F. SIND
1.
The Sumras
Reference has been made above to the domination of the Saffarids (A.D. 872-903) in Sind and the rise of two separate States, namely, Multan and Mansurah, after the fall of that dynasty. Both of these had to accept the suzerainty of the Samanids who, as mentioned above, replaced the Saffarids as the dominant power in this region, but had themselves to yield to the Ghaznavids towards the end of the tenth century A.D.1
As noted above, Sultan Mahmud established his authority over Multān in A.D. 1010,2 and it is likely that he also established his supremacy over Mansurah or Sind proper. According to the Tärîkh-i-Ma'sümi, the Sumras rebelled during the reign of his son Ma'süd and placed a man of their tribe, also called Sümra, on the throne. This is the first definite reference to the Sumras who are known to have ruled in Sind for a long period. Unfortunately very little is known either about their origin or of their history. It has been suggested that they were Paramära Rajputs, but of this we have no authentic evidence.
It
is generally assumed, from the names of the later rulers of this dynasty, that
the Sumras were Muslims. It is, however, very likely that they adopted their
new faith at a later date; in any case, their conversion must have been a slow
process.
Ibn
Batutah states of the Samiras, that is the Sumras, that "they do not eat
with anybody nor can anyone look towards them when they are eating; nor do they
marry among people other than When Mahmud their own, and no one marries in
their fold."3 Begarha first invaded Sind to relieve the Sindhi Muslims
from persecution by the Hindus, he came across Sumras and other tribes who were
Muslims but knew little of Islam or its rules, and were wont to intermarry with
and live as Hindus.4 It is also interesting to note that the name of the last
Sumra king, Hāmīr, was usually borne by a Hindu.
The
total reign-period of the Sumras is given as 143 (lunar) years (A.D. 1300-1439)
in the Tarikh-i-Tahiri, but according to other authorities, it was 500 or even
550 years.5 They certainly ruled till the middle of the fourteenth century
A.D., and as we hear of them in the reign of Ma'süd they must have ruled for a
period of at least three hundred years. It is not, however, unlikely that they
ruled for five hundred years as stated by Abu-'l Fazl and Nizām-ud-dīn, for
they might have established their power during the confusion that must have
followed the Saffarid conquest of Sind. On the other hand, we do not know the
name of any Sumra chief preceding the ruler of that name who successfully
rebelled against Ma'sud. It is probable that he was the real founder of the
dynasty which was named after him.
Sumra
consolidated his position by marrying the daughter of a powerful chieftain
named Sad, and was succeeded by his son Bhun- gar, who enjoyed a reign of 15
years. His son Duda, who extended his sway up to Nasrpür, died in 485 A.H.
(A.D. 1092), and was succeeded by his minor son, Singhär. Singhär reigned for
15 years, during which period he seems to have conquered a part of Cutch. As he
had no son, his wife Hamun took charge of the government after his death. Then
followed a period of internal strife, after which one Pithu, a descendant of
Dūdā, established himself as king.
According
to the Jagaducharita of Sarvananda, Pithadeva of Pārā (the peninsula on the
north-east side of the Runn of Cutch which is still called Parkar) destroyed
the whole of Cutch and reached Bhadreśvara; after demolishing the ramparts of
the city, he returned to Pārā. Ultimately the Chaulukya king Bhimadeva II (A.D.
1178-c. 1241) sent an army against Pithadeva who fled, and later died of
excessive grief.
Bühler
identified this Piṭhadeva with the Sūmra chief Pithu. If Bühler's
identification is accepted, the reign of Pithu cannot be placed earlier than
the last quarter of the twelfth century A.D.7
Pithu
was succeeded by one Khaira who, in his turn, was succeed- ed by one Khafif or
Hafif, during whose long reign of 33 years the people are said to have been
happy and content. It is during this reign that the Sammās are first mentioned.
Khafif appears to have been succeeded by Pithu's son, 'Umar, who ruled for 40
years. He was succeeded by his son Dūdā II, who died after a reign of 14 years.
Our
two main authorities differ very widely regarding the successors of Dūdā II.
While Mir Ma'süm mentions only four kings ending with Armil, ‘Ali Sher Qäni
gives a long list of twelve kings ending in Hāmīr whose reign-periods exceed a
total of more than two hundred years. As we know from a contemporary source
that the name of the last king of the Sumra dynasty was Hamir Dūda, the list of
'Ali Sher Qani appears to be more authentic, but when he says that the Sumras
were extirpated in a fight against 'Ala-ud-dīn, he is evidently wrong and
probably makes a confu- sion between 'Ala-ud-din Khalji and Muhammad bin Tughluq.
In any case there is no doubt that the Sümras were succeeded by the Sammās in
the sovereignty of Sind about the middle of the fourteenth century A.D.
2.
The Sammās
All
the kings of the Sammã dynasty bore the title Jäm, be- cause they claimed to
have been descended from Jamshid. But there is hardly any doubt that this
legendary origin is fictitious. It is interesting to note that there was
another tribe in Sind, called the Thathwas(?) who also claimed descent from
Jamshid, and this led to their quarrel with the Sammã kings.8
Lists
of kings of the Samma dynasty are given by Nizam- ud-din, Abu-'l Fazl, Firishta
and Mir Ma'sum. The names of the kings and their regnal periods, as given by
the four authors, do not agree, the initial date for the beginning of the Sammā
rule is not stated, and the discrepancy makes it difficult to construct an
exact chronology of the Sammã chiefs. Prof.
Prof.
Hodivala has pointed out that a fairly correct list can be made out on the
basis of the following three or four fixed dates or epochs and two points of
contact between provincial and imperial history, which can be determined with
tolerable certainty.10
Accession
of Jām 'Unar
 |
The
first part of this proposed chronology is, however, not free from difficulties.
For, from the Munshät-i-Mahru it appears that the second and the third kings,
namely, Junān and Banhbina,
11
the brother and son respectively of the first king, 'Unar, were joint rulers.
We also learn from the same work, that Hamir Dūdā Sūmra was still in Sind,
though "the plant of his existence had been afflicted by the violent wind
of calamities". Firüz Shah was how- ever, helping Hamir, apparently to set
him up against Banhbina, as the latter in alliance with the Mongols had
attacked Gujarät and the Punjab on several occasions. 'Ain-ul-Mulk Mahrü, the
governor of Multan, was therefore writing to Firuz Shah's governor of Sind to
strengthen the position of Hamir, who had been granted a posi- tion and pension
by Firuz Shah. Firuz had also entrusted Hämîr to the charge of Malik-ul-Umara'
Rukn-ud-din Amir Hasan, the brother of the governor of Gujarat, to whom
'Ain-ul-Mulk's letter was addressed. 'Ain-ul-Mulk hoped that "the position
of Hamir Dūdā will be strengthened (by the governor of Gujarāt) as is desired
by His Majesty (Firūz Shāh), and both the territories of Gujarāt and Sind will
be freed from the menace of Banhbina (bin) 'Unar. Otherwise nothing can prevent
these handful of damned people from bringing infidels (Mongols) into the
territories of Islam when- ever they like and looting and carrying off as
slaves the subjects and the Dhimmis of Dar-ul-Islām." This is the last,
however, that we hear of Hāmīr, for in the letters that follow, Hamir is never
again mentioned. From this it may be presumed that Hamir was the last Sumra
king, as stated by 'Ali Sher Qānī.
It
appears from the letters of Mahru, that either Jām Jūnān and Banhbina were
ruling jointly or had divided the kingdom amongst themselves. Jām Jünän was
loyal to Sultan Firüz, while Banhbina, as has been noted above, was creating
trouble by raid- ing the imperial domains with Mongol help, from practically
the beginning of Firuz Shah's reign. Being afraid of reprisals, Banhbina once
wrote a letter to Mahru justifying his (Banhbina's) conduct, in reply to which
Mahrü wrote a stinging answer, which contains the interesting information that
Sultan Firuz Shāh had married Banhbina's daughter.
In
spite of the remonstrances of Mahru, Banhbina did not change his ways so that
Sultān Firūz, as noted above, was obliged to lead a campaign against him into
Sind, which probably lasted from the end of A.D. 1363 to the first half of A.D.
1367.12 Firüz carried to Delhi both Jām Jūnān and Banhbina, and several
muqaddams and zamin- dārs of Sind. Jäm Jūnān's son and Banhbina's brother,
Tamachi, were left to rule jointly at Tattah, in return of a payment of four
lakhs of tankas and a promise to send several lakhs every year with horses and other
valuable things.
Jām
Jūnān and Banhbina were kept comfortably in their honourable captivity at
Delhi, but very soon Tamachi, the brother of Banhbina, broke into rebellion.
Jām Jünän, who had always been loyal, was therefore sent to Sind, and he managed
to capture Taniachi annd sent him to Delhi. Jām Jūnān continued to rule at
least up to May 1380.
After
the death of Sultan Firuz Shah (A. D. 1388), his successor Ghiyās-ud-din sent
Banhbina to Sind, probably because Jām Jūnān had died in the meantime. But
Banhbina died on his way to Tattah. The Sammās probably took advantage of the
weakness of the Delhi Sultanate during this period and declared their
independence.
Not
much is known of the kings whose list is given above. Some of these usurped the
throne and one was selected by the nobles. During the reign of Nanda, the last
king but one, Shah Beg Arghûn came from Qandahar in A.D. 1493, and occupied the
fort of Sewi. Nandā managed to recover the fort, but, later, Shah Beg sent
another army which not only reconquered Sewi, but captured the forts of Bhakkar
and Sehwan also, and this time Nanda failed to recover his possessions.
During
the reign of Nanda, Mahmud Begarha of Gujarat had to come to the aid of the
Muslims of southern Sind, who were said to have been persecuted by the Hindus.
Mahmud's mother was a daughter of Nanda, and Mahmud came to his grandfather's
aid in A.D. 1472, when it was reported that 40,000 rebels had risen against the
latter. According to Firishta, these rebels were Shiah Baluchis, and according
to the author of the Zafar-ul-Walih, they were pirates, skilled in archery, who
lived on the sea coast owing allegiance to none. The rebels dispersed on
hearing of Mahmud's approach. Nanda sent Mahmud a letter of thanks with
valuable gifts and his daughter, who was married to Qaisar Khan, the refugee
prince of Khandesh, who was staying in Gujarāt.
Nanda died after a reign of 62 years, 13 and was succeeded by his son Firuz, but the real power passed into the hands of Darya Khan, the wazir. A relation of Firüz, named Salāh-ud-din, attempted to seize the throne, but being unsuccessful fled to Gujarat to seek help from Sultan Muzaffar with whom he was related through marriage. Muzaffar gave Saläh-ud-din some help, and Darya Khan also joined him, Firuz fled away and Salāh-ud-din ascended the throne with- out any opposition. Later, however, Darya Khan changed sides, deposed Salah-ud-din and restored Firūz.
Salāh-ud-din
again received help from Sultan Muzaffar of Gujarat and in 920 A.H. (A.D. 1514)
once more turned Firuz out of Sind. Firuz then went to Shah Beg Arghün, with
whose help he fought and killed Salah-ud-din and his son and ascended the
throne for the third time. But again he was dethroned. Shäh Beg Arghün, who had
been driven out of Qandahär by Babur, in his turn, expelled Firuz and occupied
Sind. Firüz retired to Gujarat, and giving his daughter in marriage to Sultan
Bahadur of Gujarat be- came one of his amirs. With the accession of Shah Bog,
the rule of the Arghūns, a Mughul clan, began in Sind and their history will be
related in the next volume.
Reference
1.
See above, Vol. IV, 127; V, 1-2.
2.
See above, Vol. V, 10.
3.
IBH, 6.
4.
CHI, III. 306.
F.
SIND
5.
Tärikh-i-Tahiri, HIED, I, 256; Ain. Tr. 2nd Ed. II, 343; TA, III, 772, Firishta
(Briggs, IV. 411) states that the Sumras ruled for 500 years, but according to
the lith. ed. II, 609, 100 years only.
6.
Jagaducharita, V, vv. 3-41; edited by G. Bühler, Indian Studies, I.
7.
This leads to a difficulty, because, according to Mir Ma'sum, after the death
of Singlar in A.D. 1007, his wife ascended the throne and then followed a
strife at the end of which Pithu became king. But this difficulty is not
insurmount- able, for either Hamun, the queen of Singhar, or Pithu-whose regnal
periods are not mentioned-might have enjoyed long reigns or the internal strife
lasted for a very long time, so that it is not improbable for Pithadeva to have
been on the throne during the early years of the reign of Bhima II.
8.
TA, III. 795.
9.
Practically no two accounts of the Samma dynasty agree among themselves,
although the differences are not great. The reason for this discrepancy is that
with the exception of Nizam-ud-din none of our authorities were able to find a
written history of Sind following the death of bin Qasim. We have therefore
followed Nizam-ud-dīn's version (TA, III. 773 f.).
10.
S. H. Hodivala, Studies in Indo-Muslim History, I. 102.
11.
The following account based on the Munshāt-i-Mahrū, Sīrat-i-Fīrūz Shāhi, and
the Tarikh-i-Firuz Shāhi of Shams-i-Siraj Afif is based on R. Islam's article,
Rise of The Sammās In Sind, in Is. C., XXII. 359-82, and all the necessary
references will be found there. For Banhbina I have adopted the spelling
suggested by R. Islam.
12.
See above, pp. 95-6.
13.
TA, III. 779. As noted above, Hodivala assigns to him a reign of 48 years, but
gives
no reason.
Post a Comment