why zia ud din barani had written Tarikh I Firoz Shahi? How this chronicle help us to know about past?
Answers
Answer:
In 1357 CE, the historian Zia-ud-din Barani, then nearly 75 years old, finished writing Tarikh-i-Firoz Shahi. Contrary to the name of the text (which seems to suggest that it is a chronicle of the rule of Firoz Shah Tughlaq who had then been Sultan of Delhi for 6 years), this is actually a history of the reigns of several previous Sultans of Delhi, beginning with Balban.
Barani begins his history with a long and wordy (very indicative of the way the rest of the book is written) explanation of the importance of history, why wise people value history, why the ignorant would benefit from reading history but do not, and so on and so forth. Past this introduction, the book is divided into six chapters, each dealing with the life of one major Sultan, and often with the reigns of minor, short-lived Sultans included. The six main Sultans he writes about are Balban, Jalaluddin Khalji, Alauddin Khalji, Ghiyasuddin Tughlaq, Muhammad bin Tughlaq, and Firoz Shah Tughlaq.
For each of these, Barani follows a fairly standard pattern of contents: how the Sultan in question succeeded to the throne, whom he appointed to which posts, what administrative reforms he put in place (if any), what rebellions and incursions he had to face, who were the eminent personages of his reign, and so on. Besides this, Barani (who was rabidly against ‘idolators’) goes on to, in several cases, explain at length the stand of the Sultan when it came to his ‘protection of the faith’.
Barani’s style is rarely objective, and his style florid, repetitive, and so at odds with how modern history is written, that it is tedious and amusing by turn—yet, at the same time, it can be fascinating. It provides, for instance, a very vivid picture of Delhi in the 13th and 14th centuries (one particular chapter that impressed me was the one on Alauddin Khalji: Barani goes into such detail of the administrative reforms, the agricultural and revenue laws instituted by Alauddin, that it becomes a very good reference for not just what Alauddin introduced, but also what was already in place).
The other fascinating thing about Tarikh-i-Firoz Shahi is the insight it provides into the personalities of the Sultans of Delhi. Barani is obviously biased in several cases. For example, a mere glance through a couple of paragraphs from the chapter on Firoz Shah Tughlaq (who was Sultan when Barani wrote this, and therefore, in effect, Barani’s boss), is hilarious: every other sentence showers praise on the ‘lord of the world’, the ‘Sultan of the age and time’, ‘a mine of charities and source of good deeds’, and so on—fulsome praise not bestowed on any of the others.
Despite that biased view of Firoz Shah Tughlaq (and a completely contrary opinion of his predecessor, the whimsical Muhammad bin Tughlaq, for whom Barani has little complimentary to say), this book does provide interesting glimpses into the style of each Sultan. Balban, very conscious of his dignity and the example (one of stern kingship) he set. Jalaluddin Khalji, gentle and kind. Kaiqubad, young and immature and pleasure-loving. Alauddin, the go-getter who turned Delhi topsy-turvy in his attempts at discipline—and succeeded in clamping down hard on any signs of stepping out of line. Muhammad bin Tughlaq, mercurial and inventive and coming up with new ways in which to inadvertently make life miserable for some of his subjects.
… Subjects like Barani, who complains bitterly. This makes Tarikh-i-Firoz Shahi an amusing insight into the mind of its writer as well. “The bear and the pig are crowned with gold and jewels, and the nightingale is kept in the condemned condition of disrepute and grief, forlorn, dejected and imprisoned. If I dilate on what the villain world had done to the author of these pages, a book of complaints consisting of two volumes would be prepared and various kinds of faithlessness of the sky should be committed to writing”, he cribs at one point, and the cribbing continues, sporadically, through much of the book.
On Ishtiyaq Ahmad Zilli’s translation of the book, I appreciate (besides the translation of such a tome, which is an impressive effort in itself) the translator’s use of somewhat archaic words that help convey some of the effect of the original Persian. He also provides an exhaustive index, gives explanations for some of the Persian words (usually terms for titles and officers, also terms specific to Islam and its rituals)—and he includes a good preface that explains the background to the book, while also cautioning readers from being put off by Barani’s often viciously anti-Hindu stance.
My only complaint regarding the translation would be that it hasn't been edited or proofread properly, as a result of which there are typos aplenty, especially in the second half of the book.
Other than that, however, a fascinating book, and an essential read if you're at all interested in the Delhi Sultanate.
Explanation:
Answer:
I
dont
know
buddy..................