ASSESS ZIYAUDDIN BARANI AS A HISTORIAN

Ziyauddin Barani history is a serious discipline. Barani is probably most

authorative historian of Delhi Sultanate. Barani looks upon history as a panorama
of human activity unfolded before man to guide his faltering steps in life’s
journey.1 History gives man a rare insight into human affairs and helps him in
distinguishing between good and evil, vice and virtue, friends and foe. For Barani,
history had lesson for the dominant classes (elite). He search for the truth. He was
a theologian and man of culture in the Persian Islamic mould. He had known
Sultan closely for seventeen years. He had moved in circles where political events
and administrative matters formed the fabric of daily discourse and all of a sudden,
in his old age he had been removed form his position of dignity and status. His
personal tragedy not only embittered him but also incited him to locate the defects
in the system in which this could occur.

Barani constructed a theory of the history of the Delhi Sultanate in the Tarikh-i-
Firoz-Shahi. It is a historical source. It shows how internal contradiction dogged
the Sultanate’s course, in order to create, in recurring cycles, the fall of established
ruling groups. In it Barani narrated the histories of the Delhi Sultan-From
Balban(1266-86) to the early years of Firuz Shah Tughluq- as lessons from which
the reigning monarch Firoz Shah Tughlaq (1351-88) could learn the consequences
of both moral and immoral conduct. Barani’s Tarikh come to be valued especially
because the author displayed a sensitivity to social and ‘structural’ forces and their
impact on the state.

Barani was strongly influenced by the tradition of normative literature written in

the adab, or the ‘Mirrors for princes’ genre. He was himself the author of one such
text, Fatawa-i-Jahandari, or the ‘Principles of Government: It is a didactic texts
enlarging on ideal norms of conduct and adab. Barani clearly seeks to advise rulers

1
Tarikh-i-Firoz-shahi,p.1

1
how they should act to prevent, confront or resolve the essential problems of the
polity he had lived under. He also wrote certain theological texts such Sani-i-
Mohammadi or Nat-i-Mohammadi (biography of the prophet). He also wrote
Salat-i-Kabir (the great prayer), Inayat Nama-i-Ilahi (Book of God’s Gifts),
Maasir-i-Sadaat (Good deeds of the saiyyds) and others. He brought them to
completion.

Barani’s family had a long tradition of serving to the ruling class the-Ilbarites, the
Khaljis and the Tughluqs. His father, Muwayyid-ul-Mulk held the post of
governor in Arkali Khan reign. His uncle Alaul Mulk was a confidant of Alauddin
Khalji(1296-1316). Barani has personnel first hand experience of working of the
Sultanate. Though his family was associated with ruling dynasty, Barani entire life
was wasted except 17 years in service of Md. Bin Tughluq(1325-52). Barnai was
seeking government employment. This had determining influence. There was
sense of hostility and bitterness all through his writings except the reign of Firoz
Shah Tughluq(1352-88). It this make his account a partial one, then it also make a
huge difference. His bitterness adds to the value of history writings. It allows a
distinctive objective and a certain perspective. He was forced to take a generous
attitude towards Firoz Shah Tughlaq due to chance of getting employment under
him.

Unlike the other writers of the period, K.A. Nizami2 argues that Barani uses
straight or matter of fact language in Tarikh-i-Firoz-Shahi. This was an important
deviation as it was not rhetoric. Barani rejects excess metaphor which are
characteristics of Persian history writings. May be he thought that history was the
way to say truth and superficiality of languages steals the truth. He wanted to
project the history and for that he adopted a rhetorical where he puts his ideas in
the mouth of historical figures. Words are attributed by Barani to historical figures
(Balban, Md. Bin-Tughluq), etc.
2
K.A.Nizami,On History and Historians of Medieval india.

2
Barani place amongst the medieval historians and his contribution to medieval
Indian historiography rests on an answers to following question. (1) What was
Barani approach ? (why he was writing ?); (2) what was Barani’s idea of history? ;
(3) How far was history a re-enactment of past experience for him?; (4)What
advantage, if any, did he seek to derive from his historical writings? As for
Barani’s ideas of history and the advantages that accrue from its study, a fairly
detailed discussion is available in his preface to the Tarikh-i-Firoz-Shahi. The use
of religious terminology is merely a literary convention with him and nothing
more.

What was Barani approach? According to Barani history is for the elites, in
particular the rulers and the ruling class. History as a discipline record change and
that only record the changes introduced by elite class. The worthless, the mean, the
lowly, the base-born, the men of the market place were incapable to bring change
in the society. So no need to study them. For elites, history is a handmaid for
action, since they can use it lessons for their own good. History cannot simple be a
chronicle of the meritorious deeds of the past, but must encompass all aspects,
good and bad. His main theme: even if the historian cannot speak frankly about his
own time out of fear, he should write truthfully about the past.3

Hereditary right is a crucial element in the social values that he upholds.

Whenever this is disregarded, not only is the ruling class corrupted but the
historian too loses his real audience and thus his status. Clearly then, Barani see
contemporary class is divided between elite (ashraf) and ajlal (lower class). Barani
clears that resources does not create elite. Accumulation of resources does not
create elite. It is through purity of blood through which distinction is made
between elite and poor classes.

3
Tarikh-i-Firoz-Shahi,p.16

3
The objective of History writing to barani is to provide lesson to the aristocracy
and elite. What was this lesson?

(i) Lesson for governance (Jahandari).

(ii) The need to maintain social hierarchies. The higher moral qualities are only
possessed by those belonging to the nobler professions; and the kings
should ensure that they alone should comprise the ruling class not “the
lowly and the ignorable”. Barani is not here speaking of a caste system with
hereditary professions, but of a pre-ordained hierarchy in society to protect
which has been a cardinal function of the state, under all good regimes of
the past. It is here that the narrative and historical texts merge together.

The need to maintain hierarchy and its preservence is important in his writings.
The ideal way of Governance are for those who maintain hierarchy. Barani silently
appreciate the Indian caste system. And it is this system which causes for the
maintenance of hierarchy. According to Barani maintenance of hierarchy should
be monopolized. Justice described by Barani as a pre-eminent way to establish
sovereignty. The weakening of social hierarchy viewed by Barani as leading to
chaos and conflict. The state that preserve hierarchy for the elite and maintain a
difference between elite and lower can preserve the society from chaos and
conflicts. Responsibilities of governance and the state resources should be
monopolized by elite class. State that maintain social distance thrive. This is the
objective of the state.

Basic ideas of Barani with regard to history deserve to be noted:

(i) The foundation of history, he says, rests on truthfulness. A historian should

be exact in his statements and should avoid exaggerations or hyperboles
which characterize the works of poets.4 Incorrect statements lower the

4
Tarikh-i-Firoz-Shshi,p.16.

4
 prestige of a historian and reduce the value of his work. Thus Barani’s
sense of responsibility as a historian is conditioned both by pragmatic and
religious considerations.

(ii) Barani Consider history and the ‘Ilm-i-Hadis as twins. 5 He remarks that the
study of history is necessary also because a scholars of traditions, who is
not an expert of history cannot be a good scholar of his subject.

Here, an important question arises that how useful in Barani as a historian and
how useful is Tarikh-i-Firoz-Shahi? The way Barani finds identity between the
‘Ilm-i-Hadis and the ‘Ilm-i-Tarikh has led Peter Hardy6 and following him Simon
Digby to the conclusion that Barani treats history as a branch of theology and see
the past as a battleground between good and evil. Since it is so his reference are
prejudice based. They said no because:

(1) There is a corresponding rejection of characters of personality and assessed on

their distance from Shariat. In other words individual was rated from the
distance of Sharia;

(2) Sharia remain an ideal normative framework for Barani;

(3) The history of Barani seeks to present the religious interpretation;

(4) Since he treated Delhi Sultanate as a chapter of Islam his work was not as a
historian but a work of conservative theologian;

(5) Barani is very contentious against Hindus;

(6) History is informed from faith.

(7) Condemned people if they were far away from Sharia.

5
Ibid,pp.10-11.
6
Peter Hardy,Historian of Medieval India,(London 1960).

5
Unfortunatley, it is a very harsh judgement on Barani. Historians like Irfan Habib,
K.A. Nizami and Harbans Mukhia disagree with peter Hardy and Simon Digby.
Indeed, in their opinion some text are biased, whereas others are extraordinarily
sound in their marshalling of information and causative reasoning. For example
according to Irfan Habib, Barani’s factual account was correct in all substantive
matters and his analysis was sound.7 Unfortunately Hardy view is not borne out of
facts. Barani had a keen awareness of the changing phenomena of political life and
his analysis of situation is basically and essentially political. His intimate
knowledge of administration and its problems extending over a number of years
helped him in making a realistic appraisal of the factors and forces that worked in
the life of the dynasties that controlled the contemporary political scene.

Even as Sharia remain a Cherish ideal in Tarikh –i-Firoz-Shahi but Barani also
admits its incapable of its application. Of all the medieval Muslim writers he alone
posed the question whether the law of Shariat could be meticulously enforced?
Despite his conservative and orthodox views he did not hesitate to declare that it
had now become impossible to inforce the laws of the Shariat in administration
where the needs of the time necessitated a recourse to state laws (Zawabit). There
is distinction between the state law and law based on Islamic which is shariat.
Alauddin Khalji pointed that what he does is good for the people and does not care
about Sharia. In this regard, Barani attributes to Alauddin Khalji. Barani was
conscious of the fact that Sharia and Jahandari was incompatible. Sharia is not
important in particular to governance. He also attribute conversation in the mouth
of Balban to the effect that matter of state were incompatible with the matter of
Sharia. Governance law should be based on Zawabit.

Infact, Barani clearly see establishment of monarchy as an institution. For his

theory of sovereignty the power of judgement was based on force. Since force is
the main norm for monarchy so it is an unislamic institution and even cannot serve
7
Irfan Habib, ‘Price Regulation of Alauddin Khalji’,p.393.

6
the Muslims. It was the violence and force that constitute sovereignty. For him it is
not the matter of faith. It could not have any ideological support. It is extra Islamic
institution.

Attitudes towards the Hindus. It is true that Tarikh-i-Firoz-Shahi mentioned

deprecatory reference but there was also appreciable reference to the Hindus. He
uses deprecatory only when he refers to Rural aristocracies (the Khuts,
muqqadams and chaudharies). This agrarian classes were a source of instability of
Delhi Sultanate and irritate to stability of the Delhi Sultanate. Rebellious Khuts
and muqqadams were contentiously described as Hindus. Barani used the word
Hindu in degrading context. On the other hand when he see that a continuous
pressure on the rural aristocracy would have led to agrarian devastation he
overlooked the Alauddin Khalji’s measures and the demand of the shariat. He
applauds Ghiyasuddin Tughluq decision to give concession to the khuts and
Muqqadans so that their prosperity might be restored. When he comes to
merchants like Sahukar, Multanis, etc., he is very appreciable. His identification
emerges from the interest of the state. This group strengthen the Delhi Sultanate.
The Indigenous ruling classes, the alliances with local ruling group were
appreciated by Barani and never brought the communal things. In essence, Barani
did perceive the inevitability of an accommodation between the sultanate and the
upper classes of its Hindu subjects.

Clearly, then, Barani is not a blind communalist. Trying to make Delhi Sultanate a
theocracy was never said by Barani. Observation of the Sufis were quite
appreciable. There was considerable veneration for Amir Khussrau, Shaikh
Nizamuddin Awliya. His differences with Shia remain doctrinal which emerges
from the understanding of the doctrine of Islam. It is therefore clear that Barani’s
works is an important source for the Delhi Sultanate. And to ignore it was a grave
injustice for the great historian like Barani.

7
To Barani, the external problems of the Sultanate throughout the period of his
narrative remained of secondary importance in comparison to internal tensions.
Attempt to understand the internal contradiction so he left behind the external
matters. Barani does not see Hindu principalities posing little threat to the
sultanate. E.M.Elliot8 comments on Barani failure to provide a complete and
proper list of the Mongol invasion. Firishta9 suspected Barani of suppressing the
accounts of a raid which the Sultan had possibly not given a creditable account of
himself. If Barani paid less attention to chronicling the Mongol invasions, it was
probably because he was less concerned with their details than their effects on the
domestic affairs of the Sultanate.

The main content of the political history of the Delhi Sultanate as seen by Barani
consists of three simultaneous developments:

1. The growth of despotic power of the Sultan. The success of Delhi

Sultanate or the success of Jahandari requires a cohesive ruling class and
the instability of Delhi Sultanate emerges from the absence of this ruling
class. Since ruling class is not so cohesive, despotic government is
necessary for the exercise of power.

2. The greater and greater use of terror. Barani affirms that “the terror
of absolute authority is the only means of regulation and arrangement, and
the cause of upholding government and administration”. Barani is alone in
identifying monarchy with violence. Terror created resettlement, revolts,
etc.; resentment created terror which leads to greater forms of terror. It is
vicious cycle. It is this cycle that explain the inherence violence, bloodshed,
etc, in Delhi sultanate.

8
E.M.Elliot and J.Dowson,The History of India as Told by its own Historians,iii(London 1871).
9
Tarikh-i-Firishta(Nawal kishor, Kanpur, 1874),p.134.

8
3. The successive wholesale changes in the composition of the nobility,
tending to its plebeianization. Barani does not offer solution for this but
related this to the influx or inflow of lower class in Jahandari.

CONCLUSION

In retrospect, we can say that Barani’s history as a source is important for studying
Delhi Sultanate. Barani’s point of view is not one which evokes an instinctive
response from a modern reader: change is destable to Barani; he craves stability
and hierarchy; and above all, he seeks the wealth and welfare of the ruling class.
Infact he sees in the actual history of the delhi sultante a contrary process -
constant change, untrammelled despotism, vast increase in the wealth and power
of the ruling class, with repeated sweeping alterations in its composition, and the
inapplicability of the Shariat. Barani is always concious of the social invironment
within which the action takes place. He is remarkable in looking for the effect of
that action not on particular individuals, but on classes and groups. It is for the
first time that he tries to analyse the cause and effect of the event and development
taking place in polity and economy. Barani also declares that the job of the
historians is not only to eulogise the deeds and good works of the rulers but also
to present to readers a critical account of the shortcomings and drawbacks of
policies. Moreover, the scope of history is considerably widened by Barani with
the inclusion of details about the cultural role performed by intellectuals, scholars,
poets, and the saints. Barani style of history writings inspired the historians of the
subsequent period, many of whom tried to follow his ideas.

Barani’s class-consciousness ultimately developed into a complex and embittered

his attitude towards the lower section of society. The source of his bitterness was
political, not religious or social. Barani is not a blind communalist. Proffesor
Habib has correctly remarked that for Barani ‘history was not a record or a

9
chronicle or a story; it was very definitely a science – the science of the social
order and its basis was not religion or tradition but observation and experience.’10

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. K.A.Nizami, On History and Historians of Medieval India.

2. Irfan Habib, ‘Barani’s Theory of the History of Delhi Sultanate’, Indian

Historical Review, 1981.

3. Irfan Habib, ‘Two Indian Theorists of the State:Barani and Abul Fazl’,
Middle East Studies Association, Chichago, 1998.

4. Sunil Kumar, The Emergence of Delhi Sultanate, 1192-1286, New Delhi,

2007.

a) Chapter 1: writings a history of the Delhi Sultanate.

b) Appendix : Persian literary tradition and narrativizing the delhi

sultanate

10
The Political Theory of the Delhi Sultanate, p.125.

10