‘Tarikh’ is a general history or court chronicle which follows a chronological narrative

style and is thus focused on state craft, personalities, events and the politics of Sultans
and nobles. It had no pre-Islamic origin. If we look at the medieval historiography, it
was influenced by Arab-Islamic and Mongol-Persian tradition and had no notion of
historical periodisation or ‘tarikh’. Although, we notice that these 2 traditions mention
the “Hijri era” which is a centre point between the 2 phases that these traditions talk of,
i.e. pre-Islamic or the age of jahiliya represented by ignorance and savagery, and Islamic
or the age marked by the coming of Muhammad who was chosen by God to reveal the
Ultimate Truth to the people. The understanding that history began with Islam
continued to cast a predominant shadow on India’s medieval centuries. Such patterns
are noticed in the works of orthodox historians like Zia al-Din Barani (14 th century CE)
and also in the works of mildly ‘liberal’ Muslim historians like Shams Siraj Afif (14 th
century CE).

Contributions to tarikh or history writing were first made by the murids of Muhammad
when they recorded His hadis in Mawazhi literature. When they wrote Mawazhi
literature, they not only wrote about the traditions of the Prophet, i.e. hadis but also
wrote in praise of the Prophet. This methodology of Mawazhi literature had a great
impact on the history writing in Medieval Indian historiography.
An important aspect of Mawazhi literature was asnad/isnad. The disciples claimed that
every hadi they wrote about had an asnad, i.e. a source. Asnad was important in every
history writing to check historical validity of information.

The theologians influenced by Islam encouraged the idea of Universal history. But with
the decline of the Abbasid caliphate in the mid-10th century and the establishments of
various Sultanates, this idea of Universal history was channelized into regional history.
Thus, it was gradually written by the courtiers. These courtiers wrote for occasions, for
instance, they wrote for ‘fatah’, or whenever through fatah, a new society was
established. For instance, Al-beruni writes about the opening up of new societies.

In the history of the medieval chroniclers, 2 traditions of history writing can be

determined, Arab and Persian. The Arab tradition was a more democratic one since it
wrote history as a biography of nations. They would write about the entire society
including the peasants. On the other hand, the Persian tradition was influenced by the
concept of kingship and divinity of kingship. Therefore, history was written as a
biography of the sultan. The historians writing in the Arab tradition did not dedicate
their work to the rulers whereas for the historians writing in the Persian tradition,
dedication to the Sultan was important because they believed that by doing this, they
could win the patronage of the ruler.
Till the 10th century, the Arab tradition dominated the history writing. But after the 10th
century, we notice the strengthening of the Persian renaissance. It affected the lifestyle
and thought patterns of the ruling elite. Thus, from the 10th century onwards, Persian
tradition was adopted by the rulers. The Delhi sultans were also influenced and they
urged their courtiers to abandon the Arab tradition and write history in eulogy of the
sultan.

The Tawarikh belonged to the literary genre mostly written in Persia, were written as
long narrative human experience, generally history which either began with Adam (1 st
Prophet) or with Muhammad (the last Prophet) and end with the eulogies of the
patrons of the chroniclers and their lifestyle. Persian language emerged as the language
of power during the medieval period. It became the language of the political and
cultural dialogues and therefore, it created a legacy for ‘Indian style Persian’.

But we see that there was resistance to Persian tradition. For instance, Hasan Nizami
believed that Arabic was the only language in which histories could be written. Yet
historians like Hasan Nizami, Minhaj-us-Siraj-Juzjani and Fakhr-i-Muddabir were
compelled to write in Persian tradition. This meant that these historians made no
reference to the histories of this period. However, Barani wrote under Persian tradition
and evolved Persio-Islamic tradition. His work ‘Fatwa-i-Jahandari was influenced by
‘Siyasatnamah’, a Seljuk chronicle written by Nizam-ul-Mulk, in which he not only
glorifies the Sultan, but also advises him. He also wrote about the Sufi saints and talked
about the socio-economic aspects.
So, Tarikh, though developed within the framework of Islam, gradually entered the
domain of expertise of courtiers. The courtiers focused on the court of the sultan, court
related activities like the accession of the sultan, his battles or to celebrate occasions like
fatah, or conquests or opening up of societies.

In the context of the historians writing about the new societies, we must mention Al-
Beruni. He was a comparative religionist, a mathematician, an astronomer, a
geographer and a physician.
Al-Beruni was in Khwarazm when Mahmud of Ghazni invaded and annexed it in 1017.
The latter took Al-Beruni to his own court in Ghazni where he lived till his death in
1040. But their relationship was not harmonious as is evident by the fact that Al-Beruni
dedicated his Kitab-ul-Hind to Mahmud of Ghazni’s son Masud and not to the
Mahmud himself.
Al-Beruni’s fame rested on his learning. Under the influence of Arabic and Persian, he
developed to be a linguist. But he mostly wrote in Arabic including Kitab-ul-Hind. It is
a long account with 80 chapters each with a sub-topic indicating a theme. Some of the
chapters are on Indian religion, philosophy, alchemy, society, customs, festivals and
civil law.
We notice that Al-Beruni’s method is mostly repetitive. We also notice his scientific and
comparative methodology and that he wrote with a sociological insight. For him,
religion is a part of social order. He was completely silent, though, on political history,
trade, industry, economy, agriculture, art & architecture.
Al-Beruni’s Kitab-ul-Hind can be characterized as a scholarly, intellectual work on
Indian society.
While mentioning the historians who wrote under Persian Tarikh traditions, it is
important to talk about Sadr-ud-din Hasan Nizami who believed that history could
only be written in Arabic but was forced by Iltutmish to write in Persian.
Hasan Nizami came from Khurasan to India in search of work in 1206. In India he was
urged by Qutub-ud-din-Aibak to write about the fatah of Muizzuddin as well as his
own. Nizami then becomes the first official historian of the Delhi Sultanate who wrote
the 1st official history called Taj-ul-Ma’asir. It begins with the 1st battle of Tarain in 1191
and ends in 1229 when Iltutmish had applied for investiture to the Caliph. He got the
title ‘Nasir-amir-ul-Mominin’.
While reading Taj-ul-Ma’asir, we notice that it is episodic which means that Nizami has
only given details about military achievements of the Sultan and has not mentioned
anything about the social, political and cultural interactions. Nevertheless, his work is
characterized by metaphors, similes and records. And whatever his methodology, Zia
al-Din Barani considered him to be the most ‘trustworthy’ historian of the Delhi
Sultanate because he gave details about the time period 1191-1229.

If we compare Nizami’s account to some other contemporary chroniclers, we don’t find

details about the Turkish campaigns in his account. In this context, we must mention
Minhaj-us-Siraj-Juzjani who began the trend of dynastic history using the genre of
Tabaqat, which literally means ‘layers’. His work is called ‘Tabaqat-i-Nasiri’. He
dedicated his chronicle to Sultan Nasiruddin Mahmud. His account begins with
Iltutmish and ends in 1260.
There is no doubt that he gives detailed account of the early Turkish rulers but the
entire narrative reads monotonous and dull. He does not talk about the Indian
resistance to the Ghurid conquest. If we read Tabaqat-i-Nasiri, it appears that Juzjani
lacked the historical perception and perhaps that is why he was not able to talk about
historical changes. But he can be assessed as an erudite scholar, a convincing speaker
who could keep his audience spellbound.

If we talk about Amir Khusrau, we see that he himself never claimed to be a historian.
His focus was religion, art, literature, aesthetics and most importantly, fulfillment of his
own economic needs, through writing. Amir Khusrau, though, understood politics and
was even involved in politics because of his family background. He was the son of an
amir of Iltutmish. He was also a Sufi and a murid of Sheikh Nizamuddin Auliya.
While reading his accounts, we see that they were mostly episodic. He was very
particular about dates. He was commissioned by different Delhi Sultans to write about
their individual episodes in eulogy in such a way that their reign was immortalized.
Amir Khusrau, therefore, lacked freedom of speech. For eg, ‘Khazain-ul-Futuh’ was an
episodic account of only those campaigns of Alauddin Khalji in which he was
victorious.
Amir Khusrau advised the Sultans of evil consequences in case they were found to be
unjust. And he preached them about good administration. His style of writing was
literary, and also had the complexity of similes and metaphors. His methodology
impressed not only the Ulama but all Muslims. He was also accepted by all Sultans of
Delhi because he completely skipped all their weaknesses.

‘Isami’s ‘Futuh-us-Salatin’ is an account of the Ghaznavide and the Ghoride conquest of

India and the history of the Delhi Sultanate down to ‘Isami’s own day – 1349. He was
most vigorous in writing about the military events and the political triumphs of the
Sultans. His importance is that he served as a valuable supplement to Juzjani’s Tabaqat-
i-Nasiri and Barani’s Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi.

Before we move on to Zia al-Din Barani, another important historian under Persian
Tarikh Tradition was Shams-i-Siraj Afif who wrote after Barani, but provides a valuable
supplementing account for Barani. His chronicle is also called ‘Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi’ and
is written by him in the late 14th century. The chronicle is divided into 5 Qisms. Each
Qism contained 18 muqadimas and each muqadima varied in size.
Afif writes in eulogy of Firoz Shah Tughlaq. Afif’s chronicle is valuable for the
information on the socio-economic developments during his reign. The account seems
to be panegyrical and his prose is marked by reiterations and recapitulations. Afif
presents his reign as a ‘blessing’ because for Afif, he was the only Sultan who was
‘favored by God.’

Zia al-Din Barani’s Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi covers a period of 95 years starting from the
accession of Balban in 1266 to the first 6 six years of the reign of Firoz Shah Tughlaq.
Barani was a contemporary scholar of Delhi Sultanate, coming from aristocratic
background. Barani’s family had served three dynasties of Delhi Sultanate – The
Mamluks, the Khaljis and the Tughlaqs. Barani’s maternal grandfather was a Sipahsalar
in the court of Balban.
Barani joined the court of Muhammad bin Tughlaq and remained his ‘nadeem’ for 17
years. The honour of ‘nadeem’ was only given to men with exceptional qualities of head
and heart. Sultan consulted him on all important matters but more importantly
recognized his sense of history. When Firoz Shah ascended the throne, Barani lost all his
influence. He was imprisoned and his property was confiscated. Thus, in his old age,
reduced to poverty, Barani decided to write a narrative of the period to attract the
attention of the Sultan. It is significant that Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi was his 1 st narrative and
it is believed that he wrote only from his memory. His other works include Fatwa-i-
Jahandari and Hazratnama. He also wrote the biography of the Prophet known as Sana-
i-Muhammadi.
Different scholars have analysed Barani’s work. Scholars like Mohib-ul-Hasan and
Habibullah call him a ‘valuable and principal authority’ for the 95 years of Delhi
Sultanate that he has covered. Others like W.H.Moreland and I.H.Qureshi have
attributed his significance with his narrative of agrarian administrative in all types of
economic institutions.
While reading Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi, it appears that he did not follow any chronology.
Instead, he wrote what he remembered, and he remembered what impressed him. But
his account is exhaustive and informative. Juzjani, on the other hand, adhered to
chronology but gave a very dull account talking only about the military achievements
and not relating it with socio-economic events. What distinguished Barani from other
contemporary historians was his administrative knowledge, historical sense and
religious knowledge. He was a conservative orthodox who represented the Ulama. Yet,
he favored monarchy and believed that Shari ‘at couldn’t be implemented. Like most
medieval Ulama, he traced his origins of history to Quran. This methodology, thus,
gave his history a theological orientation. He argues that history should be based on
truthfulness and not exaggeration. His style was influenced by religious but pragmatic
consideration. He was a true believer of the fact that all histories should be based on
asnad.
Barani confesses, though, that he did not have the courage to speak the truth. He was
limited by the notions of royalty. He was looking for patronage. While he wrote about
Muhammad bin Tughlaq, we must note that both the Sultan and Barani were two
fundamentally different individuals where the former was a rationalist and the latter
was an orthodox. Despite this ideological difference, the credit to Barani is that he was
able to provide information on the Sultan’s entire reign, but of course, his account has to
be supplemented with the accounts of his contemporaries such as Juzjani and ‘Isami.
Barani, in his Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi, gives an account of 9 Sultans starting from Balban
and ending with Firoz Shah Tughlaq. In the latter part of his chronicle, he reflects his
staunch sycophancy. He speaks of divine qualities in Firoz Shah. He sees his court as
the court of Allah. But also, he used his writings to warn the Sultan against his nobility.
In another chronicle, Fatwa-i-Jahandari, Barani talks about political philosophy. He
deals with the concept of divinity of kingship. He clearly exposes the contradiction
between the institution of kingship and the principles of Islam but recognizes and
approves of the necessity of kingship, because “the world had returned to its old
wickedness”. Similarly, he allows the Sultan to adapt old laws or frame new ones in
accordance with changing circumstances.
As we read the 2 works, we notice the similarity between the 2. Both of them were
written by Barani to give directions to the Sultan, one in the form of history and the
other in the form of philosophy. This means that Barani combined theory/philosophy
with analytical study of history.

Barani, and presumably others, were conscious of the contradiction between the
principles of Islam and the institution of kingship. At the same time, they recognized
the necessity of kingship. They understood that this institution was needed in the
existing social structure. Also, while writing under Persian tradition, they were keen in
gaining patronage of the Sultan to fulfill their economic needs. Thus, they always wrote
in eulogy of the Sultans in the most ornamental language possible.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
 Kumar, S. The Emergence of the Delhi Sultanate.
 Mukhiya, H. Historians and Historiographies during the reign of Akbar.
 Bhargava, M. Exploring Medieval India, Vol.1
 Nizami, K.A. On history and historians of Medieval India.
 Siddique, I.H. Indo-Persian Historiography to the 13 th Century.
 Vanina, E. Mind over Matter