Historiography of Medieval India

Historiography of Medieval India

“History to be above evasion or dispute, must stand on documents, not opinions.”

Lord Acton

There is no dearth of Muslim historical works on medieval India. Muslims have been prolific writers of history. Pre-Islamic traditions of writings were in the form of Qasidas or odes and geneologies. When Islam appeared on the scene, historical consciousness became inherent in the faith.

The interpretation of the Quran rendered historical knowledge indispensable. The military achievements of the new creed needed to be maintained in chronological order. The retaining of records of treaties between early Islamic states and conquered people implied composition of historical works.

Thus, instructive and glorious events and facts beneficial to the community were collected and history writing became a passionate pursuit with the Muslims. The historical literature produced under Arabic inspiration or Persian tradition was replete with religious fervour, and Islamic historiography has remained clerical in nature. The life and teachings of Muhammad, the expansion of Islam under the Caliphs and later achievements of Islam remained the principal contents of Sirah (biographies), Ansab (geneologies), Tabaqat (sketches), Malfuzat (memoirs), Maktubats (letters) andMaghazi (narratives of war and conquest). A secular turn was tried to be given to Islamic history by Ibn Khaldun. But books written by Muslims on world history, Islamic history, general history, dynastic history, or histories of countries and regions, aimed only at delineating the achievements of Islam. History of Islamic conquests is an unfoldment of the divine plan according to Muslim historian Barani.

Contemporary Chronicles

No wonder, a continuous chronological record of the major events of Islamic history in India is available in a series of works ranging from the seventh to the nineteenth century, and covering both dynasties and regions. There are a number of authentic historical works on the conquest of Sind by Muhammad bin Qasim and on the invasions of Mahmud of Ghazni and Muhammad Ghauri.

With the establishment of Muslim rule in India official and non-official chroniclers produced works covering all the dynasties of the Central Sultanate of Delhi (C. 1200-1526) as well as the dynasties of the various Muslim kingdoms that arose on the ashes of the Sultanate.

 Some of the writers, though religious bigots like Ziyauddin Barani and Abdul Qadir Badaoni, were geniuses in their own way. Barani’s contemporary Amir Khusrau too wrote historical works doing credit to his versatility. Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur, the founder of the Mughal empire in India (1526), wrote his own memoirs. His daughter Gulbadan Begum followed in his footsteps and produced an autobiographical sketch entitled Humayun Nama.

Before them Amir Timur wrote his Mulfuzat-i-Timuri and after them emperor Jahangir (1605-1627) wrote his memoirs under the title of Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri. Nowhere else in the history of the world can a ruling dynasty boast of having four royal autobiographers as the Mughals of India. Of regular historical works, of course, there is no dearth. Scholars like Abul Fazl, Abdul Hamid Lahori and Khafi Khan wrote in a style and with the comprehension of Edward Gibbon, Thomas Babington Macaulay, Theodore Mommsen and Thomas Carlyle.

Abdul Hamid Lahori’s Badshah Nama and Khafi Khan’s Muntakhab-ul-Lubab were followed by works of Sujan Rai Bhandari, Ishwar Das Nagar, Bhim Sen, Ghulam Husain Salim and Ghulam Husain Tabatabai. These later writers, instead of merely chronicling events also sometimes showed concern for their causation. These are just a few names. There are scores and scores of contemporary Muslim chroniclers of medieval Muslim history. The information provided by them is supplemented by inscriptions carved on the Muslim monuments, both original or converted from Hindu shrines.

This historical material has certain peculiarities. Firstly, medieval Muslim chroniclers wrote with a strong religious bias. To some belief in the superiority of the Islamic faith was an obsession, to others it appeared as a patent fact. Therefore, whenever they referred to non-Muslims, they did not fail to use the most uncomplimentary epithets against them. It is sometimes argued that their’s was just a style of writing and no serious notice should be taken of their choice of words. But the manner of their writing surely reflects their psyche.

Secondly, Persian chroniclers, by and large, wrote at the command of kings and nobles. As panegyrists, they naturally extolled their patrons and the burden of their theme was that medieval monarchs left no stone unturned to destroy infidelity and establish the power of the people of the Islamic faith. Thus, almost all Persian writers have exaggerated the achievements of their contemporary rulers, especially in the spheres of conquest and crushing of infidelity. Even their acts of cruelty and atrocity have been painted as virtuous deeds.

Thirdly, even those who wrote independently suffered from racial pride and prejudice. While they write little about the life of the common people, their economic problems and social behaviour, they do not tire of portraying their rulers as champions of Islam and destroyers of disbelief Their words of hate have left a trail of bitter memories which it is difficult to erase. As an example, the language of some contemporary chroniclers may be quoted as samples. Nawasa Shah was a scion of the Hindu Shahiya dynasty and was converted to Islam by Mahmud of Ghazni. Such conversions were common. But return to one’s original religion was considered apostasy punishable with death. Al Utbi, the author of Tarikh-i-Yamini, writes how Sultan Mahmud punished Nawasa Shah:

“Satan had got the better of Nawasa Shah, for he was again apostatizing towards the pit of plural worship, and had thrown off the slough of Islam, and held conversation with the chiefs of idolatry respecting the casting off the firm rope of religion from his neck. So the Sultan went swifter than the wind in that direction, and made the sword reek with the blood of his enemies. He turned Nawasa Shah out of his government, took possession of all the treasures which he had accumulated, re-assumed the government, and then cut down the harvest of idolatry with the sickle of his sword and spear. After God had granted him this and the previous victory, which were tried witnesses as to his exalted state and proselytism, he returned without difficulty to Ghazna.”

Hasan Nizami, author of Taj-ul-Maasir, thus wrote about the conquest of Ajmer by Muhammad Ghauri in 1192:

“The victorious army on the right and on the left departed towards Ajmer… When the crow-faced Hindus began to sound their white shells on the backs of the elephants, you would have said that a river of pitch was flowing impetuously down the face of a mountain of blue… The army of Islam was completely victorious, and a hundred thousand grovelling Hindus swiftly departed to the fire of hell… He destroyed (at Ajmer) the pillars and foundations of the idol temples, and built in their stead mosques and colleges, and the precepts of Islam, and the customs of the law were divulged and established.” And here is Maulana Ziyauddin Barani. He writes: “What is our defence of the faith,” cried Sultan Jalaluddin Khalji, “that we suffer these Hindus, who are the greatest enemies of God and of the religion of Mustafa, to live in comfort and do not flow streams of their blood.” And again, Qazi Mughisuddin explained the legal status of the Zimmis (non-Muslims) in an Islamic state to Sultan Alauddin:

“The Hindu should pay the taxes with meekness and humility coupled with the utmost respect and free from all reluctance. Should the collector choose to spit in his mouth, he should open the same without hesitation, so that the official may spit into it… The purport of this extreme meekness and humility on his part… is to show the extreme submissiveness incumbent upon the Zimmis. God Almighty Himself (in the Quran) commands their complete degradation in as much as these Hindus are the deadliest foes of the true prophet: Mustafa has given orders regarding the slaying, plundering and imprisoning of them, ordaining that they must either follow the true faith, or else be slain or imprisoned, and have all their wealth and property confiscated.” Even after his conversion to Islam, the Hindu remained an object of abhorrence. In his Fatawa-i-Jahandari, Barani writes: “Teachers are to be sternly ordered not to thrust precious stones (scriptures) down the throats of dogs (converts). To shopkeepers and the low born they are to teach nothing more than the rules about prayer, fasting, religious charity and the Hajj pilgrimage along with some chapters of the Quran… They are to be instructed in nothing more… The low born are capable of only vices…” Barani is so maliciously vituperative against Hindus that even many modem Muslim scholars feel embarrassed at his language and find it difficult to defend him. It must, however, be remembered that Barani belonged to the common run of Muslim theologians and chroniclers. He was a personal friend of men like Amir Khusrau and Ala Hasan Sijzi and was a disciple of no less a Sufi than Shaikh Nizamuddin Auliya. He possessed charming manners and was known for his wit and humour. But in the case of Hindus, his wit turned into rage. He is copiously quoted by future chroniclers like Nizamuddin Ahmad, Badaoni and Farishtah, who all praise him highly. Most of medieval Muslim chroniclers wrote in the idiom of Barani; only he excelled them all. All medieval chroniclers were scholars of Islamic scriptures and law. They often quote from these to defend or justify the actions of their kings in relation to their non-Muslim subjects.

It is sometimes argued that in the early years of Muslim rule Muslim chroniclers did not know much about the Hindus. Unlike the later historians like Abul Fazl, Badaoni and Khafi Khan, who tried to understand the social and cultural milieu of the country, chroniclers like Hasan Nizami and Ziyauddin Barani do not refer to the vast majority of the Hindus at all. Only rarely do they speak about them but then only in derogatory terms, which also shows their ignorance. But that is not always true.  Even when times had changed in the sixteenth-seventeenth century, the attitude and language of the chroniclers did not change. For instance, Badaoni writes that “His Majesty (Akbar), on hearing… how much the people of the country prized their institutions, commenced to look upon them with affection.” Similarly, he respected Brahmans who “surpass other learned men in their treatises on morals”. Then, “The Hindus are, of course, indispensable; to them belongs half the army and half the land. Neither the Hindustanis (Indian Muslims) nor the Mughals can point to such grand lords as the Hindus have among themselves.” So also said Abul Fazl when he wrote that “the king, in his wisdom, understood the spirit of the age, and shaped his plans accordingly”. And yet this very Badaoni sought an interview with Akbar, when the King’s troops started marching against Rana Pratap, begging “the privilege of joining the campaign to soak his Islamic beard in Hindu, infidel blood”. Akbar was so pleased at this expression of allegiance to his person and to the Islamic idea of Jihad that he bestowed a handful of gold coins on Badaoni as a token of his pleasure. This was in 1576. Akbar became more and more rational and tolerant as years passed by. His so-called infallibility decree was passed in 1579, his Din-i-Ilahi promulgated in 1582.  And yet the language of the chroniclers about the non-Muslims did not change. For, in 1589, Badaoni thus wrote about the two greatest personalities of the Mughal Empire: “In the year 998 (H./1589 C.E.) Raja Todarmal and Raja Bhagwandas who had remained behind at Lahore hastened to the abode of hell and torment (that is, died) and in the lowest pit became food of serpents and scorpions. May Allah scorch them both.”

Abdul Qadir Badaoni is not an exception. This style of writing, born out of the ingrained prejudice against non-Muslims, is found in all medieval chronicles in various shades of intensity. They denounce non-Muslims. They write with jubilation about the destruction of their temples, massacre of men, raising towers of skulls and such other “achievements”. They also write about the enslavement of women and children, and the licentious life of their captors, their polygamy and concubinage. There is a saying that no man is condemned save by his own mouth. By painting their heroes as cruel and atrocious destroyers of infidelity, Muslim chroniclers themselves have brought odium on the kings and conquerors of their own race and religion, all the while thinking that they were bringing a good name to them.

Contribution of Western scholars

Working on the writings of these chroniclers for almost his whole lifetime, Sir Henry Elliot rightly arrived at the conclusion that medieval histories were “recorded by writers who seem to sympathise with no virtues and to abhor no vices”, and that medieval rulers were “sunk in sloth and debauchery” and “parasites and eunuchs” revelled in the spoil of plundered provinces. And with the white man’s burden on his shoulders he even felt encouraged to hope that these chronicles “will make our native subjects more sensible to the immense advantages accruing to them under the mildness and equity of our rule”.

Any other writer’s denunciation of the medieval chroniclers or Muslim rulers would have gone unnoticed, for similar statements appear in the writings of many British historians on medieval Indian history but are not taken quite seriously. But no research worker on medieval Indian history could help reading and rereading Elliot’s works, so that whether one liked it or not, one could not do without Elliot. Indeed Lanepoole opined: “To realize Medieval India there is no better way than to dive into the eight volumes of the priceless History of India as Told by its Own Historians… a revelation of Indian life as seen through the eyes of the Persian court annalists.” Lanepoole, Pringle Kennedy, and Ishwari Prasad depended primarily on Elliot and Dowson’s eight volumes. Dr. Ishwari Prasad went to the extent of saying: “In preparing this volume (Medieval India)… I am not so presumptuous as to think that I have improved upon Elphinstone and Lanepoole, to whom I must gratefully acknowledge my indebtedness.” Now, it is a recognised fact that the contribution of European scholars in general and of British historians in particular to the study of Muslim literature and history is invaluable. In the early phase, their main task was to translate medieval historical works from Arabic and Persian into English and other European languages. For example, Majors H.R. Raverty and George S.A. Ranking, two army officers, translated from Persian into English the Tabqat-i-Nasiri of Minhaj Siraj (1881) and Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh of Abdul Qadir Badaoni (1889), respectively. Their painstaking diligence and honesty compel our admiration. Similarly, Blochmann, Jarret, Lowe and the Beveridge couple are but a few names from among those who have done stupendous work in this sphere. Elliot and Dowson’s great work, in spite of a chorus of disparagement by some modem Indian historians, still holds the field even now for more than a hundred years, against any translations in Urdu or Hindi. Scholars are still learning from and working on Elliot's meritorious volumes. S.H. Hodivala wrote a critical commentary on this work entitled Studies in Indo-Muslim History (Bombay, 1939) and added a supplement to it in 1957. K.A. Nizami has added some fresh information on the first two volumes of Elliot in addition to Hodivala’s commentary in his On History and Historians of Medieval India (Delhi,1983). Elliot’s original work is still going through repeated reprints. This in itself is indicative of its importance.

Assisted by the translations of Muslim chroniclers by the first generation scholars, foreign and Indian historians embarked on writing on medieval Indian history. Some Indian scholars worked under British historians in England. Many others worked in India utilizing research techniques provided by the West. Indian historians owe a lot to the pioneering researches of British historians, whatever may be said about their merits and shortcomings. The first comprehensive history of India entitled History of British India (1818), was attempted by James Mill. He believed in the superiority of the British people over the Indians. But there were other scholars thinking on different lines. The work of Sir William Jones and other European scholars unearthed a volume of evidence on India’s glorious past. However, despite the European discovery of India’s past greatness and well-developed civilization, the British, having become the paramount power in India, remained generally convinced of their own superiority over Indians, and continued to feed themselves on Mill and Macaulay. They held Indians and their literature in low esteem, insisting on accepting the degenerate conditions of the eighteenth century Muslim India as its normal condition. Seeley declared that nothing as great was ever done by Englishmen as the conquest of India, which was “not in the ordinary sense a conquest at all”, and which he put on par “with the Creek conquest of the East”, pointing out that the British who had a “higher and more vigorous civilization than the native races” founded the Indian Empire “partly out of a philanthropic desire to put an end to enormous evils” of the “robber-states of India”. There is no need to get ruffled about such assertions. Most of the conclusions of British historians about Muslim history do find confirmation in the description of cruelties perpetrated by the Muslims in their own chronicles as well as their reiteration in indigenous source materials in Hindi, Sanskrit, Rajasthani and Marathi. Hindu source materials are few. They are also not as informative as the Muslim chronicles. But curiously enough the meagre Hindu and the voluminous Muslim source-materials corroborate and supplement rather than contradict each other about the behaviour of the Muslim regime.

Paucity of Hindu Source-materials

Professor D.P.Singhal asserts that, contrary to the general belief, Indians in ancient times did not neglect the important discipline of historiography. On the contrary, they were good writers of history. He states: “Ancient India did not produce a Thucydides, but there is considerable evidence to suggest that every important Hindu court maintained archives and geneologies of its rulers. And Kalhana’s Rajatarangini, written in twelfth century Kashmir, is a remarkable piece of historical literature. Despite his lapses into myths and legends, Kalhana had an unbiased approach to historical facts and history writing. He held that a true historian, while recounting the events of the past, must discard love (raga) and hatred (dvesha). Indeed, his well-developed concept of history and the technique of historical investigation have given rise to some speculation that there existed at the time a powerful tradition of historiography in which Kalhana must have received his training.” If that was so, why is there hopeless deficiency of Hindu historical writings during the medieval period? In this regard, James Tod, the famous author of the monumental classic Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, has this to say: 1. that ardent Hindus were good historiographers; 2. that medieval times were not propitious for them for writing history; and 3. that much of the Hindu, Jain and Buddhist literature was destroyed by Muslim invaders and rulers. He needs to be quoted at length. “Those who expect,” writes he, “from a people like the Hindus a species of composition of precisely the same character as the historical works of Greece and Rome commit the very gregarious error of overlooking the peculiarities which distinguish the natives of India from all other races, and which strongly discriminate their intellectual productions of every kind from those of the West. Their philosophy, their poetry, their architecture, are marked with traits of originality; and the same may be expected to pervade their history, which, like the arts enumerated, took a character from its intimate association with the religion of the people. It must be recollected, moreover,… that the chronicles of all the polished nations of Europe, were, at a much more recent date, as crude, as wild, and as barren, as those of the early Rajputs.” He adds, “My own animadversions upon the defective condition of the annals of Rajwarra have more than once been checked by a very just remark: ‘When our princes were in exile, driven from hold to hold, and compelled to dwell in the clefts of the mountains, often doubtful whether they would not be forced to abandon the very meal preparing for them, was that a time to think of historical records?’ ” “If we consider the political changes and convulsions which have happened in Hindustan since Mahmood’s invasion, and the intolerant bigotry of many of his successors, we shall be able to account for the paucity of its national works on history, without being driven to the improbable conclusion, that the Hindus were ignorant of an art which has been cultivated in other countries from almost the earliest ages. Is it to be imagined that a nation so highly civilized as the Hindus, amongst whom the exact sciences flourished in perfection, by whom the fine arts, architecture, sculpture, poetry, music, were not only cultivated, but taught and defined by the nicest and most elaborate rules, were totally unacquainted with the simple art of recording the events of their history, the character of their princes and the acts of their reigns?” The fact appears to be that “After eight centuries of galling subjection to conquerors totally ignorant of the classical language of the Hindus; after every capital city had been repeatedly stormed and sacked by barbarous, bigoted, and exasperated foes; it is too much to expect that the literature of the country should not have sustained, in common with other interests, irretrievable losses.” Indians as a whole today exhibit keen interest in history. This interest has not sprung all of a sudden. It has always been there. To the uneducated common man it has come down in legends, stories, mythologies and anecdotes. There is no dearth of professional historians. The works produced by Jadunath Sarkar, G.S. Sardesai, G.H. Ojha, Tara Chand, Mohammad Habib and R.C. Majumdar apart, the sustained assiduity shown by hundreds of other writers of history in modern times is proof enough of the fact that the Indian mind is not devoid but indeed keenly concerned with its history and culture. If it did not produce historical works in medieval times to the extent expected, the reasons are obvious; it is not necessary to repeat what has been said above. But a few words from Jadunath Sarkar may be reproduced. He says that “when a class of men is publicly depressed and harassed (as under Muslim rule)… it merely contents itself with dragging on an animal existence. The Hindus could not be expected to produce the utmost of what they were capable… Amidst such social conditions, the human hand and the human mind cannot achieve their best; the human soul cannot soar to its highest pitch.” The “barrenness of the Hindu intellect” is just one more bestowal of inheritance of Muslim rule in India.

There is no doubt that whatever Hindu historical literature was extant, was systematically destroyed by Muslim invaders and rulers. It is well known that pre-Islamic literature was destroyed by the Arabs in their homeland as they considered it belonging to theJahiliya. It is not surprising therefore that many Muslim heroes in their hour of victory just set libraries to flames. They razed shrines to the ground, burnt books housed in them and killed Brahman, Jain and Buddhist monks who could read them. The narrative of Ikhtiyaruddin Bakhtiyar Khalji’s campaigns in Bihar is full of such exploits. Only one instance may be cited on the destruction of the works of the ‘enemy’. Kabiruddin was the court historian of Sultan Alauddin Khalji (1296-1316) and wrote a history of the latter’s reign in several volumes. But his work entitled the Fatehnama is not traceable now and a very important source of Alauddin’s reign has been lost. It is believed that the Fatehnama contained many critical and uncomplimentary comments on the Mongol invaders whom the Sultan repeatedly defeated, so that when the Mughal dynasty was established in India, this work was destroyed. Similarly, only one instance may be given to show how the Indians tried to protect their books from marauding armies. In the Jinabhadra-Sureshwar temple located in the Jaisalmer Fort in Rajasthan, I saw a library of Jain manuscripts called Jain Cyan Bhandar located in a basement, 5 storeys deep down, each storey negotiated with the help of a staircase, and in each floor manuscripts are stacked. The top of the cell is covered with a large stone slab indistinguishable from other slabs of the flooring to delude the invader. Such basement libraries set up for security against vandalism are also found in other places in Rajasthan.

Bards and Charans were the historians of the Rajputs. They indulged in gross exaggeration while praising their patrons. But the beauty of their work lies in the fact that these chroniclers also dared utter truths, sometimes most unpalatable to their masters. Only a few of their works have survived and have been rescued from princely states which were generally friendly to the Mughals and therefore escaped repeated sackings. From Chand Bardai’s Prithviraj Raso to the accounts by the Brahmans of the endowments of the temples, from the disputations of the Jains to Kalpadruma, a diary kept by Raja Jai Singh of Datia “in which he noted every event,” Tod was able to get lot of historical material. Padmanabh’s Kanhadde-Prabandh, Bhandu Vyas’ Hammirayan, Nainsi’sKhyat, Vidyapati’s Purush Pariksha and Kirtilata and Kaviraj Shymaldas’ Vir Vinod, are regular and not so regular historical works of Hindus through the centuries. When the Marathas mounted national resistance against the Mughal empire there was so much to write about, and they wrote excellent histories. And all these works corroborate Muslim chronicles. Persian writers boast of the achievements of their conquerors secured through brute force. The Indians confirm the facts and denounce their atrocities.