Medieval History

[Guest]

While searching for information about Mughal time cities in primary Muslim sources for my article, I was surprised to learn that what we find in standard works about Tughluqabad, that it was built by Ghiyathuddin Tughlug in 3 a 4 years in the period 1321-1324 C.E. from scratch, might not be true at all.

Unfortunately, Muslim sources are relative silent about the cities of Delhi and Indarpat metropoli. Sometimes we get a stray surprising reference which gives us an idea about these inner cities. One such is about Tughluqabad.



Tughluqabad

First, I read the work of Badaoni, who wrote his critical biography of Akbar. Then I looked in contemporary or almost contemporary works, of which we have Ibn Batuta, Barni, Afif and Firuz Shah. None of the last works are against Badaoni's statement. And not one of these sources states that Ghiyathuddin had built Tughluqabad from scratch!



Starting with Badaoni, who had access to all available information in his time and was a staunch Muslim favouring any achievement of Muslims, he gives this amazing information: “Then he directed his ambition to the rebuilding of the fortress of Tughlaqābād and all the lofty edifices, and set about it (without delay)* and Badr Shā‘ir Shāshī invented as a chronogram for the date of building the fort (of Tughlaqābād) the following: “Enter then her gates.”* [Note: These words give the date 727 H.]



This is surprizing! Ghiyathuddin didn't build Tughluqabad fortress and all the lofty edifices (palaces, places of worship, etc.), according to Badaoni, but he started a repairing project of an already existing fortress = a large fortified complex with residential structures, as it was chosen as the location of his new place including towns. (the murder of the former Khilji Sultan and the still-existing turmoil in Siri, and his usurpation of the throne had some influence on this decision)



I thought it was a fait accompli that the fortress was completely built from scratch by Giyathuddin at a new, bare place.

And this rebuilding project of the immense fortress was completed within a very short time span. For, Badaoni on the same page says this:”And in the year 724 A.H. (1324 A.D.), Sultān Ghiyāthu-d- 224. Dīn Tughlaq Shāh, upon the occasion of the tyranny of the governors of Bengal, left Ulugh Khān as his viceroy in the capital Tughlaqābād which had been built in the space of three years and a fraction, ...” See: Muntakhab-ur 'ukh by Al-Badaoni, Vol. I, Elliott and Dowson, p.296



To build an immense fortress, with all its edifices and towns in such a short time span from scratch, is a monstruous, almost impossible work. But it makes sense, if the short time span involved a repairing project to repopulate the location as a royal seat. And the most amazing fact is that this immense fort city was abandoned relatively shortly after the repairing project was finished, due to water supply problems. (Does this sound familiair with another city? Yes indeed! Compare this with the similar situation with Fatehpur Sikri during Akbar). Obviously, the Sultan and his Muslim enigeers didn't have the know how to build and maintain water and irrigation works of this magnitude. Badaoni's quote proofs that the fort complex was not built by him, and thus, is older.

Looking at almost contemporary sources, the information contained in this quote is not shaken. There is no (explicit) mention of building the fort from scratch.



1st almost contemporary source - The African traveller Ibn Batuta, freshly arrived in Delhi Tughluqabad during the reign of Giyathuddin's son Muhammad, doesn't mention explicitly that the city having been built by a Tughluq. He gives three descriptions related to Tughluqabad. The first is a general one:

"Description of Dehli. … Tughlikábád, so called from the name of its founder the Sultán Tughlik, father of the Sultán of India whose Court we are now visiting."

The second is more specific, explicitly saying that only the tomb in Tughluqabad was built by Tughluq=Ghiyathuddin Tughluq: “Some assert that Tughlik was taken out dead; others, on the contrary, maintain that he was alive, and that an end was made of him. He was carried away at night to the tomb which he had himself built near the city called after him Tughlikábád, and there he was interred. *” From: History of India, Vol. III, Appendix D. ed. Elliot and Dowson – Ibn Batuta: Travels of Ibn Batuta.

The third description sounds a bit too fantastic. He says that Ghiyathuddin had the location of his new capital city in mind when he was serving the previous Sultan: "One day Tughluq was accompanying Qutb al-din and (pointed to the site and) said: 'O Lord of the world (khwand-i 'Alam) how good it would be if a city could be built there'. The sultan replied sharply, 'Build it when you are the sultan.' As God willed it he did become the sultan and built the city, naming it after himself."



This last reference one can throw into the dustbin. Ghiyathuddin Tughluq was a general of the Khilji sultan. No Delhi sultan would trust a subordinate to encourage to become the next ultan outside his own blood relatives (or favorite slave if childless), especially when having his son as heir! And having his trusted slave body guard around him, who would be chosen before any Tughluq.

Thus, Ibn Batuta connects only the (re)naming of the city with Sultan Tughlaq, and doesn't state that the fort and lofty edifices, like the Vijaya Mandala and the Hazar Sutun (= Sahasra Sthuna) were built by him. Instead he explicitly says that his tomb was built by him. [I doubt that the fortified mini-complex, of the same material and model as the main fort complex, at the end of the lake was also built by him. He must used that during lifetime as a private pleasure ground to have slightly remodelled that fortified mini complex to contain his mortal remains]

As this Sultan repaired the city and relocated the royal seat from Siri-Delhi to Tughluqabad, he was in a sense the founder of the city as the new royal seat.

Ibn Batuta is explicit in mentioning the building of Kushks etc. like a simple structure in Afghanpur where the Sultan found his death when that structure collapsed. This gives a good idea about the construction skills of the Tughluqs!

Obviously, the warlord Giyathuddin, occupied by battles in his Sultanate, didn't build anything. With the information of Badaoni in mind, it makes sense.



2nd almost contemporary source - Barni, biographer of Giyathuddin's grandson Firuz Shah Tughluq, has this much to say:

“A despatch of victory was sent to Dehlí, and at Tughlikábád and Sírí there were great rejoicings. …

The Sultán had made Tughlikábád his capital, and the nobles and officials, with their wives and families, had taken up their abode there, and had built houses. …

When Ulugh Khán received information of the Sultán's hastening homewards to Tughlikábád, he ordered a temporary erection to be raised at Afghánpúr, about three or four kos from the city, where the Sultán might stay for the night and take rest, before marching on the following day into the city with pomp and triumph.”History of India, Vol. III, ed. Elliot and Dowson - Barni: Tarikh-i Firuz Shahi



Barni doesn't say too that Tughluqabad was built by Giyathuddin! He only states that that Sultan had made the new city his capital, as the repairing project must have been insignificant. After the repopulation, private houses were built in that fort city. Thus, again, no claims of having built Tughluqabad!



3rd almost contemporary source: Afif, biographer of Firuz Shah Tughluq, doesn't even refer to Tughluqabad, but says this much about Ghiyathuddin:

“Kism I, Second Mukaddama.—Fíroz Sháh's Education in the Duties of Royalty.

Fíroz Sháh was fourteen years old when Sultán Tughlik Sháh ascended the throne. The Sultán was engaged for four years and a half in travelling about his dominions, and during that time Fíroz Sháh attended him, obtaining full knowledge of all public business transacted by the Sultán. On the death of Sultán Tughlik he was succeeded on the throne of Dehlí by Muhammad Sháh.” History of India, Vol. III, ed. Elliot and Dowson - Afif: Tarikh-i Firuz Shahi.



Neither Afif nor even Firuz Shah in his Futuhat claim that Giyathuddin had built Tughluqabad (from scratch). Firuz hah involved with repairing projects of 7 ancient and decaying fortresses of the Old town, didn't include Tughluqabad or any structure there. Strange if it was built completely from scratch by his grandfather.

The standard and psec historians are clearly wrong here! The city fort complex was not built by Tughluq, as per contemporary sources and the important reference of Badaoni! Neither was it built by any preceding Sultan, as no court writer has written down any claim.



If, as it seems from primary sources, that the fortress was of the pre-Sultanate period, I believe that it must have been this particular fort that was seen by the invading Muhammad Ghori/Qutbuddin Aibaq when they conquered Delhi. I could certainly not have been Qilah Rai Pithora, otherwise they would have mentioned the fort connected with the name of their known adversary! The text says:

“The Conquest of Dehli.

After settling the affairs of Ajmír, the conqueror marched “towards Dehli (may God preserve its prosperity and perpetuate its splendour!) which is among the chief (mother) cities of Hind.” When he arrived at Dehli, he saw “a fortress which in height and strength had not its equal nor second throughout the length and breadth of the seven climes.” History of India, Vol. II, ed. Elliot and Dowson – Nizami: Taj-ul Ma' asir



Thus, he saw "a fortress ..", and not "the fortress of Rai Pithora"! This immense fortress complex was built before the Sultanate period, in the Rajput period. The Chauhanas may possibly be excluded, as Rai Pithora was connected with Yoginipura and its by him expanded ancient local fort. The most obvious candidates who must have built the fort complex are the Tomara Rajputs, the Samantas of the Chauhana overlord. (one Chandaraja and Tejapala Tomara were killed in Tarain, as per local tradition)



The fortress is made of rubbles and dressed stones. Many Dhilli buildings are made of random rubble and dressed stones, like ancient Lal Kot-Qila Rai Pithora, Tughluqabad and Ugrasen ki Baoli, etc. probably also Biwi Dadi Tomb and Bandi Poti Tomb (A medieval Sanskrit inscription, much obliterated, was recovered here some years back, and the site may represent the location of some Hindu establishment; probably also several tombs of different sizes within the Green Park and its neighborhood, with popular names like Biran-ka-Gumbad or ‘brother’s dome’, Chhoti Gumti or ‘small dome’, Sakri Gumti or ‘narrow dome’), and they all are possibly from the same mason guilds working for the Tomaras and belong to the time of Anangpala II or earlier. I believe that Anangapala II was responsible for repairing projects of ancient structures (see Suraj Kund in Anangapur Faridabad), besides constructed some new of his own.



I suggest that Tughluqabad was part of older Dhillipura metropolis, as it was during Sultanate period, and its name was perhaps Anangapura city. The description as given in Vibudha Shridhara's Pasanacariu, referring to the cities of Dhilli metropolis, in my opinion are about Tughluqabad when describing the huge fort and adjacent Ananga Lake. Ananga Lake above Qila Rai Pithora is called Ananga Tala(Tadaga or Talab). But the one attached to the immense fort is called Ananga Sara(s) in the Pasanacariu.

The ancient Lal Kot was an old fort, built by the founder, and repaired by Anangapala II when he repopulated Yoginipura and the rest of Dhilli after Mahmud's attempts to conquer Hindustan.

But, whatever its name and origin, it becomes clear from Muslim sources, that Tughluqabad city was in existence before the Sultans.



Indarpat

This much about Dhillipura, the twincity of Indraprastha. It seems that about its twincity we are misinformed too.



A. Indarpat Fortress: According to the Afif, there was a Qasbah or fortress in Indarpat during the reign of Firuz Shah Tughluq.

“Kism II, Eighth Mukaddama —The building of Fírozábád on the river Jumna: The Sultán having selected a site at the village of Gáwín, on the banks of the Jumna, founded the city of Fíroz-ábád, before he went to Lakhnautí the second time. Here he commenced a palace, * * * and the nobles of his court having also obtained (giriftand) houses there, a new town sprang up, five kos distant from Dehlí.

Eighteen places were included in this town, the kasba of Indarpat, the saráí of Shaikh Malik Yár Parán, the saráí of Shaikh Abu Bakr Túsí, the village of Gáwín, the land of Khetwára, the land of Lahráwat, the land of Andháwalí, the land of the saráí of Malika, the land of the tomb of Sultán Raziya, the land of Bhárí, the land of Mahrola and the land of Sultánpur.

So many buildings were erected that from the kasba of Indarpat to the Kúshk-i shikár, five kos apart, all the land was occupied. There were eight public mosques, and one private mosque. * * * The public mosques were each large enough to accommodate 10,000 supplicants.”History of India, Vol. III, ed. Elliot and Dowson - Afif: Tarikh-i Firuz Shah.



Afif refers to 18 settlements, but only enumerates 12: 1. the kasba of Indarpat, 2. the saráí of Shaikh Malik Yár Parán,3. the saráí of Shaikh Abu Bakr Túsí, 4. the village of Gáwín, 5. the land of Khetwára, 6. the land of Lahráwat, 7. the land of Andháwalí,8. the land of the saráí of Malika, 9. the land of the tomb of Sultán Raziya, 10. the land of Bhárí, 11. the land of Mahrola and 12. the land of Sultánpur.



Most important, we have here a Kasba of Indarpat. And Qasbah in Arabic means a fortified city, thus a fortress! That it may stand for Purana Qilah is not improbable at all. That Indarpat as a large city should have its own fortified place with town is not surprising. This fortress was existent during the time of the Tughluqs, thus much before either Sher Shah and Humayun. Both, again, made an existing fortress complex as their royal seat, and thus were involved with repairings and minor changes.



My idea is that every large Kot had its nearby or farther away Kots, but also minor Kotlas. Adilabad is a Kotla to Tughlugabad, Salimgarh is a Kotla to Lal Qilah, etc.

Kotla Firuz Shah, also built of rumbles, may have been originally a dependancy upon Purana Kot. Firuz Shah, like his predecessors and subsequent rulers, repaired an already existent (minor) city fort and caused repopulation and then overpopulation. Till the natural resources were gone. Which meant relocation of the capital.



I believe that Indarpat, like its twin Dhillipura was originally a densily populated and built metropolis before the Muslims. Indarpat is called both a mauza and pratigana (pargana) in early Sultanate period (Baoli) inscriptions. Both are administrative units, mauza containing a few villages and a pargana containing several mauza's.



B. Lal Qilah or Red Fortress: Shahjahanabad is nowhere mentioned in pre-Shah Jahan sources, as the city and fort are said to have been created by Shah Jahan. We hardly do know anything about the area (only that Bodha was one of the Nigamas or city quarters of Indraprastha - the Nigambodh Darwaza and funerary Ghat at the riverside), but strangely enough one important 18th century court source from Gujarat gives this information about Shahjahanabad, not entirely different from Badaoni's about Tughluqabad:

“In the mountainous country, about Ídur,* there is a quarry of white stone, which is pro­curable in no other part. The lime made from this is used in stucco work; for the walls or terraces of buildings; and for fine edifices, pleasure-houses, and mausoleums. If employed in plastering, it takes so fine a polish as to reflect the light as a looking-glass. When, in the reign of Firdaus-Ashiáni-Sháh Jahán,* the royal buildings of the citadel of Sháhjahánábád (Dehlí) were repaired, the lime made from this stone was taken from Gujarát, by the King's order, and used in their construction.” Mohammed Alí Khán: Mirat-i Ahmadi; The Political and Statistical History of Gujarat, section 1, ch. 1, p. 1.



Of the author is said in the preface by translator James Bird: “As the author commenced collect­ing materials in A.D. 1748, he must have dedi­cated fourteen years of attention to its composi­tion. His style is more laboured and verbose than that of most Mohammedan historians; but what it wants in elegance is compensated by general accuracy of facts, and research.”



Here the author, having studied several works and not subject to Mughal censorship, clearly states that Shah Jahan was involved in a repairing (plastering, painting, redecorating) process of the royal buildings! Thus, the royal buildings did exist before Shah Jahan. (Similar case with Tughluqabad centuries earlier.)

This upsets the information as contained in standard works. In my opinion, if you have royal buildings, pointing to a city of a local Raja as governor, there must have been a citadel too, as all the cties in Delhi were fortified ones! That there were local governors of cities of Delhi-Indarpat, becomes clear from the Palam Baoli inscription of 1276 speaking of a Purapati or city governor of Yoginipura. This inscription describes the genealogy of Thakkura Udadhara, Purapati of Yoginipura, now building a Baoli in Palam village.

Another point to remember is that Shah Jahan acquired marble from Gujarat close to Idar and not from Makrana in Rajasthan. Probably Raja Jai Singh was not so cooperative, after having lost his grandfather's mansion and land in Agra.



Conclusion

There is a clear pattern visible in all these cases: One gets the picture that Muslim rulers were involved in renaming, repopulating, repairing projects of older locations and constructions, when shifting their capital residence. Then through their court writers these rulers (gradually) get the claim to having built the reoccupied constructions from scratch. The next phase was that when a pre-existing, but repopulated city was overpopulated and having no sufficient water supplies, it was abandoned, betraying the fact that the court engineers of the Muslim rulers had insufficient knowledge with pre-existing city plans and complex construction.

Some construction works of other cities were (partly) destroyed, as it was the wish of the last owner of a mansion to be buried there: palational mansions were turned into tombs. Other mansions, of worship, which were frequently visited by Hindus were either turned into Dargahs attached to some Sufi saint to be worshipped like Hindu saints, or they were simply turned into tombs or desecrated in another way.



A point to keep in mind is that there was never stability or rest in Delhi or its dominions during the Sultanate period outside their forts or fortified settlements. These soldiers had hardly any time or own architects, let alone masons, sculptors etc. to be involved into anything other than repairing or remodelling projects of pre-existing structures. Some early Sultans allowed some Jainas, Vaishnava, Shaivas, etc. some freedom with their creative activities or projects, as long as it didn't get too much attention of the Ulema. The first to change this in Delhi and then elsewhere in his kingdom was Firuz Shah Tughluq.

The blood- and money-thirsty Alauddin Khilji was only interested in collected and killing. The next changes came with Muhammad bin Tughluq, who shifted his capital to Devagir, causing mass migrations to and back from Devagiri and with Firuz Shah, taking strict measurements against 'idolaters'. With the raids of mass murder Timur the Terrorist, Delhi got a fatal blow to its population and creative minds and hands. Many architects, masons, artisans etc., but also the wealthy moneylenders fled to other areas, favorably of Hindu Rajas.

So, Fergusson's "Pathan architecture" for the Sultanate period is not only a misnomer, the Sultans were predominantly Turks, but these rulers had used pre-existing palatial, civilian and religious structures, applying minor changes to suit a Muslim convention.



In the above mentioned points, we can see that standard works don't give a reliable picture of the history of Delhi, let alone of other cities. (like Agra, as per Pelsaert's testimony and a slippery reference by Jahangir about Agra's grand size and magnificence even before the Afghan rule)



I am not denying and ignoring the contributions made by the Sultans and Padishahs, if they are rightly the contributor, their name should be attached to that. But, if not, that should be corrected. By now we must realize that if achievements claimed by the rulers through their biased and exaggerating court writers, flatterers of their patrons, are by no means concluding or a fact, these should be corrected in standard works. Fortunately, we have statements in these works clearly contradicting the claims. And why standard works, whose authors (see the Shokoohy's)have also access to the same primary sources, should not apply the required corrections to their wrong statements, is a huge question mark.

Unfortunately, rather than looking at indigenous origins if righht, the general trend is to look at foreign and that too only Muslim originals anyway, even if sometimes there are no real comparable foreign examples left.



Thus, it's not only Yoginipura and its fort of Rai Pithora that was built and known before the Sultans. The 'authorship' or real founding of more cities and constructions of Delhi, like the fortress of Indarpat (called Qasbah of Indarpat = Purana Qilah), belong to the pre-Sultanate period, and the ones that belong to the Sultanate period are mostly by indigenous Jaina, Shaiva and Vaishnava, etc. tradition and hands. This has important implications for architecture of the Sultanate (and later) periods, and which needs a completely fresh and unbiased look.