The Tughlaq dynasty / (A.D. 1320-25)/Ghiyath al-Din Tughluq (A.D. 1320-25)

 أسرة طغلق /غياث الدين تغلق (1320-25م)

الكلمات المفتاحية: أسرة طغلق، غياث الدين طغلق، سلطنة دلهي، التاريخ الهندي، حكام العصور الوسطى، التأثير الثقافي

حكمت أسرة طغلق، التي تُكتب بدلاً من ذلك توغلوك، سلطنة دلهي من عام 1320 إلى عام 1413، مما يمثل حقبة محورية في تاريخها وثقافتها. خلفًا لسلالة خالجي وسابقًا للسادة، حفز حكم الطغلق النمو الاقتصادي من خلال إنشاء الكرخانات (المصانع) وتعزيز الزراعة من خلال القنوات المروية. شهدت هذه الفترة طفرة في التجارة الداخلية والبحرية، وتسريع عملية التحضر، وتعزيز انتشار المراكز الحضرية والمدارس والمساجد والمباني العامة.

تعود بداية سلطنة دلهي إلى انتصار محمد غور على ملك راجبوت بريثفيراج شوهان الثالث عام 1192، مما أدى إلى تأسيس حكم أجنبي في شبه القارة الهندية. أعلن شمس الدين التوميش نفسه سلطانًا في عام 1206، وبدأ عهدًا استمر حتى عام 1526 عندما هزم ضياء الدين بابور إبراهيم لودي. شهدت سلطنة دلهي، المتجذرة في العقيدة الإسلامية، عملية توحيد في القرن الثالث عشر، تميزت بحكم الملكة راضية، غياث الدين بلبان، وصعود المسلمين الهنود خلال فترة خالجي.

على الرغم من الصراعات بين النخب، ساد الانسجام الديني بين الناس العاديين، مسترشدين بتعاليم القديسين الصوفيين والبهاكتيين الذين يعززون المساواة. ازدهرت العمارة الهندية الإسلامية بأقواس وقباب وحدائق رائعة، في حين أضاف ظهور اللغة الأردية، وهي مزيج من الهندية والفارسية، وطفرة في الأدب العامي، عمقًا ثقافيًا. وقد أكدت البعثات الدبلوماسية، بما في ذلك التبادلات مع الصين، على أهمية عهد سلاطين دلهي في تشكيل شبه القارة الهندية.

Keywords :Tughlaq Dynasty, Ghiyath al Din Tughlaq, Delhi Sultanate, Indian History, Medieval Rulers, Cultural Impact.

The Tughlaq Dynasty, alternatively spelled Tughluq, governed the Delhi Sultanate from 1320 to 1413, marking a pivotal era in its history and culture. Succeeding the Khalji dynasty and preceding the Sayyids, the Tughlaq rule spurred economic growth with the establishment of karkhanas (factories) and enhanced agriculture through irrigated canals. This period witnessed a surge in inland and maritime trade, expediting urbanization, and fostering the proliferation of urban centers, schools, mosques, and public buildings.

The Delhi Sultanate's inception traced back to Muhammed of Ghur's triumph over Rajput King Prithviraj Chauhan III in 1192, establishing alien rule in the Indian subcontinent. Shamsuddin Iltutmish declared himself Sultan in 1206, initiating a reign that endured until 1526 when Ziauddin Babur defeated Ibrahim Lodi. Rooted in the Islamic faith, the Delhi Sultanate experienced consolidation in the 13th century, marked by the rule of Queen Raziya, Ghiyasuddin Balban, and the ascendancy of Indian Muslims during the Khalji period.

Despite conflicts among elites, religious harmony prevailed among ordinary people, guided by the teachings of Sufi and Bhakti saints promoting equality. Indo-Islamic architecture flourished with exquisite arches, domes, and gardens, while the emergence of Urdu, a blend of Hindi and Persian, and a surge in vernacular literature added cultural depth. Diplomatic missions, including exchanges with China, underscored the significance of the Delhi Sultans' reign in shaping the Indian subcontinent.

The contemporary historical writings of Ziauddin Barani, Ibn Battuta, and Shams Siraj Afif offer valuable source materials for studying diverse facets of the Delhi Sultanate.

Ghiyath al-Din Tughluq (A.D. 1320-25)

Ghiyäs-ud-din Tughluq, also called simply Tughluq, was the founder of the Tughluq dynasty. It is generally believed that Tughluq was the name of his family or of the tribe to which he belonged, and hence this cognomen is applied to all the members of his family. But it is held by some that Tughluq was merely the personal name of the founder of the new dynasty, and was neither a family name, nor the designation of a class, clan, or tribe. In support of this view it is pointed out that the second king of the dynasty called himself Muhammad bin Tughluq (son of Tughluq) or its equivalents, and very rarely Muhammad Tughluq, while none of his successors ever used the word Tughluq as part of his name.2 But as sometimes the personal name of the founder is given to the dynasty, we may, following the present practice, call the ruling family the Tughluq Dynasty, and use the word Tughluq after the proper name, as names like Muhammad Tughluq or Firuz Tughlug are more familiar to us in these forms.

According to Ibn Batutah, Tughluq belonged to the race of the Qaraunah Turks. But nothing is definitely known about this clan, not even whether it was Turk or Mongol. Marco Polo, a contem- porary foreign traveller, describes the Qaraunahs as a people of mixed breed, while some derive the name from Karana, the name of a mixed caste in India. The question has been fully discussed by several historians3 in all its bearings, and while they generally agree that Tughluq was certainly a Turk, some are of opinion that far from being a Qaraunah, he was a lineal descendant of the Sas- sanian kings of Persia. The most probable view seems to be that of Sir Wolseley Haig who connects the Tughluq with the "Taghlik', a tribe of Turks, now dwelling near Khotan.4

There is also a difference of opinion, even among the old autho- rities, regarding the early career of Tughluq, whose original name was Ghāzi Malik or Ghazi Beg Tughluq. According to Ibn Batutah and Shams-i-Siraj 'Afif, he came from Khurasan to India during the reign of 'Alā-ud-din Khalji. On the other hand, Firishta states, as a result of his inquiry at Lahore, that although there was no authentic account in any book, it was generally believed that Malik Tughluq, a Turkish slave of Sultan Balban, married a woman of the Jät tribe, and their son was Ghazi Malik who later became Sultan Ghiyäs-ud-din Tughluq. Dr. M. Husain, who prefers this account to the older one, ignores the fact that this goes against his view that Tughluq was a personal name of the founder of the royal dynasty and not a cognomen. The story of the Jat marriage is in a way indirectly supported by 'Afif who says that Ghiyās-ud-din Tughluq, when governor of Dipalpur, gave his brother in marriage to the daughter of a Hindu nobleman of the province, who was extremely unwilling but was coerced by threat to accept the propo- sal. It may be added that the issue of this marriage was the future Sultān Firüz Tughluq.

But if we accept the view of 'Afif that Ghazi Malik himself came to India from Khurāsān during the reign of 'Ala-ud-din Khalji, he can hardly be the son of a Jat mother. The statement of Amir Khusrav, a contemporary writer, that Ghazi Malik served under Jalāl-ud-din Khalji seems to indicate, however, that Firishta's ac- count is the correct one. We may, therefore, hold that Tughluq was the son of an Indian mother and, like his father, was in the service of the Sultans of Delhi. He distinguished himself by his successful defence against the Mongol invaders and ultimately be- came the governor of Dipalpur. He held the post till he was called to the throne under circumstances already described above.

Tughluq proved to be an able ruler. His first concern was to restore the authority of the Sultanate in the Deccan. Prataparudra, the Kakatiya ruler of Warangal, had taken advantage of the dis- orders in Delhi, and not only threw off the yoke of the Sultanate by refusing to pay tribute, but increased his power enormously by extensive conquests, as stated above. Owing to a singular lack of political wisdom he ignored or underestimated the Muslim menace. Instead of attempting to organize a united front of the Hindu rulers of Deccan and South India in order to prevent the catastrophe which had already overwhelmed him once before, he was now fully en- gaged in leading military campaigns against them and thereby frittered away his energy and resources. But he had to pay the penalty for his folly as soon as Tughluq ascended the throne. In the second year of his reign (A.D. 1321-22) the Sultan sent an expe- dition against him under the command of his son Jūna or Jauna Khän, also known as Ulugh Khan. The latter marched by way of Devagiri and laid siege to the fort of Warangal. Prataparudra offered a heroic resistance. The Hindus from all sides mustered strong to fight against the Muslims and frustrated all their attempts to cap- ture the fort. The siege dragged on and the casualties were heavy among the besiegers. Prataparudra sued for peace, offering to pay annual tribute as before, and also to furnish elephants and treasure.

Prince Jauna haughtily rejected the offer and vigorously pressed the sicge.

bul soon the Muslim army met with a terrible disaster. This was due to the desertion of a large number of nobles with their armies, but the exact cause of this defection is difficult to deter- nine. According to Barani, 'Ubaid, a boon-companion of Jauna, deliberately spread a false report among the soldiers to the effect that the Sultan was dead and that a new prince now sat upon the throne of Delhi. 'Ubaid also told the nobles that Jauna intended to kill them. Believing in these rumours most of the military leaders left the camp together with their followers, and then a panic seized the imperial army. The besieged Ilindus sallied forth and plundered the baggage of the army of Jauna, and he fled with his followers towards Devagiri. Of the nobles and military leaders, who had descried the camp, some met with disaster at the hands of the Hindus, and many suffered terrible punishments in the hands of the Sultan. Jauna, however, reached Devagiri in safety. Barani does not say anything about 'Ubaid's motive and seems to imply that he was actuated by a desire to create mischief. On the other hand, Ibn Batutah definitely asserts that Jauna intended to rebel against his father, and ordered 'Ubaid to spread the false report in the hope that the officers and troops would swear allegiance to him. But the result was just the opposite, as the amirs rebelled and deserted the prince, who thereupon fled to his father with ten horsemen.

Barani's account has been followed by later Muslim historians. Among modern writers Wolseley Haig and many others accept Jbn Batutah's version, while Ishwari Prasad and M. Husain accept Barani's account. Barani's narrative fails to supply a reasonably satisfactory motive for the treacherous conduct of 'Ubaid, an inti- mate friend of Prince Jauna Khan, On the other hand, Ibn Batutah's account hardly fits in with two ascertained facts namely, (1) that while the Sultan punished the officers who deserted, he not only did not admonish the prince, but again sent him in command of a second expedition against Warangal in A.D. 1323; (2) the Sultan also appointed Jauna regent in Delhi during his own absence in Bengal.7

According to Muslim chronicles the second expedition was com- pletely successful. Jauna again laid siege to Warangal and captured it. King Prataparudra surrendered and was sent to Delhi "with his elephants and treasures, relations, and dependants", Baranï adds that "the name of Warangal was changed to Sultanpür, and all the country of Tilang was conquered". But this must be regarded as an obvious exaggeration. For, as noted above,7 Prataparudra is referred to as the ruling king in an inscription dated A.D. 1326, found at Guntur. It is, therefore, very likely that even if he were taken as a captive to Delhi, he must have been released and was either allowed to rule as a subordinate chief or asserted his independence.

There is another question that may be discussed in this con- nection. According to local chronicles the Pandya kingdom of Madura (Ma'bar of Muslim chronicles) was conquered by an army from Delhi in the year A.D. 1323.8 This is supported by the fact that this province is included by Barani among the dominions of Delhi Sultanate at the time when Muhammad bin Tughluq trans- ferred his capital to Devagiri in A.D. 1327, although there is no re- ference to any expedition against this place led by him before this date. If we accept the date A.D. 1323 for the conquest of Ma'bar by the Sultan of Delhi, it would appear very likely that Jauna car- ried on an expedition to this southernmost limit of India after his victory over Pratāparudra. But, then, it is inexplicable why such a resounding victory should have been ignored by all the Muslim historians.

But whatever we might think of this expedition, there is no doubt that after the conquest of Warangal, Jauna Khan led an expedition to the eastern coast. Barani simply says that he marched towards Jäjnagar and captured forty elephants. An inscription,9 in a mosque at Rajahmundry, records that it was built in A.D. 1324, during the regime of Ulugh Khän. This shows that the latter had advanced as far as Rajahmundry. It is probable that from Rajah- mundry Jauna Khan proceeded towards Orissa. Bhānudeva II, king of Orissa, sent a large force to the frontier to defend his kingdom. According to 'Isāmi, the only contemporary author who gives an account of this expedition, the Orissan forces were defeat- ed and fled, and Jauna Khan plundered their camp and took much booty. But the Puri plates of Narasimha IV credit Bhanudeva II with a victory over Ghiyäs-ud-din Tughluq. This probably refers to the same expedition, 10 and in that case, we must presume that Ulugh Khan suffered some reverse, and his expedition was not as successful as 'Isämi describes it to be. This is supported by the very cryptic reference to it by Barani, and explains the sudden re- tirement of Jauna Khan after a victorious campaign, which has struck modern historians as rather unusual, 11

Jauna was warmly received by his father on his return from the brilliant campaign. The Sultan honoured him and held great rejoicings, though these were partly marred by the news that the Mongols had crossed the Sindhu and invaded Sämäna. But the im- perial army sent against them won two victories, drove them back, and took many prisoners.

After having quelled a Parwari insurrection in Gujarat, the Sultan turned his attention to Bengal which had been an independent principality since the death of Balban. Ghiyas-ud-din Tughluq de- cided to assert his authority over the province and started with an army at the beginning of A.D. 1324, having left, in charge of the government at Delhi, his son Jauna who was, according to some accounts, specially summoned to Delhi from Telingana for that pur- pose in January, 1324. The details of the campaign and its result will be described in Chapter, X E. It will suffice to slate here that the Sultan succeeded in his main object. He defeated the Sultan of Bengal, Ghiyās-ud-din Bahādur, and brought him captive to Delhi. He confirmed Sultan Nasir-ud-din in the government of North Bengal with its capital at Lakhnawati. Eastern and Southern Bengal, with capitals respectively at Sonargaon and Satgäon, were annexed to the Sultanate, and his adopted son Bahrām Khan was appointed to govern them.

In course of the expedition to Bengal, the Sultan defeated the Räjä of Tirhut (N. Bihar). There is some difference of opinion among scholars regarding the date of this Tirhut campaign. Some hold that it took place when the Sultan was returning to Delhi after having settled affairs in Bengal, while others hold that the Sultan conquered Tirhut on his way to Bengal. But the evidence of 'Isämi is decisive on this point. His detailed account leaves no doubt that Ghiyas-ud-din Tughluq invaded Tirhut on his way back from Bengal. Harisimha, the king of Tirhut, offered a stubborn resistance to the imperial army, and Ghiyäs-ud-din started for Delhi before the ruler of Tirhut was completely subdued, as will be related in Chapter XIII, D-II.

In course of his return journey the Sultan received some alarm- ing news of his son's conduct and general disquiet at Delhi, and proceeded by forced marches. What followed is thus described by Ibn Batutah: "As the Sultan neared the capital he sent orders to his son, Ulugh Khan, that he should build him a palace near Afghanpur. This palace was in the main a wooden structure, con- structed within three days under the supervision of Malikzada Ahmad bin Aiyaz, the superintendent of buildings, later known as Khvāja Jahan, the principal wazir of Sultan Muhammad. It rested on wooden columns and was so contrived that should the elephants step on a part of it the whole structure would collapse and tumble down. The Sultan stopped in this palace and fed his guests. After they dispersed, the prince asked the Sultan to allow him to have the elephants ride past him, and permission was granted. Shaikh Rukn-ud-din informed me that he was with the Sultan at the time, when Jauna Khän approached him saying: 'Maulānā, it is time for the 'Asr prayer, come and pray'. The Shaikh complied with this request, and the elephants were brought from a certain direc- tion, as had been arranged. When they stepped over the palace, it immediately collapsed on the Sultan and his son Mahmud. The Shaikh said, 'I heard the uproar and returned without saying the prayer. I saw that the structure had fallen, and the Sultan's son was ordering pickaxes and shovels to be brought to dig out the Sultan, but he made signs for them to delay and the implements were not brought till after the sunset.' When the Sultan was dug out he was seen bending over his son to save him from death. Some presumed that he was taken out dead; some apprehended that he was taken out alive and afterwards murdered. He was carried in the course of the night to the tomb, which he had built outside the city of Tughluqābād.”12

It will appear from the above account that Ibn Batutah defi- nitely accuses Ulugh Khan (Jauna) of murdering his father. The testimony of Barani, the only other contemporary writer, does not, however, support this view. After referring to the reception of the Sultan in a temporary pavilion, Barani states: "A calamity occurred, like a thunderbolt falling from heaven on the denizens of the earth, and the roof of the dais, on which Sultan Tughluq Shah was sitting, fell, and the emperor, with five or six persons, fell beneath the roof, and was united to the neighbourhood of God's mercy".18

It should be noted that Barani's expression is somewhat vague. Some historians, both of old and modern times, have taken his words literally to mean that the pavilion was struck by lightning. But it has been pointed out that if that was Barani's intention to convey, he would have worded the expression differently.14

It has been suggested by old and modern writers that Barani dared not speak the truth unfavourable to Ulugh Khan, later Emperor Muhammad bin Tughluq, as he wrote during the reign of Firüz who was greatly attached to the Emperor. While this is a forceful argument, it should be remembered that Barani has not hesitated to describe many harsh and oppressive acts of Muhammad bin Tughluq and severely condemn him. Later historians have sup- ported either the view of deliberate conspiracy and murder by Ulugh Khän, or accidental death by lightning as concluded from the statement of Barani. Badäüni and the authors of the Futüh-us- Salātin (an almost contemporary work), Ain-i-Akbarī, and Tabaqāt- i-Akbarī support the view of Ibn Batutah, while Firishta supports the view of Barani. But Firishta evidently was not quite convinced, for he concluded with the very characteristic expression, "God only knows the real truth". The Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi neither refers to the lightning, nor to the deliberate murder, 16

Dr. Ishwari Prasad has critically discussed the question and is inclined to the view that Ulugh Khan murdered his father.16 He points out that there were several causes of estrangement between the father and the son, the most important of which was Sultan's aversion against Shaikh Nizäm-ud-dīn Auliya, to whom Ulugh Khân was devoutly attached. Further, when Tughluq was returning from his campaign he sent an order to the Shaikh to quit the city before his arrival. The Shaikh, when warned by his friends of the ap- proach of the Sultan almost to the suburbs of the city, is said to have replied: "Delhi is yet far off". This may also be taken to indicate some sort of conspiracy to kill the Sultan before he could actually reach the capital city. But many writers are of opinion that even if there were any such conspiracy, Nizam-ud-din Auliyā had probably nothing to do with it. It is also very significant that the official, under whose supervision the pavilion was constructed, was not only not punished, but promoted to a higher post. Unless Shaikh Rukn-ud-din had deliberately made a false statement to Ibn Batutah, or the latter grossly misrepresented him, the circumstantial narrative of the former, who was present on the occasion, must be preferred to the vague statement of Barani. On the whole, though no definite conclusion is possible, one would perhaps be inclined to agree with Dr. Ishwari Prasad "that the Sultān's death was the result of pre-meditation and conspiracy and not of accident." This is also the view of Sir Wolseley Haig who observes: "Ibn Batutah's impartial evidence is conclusive".17 Dr. M. Husain has made an attempt to exculpate Ulugh Khān, but his discussion, though elaborate and painstaking,18 does not carry conviction, and appears more like a special pleading than an impartial investigation of truth.

Ghiyas-ud-din Tughluq died in A.D. 1325 (February or March), but during his short reign of less than five years he showed great ability in administration. The State treasury had been almost de- pleted by the reckless expenditure of Mubarak and Khusrav, and grant of jägirs on a large scale. The Sultan not only issued orders to resume the lands unlawfully granted, but also forced many to refund the amount that had been given to them. The celebrated saint, Shaikh Nizam-ud-din Auliya, who had spent the money granted to him in charity, and was therefore unable to refund it, did not even send any reply to the Sultan's demand. For this reason there was an estrangement between the two. The Sultan was very angry with his son Jauna for his extreme reverence for the saint, as has been noted above.

The land revenue was equitably settled and the farming system was abolished. The Sultan took special care to prevent the exac- tions of peasants by officials and jägīrdārs and remitted revenues to a large extent in times of drought. On the whole the government was based on justice and moderation and inspired by a desire to promote the welfare of the ruled. The Sultan selected his officials on grounds of merit alone and paid them well to prevent corruption.

The Sultan led an ideal life and was free from drinking and many other usual vices of the age. He built the fortified city of Tughluqābād and removed his capital there. He also erected many buildings, the most magnificent being his own tomb which has some unique artistic features. To him belongs the great credit of restor- ing the power and prestige of the Delhi Sultanate which had fallen very low, and revitalizing the system of administration which had almost collapsed during the disgraceful reigns of his immediate predecessors.

But Ghiyas-ud-din Tughluq, in spite of this admirable qualities and personal virtues, was a man of the age, and blindly adhered to the Quranic laws as the basis of his civil administration. This explains his attitude towards his Hindu subjects "who were treat- ed with great severity and were made to feel their position of in- feriority in the body politic".19 According to the ordinance pro- mulgated by the Sultan, "there should be left only so much to the Hindus that neither on the one hand should they become intoxicated on account of their wealth, nor on the other should they become so destitute as to leave their lands and cultivation in despair" 20 The close resemblance of this with the principles followed by ‘Ală- ud-din Khalji21 is of great significance. As a man Tughluq was far superior to 'Ala-ud-din, but although he did not revive the agrarian and fiscal policy of the latter, his attitude towards the Hindus was not very dissimilar. This shows that the position of the Hindus in the Islamic State of Delhi did not depend much on the character and personality of the Sultan, but was determined by the Quranic policy, as it was understood in this country in those days. This was clearly based upon discrimination between Muslims and Hindus, and the latter were relegated to an inferior position without any political status or civil rights in the land of their birth.

Notes

1. QTIP, 5 f., CHI, III, 127 f.n.

2. For a full discussion, cf. MTMH, 45 f.

3. For these and other debatable points that follow, full discussion with reference

will be generally ound in MTMH and QTIP.

4. JRAS, 1922, p. 321.

5. Vol V, pp. 202-3.

6. According to the Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shāhī, 'Ubaid spread a report that the Emperor was dead at Delhi; he also employed the amirs and malikes for assassin- ating Ulugh Khan who, howwever, reached near the Sultan by forced marches and narrated to him the whole incident. The latter thereupon inflicted terrible punishment upon the rebel amirs.

7. Haig has offered a plausible explanation of these two facts (JRAS, 1922,

pp. 326-7).

7a. Vol. V, p. 203,

8. JOR, XII, 212.

9. EIM, 1923-4, p. 13.

10. JASB, 1895, part I, pp. 136, 146. But R. D. Banerji thinks that the inscription refers to Bhanudeva's fight with Ghiyas-ud-din Tughluq during the latter's campaign in Bengal (Orissa I, 276).

11. N. Venkataramanayya-The Early Muslim Expansion in South India, p. 126. 12. Based on the English translation by Dr. M. Husain (GOS) pp. 54-5.

13. The passage was wrongly translated in HIED (III, 235), but has been correctly

rendered by W. Haig (JRAS, 1922, p. 330).

14. Ibid.

15. The author simply says: "The construction was newly made; the earth under the erection trembled, and by divine pre-ordination it gave way" (TMB, 97), Ishwari Prasad points out that he "makes no mention of lightning and sup- ports Ibn Batutah" (QTIP, 41) while M. Husain thinks otherwise (MTMH, 70). 16. Op. cit., pp. 38-48.

17. JRAS, 1922, p. 336.

18. MTMH, pp. 66-74. 19. QTIP, 51.

20. Ibid.

21. Above, p. 24.