Name- Mandeep Kaur Puri

History of India 4 assignment

Semester 3
Critically analyse Barani’s Tarikh i Firozshahi as a source for the
history of the Delhi Sultanate.

An array of developments changed the whole scenario of the region of Delhi. The foundation
for these developments was laid with the influx of invaders in India during the early 11th to
12th century. These developments culminated with the establishment of ‘The Delhi
Sultanate’ in the mid-13th century. The Sultanate period played a pivotal role in enhancing
the importance of Delhi. Multiple sources help us to paint a picture of the history of the Delhi
Sultanate. First, the court chronicles composed by the scholars associated with the kings.
Second, the Persian and Arabic inscriptions (on Jama Mosque and Qutub Minar). Third, the
account of foreigner travellers -Arabs (Ibn Batuta’s Rehla). Fourth, the Prem Akhayans
(Padmavat by Malik Muhammad Jayasi). Fifth, the malfuzat which are the sufi texts (Amir
Hasan sijzi’s Fawaid-al-Fuad). Among this variety of sources, the most well-known source is
the Tarikh-i-Firoz Shahi, composed by Ziyauddin Barani. Hence, the discussion in this
assignment will travel through the evolution of the Tarikh tradition, a glimpse of Ziyauddin
Barani's background, the composition of Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi, Barani's way of presenting the
memoirs, consideration of Tarikh by modern-day scholars and an expository understanding of
Barani's Tarikh.

'Tarikh-i- Firoz Shahi' became one of the crucial sources and chronicles that grabbed the
attention of historians and hence came into the limelight. The text primarily gained
prominence due to the style through which it portrayed the historical narrative. It was one of
the exemplary works in the sphere of 'The Tarikh Tradition.' Tarikh style of history writing
comprises a historical narrative that usually commences from either Adam or the Prophet up
till the period of the patron to which the chronicle has been dedicated. Arabic style of
historiography preceded the Tarikh tradition of history writing. Arabic style of writing was
not only restrained to the political domain but also encompassed the life of the masses. The
depiction of social, economic, cultural, and religious aspects was the main characteristic of
Arab historiography. Around the 11th century, the Arab style of history writing underwent a
significant change when the associates of rulers started to compile events of political
eminence. Therefore, there was an inclination towards the compilation of political history.
Gradually, Persian replaced Arabic as the prepotent language for history writing. Hence, the
Tarikh tradition became one of the desirable forms of writing history during the medieval
period. Numerous scholars adopted the Tarikh Tradition of history writing-like Fakhr-i-
Mudabbir-who is considered as the pioneer of Tarikh, Juzjani, Shams Siraj Afif, etc. Yet
Ziyauddin Barni became a well-known scholar among them. But apart from Tarikh-i-Firoz
Shahi, he is credited with the composition of several other works like Fathwa-i Jahandari,
Salvat-i-Kabir, Hasratnama, Inayat Nama, and a few more. Barani's ability to author this
variety of subject matter lies in the fact that he belonged to a family of people who had been
close associates of different sultans and held vital offices. His father Mu'aiyadu'l Mulk served
as a deputy minister for Sultan Jalalu' ddin Khalji's son. Earlier his maternal grandfather had
worked under the sultan Ghiyasuddin Balban. Apart from this, his uncle was a confederate of
Alauddin Khalji. Barani himself became acquainted with scholars like Amir Hasan Sijzi and
Amir Khusrao. He was even fortunate enough to meet Shaikh Nizamuddin Aauliya. Hence
surrounded by these intellects and influential people Barani gradually rose to the position
where he became a Nadim of Sultan Muhammad Bin Tughlaq.
Tarikh-i-FirozShahi was completed by Ziyauddin Barani in the year 1357 C.E. It was
dedicated to Firoz Shah Tughlaq hence the chronicle was named as Tarikh-i-Firoz-Shahi. It
comprises the history of the Delhi sultans from Ghiyassudin Balban to Firoz Shah Tughlaq.
There are two versions of this text. Since the chronicle constitutes the major chunk of the
history of the Delhi Sultanate, therefore it is a very crucial source for historians to reconstruct
the history of that period. Yet this text is viewed by a different set of scholars differently. It
has become a bone of contention and a hotly debated topic among historians. Scholars like
Irfan Habib are appreciative of the text and applaud Barani for exhibiting the history and its
importance through his text. The introduction of the text revolves around history, its
importance, the duty of a historian, and so forth. He considers that knowledge of history
throws light on the action of the Prophet and his companions. He (Barani) firmly highlights
that the task of a historian as being different from that of a poet or a fiction/ story writer. He
further adds that a historian must reflect upon all the information truthfully and states that
portraying something evil as ethical or vice-versa is equivalent to sin. Hence, penning down
history truthfully is a major responsibility and the reality must be presented transparently. He
regards the knowledge of history as one of the most significant branches of knowledge that
provide lessons, and insights into the measures for rectifying a mistake or preventing a
mistake. Moreover, it helps to enrich our cognitive capacities. Therefore, Irfan Habib
considers that Barani possessed a distinctive style of writing that set him apart from other
compositions of this era. Yet on the other hand there is a compendium of scholars like
Dowson and Peter Hardy who are skeptical about Barani’s Tarikh-i-Firozshahi. They are of
the view that Barani did not give much emphasis to chronology- either in some places dates
are not mentioned or they are not precise. Barani himself admits that in the course of drafting
the chronicle, he didn’t concern himself with the order in which the events had to be
mentioned. Hence these scholars point out the fact that time and chronology are the innate
features of history and these crucial components are lacking in his work. Further adding to
the critique, Peter Hardy accentuates that Barani portrays his ideas, judgments as well as
perceptions by quoting eminent figures of the past. For instance, quoting Balban in Tarikh-i-
Firozshahi, Barani writes that people of low-born status must be barred from all the positions
in the nobility. Similarly, in Fatwa-I Jahandari (written by Barani), Mahmud Ghazni conveys
a message that kings should refrain from employing low-born people in the court and at other
vital positions. Therefore, Peter Hardy concludes that the outlook and ideas in these texts
(Fatwa-I Jahandari and Tarikh-I Firoz shahi) are overlapping, hence these appear to be the
author’s views instead of the historical individuals mentioned. Syed Hasan Barani considered
Barani’s writings as being equivalent to the series of speeches written by Thucydides.
Moreover, Peter Hardy also argues that Barani considers his maternal grandfather as a source
to sketch the history of Sultan Ghiyasuddin Balban. Secondly, he relies on his memories to
reconstruct the regime of Jalaluddin Khalji (when he was only 6 years old). Thirdly, there
was a huge time lag between when the conversation of Barani with his patron occurred and
when these were written down. Here, Peter Hardy opines that these cannot be considered at
the face value and the narrative needs to be analyzed with a critical lens. Defending Barani,
Irfan Habib asserts that the former was in proximity to the sultan and viewed the events very
closely. Hence, he wrote down a first-hand account of all the proceedings and incidents.
Therefore, “there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the fact that he gives.” Moreover, not
all the opinions were necessarily Barani’s personal views. A scholar named Eliot has joined
the group of skeptical understanding of Tarikh and has indicated that Barani didn’t present an
appropriate list of Mongol invasions. But Irfan Habib explains that Barani was more
concerned with the repercussions of these invasions on the sultanate instead of the details of
these invasions. Another element of Barani’s s writing has seized Hardy’s attention i.e., the
former’s consideration of history as being a branch of theology. Delving into the argument,
Hardy states that Barani tended to attribute everything to Islamic laws and Prophet. He even
advises the kings to be ideal Islamic rulers. Moreover, he was in favour that Hindus must
either be persecuted or converted to Islam. He was averse to appointing Hindus to elite
positions. Irfan Habib backs Barani by mentioning that the latter regarded the pre-Islamic
Iranian king – Nausherwan as an ideal one and advised the Sultans to follow in his footsteps.
Hence, he was not a mere theologian. Moreover, with time, Barani acknowledged the need to
employ Hindus as nobles; keeping in mind the interests of the state. Thus, it can be concluded
that although Irfan Habib acknowledges the shortcomings of the text yet he believes that the
uniqueness of the text overpowers these loopholes. But there is one major objection that has
been raised by numerous scholars- Mohammad Habib, Peter Hardy, I H Siddiqui, Peter
Jackson, etc. These scholars specify the alterations that have been made between the two
versions by Barani. These amendments were influenced by the changed circumstances after
the death of Muhammad bin Tughlaq. Subsequently, Firoz Shah Tughlaq came into power,
and Barani was imprisoned for 5 months in the fort of Bhatner. Although he was released
from prison yet he fell into the clutches of extreme poverty. It was during this time, he
decided to compose Tarikh-I-Firoz shahi with the sole motive to gain patronage from the
(then)reigning sultan. One can find numerous differences in both versions. For instance,
Barani elaborated on the details of the price control measures adopted by Alauddin Khalji in
the second version. While the emphasis on the latter’s urbanization and construction activities
was reduced. Secondly, in the first version, Barani didn’t seem to be very critical of his
patron Muhammad bin Tughlaq but in the second version, he criticized him for punishing the
innocent and pious Muslims especially the ulama. He further adds that his patron could not
judge in which situation kindness or punishment was suitable. Moreover, he critiques him for
employing low-born people as his nobles in the court and ultimately blames them for the
failure of the policies of the Sultan during his last few years of reign. Apart from this, he
didn’t like the fact that his patron became inclined toward philosophers and rationalist
thinkers. Though he critiqued them in the first version too yet the extent of criticism was
mild. Thirdly, he displays Sultan Firoz shah Tughlaq as an ideal ruler and the ruler of the age
even though the latter sent him to jail. Instead, Barani mentions that it was due to the
conspiracy of enemies that he was sent to jail but owing to the generosity of the king he came
out of the clutches of the conspiracy. Although, Irfan Habib acknowledges these issues he
underlines the fact that Barani accepted that he turned hypocrite to gain material benefit as he
didn’t want to lose the patronage of Muhammad bin Tughlaq and was, therefore, unable to
show him the right path. He even tried to critique Firoz shah Tughlaq (though indirectly)
when he mentioned that the trustworthy nobles of the former king were displaced by Firoz
shah Tughlaq. Habib highlights that the introduction in both versions remained unaltered. It
shows that Barani had a strong sense of history.

From the above-stated arguments, we can conclude that Tarikh-i-Firoz Shahi is a didactic
text. The text is primarily based on the discussion of the monarchs, their duties as well as
responsibilities, the role of force and violence as well as the art of maintaining an appropriate
balance between generosity and ruthlessness. Barani 's text didn't only resound on the politics
and the stories of the sultans. It also emphasized the religious, social, and economic aspects.
He stated the importance of dynastic succession and mourns how with the coming up of a
new ruler, the nobles or close associates of the former ruler were persecuted. He mentions
that this leads to instability. Causality and repercussions of a particular event are present
throughout the text. Barani was a prolific writer. He delivered his idea of history very
persuasively. On the other hand, the text also reflects the hypocritical nature of the author. In
the introduction, he asserts that a historian must present all his facts truthfully. But he was not
successful in achieving this goal. It can be judged by the marked contradictions and
differences between the two versions. Hence keeping in mind, the shortcomings of the text,
one must not turn a blind eye and trust the facts as stated. It is necessary to be dubious of the
source. As Irfan Habib mentions that despite various problems with the text no historian can
write a history of the sultanate period without mentioning Barani and accepting his
interpretations. Hence, Tarikh-I- Firoz Shahi is one of the most important sources of Delhi
sultanate.
Bibliography

1. The "oratio recta" of Baranī's "Ta'rīkh-i-Fīrūz Shāhī"--Fact or Fiction? by Peter Hardy