Abstract
Historiography, it is said, is the science of committing past events and their causes to writing. This seemingly simple task is fraught with numerous constraints and pitfalls. It requires among other things a thorough knowledge of the sources, a sense of critical enquiry and judgement and a command over language. Writing about the history of historiography and that too of Medieval India is even more onerous task and scholars claiming to be expert in this field in India are few and far between. Professor I.H. Siddiqui belongs to that rare group of historians who have undertaken to take a plunge in a practically unchartered field and use his skill and expertise as a historian to study Indo-Persian historiography of the thirteenth century. It is common knowledge that by the time the Delhi Sultanate was established in India at the turn of the thirteenth century, Muslim historiography had reached a take-off stage. Arab and Persian historians had already produced a number of first rate histories and had created a distinct tradition of history writing of their own. The Indo-Persian historians naturally looked towards these two traditions for inspiration and it is not at all surprising that the Arab and Persian traditions of historiography influenced the historians writing in the Indian environment.
Professor Siddiqui also begins his narrative with a chapter on Arabic historiography and its impact on Persian historians. This is followed by six chapters, each devoted to an in-depth study of one prominent historian of the thirteenth century. All of these six historians, Fakhr-i-Mudabbir, ‘Ali Kufi, Hasan Nizami, Sadiduddin Muhammad ‘Awfi, Minhaj-i-Siraj Juzjani and Amir Khusrau wrote after the foundation of the Delhi Sultanate. With the exception of ‘Ali Kufi who translated an obscure Arabic history of the Arab conquest of Sindh into Persian, which came to be known as Chachnama, the other five historians focused on the rise of Muslim power in North India and provide valuable information about the early Sultans of Delhi. They not only wrote about the political problems facing the Sultanate and the individual Sultans but also shed light on the social, cultural and administrative milieu of their time. Their style was innovative and their approach to history writing was marked by freshness and originality. Professor Siddiqui has taken note of these unique features of the early Sultanate historiography. His method of analysing these historical works is as innovative as that of the early protagonists of Indo-Persian historiography. He begins every chapter with a note on the early life and career of the historian before his arrival in India, follows it up with a succinct summary of the contents of his works and concludes the chapter with incisive remarks about the author’s approach to history and his contribution to Indo-Persian historiography.
Every chapter of this important book furnishes some vital piece of information regarding the early history and historiography of Muslim rule in India. We are told for instance that contrary to popular belief, Hasan Nizami’s Tajul- Ma’sir contains an account of the Delhi Sultanate till 1217 only and that Sir Henry Elliot’s translation of the book bringing the account to 1229 is based on a manuscript of dubious nature and hence it is not worthy of trust (pp. 13, 15–16). From chapter two we come to know that Tarikh-i Fakhruddin Mubarak Shah Marvar-rudi (edited by Sir E. Denison Ross in 1927) containing an account of Qutbuddin Aibak’s career in India between 1192 and 1206 is not a separate work of Fakhr-i-Mudabbir but it is actually the preface of the historian’s first major work Shajra-i-Ansab, which he had composed in the year 1206. The same chapter likewise reveals that Fakhr-i-Mudabbir’s famous work Adabul-Harb wa-ash-Shuja is also not a separate work of the author but is a part of his larger work Adab ul-Muluk wa-Kifayat ul-Muluk (pp. 18, 23). The fifth chapter, giving an account of Sadiduddin Muhammad ‘Awfi’s Jawami’ul Hikayat wa-Lavami’ul- Rivaayat, is perhaps the most important component of the book in terms of providing new information about the events related to the career of Muizuddin Muhammad bin Sam, his lieutenants in India Qutbuddin Aibak and Nasiruddin Qabacaha as well as some major episodes of Iltutmish’s reign. We also get to know that ‘Awfi had compiled the Jawami’ul Hikayat at the instance of Nasiruddin Qabacha and that Sultan Alauddin Khalji’s famous market control regulations were perhaps inspired by ‘Awfi’s narration of a similar measure undertaken by the Qarakhanid monarch Tamgoch Khan Ibrahim in Samarqand (pp. 57–58). The following chapter which covers almost one third of the book’s 199 pages gives a succinct summary of the twenty-three tabaqat of Minhaj-i- Siraj Juzjani’s famous history Tabaqat-i-Nasiri. Minhaj, we are told, migrated to India in 1227 and before shifting his loyalty to Iltutmish, served for some time under Nasiruddin Qabacha in Sindh. He utilised a variety of sources but wrote primarily on the basis of his vast knowledge and experience of politics in Central Asia and India. He was not only the first scholar to write history in the tabaqat genre but also invented a novel methodology to criticise men in power either by communicating his views about them in a discreet manner through hints or by praising their adversaries (pp. 94, 101, 117). In the same vein in the chapter on the historical writings of Amir Khusrau, the author informs us that Khusrau was the first Indian born historian and his writings reflect a strong sense of identity with India. He admired India and India’s (Hindu’s) contribution to philosophy and astrology. He held that the Hindus were better than the atheists or dualists as they believed in the unity of God and therefore deserved full religious freedom. He was also the first historian who recognised the significance of cultural and geographical factors in the making of history and always took care to describe the topography of the routes and places that he cites in his works (pp. 170–74).
On these and related issues the present reviewer is in agreement with the learned author. Some arguments and methods of the book are however problematic. Direct and indirect references to Shamsuddin Iltutmish’s achievements in India, first as a slave officer of Qutbuddin Aibak and subsequently as Sultan of Delhi (1211–1236), in the book are unduly harsh. Professor Siddiqui’s summary dismissal of Iltutmish as treacherous and usurper (pp. 50, 131, 133, 135–37) as well as his ready acceptance of ‘Awfi’s statements attributing all the political, military, administrative and cultural attainments of Iltutmish’s reign to his Wazir Nizam-ul-Mulk Junaidi (pp. 83–87) is surprising to say the least. ‘Awfi had dedicated his book to the Wazir and hence his exaggerated eulogisation of his patron should not be taken at its face value. In the same vein the author’s contention that Medieval India Muslims did not distinguish one regional dialect from the other and that they loosely used the term Hindvi for every regional dialect spoken in India at that time (p. 90, n. 33), is only partially correct. There is no doubt that in the medieval period ‘Hindi’ or ‘Hindvi’ was used as a generic term for any Indian language. However, there were scholars who clearly distinguished between languages spoken in different parts of India. In Nuh Sipihir (1317–1318), for instance, Amir Khusrau has mentioned that in India a specific language is spoken in every territory. He identifies these languages as Sindhi, Lahori, Kashmiri, Kibar, Dhaur Samanadari, Tilangi, Gujar, Ma’bari, Gauri, etc., and names these languages as Hindvi or belonging to India (Amir Khusrau, Nuh Sipihir, ed. Vahid Mirza, Calcutta, 1948, pp. 179–80, quoted by S.R. Faruqi, Early Urdu Literary Culture and History, New Delhi, 2001, pp. 65–68). Likewise, spelling of certain words in the book leaves much to be desired. Spelling the holy book of Islam as Koran (pp. 1–2, 24, 77, 146, etc.) seems inappropriate to say the least. F. Steingass has spelled the word as Qur’an (A comprehensive Persian—English Dictionary, second Indian edition, New Delhi, 1981, p. 962) which should be preferred over Koran. The last name of Muhammad Ghauri’s famous slave and, after his death, the ruler of Multan and Sindh, Nasiruddin Qabacha has also been mis-spelled as Qubacha. Both Steingass (p. 950) and James W. Redhouse (A Turkish and English Lexicon, Istanbul, first published 1890, reprint, 1978, p. 1430) have spelled it as Qabacha (A short jacket, cloak or tunic). There are some typographical errors as well. For instance, Bahram Shah has been printed as Bahrain Shah (p. 101) and the sentence ‘Take this Maulana, that it may be a good omen’ has been printed as ‘Take this Maulana, that it may be a good man’ (p. 98).
These are only minor blemishes and do not mar the literary or academic merit of the book. Professor Siddiqui has produced as usual a book that amply demonstrates his command over diverse dimensions of Medieval Indian history as well as the Persian sources of this history. Overall this book will be a valuable addition to many university and scholarly libraries.