International Journal of Informative & Futuristic Research ISSN (Online):

Transcription

1 History Paper Volume 2 Issue 6 February 2015 International Journal of Informative & Futuristic Research The developments and the failure of the Indian historians to evolve their own terminology and typology in the field of British and Indian Paper ID IJIFR/ V2/ E6/ 073 Page No Subject Area History Key Words Early Turkish Rule, British And Indian Historical Writings, Scientific Historical Writings, Islamic Devotional Literature, English Historians, 20th Century, Medieval Indian Historiography Vichitra Vijay 1 Principal, Govt High School Chhejarsi, Noida (UP) Abstract The present study is the first attempt to assess the whole process of development of the British and the Indian historiography of the 20th century on the early Turkish rule in northern India. This investigation is divided into six sections with an introduction at the beginning and conclusion at the end. It is an endeavor to trace the characteristics and developments in the field of historiography during 20th century and makes an assessment of the historical writings on polity, society, economy, religion and institutions of early Turkish rule. It brings into prominence the branches, topics and areas in which sufficient research has been done. It also highlights the gaps to be plugged and areas in which further research can be undertaken.. An assessment of these writings initiated new insights and supplements the knowledge already diffused through the writings of 20th century historians. History of historical records of each period carries some legacies of earlier times, some of the just ante period and some of the current strands of knowledge. The developments in the field of history always helped its cause in the long run. The present paper aimed at studying the characteristics, the developments and the failure of the Indian historians to evolve their own terminology and typology in the field of British and Indian that took place in the 20th century. Copyright IJIFR

2 1. Introduction One of the important characteristics of the period is that in the beginning, it continued to be political history or biographical writing. The English historians of the early 20th century like Stanley Lane Poole (Medieval India under Muhammadan Rule, 1903), V.A. Smith (Oxford History of India, 1919) and W. Haig (ed.) (The Cambridge History of India, 1926) based their accounts of the Early Turkish Rule upon the English translations of Indo-Persian Tawarikh by Elliot & Dowson, Alexander Dow, John Briggs and H.G. Raverty. These writers do not appear to have made any remarkable advance upon the form and technique of historiography as adopted by the medieval chroniclers. Since the source-materials were almost the same, their treatment of political history remained almost identical. It was a heyday of the nationalist movement, and the British historians endeavored to justify their rule as one of the many foreign usurpers of India. They based their writings on one hypothesis the superiority of British rule in India over the medieval Muslim rule. Some of the early Indian historians, who were either trained by or inherited the skills of writing the history of India from the British historians, followed in their footsteps. These historians also placed emphasis on writing of the political history of the foundation of Muslim Rule in India. Ishwari Prasad (History of Medieval India, 1925), C.V. Vaidya (History of Medieval India, Vol. III - Downfall of Hindu India), H.C. Ray (Dynastic History of Northern India, 3 Vols., 1931) and G.H. Ojha (Rajputane ka Itihasa, 1927) towed their line and training. Although, at the same time, many useful works on archaeology (works of Cunningham and Marshall), on numismatics (works of Edward Thomas and Wright), on architecture (works of Fergusson, Percy Browne and E.B. Havell) and on Islamic devotional literature (works of Murry Titus, Thomas Arnold) were being produced, the English historians of the early part of the 20th century do not appear to have taken any serious view of these works while composing the political history. In their narratives, it appears, the same kind of descriptions viz., battles, rebellions, rise and fall of ruling houses and the achievements of Muslim adventurers were predominant. Social and economic factors that constitute the life and flesh of history seem to have evaded their attention. The early British and Indian historians have developed a peculiar notion that society or all aspects of life of the people of a country have to be studied separately or independently of political history. The only variances between their writings and the writings of medieval chroniclers were those of languages modern writers wrote in English, while the medieval chroniclers in Persian and Arabic. Of course, the exception of this rule is found precisely in W.H. Moreland who gave a new turn from medieval to modern technique of writing medieval history of India. Although Moreland had a higher conception of historiography, but his thinking was overwhelmed by the British civil servants way of looking at the history of India through a colored glass. Moreland s purpose of shadowing the past by the present is tangible in his writings. His vision of Indian history was doubtlessly influenced by one factor economic, and one standard the British administration. Moreland's view of medieval Indian history appears to be partial, but he struck a new note in modern historiography by advocating that political history should be studied against the background of physical and economic factors. Although the English historians of the early 20th century assumed the role of propagandists, and the contemporary political interests made them partisan, yet it goes to their credit that they collated the political history of medieval India, using various Persian sources, and edited them more 1900

3 systematically. While they enjoyed certain advantages and facilities, this had some baneful consequences for historiography. First, it delayed the penetration into Indian historiography of 'wider concepts of the nature and scope of history', evidenced in the writings of British scholars working on central Asia. Second, hardly any reference to socio-religious aspects, jurisprudence, mysticism, political thought, poetry or archaeological, epigraphic and numismatic materials is found. Another important characteristic of the 20th century British and Indian historiography, after the breakthrough made by W.H. Moreland in the field of economic history, a handful of scholars mainly, Indian, pursued the study of administrative, religious, cultural and social institutions of Muslim rule in India. Some of the important treatises attributed to them that were produced during 1930 s and 1940 s are: K.M. Ashraf's Life and Conditions of the People of Hindustan, R.P. Tripathi's Some Aspects of Muslim Administration, M. Husain's Le Government du Sultanat de Delhi, I.H. Qureshi's The Administration of the Sultanate of Delhi, and Muhammad Aziz Ahmad's Political History and Institutions of the Early Turkish Empire of Delhi. In the field of social and cultural history, works by Abdullah Yusuf Ali (Medieval India: Social and Economic Conditions, 1932), Yusuf Hussain (Glimpses of Medieval Indian Culture, 1957), S.M. Jaffar (Education in Moslem India, 1936) and Some Cultural Aspects of Muslim Rule in India, 1939) and A.L. Srivastava (Medieval Indian Culture) were fresh ground breaking studies. Foremost among the scholars who studied the mystic saints and religious aspects during the 1940's and 1950's are: M. Habib (Hazrat Amir Khusraw of Delhi, 1927) and Shaikh Nasirud din Chairagh of Delhi, 1946) and K.A. Nizami (Life and Times of Shaikh Farid uddin Ganj i- Shaker, 1955) and (Studies in Medieval Indian History, 1956). History is a form of critical inquiry into the past, and not merely a repetition of testimony and authority is another important trend in the annals of historical analysis which emerged after The modern historiographers on the medieval India started probing into the ideas, motives and forces behind human actions performed in the past. Unlike the biases and religious statements of medieval chroniclers, they try to explore these motives, not only in religious, but also in political, economic, social and other causes, and tried to trace a relationship between them. Historians like M. Habib, K.A. Nizami, Peter Hardy, Mohibul Hasan, S.B.P. Nigam, K.S. Lal, Irfan Habib and I.H. Siddiqui were in the vanguard to study these aspects of history. The 20th century Indian and British historiographers applied the critical apparatus of footnotes, appendices, bibliography and sometimes maps also. The Indian historians inherited these western traditions of writing history from British historians in London, Calcutta and Allahabad before independence, and afterwards in London and Paris. Majority of the 20th century historians of the Early Turkish rule confined their attention to one class of source material produced in two forms i.e. English translations and edited copies of Muslim histories in Persian and Arabic. Works were rarely produced in any regional language. This is good, but occasionally it results into a very sophisticated form of activity and the writing of history confines to one circle and one language - English. A revolution took place in writing medieval Indian historiography after 1960 s. One prominent school of historians Aligarh School - completely dominated the scene. Though works of eminence were produced in Departments of History in different universities Lahore, Karachi, Calcutta, Patna, Allahabad and Agra, yet medieval Indian history writing remained the domain of one place the Aligarh School. 1901

4 There are some characteristics which turned out to be weaknesses in the writings of Indian and British historians. One, sometimes the scholar consult only those sources which have relevance to his thesis and cites only those authorities which buttress his views. Two, the 13th century writings of Indian and British historians is mostly of the doctoral thesis type overloaded with footnotes and citations of authorities, which weigh heavily upon the narrative making the work dreary. 2. Review Of Literature Turkish period with proper recourse to the Persian sources which have a bearing on the subject. The Foundation of Muslim Rule in India (Lahore, 1945) written by the author covers nearly eighty years from the accession of Aibak to the death of Kayumur, which is really a foundation period of the Turkish rule in India. Before the publication of this work, he contributed a number of papers to various journals: (i) "Provincial Government under the Mamluke Sultans of Delhi" (I.H.Q., Vol. IX, 1933, pp ), (ii) "Sultana Raziah" (I.H.Q., 1940, pp ), (iii) "Undiscovered literary Sources for Pre-Mughal India" (P.I.H.C., 1939, pp ), and (iv) "Re-evaluation of the literary sources of Pre-Mughal history" (I.C., 1941, pp ). The motives which prompted Habibullah to write his monograph are hard to guess. But the national movement consciousness and pre-partition days in which the work was prepared and published had a strong influence underneath. It appears that the monograph, to a certain extent, was influenced by the political atmosphere of pre-partition days, when the demand for separate state- Pakistan- was in heyday. This history of early Turkish rule was written against Indian background and not Islamic background. Based on original sources, the work clarifies many aspects which have remained in obscurity for centuries. Apart from the historical narrative, the work contains erudite sections on administration, society, culture, literature and arts. The 16th Section on Zimmees is a valuable contribution to the subject. Habibullah, a disciple of Dr. N.K. Dutt, Professor H.C. Raychowdhury and Professor S.N. Sen of Calcutta University was the first historian to write a monograph on the early Turkish rule in northern India. Habibullah's association with many stalwart historians of his days was quiet fruitful in working out details of this monograph. After partition, Habibullah migrated to the then Eastern Pakistan and joined Dacca University. An assessment of Habibullah's work brings certain points to notice. In the first place, the Slave kings from Aibak to Kayumur are designated by the author as Mamluks, a foreign denomination used for the studies in central Asia and not India. The early Sultans who ruled over northern India had been purchased and reared either by Muhammad Ghuri or Iltutmish and are recorded in history as Ghulams or Bandagan-i-Turk and not Mamluks. Secondly, the part of the 15th section entitled, "Society and Culture" devoted to the cultural development of the age has done scant justice to the literary progress of the time. What is written by the author is too sketchy to fall in line with the standard of the monograph. The age in which scholars like Hasan Nizami, Fakhr-i-Muddabir, Minhaj Siraj, Amir Khusraw, Muhammad Awif and Amir Hasan flourished cannot be called barren. Besides, the author has not referred to the literary circle founded by Muhammad Khan Shaheed, the son of Balban at Samana. The prince was a scholar himself and spared no effort to diffuse knowledge and create literary interest in the Indian society. The circle had its own novelty. It functioned like a seminar in which various topics were discussed and verses exchanged. The circle was attended by Amir Hasan and Amir Khusraw, the luminaries of the age, and Shaikh Sa'di, the celebrated poet of Persia was invited there. Although the poet failed to respond to the invitation 1902

5 favourably, yet the fact that the invitation was extended to Shaikh Sadi indicates the wider range of Indian scholars and their knowledge of the outside world. 3. Research Methodology The Introduction reviews the historical writings of the British and Indian historians on the early Turkish rule in northern India. It gives an insight into the historical works of A.B.M. Habibullah, Muhammad Aziz Ahmad, Mohammad Habib, K.A. Nizami, Peter Hardy, A.K. Srivastava, Rekha Joshi, Rafia Zakari, Irfan Habib, Simon Digby and Peter Jackson. It focuses on the elements in the historical writings of the 20th century historians and presents a brief survey of the present literature on the early Turkish rule in northern India. The first section focuses on the characteristics and developments of the 20th century historiography on early Delhi Sultanate. It is aimed at studying how these trends and traditions of writing scientific historiography, initiated by the British, were taken up and developed by Indians during the 20th century? One of the important characteristics of the period is that in the beginning, it continued to be political history or biographical writing. During the 1930's and 1940's individual works on economy society, administration and cultural history appeared. It was during the late 1940's that two important works on early Turkish rule were published. After the 1950s new interpretations and new developments took place in writing of Indian history due to two strong reason first, India got independence and second, Partition of British India. The second section aims to study the historical works of British and Indian historians on the political structure and institutions of the early Turkish rule. It studies the historiography on the central government, iqta system, nature of state and kingship, procedure of succession, nobility and military slaves of the early Delhi Sultanate. The pioneers in the field of political and administrative history are R.P. Tripathi, K.M. Ashraf, A.B.M. Habibullah, Muhammad Aziz Ahmad, S.B.P. Nigam, Mohammad Habib, K.A. Nizami, Irfan Habib, I.H. Siddiqui, K.S. Lal and Peter Jackson. Works of these scholars exhibit a broad vision and use of modern research methodology. Third section focuses on the writings of 20th century historians about Military System of the early Turkish Sultans. No work exists on the army of the Delhi Sultanate. There are some monographs, however, which deal with certain aspects of the army. Some of these have been published in India; some others outside. Jadunath Sarkar's Military History of India (Calcutta, 1960); The Strongholds of India by Sidney Toy (London, 1957); Simon Digby's War Horse and Elephant in the Delhi sultanate (Oxford, 1971) and Majid Khadduri's The Law of War and Peace (Luzac & Co., 1941) are some works which discuss some aspects of the army of early Delhi Sultanate. A number of articles by historians like K.S. Lal, Akram Makhdoomee, I. Alam Khan, Peter Jackson, Burton Page and M.A. Ahmed focus on the army of the Delhi Sultanate. An unpublished thesis, entitled Military System of the Delhi Sultans submitted by T.C. Batra to Agra University in is an important work on the army of the Delhi Sultanate. Historical writings on the economy of the early Turkish rule are discussed in the fourth section. Historiography on this aspect remained an isolated phenomenon till 1970's except individual works of some renowned scholars like W.H. Moreland, R.P. Tripathi, Nicholas P. Aghnides, I.H. Qureshi, Nelson Wright, Mohammad Habib and D.D. Kosambi. After the 1970's researches by Irfan Habib, Satish Chandra, I.H. Siddiqui, U.N. Day, A.L. Srivastava, H.K. Nadvi, H.C. Verma, A.B. Pandey and M.A. Farooqui shed light on the economic history of the early Delhi Sultanate. 1903

6 Historical writings on the agrarian system, numismatics, trade, industries and markets are discussed in this section. 4. Political Developments The political history of the early Delhi Sultans has attracted the attention of scholars from the inception of medieval Indian studies. The writings of scholars like Muhammad Aziz Ahmad, A.B.M.Habibullah and K.A.Nizami have supplemented the knowledge already diffused by early British historians about the early Delhi Sultanate polity. During the 20th century, studies on early Turkish rule have made sufficient headway, in spite of the limited scope and availability of contemporary source materials. The study of political history and institutions during the 13th century has been the subject of almost every monograph dealing with the administration under the Delhi Sultanate. It will be helpful to make an analysis of the views and contributions of various scholars about the early Delhi Sultanate polity under these categories - Central Government, Iqta System, nature of State and Kingship, Procedure of Succession, Mamluks and Nobility. There is no dearth of scholarly studies and other writings touching upon the Central Government of the early Turkish Sultans, but there is no separate book on the central structure of the government of the Sultanate, as similar to one on Mughal administration : The Central Structure of the Mughal Empire by Ibn Hasan. However, the government of the Sultanate, the various ministers and ministries and the different departments are dealt with in the works on administration by Muhammad Aziz Ahmad, A.B.M. Habibullah, K.A. Nizami, R.P. Tripathi, I.H. Qureshi, P. Saran, and U.N. Day. R.P. Tripathi's Some Aspects of Muslim Administration (London, 1936), deals with the theory and practice of political institutions from the time of the Ghaznavids to the end of the reign of Akbar. The book is divided into two parts. The first part has sections like: The Muslim theory of Sovereignty, Historical Heritage of the Delhi Sultans, Experiments of the Albari Turks, The Zenith of Despotism (deals with the Khaljis), Revival of Monarchy (deals with Sher Shah Suri), Turko-Mongol theory of kingship; while the second part dwells on : Vazir from the Slaves to the Tughluqs, Growth of the Vizarat Department (under the Delhi Sultans), Revenue System (under the Slaves); Revenue System (under the Khaljis), Revenue System (under the Tughluqs), The Afghan Experiments. There are appendices on Muslim Theory of Taxation, Nasq and Zabt etc. The Administration of the Sultanate of Delhi, (Lahore, 1942) by I.H. Qureshi, besides fifteen appendices, has eleven sections devoted to : the legal sovereign, the actual sovereign, the royal households, the ministers, finance, the army, justice and police, religious affairs, education, public works, provincial and local government, and the spirit of government. During the 13th century, the Sultan was the head of the government. In the discharge of his duties and for organizing efficient administration, he was assisted by a number of ministers. The office of the ministers and their ministries grew and developed with time. A.B.M. Habibullah in his monograph: The Foundation of the Muslim Rule in India, (Lahore, 1945) observes that the Mamluk administration was mainly a series of experiments and tendencies which did not crystallize into comprehensive system until a new dynasty came to power. There were four main departments (1) Diwan-i-Wazarat (2) Diwan-i- Arz (3) Diwan-i-Insha and (4) Diwan-i-Rasalat. Of lesser importance were the departments of inland shipping and waterways under the Amir-i-bahar, and the armoury (Zarradkhana) under the Shahnah (Superintendent) affiliated to the army ministry. Muhammad Aziz Ahmad in his book: Political History & Institutions of the Early Turkish Empire of Delhi ( ), (Lahore, 1949) sheds light on the central structure of the early Delhi 1904

7 Sultanate. In section IX, entitled, Central Organization of the Empire of Delhi ( )-I, he discusses the origin and theory of kingship, the emperor, administrative duties of the emperor, the imperial Council (Majlis-i-Khas), the imperial court (Majlis-i-Am) and the reagent. The four ministries - Diwan-i-Wizarat, Diwan-i-Ard-i-Mumalik, Diwan-i-Insha and Diwan-i-Risalat and departments of state were focused upon in section X, entitled, Central Organization of the Empire of Delhi ( ) II. Ahmad's work is very old and outdated in approach. New researches carried out after the publication of this work throw light on important aspects of central structure of the government under the early Delhi Sultans. Another important monograph, K.A. Nizami's Some Aspects of Religion and Politics in India During the Thirteenth Century (Aligarh, 1961), also deals with the character of the empire, theories and ideas of kingship, power and position of the Sultan, nobility and their recruitment and promotions and the ulema and their categories and influence on politics. Exposition of the theory of kingship of Balban as a despotic monarch is Nizami s greatest contribution. K.S. Lal s History of Khaljis (New Delhi, 1963) give details about the government of the Khalji dynasty. Regarding Wazir, he says that the Wazir was of two kinds (a) Wazir with unlimited powers called Wazir Tafvid and (b) Wazir with limited powers called Wazir Taufiz. This aspect is best discussed by R.P. Tripathi. A new office of the Diwan-i-Riyasat came into being under the Khaljis. It was created to maintain strict control over the traders, but there is some controversy about this office. It was foreign ministry, says Habibullah, and foreign and diplomatic correspondence was dealt in this ministry. But Qureshi holds the opinion that it controlled the religious endowments. The entire management of the household was under the Vakil-i-Dar. Next to him was Amir-i-hajib. The king's bodyguards were known as Jandars. Some other officers of the palace were Amir-i-akhur, Shahna-i-pilan, the Amir-i-shikar, Sharabdar, and Sar-chashnigir (incharge of the royal kitchen). The Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan's Delhi Sultanate (1960, 2nd rev. ed., Bombay, 1967) contains a section by I.H. Qureshi with the title: "Islamic Political Theory, Administrative Organization, Law, and Legal Institutions." He also discusses the four central ministries and officers of the household. U.N. Day's The Government of the Sultanate, (New Delhi, 1972) have seven sections. The Seven sections deals with nature of the state, concept of monarchy, Balban's theory of kingship, etc., the state departments, administration of the provinces, the fiscal system, military organization, and the judiciary and public works. Besides dealing with social and cultural life, K.M. Ashraf's Life and Conditions of the People of Hindustan (Delhi, 1970, reprint), deals very exhaustively with the officers of the household. A. Makhdoomee's "Origin of the Central Government under the Turkish Sultans of Delhi," M. Habib's "Empire of Delhi in Early Middle Ages: Organization of the Central Government", and Muhammad Aziz Ahmad's "The Central Structure of Sultanate of Delhi" are important contributions. All these discuss different ministries of the Sultanate. S.D. Goiter's article: "The Muslim Government as seen by its non-muslim subjects" and M. Muhammad's article : The Sultan and the Ulema in the Turkish Sultanate of Delhi, are important contributions on relation of the Ulema with the Sultan. Some articles and essays on the Postal and Espionage systems of the Sultanate of Delhi also deserve notice. Two important articles "The Postal System during the Muslim Rule in India" by S. Shahabuddin and "The Postal system of Medieval Hind Pakistan" by S.A.Z. Nadvi are of great value towards exposition of the postal system. J.N. Sarkar's paper: "The Police System in Medieval 1905

8 India in Theory and Practice", and I.H. Siddiqui's article: "Espionage system of the Sultans of Delhi deals with the history of the espionage system from the early days of the Sultanate till the fall of the Sur Empire in Modern Indian and British historians have paid much attention to the nature of rule during the Sultanate period. Most scholars studied this problem under the titles 'Nature of State' or 'Nature of Kingship' during the 13th century. The pioneers in the field of political and administrative history like Jadunath Sarkar, R.P. Tripathi, Mohammad Habib, K.M. Ashraf, I.H. Qureshi, A.L. Srivastava, A.C. Banerjee, K.S. Lal, Peter Hardy, Simon Digby, H.N. Sinha, K.A. Nizami, J.S. Grewal, Peter Jackson, K.S. Lal, K.P. Dutta, R.C. Jauhari and U.N. Day studied and discussed the problem in great detail. Indeed, all Indian and British scholars writing on the period firmly believed that there was a theocratic nature of state under the Sultanate. During the last quarter of the 20th century, a little shift in opinion was observed which gave birth to some controversy. But there are some historians who think differently. They opine that the Sultanate was neither theocratic nor theocentric; it was secular. Muhammad Aziz Ahmad in his article, "Theocracy versus Autocracy with reference to early Medieval India," M. Khadduri in, "Nature of the Islamic State" and K.M. Ashraf in his book, Life and Conditions of the People of Hindustan, have claimed that the Muslim state was not theocratic in nature; it was rather secular in its political outlook and approach to day-to-day problems of administration. K.M. Ashraf says that, the Sultanate violated many well-known laws of Islam e.g. principle of electing a monarch, law of inheritance, and defining the share of inherited property. The Sultanate had formulated its own laws which were different from those of Islam. The will of Sultan was the will of the Sultanate. Sultanate was not theocratic in nature. It had a secular government." Mohammad Habib in, "The Political Theory of the Sultanate of Delhi," the translation of Ziyauddin Barani's Fatawa-i-Jahandari also thinks that, "It was not a theocratic state in any sense of the word" and that "its foundation was, nevertheless non-religious and secular." K.A. Nizami in his book, "Some Aspects of Religion and Politics in India during the Thirteenth Century," also expresses the same opinion. I.H. Qureshi in his book: "The Administration of the Sultanate of Delhi," calls the Sultanate Theocentric, and states that although the king worked according to the law of the 'Shariyat', he always kept discretion and expediency in view. Hamilton Gibb, a British historian shared the view of I.H. Qureshi. Riazul Islam also considers Islamic polity in medieval times theocentric in his article "A Review of the Reign of the Firoz Shah Tughlaq." S.R. Sharma and K.S. Lal in their papers : "Nature of the State in Medieval India" and "Nature of the State in Medieval India", respectively, presented at a "Seminar on the Medieval Indian State" held at Punjab University, Chandigarh in March 1966, and later published as a book under the title "The Medieval Indian State" concluded that the Sultanate followed the principles of a theocratic state. J.S. Grewal in his article "The Medieval Indian State and Some British Historians," briefly surveys some British historical writings on medieval India and at the end of his paper states that according to most of the British historians (Peter hardy for instance), the Sultanate was theoretic in character. According to him "the needs of the community did not shape the Shariat; it was the Shariat that shaped the needs of the community. According to K.S. Lal and R.C. Jauhari also Muslim state in Medieval India was theocratic in character. K.S. Lal s Muslim State in India, K.P. Dutta's Administrative Aspects of Medieval Institutions in India (Calcutta, 1972) and U.N. Day s The Government of the Sultanate (New Delhi, 1972) are the 1906

9 books which discuss the nature of state in medieval India, and all these historians consider the Delhi Sultanate a theocratic state. U.N. Day even goes so far to declare that "Theoretically, a state if it is Islamic, it would be a theocracy, and it is unnecessary to debate on this issue, it should now be taken as a closed section." Two problems the nature of Kingship, and the place of the Sultan in the Sultanate of Delhi- which engaged the attention of scholars, emerged from R.P. Tripathi's Turko-Mongol theory of kingship. Right to this day, this aspect has been expounded in many monographs and articles. Historians of Delhi Sultanate administration have endeavoured to answer many questions legality and need of the institution of kingship, whether the king was Islamic or secular, whether he was, autocratic or liberal etc. Some historians dealt with these questions dynasty-wise. The Sultanate had no sanction in Shariat, it was a non-legal institutions. Its laws were the result of the legislative activity of the rulers and the governing classes. Monarchy entered into Islam as a contradiction. Islam is supposed to be democratic, but jurists have tried to justify monarchy by stressing the need of monarch and have declared kingship as necessary institution for the maintenance of social order and justice. Muhammad Aziz Ahmad in his article says, "Islam is the rule of God, for the perfection of humanity and by the agents of God he declares kingship to be the vice-regency of God and the king is placed on a divine pedestal." Law, tradition (Persian Sassanid) and expediency - these three factors shaped the political outlook of the Sultans and conditioned their theories of kingship, writes K.A. Nizami while discussing Balban's theory of kingship. Balban's theory of kingship is indeed the theory of kingship of the Sultanate of Delhi as a whole. Kingship is the vice-regency of God on earth (Naiyabat-i-Khudai), and in its dignity, it is next only to prophethood. Most of the 20th century historians believed in this theory of kingship. Balban's theory, or for that matter Sultanate's kingship, has been expounded by Ziyauddin Barani both in his Tarikh-i-Firozshahi and Fatawa-i-Jahandari. According to Mohammad Habib, Barani had presented not one but two theories of monarchy. His first theory is based on the postulates of the cheap mullahs, out-of-date canons of wisdom and proverbs of most superficial type. This approach renders Barani's first theory full of contradictions. According to Barani, "the king is a great sinner by the very nature of his office which the Quran and the Prophet have not sanctioned". Nevertheless if the king acts according to the precepts of Barani, i.e. if he robs non-muslims on an extensive scale for the good of the faith, gives a fair share of his income in charities (including generous gifts to mullahs) and is guided in his work by religious precepts, he would be absolved of the sin. Barani further says that, "the king is the deputy and representative of God on earth, he is the 'Shadow of God' (Zillallah) and his mind and minds of his advisers are divinely inspired." This postulate of Barani contradicts his earlier proposition. According to K.M Ashraf, the Sultan of Delhi was, in theory, a despot vested with unlimited powers, bound by no law, subject to no material check, and guided by no will except his own. The people had no rights, only obligations; they only lived to carry out his commands. But, in practice, his despotism was not without limitations. I.H. Qureshi in his book : The Administration Sultanate of Delhi and A.C. Banerjee in his article, "The Islamic Kingship in India" say that desire of the Sultan for solidarity of the empire was one of the foremost limitations on his despotism. Another article by him describes relationship between kingship and nobility in the 13th century. A.B.M. Habibullah's, The Foundation of Muslim Rule in India, deals with the first Turkish ruling dynasty and discusses the role of Iltutmish and Balban as rulers. K.A. Nizami in Some Aspects of 1907

10 Religion and Politics in India During the Thirteenth century," however, says: "No ruler, however autocratic he might be, dare flout public opinion though it had no recognized ways of expressing itself." M. Mujeeb in his book, The Indian Muslims has a section on the political System of the Muslims where he takes a new position with regard to the power of the Sultan. He says that the Sultan could not have deemed to possess absolute power, because, in theory, he could not do anything contrary to the 'Shariah'. In practice, there was no control over him, and he controlled everything. He enacted laws, which though called 'Zawabit' or regulations, would not contravene the 'Shariah', unless it was absolutely necessary. Other historians have stated that the Sultan was a despot in theory, but, in practice, he had some limitations. 5. Military System The army of the early Turkish Sultans formed one of the strongest pillars of the government. According to a contemporary historian Z. Barani, the strength of the government of the Sultans rested on their armies. There is hardly any book on the army of the early Delhi Sultanate unlike the books on the army of the Mughal times e.g. William Irvine's 'The Army of the Indian Mughals' and Abdul Aziz's 'The Mansabdari System and the Mughal Army', though there is no dearth of material available in political and administrative works on the Delhi Sultanate. There are some monographs, however, which deal with specific aspects of the army organization and institutions of the early Turkish Sultans. Military historiography in India was initiated with the start of studies on medieval Indian history during the 1860's. It appears that the British administrative objectives and political developments after 1857 shaped the nature of military historical writings. The foundation of Turkish rule was described as Muslim rule and as a linear process of foreign domination in Indian history. But the true nature of Turkish rule eluded discussion, and ideological frays started generating historical debates among scholars. The history of the early Turkish rule in the northern India has been written, primarily, in political and military terms projecting dauntless armies fighting heroic battles. Prior to the period covered by this study, Henry Elliot, who translated parts of the Indo-Islamic corpus of political chronicles, poses one of the earliest examples of the imperialist view. The general tone followed by him had tuned to conquests and battles. This picture of gruesome killing of rather helpless Hindus by Muslims continued to have a great deal of influence on the military historiography of India in the 20th century; not the least in Wolseley Haig's book which was, to a large extent, based on Elliot's translations. To a large extent, this was the lamentable result of early Indo-British historiography which being mainly concerned with the glorification of Britain's own epic struggle to conquer the sub-continent. Most of these works were based on Indo-Persian sources. This approach of writing military history of the Indian subcontinent was countered by Indian historians during the middle of 20th century. The Indian Muslim historians who started writing explanation of medieval military setup began to feel uneasy with the martial tone of their material. As a reaction to this, some of them tended to highlight the non-military background of medieval Muslim successes. This was most vigorously advocated by Mohammad Habib who, following his Marxist proclivities claimed that the Muslim conquest of India was the result of an Urban Revolution. Obviously, among Muslim scholars, Habib s perspective, which was influential, did not particularly stimulate further military research 1908

11 of the old variety. Nevertheless, the thorough studies of Abdul Aziz and Athar Ali on the organization and social and ethical composition of the Mughal army are two examples of the indirect ways his attention for the social aspects of the Muslim conquest bore fruit for the military field as well. If we take a deep insight into the works of 20th century, no true British-Indian school of military historians emerged. Works of British scholars - Simon Digby, Sidney Toy, Peter Jackson, Peter Hardy and that of Indian scholars - Mohammad Habib, Jadunath Sarkar, Jagdish Narayan Sarkar, K.A. Nizami, A.L. Srivastava, K.S. Lal, Irfan Habib, Iqtidar Alam Khan and I.H. Siddiqui, deal with certain aspects of army. The present section aims to study and assess the works written and issues discussed by the British and Indian historians about the army of the early Delhi Sultans. Military History of India (Calcutta, 1960) by Jadaunath Sarkar published after his death in May 1958 is a study of the development of the art of war in India, as illustrated in some of the notable battles fought on her soil. The work begins with a significant section on how geography dictates strategy and consists of twenty other sections and two appendices. It describes many battles fought in the Sultanate period and the study pertains to strategy, tactics and weaponry in particular. Jadaunath Sarkar writes, "That in the Asiatic world the phrase, the Turk Sawar (Turkish horseman) became a general name for the richly accoutered, superbly manned, dashing cavalry of any race." (p. 34). Appendix II- Elephantry, in the end, reflects the use of elephant in two ways - as a fighting machine and a transport agent. He projects the elephant as an invaluable source of oriental pomp and effeminacy. The induction of this animal in actual fighting and its advantages and disadvantages were also discussed. He speaks of the efficiency of and the impression created by the Sultanate army. The reason for defeat of Prithviraj in second battle of Tarain is illustrated in 5th Section of his monograph entitled, "Shihabuddin Ghori v. Prithviraj." He emphasizes that Khurasani horses of the Muslim army were far superior to Rajput ponies, unpatriotic pride of Raja of Kanauj and rigid caste rules Shihabuddin's tactical and strategic moves and corps of 12,000 steel-clad warriors were some of the factors that helped Muhammad Ghuri to achieve victory. But he did not explain how the rigid caste rules prevented Rajput from being readily refreshed with food and drinks on the battle front? Another military historian, Jagdish Narayan Sarkar had produced literature on military administration and art of war during the medieval times. His work, The Art of War in Medieval India (Delhi, 1984) is an analysis of the developments and happenings in military history of India from 8th to 18th century. The second section of the work entitled, "Society, Politics and War" traces some military events. He argues that the small independent states were unable to maintain large armies. With greater emphasis on elephants than on cavalry and still less on infantry, little concerted action, divided leadership, absence of united action and lack of organized units, the Hindu armies might have been numerically larger but were really inefficient. This semi-feudal basis deprived the Hindus of the advantage of undivided command, which the Muslims enjoyed. A standing army was inconsistent with the socio-political and military traditions of the Rajputs. The Rajput confederacies had no permanent organization for resistance. The Rajput rulers of that time did not realize the gravity of the Turkish menace, under the leadership of Ghazanavid Turks or the Ghurid Turks. To add fuel to the fire, Jayachandra of Kanauj did not support Prithviraj. The Turks brought with them an improved military organization, i.e., in the composition and management of the army as well as military tactics or the system of warfare. 1909

12 Jagdish Narayan Sarkar writes that the Ghurid conquest of India was a war of conquest undertaken to increase the influence and power of state by conquering some territory to gratify one's desire or mania for conquest. The army, being an instrument of the state, reflects its ideals as well as changes in the constitution and organization of the state. The military system of the Delhi Sultanate was devised to solve its problems, offensive and defensive; to pursue imperialistic policy of expansion; to withstand the hostile tendencies of the Hindus and the Rajput chiefs; to check the turbulence of the nobles, Turks or converted Muslim; and to ward off the foreign or Mongol invasion'. Accordingly, the Sultans appointed the Turks in responsible military posts; kept a standing army under direct supervision; and set up a chain of fortresses in the north-west frontier. The military system was modeled on Turkish and all able-bodied Muslims were enlisted. The army consisted of the (i) armies of wali, muqti, malik and amir posted at important centers, and recruited by them, and (ii) the personal army of the Sultan. Sultan Ghiyasuddin Balban sought to control both sections of the army. But it was under Alauddin Khalji that it was further centralized. There was dichotomy in recruitment process (i) by the central Arz-i-mumalik and (ii) by walis and muqtis. According to Barani, the royal army was accompanied by contingents supplied by Hindu rais and ranas. During the Sultanate period, the Sultan was, in theory, the commander-in-chief of the army and he often led it in person. In his absence, a malik was appointed to do so and was called Sar-i-Lashkar, whose tenure lasted during the span of the expedition. 6. Economic Conditions Two western social thinkers Karl Marx and Max Weber very much influenced the writings of early British economic historians of India. Karl Marx propounds his theory of the Asiatic system, a mode of production and social organization that inhibited all structural change. Max Weber seems to have agreed with Karl Marx though for different reasons. Weber urged that India had a stable unchanging society because of the caste system. Caste separated education from craft, segregated skills, and destroyed individual ambitions. These prevented economic mobility and created a firmly stable but stagnant economic structure. Weber's ideas have continued to dominate much of subsequent economic thought. The conditions in which modern historiography took shape in India helped to perpetuate these views. On the one hand, Indian historians inherited a number of detailed dynastic histories, which laid out for medieval India at least, the bedrock for conventional history, in this economic aspects received notice if at all as merely incidental appendages. On the other hand, the scorn (spoken and unspoken) of imperialist historians for Indian contribution to civilization, led, by way of reaction, to the promotion of the cult of what may be called benign antiquity'. During the late 1950's and thereafter, the basic common assumption of a static or stagnant India, shared by the early British historians and Indian nationalist historians, had become a subject of challenge. The challenge has come through new researches in social, economic and administrative history. The first and perhaps the most powerful salvo was fired by D.D. Kosambi in his brilliant, Introduction to the Study of Indian History, (Bombay, 1956), where he invoked the resources of archaeology, anthropology, textual criticism, sociology and commonsense, to present his thesis of social evolution. The details of the picture he drew may be contested; but his destruction of conventional history was definitive. It is true that Kosambi confined himself essentially to ancient India, but what he said to the period of transition from ancient to medieval India (though he did not so describe it) and on the Sultanate was also not without perceptive insights. 1910

13 One such insight related to the change that might occur owing to external invasions. As we have seen, Marx had thought that Indian history consisted merely of the regimes of "successive intruders", without their affecting any change in the basic social structure. But Kosambi saw that such intrusions could not be without some effect. He recognized in particular that "the Islamic raiders. Broke down hidebound customs in the adoption and transmission of new technique. " Kosambi felt nevertheless that the chance represented no more than the intensification of a process of feudalization that had already been set in notion in ancient India. In this, his position was different from that adopted by Mohammad Habib who argued (in 1952) that the chances resulting from the invasions were so sweeping as to constitute an "urban revolution" that was accompanied secondarily (in point of time) by a "rural revolution." It appears from a study of the economic history of the Sultanate, that the new conditions were not a continuation of the old; and that a 'break' appears here which much more than a surface crack is. Mohammad Habib's hypothesis of the growth of towns, increase in craft production and expansion in commerce, is corroborated by literary as well as numismatic evidence. On the very face of it, this is the opposite of what has been recognized to be the main features of the preceding period of 'Indian feudalism'. The centralization of the political structure through the system of combining military commands with temporary revenue-assignments (iqta's) was in direct contrast to the centrifugal tendencies of feudal polity. There was, finally, the imposition of a single heavy landtax (mal/kharaj), comprising the bulk of the surplus, the revenue amounting by the time of Sultan Alauddin Khalji ( ) to a half of the production. The surplus was transported to the towns by way of commerce and inevitably the cash-nexus developed. Mohammad Habib saw the movement as a kind of double 'liberation' the liberation of town artisans from exclusion and repression on the basis of caste, and the liberation of the peasantry from the oppression of rural chiefs and intermediaries, constituting respectively on "urban" and "rural revolution". We can see now that certain important qualifications to Mohammad Habib's statements are probably needed. The 'liberation' of the peasant from such caste prejudices as the Sultanate ruling class did not care to enforce, was matched by a process of large-scale creation of slave-labour in the towns recruited through raids on the countryside. This was partly responsible for the rapid expansion of the urban craft and service sectors; and such enslavement was, of course, no 'liberation'. Secondly, if the power of the rural chiefs and intermediaries was curtailed, this was chiefly because otherwise the peasant could not pay them heavy and retrogressive land-tax. Had the peasants' lot been improved, it is difficult to imagine how the great peasant revolt of the Doab during the reign of Muhammad Tughluq ( ) could have taken place. For certain new crafts, no professional caste might have existed at all. The picture that has been presented of Indian artisans converting to Islam in order to live in the cities in freedom is one for which no evidence has yet been presented. What the Sultanate brought about was not a social revolution in any modern sense, but the creation of a new system of agrarian exploitation, with a parasitical urban growth based upon it. It united political power with economic power more fully than ever before, vesting the control over the bulk of the surplus, in the hands of a ruling class whose composition was determined not by inheritance but formally by the will of the sovereign, and whose individual members remained unattached to any particular parcels of land. The denial of rights to the peasant, who remained a semi-serf, might make the system appear 'feudal', but the huge centralization of power in the hands of Sultan bear testimony to centralized polity. 1911

14 There can be no doubt that Mohammad Habib made an important contribution in suggesting that the economy of the Sultanate cannot be seen as a mere continuation of the one previously existing; and he indicated important aspects that needed to be explored. In detail, however, his numerous suggestions needed actual substantiation from evidence and must remain open to revision in its light. Some of his formulations, particularly those tending to evaluate changes in the 12th century in the formulas applicable to modern social revolution, appear to be overstatements, even if the changes were exactly such as he had suggested. Little work has, however, been done to follow up Mohammad Habib's numerous insights and substantiate or revise his depiction of the economic and social change during the 13th and 14th centuries. Some of his broad statements occur again in K.A. Nizami's work, but with little additional evidence, and without that critical view of Islamic society and the destruction accompanying the invasions, which so distinguishes Mohammad Habib's interpretation. Investigations in the economic past of the Indian subcontinent were initiated by the British historian in late 19th century. The forms of evidence used by historians have been the literary genre, epigraphic remains, and archaeological findings including numismatic material. Virtually none of these had had a quantitative dimension, either absolute or relative. As a result economic historians, especially of India's 13th century, have taken an anecdotal approach to their subject. Starting as they have with a black canvas, the energies of the economic historians concerned with the medieval period have been absorbed in gathering together and categorizing a great mass of independent facts gleaned from the primary sources. Some important works on the coinage and currency of the Sultans of Delhi were published in the late 19th Century. Prominent among these are Edward Thomas, Chronicles of the Pathan Kings of Delhi (London, 1871, reprint, Delhi, 1967), A. Cunningham, Coins of Medieval India (London 1894, reprint, Varanasi, 1967) and Stanley Lane Poole's, Catalogue of Coins in the British Museum, II (London, 1884). These are some of the important work on the numismatic of the early Turkish rule in northern India but they do not come within the ambit of our present study. The first important monograph on the coins of the Delhi Sultans published in 20th century: H.N. Wright s, The Coinage and Metrology of the Sultans of Delhi (Delhi, 1936). Prior to this work he published: Catalogue of the Coins in the Indian Museum Calcutta Including the Cabinet of the Asiatic Society of Bengal: Volume II, (Oxford, 1907) which also shed light on coins of the early Delhi Sultans. Another important document, Catalogue of Coins in the British Museum, Sultans of Delhi by Stanley Lane Poole is also very informative about the currency system of the Delhi Sultans. Prayag Dayal s Catalogue of Coins of the Sultans of Delhi, Lucknow Museum also gives insight about the coins of Delhi Sultanate. Another important monograph on the coins and currency system of the early Delhi Sultanate: John S. Deyell s Living Without Silver: The Monetary History of Early Medieval North India (New Delhi, 1990). The author uses textual materials very selectively and this made the monograph unique. Deyell depended wholly on numismatic or epigraphic information- few scholars show such confidence. He relegated effectively the expansive canvas of Persian Chronicles to a secondary and corroborated his work mainly from epigraphic, numismatic, architectural, and archaeological evidences. He says that the coins of the Muizzi governors were fully assimilated within an economic world that crossed political frontiers is evident from the fact that the Nandi bull and Horseman type billon coins of the Muizzi governors Yalduz and Qubacha were found in a hoard in Haryana- distant from the areas of their control- together with the coins of rulers ranging from the 1912