TEST ANSWER!!

The history of the Delhi sultanate in the early medieval period was recorded by
a number of historians and scholars of the time. Ziauddin Barani is one of the
greatest Indo-Persian historians of medieval India. He was born in an
aristocratic family and held high positions under the Khaljis and the Tughlaqs.
Barani was a great scholar. He was an expert in law and philosophy, and he took
a keen interest in History. Barani was born to a Muslim family in 1285 in which
his father, uncle, and grandfather all worked in high government posts under the
Sultan of Delhi. His family was natives of Meerut and Bulandsahar. His
maternal grandfather, his father and his uncle held higher posts in the court of
sultan. Barani himself joined the court in the reign of Mahummad Bin Tughlaq
and remained his Nadim over seventeen years. Under the reign of Firoz shah
Tughlaq, barani’s prestige collapsed and he was imprisoned and left poverty-
stricken. Thus, he looked back at his past life with great cynicism and
dissatisfaction. It was in description of this time that, Barani wrote “God
honored me at the beginning but disgraced me at the end of my life”. He rapidly
descended from former glory as a noble to begging door-to-door as a senile
poverty-stricken pauper. It was during this regime that he wrote his Tarikh-i-
Firoz shahi, a work gifted to sultan Firoz shah Tughlaq and thus full of eulogy,
perhaps as an attempt to re-establish some influence. Distraught, he exclaims
“Even the birds and fish are happy in their homes but I am not.”
HISTORIANS VIEW POINT:
Barani’s writings have elicited a plethora of reactions from the historic
committee. H.M. Elliott describes him as ‘an unfair narrator’ while John
Dawson criticized him for being ‘sparing and inaccurate in dates’. Peter Hardy
judged that Barani’s writings resemble ‘history as a branch of Muslim
theology’. K A Nizami does not agree with Hardy. According to Nizami, Barani
did not put together the study of history and the study of ahadis because of their
religious nature but rather because of its usul-i asnad, elements seen in modern
historiography. Though Dawson was of the belief that Barani was ‘narrow-
minded and bigoted like Muhammadans in general’, he does go on to
acknowledge that Barani’s works are a closer estimate of modern historiography
and in contrast to Hardy’s conclusion, declares that Barani’s interests are not
restricted to the religious or the military forum but expand to other arenas of
political theory as well. Mohammad Habib judges his writings to be “the
greatest book that has survived to us from the Sultanate Period”. Barani’s
writings are a better source of history than his Western contemporaries.
WORKS OF BARANI:
The two most well-known works of Barani are Tarikh-i-Firoz Shahi and Fatwa-
i-Jahandari.
Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi is the finest specimen of Indo Persian historiography
produced during the Sultanate period. Written by Zia ud Din Barani during the
reign of Sultan Firoz Shah Tughlaq, it was completed in 1357 CE and was
dedicated to the reigning monarch. With a mind flush with knowledge and
memories of 70 years, and capable of analyzing and interpreting the times,
Barani set out to write his Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi. Primarily a history of the
sultans of Delhi, it begins with the reign of Sultan Ghiyas ud Din Balban and
concludes in the sixth year of Firoz Shah Tughlaq’s rule. It covers Balban’s
dynasty, the Khaljis and the Tughlaqs. Information regarding Balban’s dynasty
was supplied to Barani by his father, grandfather and others who held important
offices in the regime. From the period of Sultan Jalal ud Din Khalji, the account
is based on Barani’s personal observations. Unlike other histories of the period,
Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi is not confined to an account of wars and the accession of
rulers. It also records the account on socio-economic conditions of the time and,
thereby, provides a realistic portrait of society as it existed in the period. Since
the Tarikh-I Firozshahi is a major vehicle for the expression of Barani’s political
thought, it is important to remember that whatever Barani says in the Tarikh,
except in the last short portion, is probably without any mental reference to the
issue of pleasing or displeasing the current regime. Barani constructed a theory
of the history of Delhi Sultanate in the Tarikh-I Firozshahi to show how internal
contradictions dogged the Sultanate’s course, in order to create, in recurring
cycles, the fall of successive ruling groups. In the Tarikh, Balban is similary
made to claim that ‘in the worldly aspect, royalty is the vicegerency of God’.
Simon Digby was the first to identify an earlier version of his work.
Fatawa-I Jahandari, means, ‘Opinions on Government’. He calls himself a
‘well-wisher of the Sultan’s Court’, but does not mention the Sultan’s name.
Fatwa is not quite popular as his Tarikh. In the Fatawa-I Jahandari, Mahmud of
Ghaznin gives opinions such as a great crusador of the faith might be expected
to offer. As the titles says, Fatawa-I Jahandari shows, his concern is with the
entire matter of jahandari, ‘world-keeping’, that is, state or government. The
scope of his treatment is not thus confined to royalty alone, though the king is
the central element of the polity he treats of. Barani tells the reader, ‘the King
(padshah) is one of the wonderful creations of God; and God is the Creator of
things, both good and bad’. In other words, in itself, kingship could be good or
evil according the character of the King: there was no ordained goodness in the
institution. Mahmud is represented as saying in the Fatawa that ‘royalty implies
the positon of a representative of God. The Fatwa expresses barani’s politico-
religious philosophy, according to which god delegated power in this world to a
partnership between prophets and kings – religion and kingship are twins. but
these two functions cannot be combined in the person of a king. Kings must
possess high religious aspirations to justify the claim of being the deputy of
God, and must not abuse dignity conferred upon them by God or use power for
personal interests. According to Sunil Kumar, Ftawa comes under the adab form
of literature. And also according to Hardy, a detailed explanation of the duties of
sultan can be found in Fatwa.
As written in Fatwa, it is to be noted that Barani nowhere even remotely hints at
any social contract, which might originally have given rise to monarchy and so
have to placed the king and his subjects in a relationship of mutual obligation.
These texts also talk about how the dynastic principle (power staying within one
royal family) helped rulers keep control without threats to their power. It means
power passes from one generation to the next within the same family. For
example, when a king dies, his son becomes the next king. This system creates a
stable and continuous line of rulers. In ancient times, this principle was strictly
followed in, Iran, Rome, Yemen, Syria and Egypt. People accepted the ruling
family’s right to rule. There were fewer revolts or attempts to overthrow the
dynasty. The ruling family could maintain hereditary nobility. But, in Islamic
history, the dynastic principle didn’t last. As there was Power struggle between
two major ruling families: The Umayyads, who were the First powerful dynasty
after Prophet Muhammad’s time and Ruled for about 90 years. They defeated
and eliminated the H followers of Prophet Muhammad’s family. This was
necessary for them to keep power but also created enemies. AND Abbasids,
who overthrew the Umayyads and started their own dynasty. They destroyed the
Umayyad family and their supporters to secure their rule. Each new dynasty
destroyed the old one, which led to political instability and conflicts. Unlike in
Rome or Iran, where dynasties continued peacefully, Islamic history saw
frequent power struggles and changes in leadership. Barani had himself seen the
three dynasties, The Balbanids, The Khaljis and The Tuglaqs.
Kings needed to follow the customs of ancient Iranian Emperors to maintain
power and control. These customs helped the king create respect and fear
among the people, ensuring obedience and authority. The Iranian Emperors
were known for their powerful and impressive rule. Their customs created
respect among their subjects. By adopting these practices, kings could, Show
power and wealth, Impress and control their subjects and Maintain order and
loyalty. They showcased their power by Building High Palaces, Holding Grand
Courts, Making People Offer Prostration (Sijda), Accumulating Treasures and
Seizing Properties, Grants of Previous Kings, Wearing expensive Jewels and
Silk, Imposing Punishments, and Gathering Large Harems. Mahmud
acknowledged that these practices were against Islamic values. However, he
believed they were necessary for ruling effectively. Balban agreed that these
practices were necessary for ruling.He was more practical and less apologetic
about it. He believed that without these customs, a king could not create the
necessary fear and respect (habitat) among his subjects. This fear and respect
were essential for maintaining authority.

In Tarikh-I Firozshahi, Barani makes Balban speak forthrightly of the duty of

the Sultan to keep the low-born away from all offices of government. He does
not agree with the appointment of any one poor, unskilled, miserly, greedy, or
low-born, to a position of command. The definition of a low-born was quite
broad, extending from a minister, whose grandfather was descended of a
weaver, to the son of a Hindu slave. Acc. to the qualification barani himself laid
down for a historian, he had a perfect right to chronicle history as he belonged
to an aristocratic family that had served three dynasties of the Delhi sultanate.
To him, history was a science meant only for the high born. His bais against the
low-born extends to Muslims too.
In the Tarikh, as in the Fatawa, Barani admits that due to what is judged to be
the interests of state itself, Hindus had to be tolerated, Jalilu'd-Din Khalji (1290-
96) is made to point out how in his dominions Hindus were wealthy and
prosperous and freely enjoyed the right to worship idols and beat drums and
celebrate their festivals.
In the Fatawa Barani mourns how in his own days, 'the Kings of Islam’ showed
respect to ‘Hindus, Mongols, polytheists and infidels’, by making them sit on
the masnad (cushion) and in other ways. The Hindus, merely by paying taxes
are allowed to have their temples and celebrations, ride horses, employ Muslim
servants, flaunt their titles right in the capital seats of Muslim rulers.”
CONCLUSION:
Thus, Zia-ud-Din Barani has now evolved to be a controversial character in
history for his historical writings. Barani’s Fatawa -i-Jahandari and Tarikh-i-
Feroz Shahi are considered thegreatest works of middle ages. The entire theory
of Barani had a definite interest. In his Fatawa or Tarikh may look like a bundle
of contradictions, but beneath it lays the consistency of his interest- the
protection, consolidation and expansion of the Sultanate. He craved for stability
but was surpassed by the changing circumstances of his time, and sidelined by
the class whom he desired to represent.
Thus, it is clear that the Tarikh-i-Firoz shahi is an extremely valuable source to
study the history of the Delhi sultanate. It provides enriching accounts of
multiple aspects of early medieval life, including society, politics and economy.
Barani’s Tarikh was a very personal interpretation of the past.
A major flaw in barani’s works is the absence of chronology, as he recorded
what he remembered, relying primarily on memory and accounts shared with
him by close associates. Nonetheless, his works are superior to those of his
contemporaries to decipher the spirit of the age.