Historiography of Medieval India During Delhi Sultanate

Historiography of Medieval India During Delhi Sultanate Mishab Bin Hamza E Ramjas College: 2021/25/76 Roll No: 21056716023 Paper Code: 123102316 Submitted to Prof Dr Raziuddin Aquil Introduction The Historiographical Narratives of the Delhi sultanate reaches its zenith up to that of the time The Sultanate historiography began with the firm establishment of Delhi Sultanate in Delhi on 12th century. Sultanate historiography began the style of writing history in Persian which remained a language of royalty till18th century or for the whole of medieval India. Persian historiography during Sultanate was divided into 6 different categories focusing mainly on the life of specific sultans & their achievements. Most of the medieval history focused on the formation of identity of specific rulers to justify their rule in an alien land while in a marginal way discussed about the people of the land, though having some exception. Most of the medieval histories were driven by historian’s own motive to get royal patronage or showing gratitude to their rulers. Though Medieval historiography has been thoroughly criticized by different scholars for their style but for modern day historical analysis on medieval India these remain the most authentic source of information. Dynastic Historiography or the chronicles of the empire lied the foundation and immense role to lie down in the understanding of many things in understanding on the basis to its foundation in the line with the general history of Muslim world of Al Yaqui, Al Dinawari, Al Tabari. Some books belong to this category are-Tabaqat- i-Nasiri most probably on the 1259-60 by Minhaj ud din us Siraj, Tarikh-I Muhammadi by Muhammad Bhimanand Khani in 1438-39 was a member of military governor class, Rauzat us Safa by Mir Khwand during 1433 containing a history of “Prophet, kings, khalifs”, Khulasat ul Akhbar & Habib us Siyar by Khwand Amir. Regional Historiography: -Tarikh-i Mubarak Shahi in1434-35 by Yahya Bin Ahmad Sirhindi is a very important source for the history of Sayyid dynasty which begins with the reign of Muhammad of Ghur & ends abruptly in the middle of the reign of sultan Sayyid Muhammad in1448. Manaqib or Fazail Historiography Eulogistic can be understood on the basis of the historical narratives of that time like Tarikh-i-Yamini by Al Utbi during 1020-21 in honour of Mahmud of Ghazni, Tarikh-i-Baihaqior Mujalladat-i-Baihaqi by Khwajah Abul Fazal bin al Hasan al Baihaqi in 1077 Jawam i ul Hikayat wa Layam i ul Riwawat by Maulana Nuruddin Muhammad al-Awfi is dedicated to Nizam ul Mulk Muhammad minister of Iltutmish,Tarikh-i-Alai or Khazain ul Futuh by Amir Khusrau,Tarikh-i Firuz Shahi by Shammsuddin Siraj Afif during 1398-99,Sirat- i Firuz Shahi by an anonymous author in1370. (Hardy 1966) Didactic Historiography includes all sorts of religion, ethics, moral history during the delhi sultanate can be understood on the basis of Tarikh-i Firuz Shahi by Ziauddin Barani in 1358 was written according to his religious philosophy basically following the orthodox sunni traditions. Artistic Historiography during the delhi sultanate has many prohibition on this accounts never let it in dark such works still exists such as Tajul Massir by Hasan Nizami, Futuh-us-Salatin by Isami(1349-50),Amir Khusrau. Autobiographical Memoirs such as Tarikh-i Firuz Shahi by sultan Firuz Shah. Historians during Delhi sultanate such as the Ziauddin Barani, Shamsuddin Siraj Afif, Yahya ibn Ahmed Sirhindi, Amir Khusrao, Nizamuddn Ahmed, Muhammed Qassim Hindu sha Farishta ‘Zakallah Farishta Gulshan I Ibrahim’, ‘Tabaqat akbari, Tarikh I Hindustani’, ‘Minhajussiraj Juzjani and Tabaqat I Nasiri’ has contributed immensely to the understanding of many arguments related to the Historical reconstruction with the societal narrative in a broader understanding for the modern British historiography. Later establishment of the historical narratives based on the greatest historians and their works are as such Ishwari Chandra Prasad, Prof Muhammed Habib and the work Mahmud of Gazin, Dr Muhammed Nazim the work ‘The life and time of sultan Mahmud of Gazna’, Zahiruddin farqui and the ‘Aurangazeb and his Times’,SM jafar the work ‘The Mugal Emperor from Babur to Aurangazeb’. (Hardy 1966) Later in the British Historiographical narratives the notion of understanding the Indian public has faced immense problems in deeper sense. According to the historian Peter hardy argued that the prime source to get acknowledged in the many arguments should need to be well acquainted with in broader perspective. From many western historians are as such James Mill and the work of ‘History of India 1817’, RG Gleigs the work named ‘History of the British Empire in India 1830’ and Mountstuart Elphinstone’s ‘History of India 1841’. The Testimonial arguments has taken from Ferishta and the translations of Brigg. Narratives has put forward by the british arguments in the historical narratives on the basis of the rest of the historians such as Wellhausen, Goldziher, Anouk Hurgronje, Stanley Lane, Vincent smith, W Irwin, Sir Denison Ross and Wolsly Haig. (Hardy 1966) Modern interpretations and its critical historiographical narrative reached on the basis of the Historiographic understanding from ‘The Idea of History’ of the RG Collingwood it has got immense understanding even while analyzing major issues from the historical narratives the sole arguments has got its formation from many such sort of historical narratives. Like Sir Frank Stanton, Wolseley Haig, William Hunter and Alfred Lyall. Asiatic society of Bibliotheca and the historical as well as the contribution from the archaeologists such as Cunningham, BurGrass, Marshal’s Temple Folk and understanding of the locals on the basis of its perspective. Henry Elliot History of Indian told by its own people has its establishment in the understanding and analysis on that basis from that sort of historians such as RH Tawney, Trevelyan, Sir Lewis Namier, John Clapham, George Clark, EG Brown, RA Nicholson, Sir Hamilton Gibb, Arberry and Yousuf Ali’s Making of India. (Hardy 1966) Historiography of Delhi Sultanate Hindu-Muslim conflict and a narrative of the wars, diplomacy, and administration of the different Sultans of Delhi were the main features of Sultanate historiography, Mohammad Habib's foregrounding of larger social and economic changes in the history of Indian society seemed to challenge the manner in which the thirteenth century was interpreted. But, in fact, in at least three interrelated points, Habib's contribution left the field undisturbed. The first concerned the disparate body of immigrants fleeing into India from Afghanistan, eastern Iran, and Transoxiana. ln the historiography of the Delhi Sultanate these immigrants, collectively and individually were always described as 'Muslims', as part of a larger, monolithic community. According to Mohammed Habib professor paid a little attention to the denominational background of immigrants into India, and he did argue that Muslim social and political identities were formed by a shared urban culture within which occupational and class differences were important. But, having said that, Habib provided a brief historical survey of Islamic ideologies that bound Muslims together through a shared past. (Kumar 2007) The 'Muslim community', which they believed could only be changed through the history of the 'Muslim Sultanate'; these two not merely merged into a monolith but were also congruent. At one extreme this led to the argument that the iconoclastic, militaristic character of Islam and Muslims determined the nature of the Sultanate and its rulers; these were regarded as positive or negative attributes, depending upon who was narrating the history. At the other extreme, it led to the production of histories by secular minded and progressive historians such as Mohammad Habib who saw in the arrival of Islam and the foundation of the Delhi Sultanate. (Kumar 2007) The appearance of new ideologies and modes of production that transformed society and politics in India for the better. Since these ideas were 'foreign' to 'Hindu' society, their novelty could only be grasped through the early history of 'Islamic' state formations in the Arabian Peninsula, Iran, and Transoxiana. That was the collective pre-history of Muslims in India, and it needed the Delhi Sultanate to create the social and political preconditions for the import of these new ideas into the subcontinent. According to Mohammed Habib the distance between the religion of Islam and its political manifestations, the history of the Muslim community in India could not be told without the context of an Islamic state. Thus, the paradox: while Chishti saints abhorred service with the state because of its materialistic, hierarchical attributes, this same state challenged the caste-based stratifications of Hindu society. Nor was the urban character of Muslim society entirely accidental: the towns were the centers of religious training and culture. They were also its major centers of production. And they flourished because they received state patronage and were the hub of Sultanate government and economy. (Kumar 2007) The notion about the academic narrative in the Eurocentric notion has been understood on the basis of the understanding which has been emerged on the times of the British expansion and their understanding in many ways. The Muslim state: an undifferentiated 'Hindu' subject population. For a large number of historians, the seizure of Delhi by 'Muslims' marked the beginning of a period when 'indigenes' were ranged in opposition to 'foreign' invaders; a 'Hindu' community juxtaposed and in conflict with the 'Muslim'. A.B.M. Habibullah worked this theme with complete confidence into his text: the only threat to the 'foundation of Muslim rule in India' was occasioned by 'Hindu aggression'. (Kumar 2007) According to Peter Hardy the documentary evidence was absent, and Sultanate texts in prose and poetry fell far short of modem standards of objectivity, these eulogies, these works of romance, adventure, and theology cannot be used to write serious political, and economic histories. Literary texts provide insights into the metaphysical, subjective realm of ideas, attitudes, and perceptions, not into the material structures of society and state. Historians like Irfan Habib, Khaliq Nizami, and Harbans Mukhia disagree with Peter Hardy. Indeed, in their opinion, some texts are biased, whereas others are extraordinarily sound in their marshalling of infonnation and causative reasoning. According to Irfan Habib, Ziya al din Barani's factual account has concerned the correct in all substantive matters and his analysis was not up to the slandered. The writing was centuries before from the Marxist perspective, Barani anticipated ideas of dialectical materialism: he is a believer in the reality of class conflicts, Habib noted, 'stand though he may on the wrong side of the barricades. Hardy and Habib were diametrically opposed to each other in their conclusions about the merits of Ziya al din Barani's works as a source, both evaluated these texts from a positivist, literalist methodology. According to one, Barani' s biases made him an unreliable source; according to the other, despite his own social predilections, Barani's analysis was sound. At one level, the methodologies of the two scholars do not differ; the parameters against which they evaluate reliability do. The main understanding lies in the Hardy's doubts about the credibility of the Persian evidence were enabling: they allowed him to make innovative suggestions on how historians could critically use narrative sources. Hardy had criticized scholars who expected their source in supply us with information readymade but his own recommendation to scholars was that they have reordered in the system. The representation of autonomous territories and governorships as iqtas under the Ghurids in a thirteenth-century text, such as Juzjani's 'Tabaqat-i-Nasiri” raises a separate set of historiographical problems that cannot be distinguished by a simple collation of terms which actually carry a variety of different contextual referents. A large part of the conventional historiography on mysticism shares an empiricist bent also present in political history; whether it was Mohammad Habib weeding out 'genuine' from 'fabricated' records of conversations between mystic saints, Malfuzat, or P.M. Currie searching for the historical Muin al din Chishti. (Kumar 2007) The mystic records-both Mlfuzat and biographical encyclopedias or singular, started to be Tazkira have read more carefully for their rhetorical significance. The work of Carl Ernst and, more recently, Bruce Lawrence, has paid attention to the stylistic form, content, and narrative intent of Sufi texts to show how important they were in the constitution of a Shaykh' s authority. Other than a 'historiographical' approach to the sources, Ernst also emphasized the need for a micro-study, 'an intensive study of a tightly circumscribed field', to better grapple with the several perspectives of different accounts from a central location. The texts such as Tabaqat I Nasiri propagates the dominance of the state in the social and political world of north India was quite unproblematically narrated. Al Barani s Tarikh I Firuz Shiihi, on the other hand, was only slightly more complicated in first denying the state any doctrinal legitimation and then allowing for its hegemony under the plea of the welfare of the Muslim community, called Maslaha. Barani' s on the legality to be approach in the public society on the basis of jurisprudence can be identified on the basis of intellectual resolution has its roots in the more complicated efforts of jurists to legitimize the emergence of Sultanates in the late 'Abbasid period and it remained a parody of classic normative texts like al-Ghazali's Nishat al Mulk. But ultimately, the opinions of both Juzjani and BaranI remained utterly derivative in delinking the hegemony of the state from the politics of its subjects and carrying a rejection of all revolutionary change. In tum, careful, empirically-minded scholars like Peter Jackson were bound by the narratives of the Persian tawarikh and the great divide between state and society. Their work therefore remained a 'political and military history' of the state. The largest number of references to military commanders and other notables is dispersed throughout Jiizjani' s narrative. These random references are extremely important because, by the standards of the Delhi Sultanate, the 'Tabaqat I Nasiri is an unusually detailed in chronicle. The state-centered organization of information in chronicles, in South Asia as well as in the central Islamic lands, has seriously deterred research in this direction. In fact, an influential body of work on early Muslim society and polity has argued for a remarkable chasm between the political and social worlds during the Caliphates of the Umayyads, the 'Abbasids, and the succeeding Sultanates. Taking their extreme reliance on personnel of 'servile' origin and or military slaves into consideration, these scholars suggested that the early Islamic polities created a 'conquest society', one of whose features was a distancing of social elites from the 'formal' trappings of power. South Asia from the early thirteenth century and hence no accessible narrative on social and political developments within local communities. The first tazkira the Siyaral Awliya of Amir Khwurd. was completed sometimes, and the systematic production of such texts began only in the sixteenth century. (Kumar 2007) The late development of this genre of Persianate literature in the early Delhi Sultanate may be related to the relatively brief experience of many cities as settlements with 'Muslim' residents. But their precocious intellectual and social dynamism was captured in the malfuzat literature, a genre unique to the subcontinent. The malfuzat record the discourses of sufi Shaykhs to a large mixed assembly of sufi adepts, novitiates, and casual visitors. These were rhetorical, didactic texts organized to impress readers with the spiritual merits of their protagonists. Noteworthy amongst the early authors of Malfuzat were Amir Hasan Sijzi and Hamid Qalandar, who were extremely successful in advertising the excellent qualities of Nizamuddin Auliya and Nasiruddin Chirag in respective texts. Conclusion Medieval historiography of Sultanate was mostly written to justify Islamic rule in an alien land. Four major legitimate factors of Islamic authorities during medieval period were-Quran, Sufi saints, Sunni caliphate rule & Shariah. The rise of Islam has been perceived as the beginning of historical writing & this development has been credited to the Quranic sense of linear time & meaning of history as the cumulative of fulfillment of God’s will. Sultanate historiography began the process of the indigenous Islamic history writing in India where Persian was used as chief language for major writing. The use of Persian language mostly for royal purposes signifies its forceful enforcement among common masses, while its use for history writing made it an alien historiography mostly dedicated to elite persons by ignoring commoner’s life & made history a discipline for highly educated elites. Sultans tried to legitimize their rule through using different kind of symbols of legitimacy also Persian being one of them. Historians mostly being immigrants to India with mostly aristocratic background were genuinely opt to appease Sultans by writing history in praising the rulers & also most of historical works were written under the patronage of Sultans have made them eulogistic in nature. Lack of indigenous writers, elitist background of most of historians & an enforced language have made the history of majority population that is Hindus a mere exception & projected Sultanate historiography as an elite history. But for the reconstruction of Sultanate history or to understand the historical process of this period the writing of Sultanate historians remains the most reliable source for modern scholars. Also, the modern age critique of medieval historiography as a mere source without any historical perspective shows the colonial mindset of historical writing which later transformed into a communal-nationalist mindset for modern Indian historians during nineteenth to twentieth century. -------------------------------------------------- Bibliography Hardy, Peter. 1966. Historians of Medieval India: Studies in Indo-Muslim Historical Writing. London: Luzac and Company LTD. Kumar, Sunil. 2007. The Emergence of the Delhi Sultanate. Ranikhet: Permanent Black. Habib, Irfan. (1978). “Economic History of the Delhi Sultanate -- an Essay in Interpretation”, Indian Historical Review 4, pp. 287-303. Hardy, Peter. (1994). “Approaches to Pre-Modern Indo-Muslim Historical Writing: Some Reconsiderations in 1990-91”, in Peter Robb, ed., Society and Ideology: Essays in South Asian History presented to K.A. Ballhatchet, Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp. 49-71. Habib, Mohammad. (1974). “Introduction to Elliot and Dowson’s History of India vol.II”, in Politics and Society during the Early medieval Period, ed. Khaliq A. Nizami, Delhi: People’s Publishing Housr, vol. 1, pp. 33-110