STUDY OF THE EARLY TURKISH RULE IN NORTHAN INDIA: AN ASSESMENT OF THE BRITISH AND INDIAN HISTORIOGRAPHY DURING THE 20 TH CENTURY BIMAN KOLEY Ph.D. RESEARCH SCHOLAR. C.M.J UNIVERSITY INTRODUCTION Two eras of Indian History, the 13 th Century and 20 th Century marked a new beginning in the field of Historiography. The 13 th Century is well known for the establishment of the rule of early Turkish Sultans which ushered in an age in which Indo-Persian historiography works of court chroniclers started a new phase in the writing of Indian history.20 th century marked the dawn of scientific historical writings which appeared in India and abroad by the efforts of British and Indian historian. An assessment of these writings initiated new insights and supplements the Knowledge already diffused through the writings of 20 th century Historian. A. B. M. Habibullah conducted a deep study of the early 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 Mumluke Sultans of Delhi [I.H. Q,Vol.IX, 1933,PP.252-62] [II] Sultana Raziah [I.H.Q.1940,PP.750-772] [III] Undiscovered literary Sources for Pre-Mughal India[P.I.H.C,1939,PP-858-872,], AND [IV] Re-evaluation of the literary sources of Pre- Mughal History[I.C.1941,PP.207-216] The work of Mohammad Aziz Ahmad has been termed as a paraphrased summary of Sultanate chronicles. The Tabaqa-Twenty two of Minhaj;s Tabaqat-i-Nasiri which provides details about Muizzi Maliks was incorporated by Ahmad in his work.the only difference we can figure out is that of language,the former was in Persian and the latter in English. It was useful in the 1940,s and 1950,s but subsequent appearance of new literature and new questions raised by scholars out shun its worth. There is no denial of the fact that Muhammad Aziz Ahmad s monograph is a straight political history of the early Turkish Rule which remained within the parameters of Sultanate Tawarikh.
Simon Digby, is another historian whose contributions to the studies of early Turkish Rule is of great importance. He devoted his energies to the researches in war supplies, currency system and Sufi Saints of the early deldi Sultanate. CHARACTERISTICS OF DELHI SULTANATE 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 20 th century like Stanley Lane Pool[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 and 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 heady 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. 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 aspect 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 writing of medieval chroniclers were those languages- modern writers wrote in English, while the medieval chroniclers in Persian and Arabic. The oxford History of India Cambridge History of India (vol.-iii), The struggle for Empire (vol.-v) and A Comprehensive History of India, (vol.-v), the Delhi Sultanate are some of the integrated histories written during the 20 th century. But the writers of these histories seem to have succeeded in adding a chapter on the political narrative, another on administration, third on social life, fourth on architecture and so on, and it would not be presumptuous to say that a comprehensive view of medieval Indian history has yet to be developed and an integrated study yet to be attempted. Holistic view of the medieval society is missing. Political turmoil has been overemphasized at the cost of social forces which would have helped to explain it. Perhaps, a different picture of medieval history would emerge, if the modern principle of studying all aspects of society, interconnected and interdependent, is applied to this period. Another important aspect of 20 th century British and Indian historiography on the Early Turkish Rule brings to fore a crucial feature that highlights the weakness of both schools of historians as they failed to evolve a terminology best fitting to the history and culture of the 13 th
century Northern India. British and some of the Indian historians trained under British Scholars applied European terminology, and the Indian historians either toed their vocal chords or followed their ideological terminology that best suited their schools of history. Muhammad Habib justified that the Muslim conquest of India was a result of an urban revolution. In his perception of 13 th century, Marxist ideology is quiet vibrant. British historians and Translators of the well and lesser-known Indo-Islamic tawarikh, substituted European words like fief for Iqta, nobles for Amir, Malik and Khan etc. No longer desiring to evolve terminology of their own historiography, the Indian historians of independent India are eager to harvest other fruits from this Indo-Persian historiography as translated by the British. The Modern writings of Indian history began with colonial perceptions of the Indian past that were to be seminal to its subsequent interpretations. It took shape with the beginning of colonial rule in various parts of the subcontinent from the 18 th century onward. British scholars searched for histories of India but could find none that conformed to the familiar European view of what a history should be,a view influenced in part by the thinking of the EUROPEAN Enlightenment. The initial hostility to Islam was doubtlessly aggravated by European antagonism due to historical reasons, beginning with the Crusades. If the role of Islam was conceded at all, it was said to be negative, and judgments were based on little or no evidence, since the history of Islam in India could not been investigated at this point. As assessment of historical writings on, and in India during the 20 th century would clearly indicate several significant developments and perceptible shifts in Indian historiography. A careful and deeper study lays bare the fact; how Indian historiography has been greatly influenced by such developments in the West as formulation of new theories, construction of new conceptual and analytical frameworks, pressing into service of new and sophisticated research tools, and utilization of fresh source materials. In his introduction to the Study of Indian History [1956], D. D. Kosambi fitted the medieval politics traded by Muslim rulers in his interpretation of Indian Feudalism, by special reference to the process that he designated Feudalism from above,. To the cultural consequences of the Islamic intrusion, he added the technological aspect, crediting ;Islamic raiders with breaking hide-bound custom in the adoption and transmission of new techniques. POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS OF DELHI SULTANATE The Administration of the Sultanate of Delhi,[Lahore, 1942] by I. H. Qureshi, besides fifteen appendicfs, has eleven chapters 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. The Foundation of the Muslim Rule in India,[Lahore,1945]o 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. The Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan s Delhi Sultanate [1960,2 nd ed, Bombay, 1967] contains a chapter by I.H.Qureshi with the title Islamic political Theory, Administrative Organization, Law, and Legal Institution 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 chapters. The seven chapter s deals with nature of the state, concept of monarchy, Balban theory of kingship, etc. K.M. Ashraf s Life and Conditions of the people of Hindustan [Delhi,1970,reprint] deals very exhaustively with the officers of the household. K.S. Lal s Muslim State in India, K.P. Dutta s Administrative Aspect of Medieval Institutions in India[Calcutta,1972] and U.N. Day s The Government of the Sultanate [New Deldi,1972] are the books which discuss the nature of the state in Medieval India, and all these historians consider the Delhi Sultanate a theocratic state. Muhammad Aziz Ahmad in his article says Islam is the rule of God, for the perfection of humanity and by the agents of God is placed on a divine pedestal. K.A. Nizami while discussing Balban s theory of kingship of the Sultanate of Delhi as a whole. Kingship is the vice regency of God on earth,and in its dignity, it is next only to prophethood. In the 1960 s and decades after that, Peter Hardy devoted his attention to the dominant assumption of Muslims about the nature and ends of political activity. His account is aimed at the Study of theory, not of practice, of the ideas and Pre-suppositions of academicians rather than of the working assumptions of practicing rulers and administrators. In Hardy s account of the theory of medieval Indo-Muslim government was concerned primarily with how the pious Muslim might recognize that the government of the community is in the right hands and be assured that it is being exercised for the right purposes. Gopal Krishna kanti s Administrative Division in the Inscriptions of Early Medieval India, does not concern this investigation directly. But it is important as probably administrative divisions of the Sultanate might have built on the pattern of earlier units. MILITARY SYSTEM OF DELHI SULTANATE Military historiography in India was initiated with the start of studies on medieval Indian history during the 1860 s. It appears that the British 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 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 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. 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 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. I.H. Qureshi in The Administration of the Sultanate of Delhi discusses military organization under the Chapter VII entitled "The Army". He says that the internal and external armed struggle of the early Turkish Sultans forced the need of organizing the army of e Sultanate. There was a ministry for war called diwan-i-ard with its head known as the ard-imumalik, who was responsible for its efficiency and entire administration. The ard-i-mumalik was responsible for the recruitment of troops, inspection of troops, promotion and degradation of the soldiers, recommendation of assignments, payments of troops, and preparations of war campaigns, and he would accompany the army in all important wars and saw the commiserate of supply and transport. I.H. Qureshi further illustrates the methods of Dagh and Huliyah adopted by Alauddin Khalji. The army was distributed and posted according to the need and strategic importance of the area concerned. He divides the troops under two heads: (i) hashm-iqalb which
consisted of Khasah Khail (household brigade), jandars (royal slaves & guards) and afwaj-i-qalb (troops directly under the royal command); (ii) hashm-i-atraf (Garrisons in the provinces). He further discusses the cavalry, elephants, infantry, firearm, siege engines, forts, provisions, engineers, battle array, scouts, ambulances and qurkhanah (repository of royal standards) and zarradkhanah (arms storehouse). The army personnel were so well balanced malong tribal lines that no race or group could be predominant to pose threat to the ruler. The army was organized on decimal basis from on individual soldier to Khan, between them were Sar-i-khail, Sipahsalar, Amir, and Malik. In the end, he elaborates the variance in the soldier's salaries, in number and efficiency of the army. V.A. Smith attributes the military victories and rapid success of Muslim invaders to their merciless frightfulness which made resistance terribly dangerous, and could not always be evaded by humble submission. He adds that "It was a natural policy for the m,conquerors, which few in number had frequently to deal with revolts among the great masses of Hindus".He mainly extracted his source material from such primary sources as translations of Tabaqat-i-Nasiri M.Q. Firishta's Tarikh-i-Firishta and Ibn Batuta's Rihla done by H.G. Raverty, Elliot and Dowson, and others. The ideological framework of Edward Thomas s work: Chronicles of the Pathan Kings of Delhi is reflected in V.A. Smith monograph. Peter Hardy an eminent British historian looked at the way Muslim sources rationalized the use of violence. He, though, remained close to the Indo-Persian material280 and articulated it s normative and idealist content, but turned a blind eye to its military elements. Unfortunately, the military adjustments which lay at the root of these changes remained underexposed. Andre Wink s efforts in the field of military historiography are laudable in response to Simon Digby's headstrong interests in military history of India. Wink s work on the early Turkish Sultans gives indication that the interest in military history of medieval times is growing. Unfortunately it is beyond the scope of present study, since Andre Wink is a Dutch Scholar. He has recently very forcefully re-stated the superiority of mounted archers during the early Turkish invasions. Another important theory, which had been gaining currently since the mid-19th century, viewed the military success in light of the practical military superiority of the Muslim invaders. This view, put forward by Edward Thomas who assumed that the tactics of using mounted warfare from the post-ghaznavid Muslim army of he north Indian conquest, must have been identical with those of the Turkish tribal host in Anatolia. The idea still lingers that the mounted warfare was part of the ethos and experience of the original Muslim invaders which their opponents lacked. On this we may observe that there are indeed some grounds for supposing that the invaders had easier access to good war-horses than their opponents; but the view that mounted combat was unfamiliar to their Hindu opponent cannot be maintained. Simon Digby tried to seek an explanation in military supplies, in an obvious default of technological explanation for the Muslim conquest and endurance. He states that the endurance of the Delhi Sultanate, based on
the superiority of its armies to those of any Hindu power as well as their ability to withstand Mongol onslaughts from central Asia, lay in their access to and efficient control of such supplies. The efforts of the Sultans to procure war-horses and elephants and deprive their opponents of them were a well thought step/measure to have tactical edge over their adversaries. Simon Digby observes, the explanation of the military ascendancy of the Delhi Sultanate in terms of control of the supply of elephants and war-horses is not a modern approach, but is adumbrated by the principal 14th century chronicler of the Delhi Sultanate, Z. Barani, when he remarks upon government undoubtedly representing his own views, which he puts into the mouth of Sultan Balban. Later on, it became an object of the policy of the Delhi Sultans to deprive Hindu rulers of access to war-horses both overland and by sea, and in this they were often successful, thereby creating a further advantage over their opponents. Quoting Barani, Simon Digby writes that the historian attributes to Sultan Balban more detailed observations on the strategic importance of the Delhi Sultanate controlling supplies of war-horses and elephants. The Sultan said that he had heard from trustworthy sources that the control of Hindustan was based upon the elephant and the horse. Every elephant in the kingdom of Hindustan was worth 500 horses. He had given the realm of Sind to his elder son Nasir ud-din Muhammad, whence many and chosen sea-borne and Tatar horses came to the capital city of Delhi. In the territory of the Siwalik and around Sunam, Samana, Tabarhind, Thanesar, the camps of the Khokhars and in the territories of the Jats and Mundahirs of Kaithal, a great number of fine Hindi horses were raised, by which many and cheap horses were added to his army. He had entrusted the province of Lakhnavati (Bengal) to his younger son, Bughra Khan, who had held control of it for years. From there elephants came to his elephant stable (pil-khana). His capital was thus furnished with many elephants and horses without number. REFERENCES 1. Chittabrata Palit, "W.H. Moreland" in S.P. Sen (Ed.), Historians and Historiography in Modern India, Calcutta, 1973, pp. 455-464. 2.J. Harrison, "W.H. Moreland" in C. Philips (Ed.), Historians of India, Pakistan and Ceylon, London, 1961, pp. 310-318. 3.Margaret H. Case, "The Historical Craf tsmanship of W.H. Moreland (1868-1938), I.E.S.H.R., Vol. II, NO. 3, June-Oct., New Delhi, 1965, pp. 21-25. 4.A.C. Roy, "Trends in Modern Historiography on Medieval India," T.Q.R.O.H.S., Vol. III, No. 1-2, Calcutta, 1963-64, pp. 29-35. 5.Romila Thapar, Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300, New Delhi, 2002, pp. 1-36.
6.Ronald B. Inden, Imagining India, London, 1990, pp. 51-192. 7.S. Manickam, "Indian Historiography : Some changing Perspectives, I.H.S., Vol. 3, No. I, October 2006, pp. 11-22. 8.A.L. Basham, "Modern Historians of Ancient India," in C.H. Philips, (Ed.), op. cit., pp. 260-293. 9.R.K. Mukerji, A.C. Das, K.P. Jayaswal, B.G. Tilak etc. 10.U.N. Day, The Government of the Sultanate, New Delhi, 1972, p. 34. 11.R.P. Tripathi, Some Aspects of Muslim Administration, 2nd rev. Ed., Allahabad, 1956, pp. 105-124. 12.K.A. Nizami, op. cit., p. 89. 13.K.S. Lal, Historical Essays: Vol. I, History and Historiography, New Delhi, 2001, pp. 150-154. 14.A.L. Srivastva, Medieval Indian Culture, 1964, pp. 11-19.