Bethamehi Joy Syiem

B.A. (Hons) History – II

Q. Bring out the salient features of Ziauidin Barani’s theory of history and examine the
value of his Tarikh-I Firuz Shahi as a source of history.

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 Fatawa-i-
jahandari (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
look into his background, his purpose for writing history as well as his understanding of 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 (az akabir o ma’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 good and the bad, its purpose – to teach later
generations of high-born Muslims of the risks and gains of certain actions. Moreover, to him,
history writing was to be characterized by usul-i-isnan, analysis or criticism of facts.
A historian also had to have correct religious views so that he would not subvert the chronicling
of his times. But more importantly, Barani believes that a historian must be “rigorously truthful”.
To this, the only 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 hadith (interpreted as religion).
Hence, by his own standards, Barani had the right to be the historian of the Sultanate. His father was
naib (deputy) to Jalaluddin Khilji’s son and his grandmother was a Saiyid lady of “mystical
attainments” (reference to spiritualism). His maternal grandfather had been an important functionary
(wakl-i-dar) under Balban. 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 (kotwal) of
Delhi after having commanded Kara and Awadh. Barani himself was the nadim of 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
interests – religious and secular – that it was bound up with. History was conceived of by Barani as a
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 eyes the word of God
2. History is seen as an accompaniment to traditions like the Hadith 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-rulers who can look to the past and learn from
it
5. The history of the Prophet and the vicissitudes 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
In writing about the Sultanate, its external problems of the time were of secondary importance to
Barani. The threat of the “Hindu” principalities and Mongol invasions were given less attention
as compared to the domestic affairs of the Sultanate. His emphasis was laid on the ruling class
and its nuances.
In the Fatwa -I- jahandari, written as a didactic text imparted by Mehmud Ghaznavi to his sons and
to the ‘kings of Islam’, it is stated that ‘only the first four khalifas of the Islamic world were ‘rightly
guided’’; following them, kingship lost its legitimacy. It was neither the result of pure heredity, nor of
proper and judicious appointment by predecessors, nor ratified by the Muslim community. Thus,
according to Barani, inherently arbitrary kingly power can only be justified through able
administration. Barani asserts that kings need to demonstrate their worthiness in order to legitimize
their authority – use of force.
Thus, according to Barani, despotic power of the sovereign does not come directly from God, rather it
had to be established by force. It would be the result of a historical process and his narrative was
exactly a outlining of this process within the Delhi Sultanate. Interestingly, he also believed that
kingship was an Islamic institution. Therefore, it was the king’s duty to enforce Sharia (Islamic Law)
and punish the kafirs (unbelievers). Barani also notes the need for secular law, Zawabit. The King
needed to be fair and just. Importantly, a strong military was to be maintained. An important
statement that Barani makes is that if ever there were to arise a situation where the Sharia is in
contradiction with the law of the land, the Zawabit would prevail.
What is interesting to note is that Barani justifies institutions on ground of necessity. Thus, he
affirmed the institution of despotic monarchy saying “the terror of absolute authority (ulu’l amri)”
is “the (only) means of regulation and arrangement and the cause of upholding government and
administration.” Thus, he uses the argument that if kingship did not exist, it would result in chaos. As
with many other issues, he grasps the central contradiction within the exercise of royal power, that
effective control requires terror, but terror destabilizes power at its base. This is substantiated by
Barani’s reading of the career of the Sultans.
Balban’s frequent carnages on the ruling class are lamented (though his harshness to ordinary people
is conveniently ignored). However, this cruelty (siyasat) is the inevitable accompaniment of power,
and necessary in the context of the need to re-establish imperial authority after it had dwindled prior
to Balban’s accession. Thus, Barni seeks to legitimize even an institution that is in principle un-
Islamic. This is clear in siyasat, the use of force and terror as in Islamic law, there is no provision for
death penalty, except under 3 circumstances – murder, adultery, and if a person renounces Islam and
then attacks Islam itself. However, it was a political reality of the medieval times was the use of this
to eliminate rivals and gain power.
Jalaluddin Khilji on the other hand presented as a humane and compassionate Sultan, but one whose
benevolence opened up the path for fatal treason. While Alauddin Khilji’s exceptional efficiency in
administration, market control and military campaigns is lauded, Barani also points to the moral and
physical costs of the Sultan’s extreme ruthlessness and terror, as also to the fact that this eroded the
basis of his power, leading to popular discontent. This dialectic between power and instability reaches
its zenith under Muhammad bin Tughlaq, whom Barani, as nadim, knew intimately. The Sultan
completed his predecessors’ conquests, centralized power and accumulated wealth. However, the
growth of his despotism was paralleled by extreme cruelty, brutality and a consuming ambition, a
process ending only with his death.
Barani traced the roots of Balban’s problems to his faulty policies. On the other hand, Aluaddin
Khilji’s policies were seen as necessary for the security of the empire. Muhammad Bin Tughlaq is
given a distorted picture and Barani himself admits that he never understood the Sultan or his
policies. To him, Muhammad Bin Tighlaq’s policies were not an attempt to deal with problems. On
the contrary, problems had arisen only on account of the Sultan’s misadventures.
The history of the Sultanate, as seen by Barani, also consists in the growing changes and instability
in the composition of the ruling classes. To Barani, the nobility of greatest importance among the
classes and so due emphasis is given to them in his history. Professor Mohammad Habib in his
Political Theory of the Delhi Sultanate stressed that Barani’s principle of birth is not derived from
any theory of “blue blood” but instead stems from a need for security and stability of those already
“in possession” of status. He differentiates between the highborn (sharif) and the lowborn (razil). The
highest were the Turkish nobles that had been the fellow slaves (khwajatashan) of the Sultan. The
lowborn were either descendants of artisans or of Hindu slaves.
Barani’s own misery may have been a factor to his hostility to the “low born”- the contention being
that a high-born like him was in a position of deprivation while the court of Muhammad Bin Tughlaq
consisted of diverse Muslims, including Indian converts. To him, this was an attempt to subvert the
nobility or “insiders” and thus, he resented the lower classes. Plebianization of the nobility was
perhaps Barani’s greatest dread. He was thus against the appointment of officials on merit. But what
is contradictory in Barani’s writing is his emphasis on a close hereditary class and the need for loyalty
and competence while appointing offices at the court.
Therefore, Irfan Habib cogently comments that the main content of the political history of the Delhi
Sultanate, as seen by Barani, thus consists of three simultaneous developments:
1. The growth of despotic power
2. The greater use of terror (siyasat)
3. The changing composition of the nobility
Religion and Economy
In briefly examining religion, we look to Peter Hardy who ties up the religious and political aspects
of Barani’s views by attributing to him a fundamentally “theological view of history”. While it is
evident that religion is indeed important to him, Nizami and Habib have disputed Hardy’s claims.
Habib suggests that while Barani uses theological idioms, his conception of statecraft ultimately
realized the impracticability of a literal reading of the Sharia in the Indian context, which would have
meant unwarranted suppression and cruelty. As mentioned earlier, Barani says that in case of conflict
between the sharia (religious law) and zawabit (state law), the latter will prevail.
With regard to economic dimensions of the Delhi Sultanate, Barani is triumphant as an analyst. Our
knowledge and understanding of medieval economy in the Khilji period, for instance, can largely be
attributed to Barani’s perceptive account of Alauddin’s economic policy. Barani appears to have
grasped the nature of the Sultanate as an urban polity sustained by the exploitation of a large agrarian
society.
Alauddin’s economic policy is explained in terms of the efficiency of his exploitation of the agrarian
countryside, and Muhammad bin Tughlaq’s is understood in terms of the counterproductive excesses
of his agrarian policy. On the other hand, Firuz Shah Tughlaq’s reign is celebrated on account of the
prosperity of khuts and muqaddams. However, it is important to note that Barani may have not been
able to elaborate on any failures in Firuz Shah Tughlaq’s economic policy simply because of the
eulogist tendency of his account.
The Tarikh-I Firuz Shahi as a source
The Tarikh-I Firuz Shahi completed in 758/1357 is important because it is that expression of history
which differentiates Barani from the ranks of other storytellers and annals. This was because his
conception of historiography was practical and unique. In Peter Hardy’s words, he regards the Tarikh
“as a compendium of hints for God fearing Muslim rulers, indeed more, as the writing on the wall for
those with eyes to see.” Furthermore, beyond its didactic aspect and its importance in helping us
understand Barani’s theory of history, the Tarikh is also important as a source for understanding the
period in question.
The Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi was an interpretation of the history of the Delhi Sultanate up to the then-
present Firuz Shah Tughlaq. It is an important source with detailed accounts of the reigns of
Ghiyasuddin Tughlaq, Muhammad Bin Tughlaq and Firuz Shah Tughlaq. He also provides a useful
account of the reigns of the preceding Sultans from Balban onwards. He describes their political and
economic policies elaborately and having been placed highly in the administrative service himself, his
information may be considered authentic. However, it is not free from prejudice and his style is
difficult to understand.
As a source, as adequately elaborated through preceding paragraphs, the text does give significant
insight into the administrative, political and religious practices of the State. This is elaborated so in
the sense that much of what we know of power, nobility, religion and economy in the Delhi
Sultanate is based on Barani’s monumental work. But like any other source though, Barani’s work is
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
through stability and hierarchy, and in the actual history of the Sultanate, he sees a constant
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 (siyasat), for instance is evidence of
sophistication 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 Alauddin Khilji’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.
Barani’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. Barani manages to leave a legacy even
in modern historiography in that while a modern historian cannot side with Barani on his biases and
judgments, he/she cannot write a comprehensive history of the Sultanate without noting Barani’s
interpretation of the main processes within it. Barani remains a major benchmark and referent in
medieval Indian history. Barani wrote what he thought as 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.”

Bibliography –
1. Peter Hardy – Historians of Medieval India: studies in Indo-Muslim historical writing
Publisher: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers (24 March 1997)
2. Habib, Irfan – Barani’s Theory of the History of the Delhi Sultanate (article)
3. Datta, Rajat - Rethinking a Millennium: Perspectives on Indian History from the
Eighth to Eighteenth Century (Essays for Harbans Mukhia)
Aakar Books, 2008
4. Singh, Vipul - Interpreting Medieval India: Early medieval, Delhi Sultanate, and
regions (c. 750-1550)
Macmillian Publishers, India 2009
5. Ahmed, Farooqi Salma - A Comprehensive History of Medieval India: From
Twelfth to the Mid – Eighteenth Century
Dorling Kindersley (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2011
6. Habib, Mohammad & Khan, Afsar Umar Salim - Political Theory of the Delhi
Sultanate
Allahabad Kitab Mahal (1961)