya. Like the
waves in the sea the empire reached the highest point only to break down. But
though from this point of view the reign of Muhammad bin Tughluq cannot claim
great success, his unique personality and abnormal temperament invest it with
great importance.
No
ruler in medieval India has evoked so much discussion concerning his policy and
character as Muhammad Tughluq. Muslim chroniclers, without exception, describe
him as a blood-thirsty tyrant and severely condemn his various measures. It has
also been held by many modern historians, that he was a blood-thirsty tyrant
almost verging on insanity, whose policy ruined the Sultanate of Delhi. In
recent times, however, some reputed historians have challenged this almost
universal belief of both scholars and laymen and sought to exonerate his
character. The truth, as usual, perhaps lies midway between the two extremes,
and Muhammad Tughluq's character was probably a mixture of opposites. It must
be admitted that he had many good qualities of head and heart, while his cruel-
ties were shocking and horrid, and he showed a capricious temper and a sad lack
of judgment and common sense on many occasions. We may, therefore, begin by a
general description of both the good and bad qualities of Muhammad Tughluq.
Muhammad
Tughluq possessed in a remarkable degree some traits of character which
distinguish a good king. He was active, energetic and hard-working, and
unwearied in his efforts to super- vise the affairs of the State. He was a good
general and often acquitted himself well in military campaigns.
The
Sultan had a very high moral character and was immune from most of the moral
lapses which characterized the rulers of the middle age. He abstained from
drinking and was very strict in his relation with women. He forbade the use of
intoxicating liquor among his subjects and on several occasions issued orders
that no woman should be permitted to remain in the military camp. But he was
not a puritan like Aurangzeb and had no scruple to witness the performance of
musicians and dancing girls.
The
lavish generosity of the Sulian has been described by both contemporary and
later writers. Even Barani, who is the foremost in casting aspersions on the
character of the Sultan, refers to his liberal gifts and acis of hospitality.
It is difficult to enumerate all the instances in which he made gifts on a
lavish scale both to the nobles as well as to the learned and pious men who
came from foreign countries. He discouraged begging and made provisions for the
up-keep of poor, and forty thousand beggars were fed every day at the public
kitchen.
Although
he is accused of killing his father, it seems that he tried to make amends for
it by causing his father's name to be in- scribed on the coins immediately
after his accession. In any case, there is unanimity of opinion that he paid
the highest respect and obedience to his mother and treated her most honourably
through- out her life. The Sultan had also great respect for the elders, and
always enjoyed the society of learned men.
The
Sultan was one of the most learned and accomplished men of his age. He was a
patron of learning and his liberality attract- ed to Delhi some of the most
learned men of India. He possessed a wonderful memory which enabled him to
store a vast amount of knowledge on different subjects, particularly history.
His intellec- tual attainments were very great and he possessed high scholar-
ship in logic, astronomy, philosophy, mathematics and the physical sciences. He
was not only well read in literary works but was himself a poet of no mean order.
His letters, both in Arabic and Persian, were marked by a high degree of
elegance, good taste, and good sense. His powers of conversation were also very
great and, in debate, he could hold his own against the most eminent scientists
and other people. He was also a great calligraphist. Above all, he acquired a
good knowledge of medical science, and it is said that it was his favourite
pastime to sit by the side of the patients, afflict- ed with any remarkable
disease, in order to hold discussions with the physicians about proper
diagnosis and suitable remedies for them. He established hospitals for the sick
and alms-houres for widows and orphans, on the most liberal scale.49
He
had also a high sense of justice and himself tried to judge cases in a fair manner.
Ibn Batutah narrates several anecdotes in illustration of the Sultan's modesty
and justice.50 Once an emi- nent Hindu filed a suit against the Sultan and had
him summoned before the gāzi. The Emperor walked on foot, completely unarm ed,
to the qāzī's court where he saluted and bowed. Previous to his departure he
had issued orders to the qäzi instructing him that he must not stand or budge
out of regard for him when he appear- ed in his court. Accordingly the Emperor
attended the court and stood before the qāzi, who gave his verdict against him
ordering him to compensate his opponent for the blood of his brother. The
Emperor gave him satisfaction.
Against
these good qualities and the versatile gifts and accomplishments of Muhammad
Tughluq must be sel his vices, the chief among which were cruelty and caprice.
According to Barani the Sultan "wantonly shed the blood of innocent
Muslims, so much so indeed that a stream of blood was always seen flowing
before the threshold of the palace".61 Reference has already been made
above to Barani's account of the Sultān's inhuman treatment of the peasants of
the Doab, whom he hunted like wild beasts over a large area. Almost all the
other Muslim chroniclers also describe Muhammad Tughluq as a cruel monster, and
several of them apply the epithet 'bloody' to him.52 Some modern writers have
made an attempt to extenuate his crimes, and even the sober historian Ishwari
Prasad has tried to explain away the charge of 'habitual and wanton cruelty'
against the Sultan.53 He holds that Muhammad Tughlug was not a monster who took
delight in shedding blood for its own sake. He admits his cruelty, but points
out that in the age in which he lived such cruel punishments were not regarded
as abnormal. He is also of opinion that the Sultan was not essentially inhuman
or wicked, but the hostile attitude of the people goaded him to desperation, so
that he was compelled to have recourse to punish- ments and vengeance as the
only means of saving his kingdom from ruin.
In
judging this matter the opinion of Ibn Batutah seems to be quite decisive. He
knew intimately not only the affairs of Muhammad Tughluq but also the customs
prevalent in that age over a large part of the world. He was a keen observer of
men and things and had no reason to be unduly severe against the Sultan. He
said, by way of prefatory remark to his account, that he told the unvarnished
truth in respect of things which he himself witnessed, and we have no reason to
disbelieve it. In view of these there can be no better evidence of the cruel
character of the Sultan than the severe denunciation made by this foreign
traveller. He begins by making the following general observations:
"Nothwithstanding
all his modesty, his sense of equity and justice, and his extraordinary liberality
and kindness to the poor that we have described, he had immense daring (sic) to
shed blood. His gate was hardly free from the corpse of a man who had been
executed. And I used to see frequently a number of people killed at the gale of
the royal palace and the corpses abandoned there. One day as I arrived there my
horse was startled, and as I looked round I saw on the earth some white thing.
"What is it?' said I. One of my comrades replied, 'It is the torso of a
man who has been cut into three picces.'
"The
Sultān used to punish all wrongs whether big or small and he would spare
neither the men of learning (ahl-ul-ʻilm) and probity (salah), nor those of
high descent (sharaf). Every day hundreds of people in chains with their hands
fastened to the neck and their feet tightened were brought into the council
hall.
"Those
who were to be killed were killed and those who were to be tortured were
tortured and those who were to be beaten were beaten... May God save us from
the calamity!"54
Ibn
Batutah illustrates his general observations by citing a number of individual
examples,55 It would be tedious to relate them all, but in view of the
difference of opinion on the subject, a few instances may be related.
(1)
The Sultan accused his brother of rebellion and the latter admitted his guilt,
"for, as a rule, he who refuses to acknowledge a charge of this kind is
tortured. Hence people preferred death to torture. The Sultan ordered that he
should be beheaded and he was killed in the centre of the market. Two years previously
his mother had been stoned to death in the same place on account of her
confession of adultery" 58
(2)
Shaikh Shihab-ud-dîn, a pious and accomplished person, was one of the principal
saints. As he declined to accept service under the Sultan, the latter ordered a
venerable jurist to pull the hair of his beard and, on his refusal to do so,
ordered that the beards of both of them should be pulled out, and this order
was duly carried out. Several years later Shuhäb-ud-din, when approached by a
Malik, said: "I will never serve a tyrant". When the Sultan brought
the Shaikh to him and said, "You say I am a tyrant"! "Yes",
retorted the Shaikh, "you are a tyrant and such and such are the instances
of your tyranny." Then he gave several examples amongst which was the
destruction of the city of Delhi and the expulsion of its inhabitants. For this
offence they "tied him with four chains and fastened his hands and in this
state he remained for a fori- night at a stretch without any food or
drink". But still he refused to recant what he said. On the fourteenth
day, food was sent to him but he refused to take it, and then the Sultan
ordered the Shaikh to be forcibly fed with human refuse. So they stretched him
on his back, "opened his mouth with pincers and dropped into it the human
re- fuse dissolved in water," which they made him drink.67
(3)
On one occasion the Sultan tortured two jurists of Sind for quite innocuous
remarks. "They were stretched on their backs and a sheet of red-hot iron
was placed on the chest of each. After a while the sheet was removed, and it
came off together with the flesh of their chests. Then a little urine mixed
with ashes was painted on their wounds." After this they confessed their
guilt and also wrote that their confession was voluntary. "Ilad they said
that they had been forced in confessing, they would have been tortured to the
utmost",58
(4)
On one occasion a young man and his brother-in-law, sus- pected of helping a
rebellion, were ordered by the Sultan to be hung by their hands from a stake,
and commanded some men to shoot them with arrows. They were consequently
pierced with arrows till they died. After their death the Chamberlain remarked:
"that youth did not deserve death". For saying this the Sultan
ordered the Chamberlain to be "whipped about two hundred lashes, threw him
into prison, and gave off his properly to the head executioner" 69
In
view of the fact that Ibn Batutah himself vouches for these punishments and
treats them as if they were quite unusual and ab- normal, it is difficult to
agree with the view of Ishwari Prasad mentioned above. It is also to be
remembered that even the Sultan's successor and great admirer Firuz was so much
conscious of the excess committed by Muhammad Tughluq that he tried to atone
for his sins by paying compensation to the successors of his victims and got a
letter written by them that they were satisfied, so that his soul might rest in
peace in heaven. This proves that Firüz also regarded the cruelty as of
abnormal nature.
Reference
may be made in this connection to the long conver- sation which the Sultan had
with Barani in which he expounded what may be called his gospel of cruelty. An
interesting sidelight on his character is thrown by his confession, in course
of this con- versation, that he inflicted chastisement on mere suspicion or
pre- sumption of the rebellious and treacherous designs of the people, and
punished the most trifling act of contumacy with death; and then he added,
"this I will do until I die, or until the people will act honestly and
give up rebellion and contumacy",60 In view of this it is easy to
understand the numerous cruel deeds of the Sultan and his approval of the mass
execution of the amîrān-i-sadah in Mälwa.
Next
to cruelty the chief blots on the character of Muhammad Tughluq were his
unpractical visionary ideas backed by caprice and tyranny. The idea of changing
the capital from Delhi to Deogir, the issue of token currency, and the
ambitious military expeditions to Khurasan, are generally regarded as due to his
capricious tem- perament. As has been pointed out above, some modern historians
have tried to show that none of these projects was inherently bad in itself,
but the failure of each was due to lack of foresight and practical experience.
But even these are great defects in the character of a king, and considering
the amount of misery they entailed upon the people and the kingdom, the king
cannot be al- together exonerated of the charges of caprice levelled against
him, particularly when we remember that all these projects were pro- ducts of
his own brain and he did not take into confidence or con- sult any of his
advisers. The only redeeming feature is that he did not push any of these
schemes to extremities, and desisted as soon as their bad effects were apparent
to him.
Muhammad
bin Tughluq has been charged with irreligiousness by his contemporaries, but
this is hardly a just accusation. In what is regarded by some as his own
Memoirs he "acknowledges his faith in the existence of God, in the
Prophet, and his Viceregent, the rightful Imam". This is also supported by
the evidence of his coins. "His staunch orthodoxy is reflected on nearly
all his coins, not only in the reappearance of the Kalima, but in the
assumption by the monarch of such titles as "the warrior in the cause of
God". 62 Firishta also praises his orthodoxy,68
A
clear analysis of the known facts indicates that while the Sultan scrupulously
practised all the observances of the Muslim faith, he did not show the same
respect for the Muslim divines as was shown by the orthodox Muslims. This,
however, is due to the fact that he was very keen on supporting the
rationalists (ahl-i- ma'qulat) against the traditionists (ahl-i-mangulat).64
His liberal spirit is further indicated by a Jain tradition which tells us that
the Sultan honoured the great Jain scholar and saint, Jinaprabha Sūri, who
visited his court at Delhi in A.D. 1328. Muhammad bin Tughluq "treated him
with respect, seated him by his side, and offered to give him wealth, land,
horses, ele- phants etc. which the saint declined. The Sultan praised him and
issued a farman with royal seal for the construction of a new basadi upāśraya,
i.e. rest house for the monks. A procession started in his honour to his
residence to the accompaniment of varied music and dances of young women, and
the saint was seated on the State ele- phant surrounded by Maliks" 65 In
view of the bigotry shown by most of the rulers of the period, all this
reflects great credit upon Muhammad Tughluq and testifies to his liberal and
rational menta- lity. So, from the modern point of view it should be regarded
as a great merit in the character of the Sultan that he could rise above the
rank bigotry of his age and, without succumbing to a blind and superstitious
reverence for anything that passed in the name of religion, allowed himself to
be guided by a rational spirit. On the whole, the charge of heterodoxy levelled
against Muhammad is not true, and in this respect he deserves more praise than
blame.
Both
Barani and 'Isami denounce Muhammad Tughluq as irreligious. 'Isami calls him a
kafir and urges a general revolt against him. He censures him for siding with
the Hindus and mixing pri- vately with the yogis.66 "It has been contended
that the Sultan had the audacity to employ and treat the 'ulama' and saints
like ordinary men and he was therefore a blasphemer".67 As a matter of
fact the high classes of Muslims, including official classes, the ‘ulamā', the
qāzīs or judges, the khatibs or preachers, faqhis or jurists, and the mashaikhs
or saints, a body of people who had hitherto en- joyed sanctity, were the
ringleaders of the Muslim rebellions against the Sultan.68 "Muhammad
Tughluq put them ruthlessly to death- a practice which horrified the rank and
file of the Muslims".69 But this crime, great as it was, was the result,
more of his cruel tempera- ment than of irreligion; and his whole attitude to
the Muslim saints was due to caprice or egoism, which was a distinctive trait
in his character, rather than an act of blasphemy. Thus although we may not pronounce
Muhammad Tughluq as lacking in orthodox religious spirit, his general attitude
towards the Muslim divines, and parti- cularly the severe punishments he
inflicted upon them, must be regarded as a serious blemish in his character.
It
is generally held that Muhammad's policy and action were responsible for the
break-up of the Delhi Empire. This is undoubt- edly true to a large extent. It
may be urged that disintegration of a vast all-India empire was not unusual,
and almost inevitable in those days of lack of communication and absence of any
real bond of union between the distant parts of the empire. Other empires like
those of 'Ala-ud-din Khalji also crumbled into ruins within a few years. It is
also pointed out that Firuz Tughluq left the Delhi Sultanate much worse than he
found it. All this is no doubt truc to a certain extent. But even the
inevitable collapse of an empire has generally to be attributed to certain
immediate causes, and Muhammad Tughluq's policy, which alienated the minds of
the people and created disaffection throughout the kingdom, must be regarded as
one of the predisposing causes.
It would appear from what has been said above that although the current view about Muhammad Tughluq may not be true to the whole extent, the attempts of some recent historians to exone- rate him from all blemishes have not proved successful. He was not a monster or a lunatic, as has been suggested by some, but there is no doubt that he was a mixture of opposites, for his many good qualities of head and heart seem to be quite incompatible with certain traits of vices in his character, such as revolting cruelty, frivolous caprice, and an inordinate belief in his own view of things. He might have had good ideas, but he had not the capacity to execute them. This was best exemplified in his ambitious projects like change of capitals, issue of token currency and foreign expeditions, and the appointment of new classes of officials. All these indicate a want of judgment which is undoubtedly a great defect in the character of a ruler, and it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that his character and policy largely contributed to the decline of the Delhi Empire.
Foot Notes
1.
For different views on the character and activities of Muhammad Tughluq of.
QTIP,
MTMH, CHI, III (Chapter VI).
2.
The epithet is differently spelt in different texts, such as Gashtasp,
Gashtasb,
Gashbashb
(QTIP, 64, f.n.),
3.
See above p. 39.
4.
HSIS, 224.
5.
For a detailed account, cf. IISIS, 224. According to K. A. N. Sastri,
Kampilīdeva "treated with contempt a demand for tribute from the officers
of the Tughlug Sultanate, and entered into friendly negotiations with
Baha-ud-din Garshäsp" (ibid), but he cites no authority. Cf. also N.
Venkataramanayya, The Early Muslim Expansion in South India, 134.
6.
For a detailed account, cf. HSIS, 224.
According
to Firishta "The Raja of
Kampila
was made prisoner" (Briggs, I, 419).
7.
Cf. MTMH, p. 143, f.n. 5.
8.
QTIP, 81.
9.
The translation in HIED is not accurate; cf. QTIP, 70-71; MTMH, 148 ff.; CHI,
III.
145.
10.
MTMH, 149, f.n. 1.
11.
Different authorities assign different dates for the events of Muhammad's
reign. The contemporary authority, Barani, is very chary in regard to dates.
Hence modern writers hold different views on this point. The chronological
scheine of Dr. Ishwari Prasad has generally been followed in this chapter. Sir
Wolseley Haig has drawn up a tentative chronology (JRAS, 1922, pp. 336 fl). S.
N. H. Rizvi also has made an attempt to fix the chronology on the authority of
Putih- us-Salatin, as he believes that the events are narrated in this work
"in perfect chronological order" (PHIC, V, 302) But these views have
not been accepter by scholars.
12.
QTIP, 67-8
13.
MTMH, 148-152
14.
QTIP, 73, f.n. 4J
15.
HIED, III, 230. 16. IBH, 94
The
story 17. An English translation of Isami's account is pivon in JIII, XX, 172
of
the cripple and the blind-the most incredible part of 1bn Batutah's account--
is in a way supported by 'Isāmī, who “feelingly describes how his grandfather,
an old man of ninety, was turned out. One morning while rtill in bed, he was
scized, thrown out of his home, and set on the road to Daulatabad. But he died
shortly after" (MTMH, 122). For a Juller discussion of the different views
about the transfer of the capital cf. MTMH, 108 A; QTIP, 82 ff; JIH, XX, 159 f.
18 MTMH. 116 f. His views have been endorsed by S. M. Haq (PIHC, VII, 269 (f).
19. JIH, XX, 170.
20.
Ibid., 171.
21.
Ibid.
22.
MTMH, 108 f. N. B. Roy also thinks that "the Sultan was inspired by a
strong missionary zeal for making the cause of Islam triumphant in the
south" (JIH, XX, 164). This view is also supported by Dr. S. M. Haq (PIHC,
VII, 269). 23. TMB, 100-1, 104; QTIP, 84. Although Badauni and Firishta also
refer to two
migrations
Ishwari Prasad rejects the view (QTIP, 84-5).
24.
MTMH, 108 ff; cf. specially pp. 114, 115, 123.
24a.
QTIP, 84.
24b.
For the system introduced by Ghiyās-ud-din Tughluq, see above, p. 56.
25.
For different views cf. QTIP, 58-9; MTMH, 94 ff. Also cf. Chapter XIII, A. 26.
According to this authority (TMB, 103) Tarmashirin "marched against Delhi
with a vast army, conquered most of the citadels and put under confinement the
people of Lahore, Samano. .;when his army reached the banks of the Jaun
(Yamuna) he retraced his way back".
27.
HIED, III, 450,
28.
TMB, 103.
29.
QTIP, 97.
30.
CHI, III, 143.
31.
MTMH, 100 ff.
J
32.
According to Barani the tokens were of copper, while Firishta alone refers to
both copper and brass coins. As brass coins have actually been found, the
latter view seems to be correct,
33.
MTMH, 134. For a favourable view of the token currency and a full reference to
other views, cf. Dr. Ishwari Prasad's elaborate discussion in QTIP, 101 ff. He
holds the view that the "scheme failed more on account of prejudice,
ignorance and lack of proper safeguards than on account of any inherent
defect" (p. 117), But while there is a great deal of force in the
arguments of Thomas and Ishwari Prasad, it must be remembered that a novel
experiment of this kind should not be judged from merely theoretical point of
view, and one who cannot properly judge of the fitness or ripeness of the time
for it, or provide for, and even think of. adequate precautions to ensure its
success, fully deserves condemnation. 34. QTIP, 122 ff.
35.
Is.C., XX, 140.
36.
QTIP, 125 ; MTMH, 126 ff.
37.
IBH, 98. According to some views the commander of the army transgressed the
Emperor's orders and advanced across the mountains into Tibet (MTMH, 130-1).
38. Op. cit., 98.
39.
HIED, III, 243. For details see Chapter on Ma'bar.
40.
The very important and interesting episode of the Hindu rising in the South has
been practically ignored by both ancient and modern writers. The Muslim
chroniclers make only casual references to isolated events which do not convey
any idea of the general movement and are full of errors. Hardly any notice is
taken of it in CHI, III and MTMH. The account in QTIP is also very meagre and
misleading. The account given in the text is based upon the following: 1. Dr.
N. Venkataramanayya, The Early Muslim Expansion in South India. 88
MUHAMMAD
BIN TUGHLUQ
2.
Dr. N. Venkataramanayya, The Date of the rebellions of Tilang and Kampıla
against
Sultan Muhammad, IC, V, 135 f, 262 f.
៩
3.
Prolavaram Grant of Kapaya Nayaka, Ed. by S. Sharma, JBORS, XX, 260. 4. M. S.
Sharma, A Forgotten Chapter of Andhia history. A somewhat diffe- rent view is
taken by Dr. Rama Rao (PIC, X, 292 f) who holds that the liberation of
Andhradesa from Muslim occupation was the result of a selics of individual
efforts by the chieftains of the time, and not of a planned and co-ordinated
movement directed by Musunuri Kāpaya Nayaka (ibid. 297). 10a. For a detailed
account of the various rebellions, el. MTMH, Ch. VIII. Dr. Ven- kataramanayya
has discussed in detail the dates of these rebellions m IC, V, 135 ff, 262 ff.
11.
MTMH, 164; QTIP, 173.
42.
HIED, III, 249-50.
159,
164; QTIP, 180.
For
other acts of similar flatteries and servility cf. CHI, III.
43
CF MTMII, 168 II, lor an elaborate discussion.
44.
For details cf. MTMH, 175 ft.
45.
HIED, III, 251.
As
16
'Aziz is styled himār(ass) in some texts and Ichammār (vintner) in others
the
addition of a single dot changes the one into the other word, probably khammar
is the correct designation and the other is "a scribe's error or deli-
beiate pleasantry". (CHI, II, 166 f.n.).
17.
Sultan Muhammad had divided the southern provinces into small units of hundred
or more villages to which officers were appointed who were directly under the
governor. These officers were known as amirān-i-sadah, i.e. officeis of hundreds.
These centurions had to carry out both military and civil duties. As civil
officers they were responsible for the collection of revenue and other dues of
the territory under their jurisdiction, and their position as military officers
gave thein the necessary strength to carry out their civil duties. This system
continued till about A.D. 1345, when Muhammad Tughluq, finding that it could
not successfully check rebellious elements, modified it to ensure stable
administration. Ile sub-divided the province of Deccan into four parts or shiqs
to each of which he appointed an officer subordinate to the wazir at
Daulatābād. The amirän-i-sadah or centurions in each of these sub-divisions
were now immediately responsible to the shiqdar of their sub-division and through
him to the governor of the province. But this reform came too late.
48.
HIED, III, 252.
49.
Cf. Firishia who describes Muhammad Tughluq as "the most eloquent and ac-
complished
prince of his time." (Briggs, I, 410-11).
50.
IBH, 83.
51.
QTIP, 312.
52.
Ibid, 314.
53.
Ibid, 316 ff.
54.
IBH, 85.
55.
The examples must be regarded as illustrative and not exhaustive, as Dr.
Ishwari
Prasad
seems to imply (QTIP, 318).
56.
IBH, 85-6.
57.
Ibid, 86-8.
58.
Ibid, 89.
59.
Ibid, 93.
60.
HIED, III, 254-6.
61.
JIH, XX, 161. For a discussion on Sultan Muhammad's autobiography, see above
p.
4.
62.
Brown, C. J. The Coins of India, 73-4.
63.
Briggs, I, 411.
64.
Is, C. XX, 139.
65.
PÍHC, V, 296.
66.
MTMH, 175.
67.
Ibid, 174.
68.
Ibid, 170.
69.
Ibid, 171.
Post a Comment