Introduction

In the study of the Delhi Sultanate, Ziauddin Barani is generally considered to be the most
significant historian. His works: Tarikh-i-firuzshahi (History of Firuz Shah) and Fatava-
iJahandari (Political Theory of Delhi Sultanate), the chief sources for much of the 13th and
14th centuries have been studied widely and commented on by various historians. As Irfan
Habib rightly said, "If the variety of opinions formed about a writer were an index of his
greatness, then ... Zia 'Barani may now rest in peace." There is not a shadow of a doubt that
Barani's prominence is in the fact that unlike preceding historians and those of his own time,
his work was not merely a political narrative or annalistic account. Rather, Barani interpreted
history through theory of his own, one he held to quite steadfastly.

In the following paragraphs, we shall go on to examine this theory of history and its
significance as a source. For our understanding of the Delhi Sultanate. We shall begin with a
brief background of the period, its political and social setting, its economy, its culture, its
power, nobility, religion and economy. All of this will then be understood in the larger context
of the study of the Sultanate period and we will attempt to extrapolate from it, the significant
features of Barani's history along with special reference to his Tarikh-i Firuz Shahi as a source
of history.

Barani as a historian

To Barani, there were certain attributes that a historian had to fulfill. The first of these was
background. A historian had to belong to the upper classes (za akhar o mu 'arif) so that he
can speak for them. To him, the writing of history was a science for the notables and high-
born. That was why, his conception of history was different. It could not be simply the
chronicling of great deeds, but rather, it should encompass the the good and the bad, its
pursuit ... as teach his own generations of high-born Muslims of the risks and gains of certain
actions. Moreover, to him, history writing was to be characterized by roul-i-sanun, analysis
or criticism of facts.

A historian also had to have correct religion views so that he would not subvert the
chronicling of his times. But more importantly, Bar40n believes that a historian must be be
vigorously truthful". To this, the onlyly exception is that if he cannot speak, frankly about his
own times because of fear,he should at least be just and truthful about the past. Therefore
his two principles for the writing of history were truthfulness and auddür ( (interpreted as
religion).

Hence, by his own standards, Barani had the right to be the historian of the Sultanate. His
father was nath ( deputy) to Jahbladdin Khijji's son and his grandmother was a Sujyid lady of
"mystical attainments" (reference to spiritualism). His maternal grandfather had been an
important functionary (wafd-e dan) under Babban. Thus, his was a scholarly, religious and
noble background. The most eminent of his family members was his uncle, Ala'ul Mulk who
was the city commander (khotwal) of Delhi after having commanded Kara and Awadh. Barani
himself was the na'ib-ul Muhammad bin Tughlaq in 1334 and 1351, a position that offered
him rare insight into the intricate complexities of power and politics.

However, in the period after Muhammad bin Tughlaq's death, Barani fell out of royal favour.
He was banished from court and even imprisoned possibly in association with attempt of
Khwaja Jahan Ahmad Ayaz to place a minor son of Muhammad Tughlaq on the throne.
Though he was subsequently released, he spent the rest of his life in relative misery. It was
during this time that he wrote his Tarikh-i-firuzshahi, a work dedicated to Sultan Firuz Shah
Tughlaq. Filling it with eulogy, it was perhaps as an attempt to re-establish some influence in
the court of the Sultan.
Barani's audience was clear. He was writing for the nobility. But why did he write? Of modern
historiography, one of the most serious attempts in studying Barani as historian was
undertaken by Mohammad Habib who summed up three reasons for Barani to turn to history
writing:

1. To gain recognition and favour from Muhammad Tughlaq and his nobles

2. To achieve salvation or gain religious merit

3. To guide the future generations of the high-born Muslims

Prior to this period, the writing of history in India had been largely a narrative exercise,
confined to chronicles and annals. Barani, in sharp contrast with this, developed and
articulated a history that was conscious of its own importance, of the role and function it
had to play in society, and the science and as a guide to practical action.

In his work he lists seven benefits conferred by the study of history upon its readers. They are
as follows:

1. It gives mankind an opportunity to open its eye the word of God

2. History is seen as an as aoonmpunim to to tnditions like the Hadlind and it is the study of
history that is necessary in order to confirm the reliability of narrators of such traditions

3. It is a means of strengthening reason and judgment

4. It gives comfort and strength to Godly Muslim-rules who can look to the past and learn
from
5. The history of the Prophet and the vicisistudes they encountered induces patience and
prevents despairing even amidst misfortune

6. Through knowledge of history, the character of the saved, just and good is imprinted on
the readers

7. History is the necessary foundation of the truth

Peter Hardy sees these formulations as indicative of the assigning of a didactic religious role
to history. Irfan Habib points out that such an interpretation is problematic as there can be
no disputing the weight that Barani places upon history.

Power & Nobility

Ziauddin Barani’s historical writings, particularly in Tarikh-I Firuz Shahi and Fatawa-I
Jahandari, place significant emphasis on the dynamics of power and the role of the nobility
within the Delhi Sultanate, prioritizing domestic affairs over external threats such as Hindu
principalities or Mongol invasions. His focus on the ruling class and its internal complexities
reflects his belief that the stability and legitimacy of the Sultanate depended on the interplay
between despotic power, the use of terror, and the composition of the nobility. Barani’s
nuanced perspective on these themes, rooted in his theory of history, provides a unique lens
through which to understand the socio-political processes of the period.

In Fatawa-I Jahandari, Barani articulates a political theory through a didactic narrative,

presenting advice as if from Mahmud Ghaznavi to his sons and the “King of Islam.” He argues
that after the first four “rightly guided” caliphs, kingship lost its divine legitimacy, as it was no
longer based on heredity, judicious appointment, or ratification by the Muslim community.
Instead, Barani posits that kingly power, inherently arbitrary, could only be justified through
effective administration and the demonstration of a ruler’s worthiness. This legitimacy, he
suggests, is established through a historical process grounded in the use of force, as
despotic power does not derive directly from divine sanction but from practical necessity.

For Barani, the king’s role as the “King of Islam” carried the responsibility to uphold Sharia
(Islamic law) and punish non-believers (kafirs), while also maintaining a strong military to
ensure stability. However, he introduces a pragmatic distinction between Sharia and secular
law (zawabit), asserting that in cases of conflict, the latter should prevail to address the
practical needs of governance. This acknowledgment of secular law reflects Barani’s
recognition of the political realities of the Sultanate, where institutions like kingship, though
un-Islamic in their reliance on force and terror, were justified as necessary to prevent chaos.
He argues that the institution of kingship is essential for “regulation and arrangement” and
for upholding government and administration, as without it, societal order would collapse.

Barani’s analysis of power is dialectical, highlighting the tension between effective control
and the destabilizing effects of terror. He illustrates this through his evaluations of key
sultans. For instance, he laments Sultan Balban’s harsh campaigns against the ruling class,
viewing them as a form of tyranny inseparable from the exercise of power, yet he conveniently
overlooks Balban’s cruelty toward ordinary subjects. Barani sees Balban’s rise to the throne
as a product of the Sultanate’s tyrannical nature, yet he justifies such actions as necessary
for maintaining order, even though they deviate from Islamic legal principles, which limit
capital punishment to specific crimes (murder, adultery, or apostasy followed by attacks on
Islam).

In contrast, Barani presents Sultan Jalaluddin Khilji as a humane and compassionate ruler
whose benevolence, while admirable, left him vulnerable to treason, ultimately undermining
his authority. Alauddin Khilji, however, is portrayed as a model of administrative efficiency,
particularly in market control and military campaigns. Yet, Barani critiques the moral and
physical costs of Alauddin’s extreme ruthlessness, noting that his reliance on terror eroded
popular support and destabilized his rule. This tension reaches its peak under Muhammad
bin Tughlaq, with whom Barani had personal experience as a courtier. Barani describes
Muhammad’s reign as marked by unprecedented centralization, conquests, and wealth
accumulation, but also by extreme cruelty and ambition, which led to widespread
discontent and ultimately his downfall. Barani attributes the failures of Muhammad’s
policies not to attempts to address systemic issues but to the Sultan’s own misadventures,
admitting his own inability to fully understand the ruler’s motivations.

Central to Barani’s historical narrative is the evolving composition of the nobility, which he
considers the backbone of the Sultanate’s stability. He distinguishes between the shurafa
(highborn, primarily Turkish nobles who were often former slaves of the Sultan) and the razil
(lowborn, including slaves and Indian converts). Barani’s emphasis on noble birth stems not
from a belief in inherent superiority but from a pragmatic concern for the security and
stability of the established elite. According to Mohammad Habib’s Political Theory of the
Delhi Sultanate, Barani’s focus on birth reflects a desire to maintain the status quo among
the ruling class rather than a rigid adherence to a “blue blood” ideology. Barani’s personal
resentment toward the increasing inclusion of lowborn individuals, particularly Indian
converts, in Muhammad bin Tughlaq’s court may have influenced his hostility toward this
group, as he perceived their rise as a threat to the traditional nobility.

Barani’s views on the nobility reveal a contradiction in his philosophy. While he champions
a hereditary elite to ensure loyalty and stability, he also acknowledges the need for
competence and merit in governance. This tension is evident in his disapproval of
appointments based solely on merit, which he fears could destabilize the entrenched
hierarchy, yet he recognizes that effective administration requires capable officials. Irfan
Habib summarizes Barani’s political history of the Sultanate as revolving around three
interconnected developments: the growth of despotic power, the increasing use of terror
(tazur), and the shifting composition of the nobility. These themes underscore Barani’s
interpretive approach, which prioritizes the ruling class’s dynamics over external conflicts or
broader societal changes.

In conclusion, Barani’s treatment of power and nobility in Tarikh-I Firuz Shahi and Fatawa-I
Jahandari reflects a sophisticated understanding of the Delhi Sultanate’s political realities.
His theory of history, which justifies un-Islamic institutions like despotic kingship on grounds
of necessity, highlights his pragmatic approach to governance. By focusing on the ruling
class and its internal struggles, Barani provides a critical analysis of the tensions between
power, terror, and stability, offering valuable insights into the socio-political processes of the
Sultanate. Despite his biases, particularly toward the nobility, his work remains a vital source
for understanding the complexities of medieval Indian governance and the ideological
underpinnings of the ruling elite.

Religion and Economy

not without defects. One of the problems of the Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi is that of chronology.
Barani seldom mentions dates and when does, they were often inaccurate. This is because
he writes by memory and does not stick to any chronological framework. Another factor that
could be a problem is the use of religious idioms as explanatory devices. While his work is
not theological character, it definitely carries religious undertones.

Furthermore, while he fundamentally emphasizes on truth in his writing of history, it is

important for us to remember that he also had to keep up with the "demands of expediency."
In his description of Firuz Shah's reign, it is evident that his literal feelings and views may not
have been portrayed on account of the fact that it was indeed a eulogy. His own views, biases
and prejudices are also lucid in his writing.

Thus, it is quite clear that Barani cannot be taken objectively. His work is subjective and
perhaps, this can be considered incredibly valuable through one perspective. This is so
because the contradictions in his philosophy provide fascinating glimpse glimpse into the
complexities of the ways in which scholars and thinkers of the Sultanate related to their lives,
and into the assumptions, prejudices and dogmas they based their thought on. The Tarikh-i-
Firuz Shahi is an interpretive history, thus setting it apart from every other medieval Indo-
Muslim historical work. It is this we must consider when see the Tarikh as a source of history.
Barani's theory of history & Concluding Comments

Despite its problems, contradictions and biases, one cannot deny the value of Barani's
history especially because he laid out a completely unique sense of history, a theory of
history writing unknown before him. The first thing to consider is that his work gives us insight
into the interests of the dominant ruling class of the Delhi Sultanate in the context of
alterations in its composition and power. This is so because Barani seeks the wealth and
security of the Muslim aristocracy as the primary goal of his history, and not the history of
the state or the economy, or the process of change.

Secondly, individuals in Barani's work are understood in relation to their social

environments. Barani is remarkable in that he looks for effects of actions not on individuals,
but on classes and groups. This is unlike any other medieval historian. Further, his views on
socio-political processes of the time point to a man who had a conscious and nuanced
conceptualization of history. His analyses of despotic power and terror ( (yazur), for instance
of evidence of manifestation and cognizance.

Also striking is his grasp of the economic conditions that prevailed in his times. His
understanding of these enabled an acute and nuanced analysis of the economic policies of
the Sultans, especially of Almandin (Kulji's regulations. Barani's work also attempts to
legitimize institutions that emerged in the course of the political life of the Sultanate, but
were un-Islamic in nature, on grounds of necessity.

Barnam's success is that he was able to critically analyze and cover a large period in history,
while cementing his own distinctive theory of understanding history. Barnam manages to
leave a legacy even in modern historiography in that while a modern historian cannot side
with Barnam on his biases and judgments, he/she cannot write a comprehensive history of
the Sultanate without noting Barnam's interpretation of the main processes within it.
Barnam remains a major benchmark, and referent in medieval Indian history. Barnam wrote
what he thought is well as saw and as rightly said by Hardy, "The history of thought is not the
whole of history, but there is no intelligible history without it."