Critically examining the writings of Barani on the basis of his

Tarikh-I-Firoz shahi and Fatawa-I-jahandari

-by: Parul, 2020/HIS/0100

Real transition in the writings of history of 13 th -14th centuries because of larger availability of Persian
texts. There were two kinds of tradition which emerged in history writing- Arabic history writing and
Persian history writing. However, after 11th century, Persian history writing became predominant.
Persian history writing focused on imperial identity. These scholars dedicated their work to the rulers in
order to appease them. In other words, in Persian history writing there is an elitist approach, the story
being revolving around just the elites and the common masses are considered worthless. These writers
also glorifying the Islam. Ziya-ud-din Barani is one of such historians of Medieval India. Before analyzing
his writings, it is important for us to get aware of his background so as to get a comprehensive and
detailed.

Barani was born in 1285 in an elite class in Baran, modern Bulandshahr U.P. His family was of scholarly
and religious background. His Sayyid family was of sound scholarly background. Some members of his
family were involved in religious activity while others in bureaucracy. His maternal grandfather, Salar
Husan-ud-din was a wakil-i-dar(controller of royal household), An important officer of Balban. His father
Muwayyid-ul-mulk was Naib(deputy) of Arkali Khan. He became the governor under Jalaluddin Khalji. His
uncle Ala-ul-Mulk, hold the most prominent position. He was the confidant of Alauddin Khalji, and
planned conspiracy against the Jalaludin Khalji and supported Alauddin Khalji. Thus, when Alauddinan
khalji became sultan, he was rewarded and made kotwal (city commandant) of Delhi. These three men-
his maternal grandfather, father, and his uncle, have been cited by barani in his work as witnesses of
several incidences. Both his father as well as mother side were well established, but despite of this his
career started very late. Scholar-Irfan Habib has suggested that the hatred of barani towards low caste
born either Muslims or non-Muslims, as evident in both his writings- Tarikh-I-Firoz Shahi and Fatwa-I-
Jahandari was due to his failure to get courtly appointment till late in his life despite having traditions of
royal service in the family. Till 1334, Barani was not given any political office under Mohammad- bin-
Tughlaq for seventeen years and was appointed as a Nadim (champion). However, after the death of
Muhammad-bin- Tughlaq, he was removed from the post, his bureaucratic career was over. Charges
were brought against him during the reign of Firuz shah Tughlaq and he was imprisoned for some time
in the Bhatnair. From then onwards, he was reduced to poverty and spent last years of his life at the
Chishti shaikh Nizam-al-din Auliya’s hospice in Ghiyathpur. Barani wrote seven books after his dismissal
in 1351 A.D, among which his Tarikh-i-Firoz Shahi and Fatwa-i-Jahandari are best works. Not even that,
Mohammad Habib, after carefully analyzing barani’s ideas in Tarikh-i-Firuz shahi and Fatawa-i-Jahandari,
judges the Tarikh to be “the greatest book that has survived to us from the sultanate period.
Barani's conception of history is very lofty. According to him, royalty and governing classes has authority
over history. History belongs to them and is only theirs's exclusive privilege, and thus according to
Barani's notion of history it was only meant for high-born. According to K. Nizami Barani ‘sought in
history of the period the causes of his own rise and fall and this search introduced subtle threads of
subjectivism in his narrative. According to Barani- one who is not an expert of history, cannot be a good
scholar of this subject. According to Dr. Peter hardy- Barani's historical approach was theologically
conditioned. He again and again referred to Sassanid heroes of Persia as the ideals of kingship. His
writings are reflection and result of the trials, sufferings as well as his frustration. He carries the weight
of his own frustrated life on his own shoulders, which he tells us through his writings. In his writings
Barani have described himself as- old, bent, white-haired, half blind, friendliness.

In his Tarikh-I-Firuz Shahi, Barani narrated the histories of Delhi sultans from Balban (1266) to the early
years of Firuz shah Tughlaq as lessons learn from which the reigning sultan Firuz shah Tughlaq could
learn the consequences of both moral and immoral conduct. Barani himself have called his work as-
“this is the work of solid worth, which combines several virtues”. Barani's writings are significant
because of the agricultural information along with administrative, political and economic spheres. In his
Tarikh-I-Firoz Shahi barani did not follow any chronology and write according to what he remembers, for
example in his work while talking about Balban, all of sudden he started talking about himself (atrocities
on him). He described Balban as both a secret murderer and the author of massacres on a grand scale.
He extolted Balban’s firmness in his assuring a monopoly of the “high-born” over all the offices. Barani
also praised and appreciated Alauddin Khilji's fiscal and market control measures. In the preface of
chapter, he justifies and then provides detailed account of Alauddin Khilji's price fixation and says that
price fixation is something which should not be considered as an ordinary issue. However, he disliked
Alauddin Khilji because people of low-status appointed nobility and barani calls them “worthless
persons, clerks, low-born revenue officers and foolish slaves. Barani alleges that due to their
predominance Alauddin administration suffered gravely during his last years. As per political history of
Delhi sultanate is concerned, according to Barani’s writings it appears that he summarized 100 years of
history in three developments; first, he discusses the growth of the despotic power of the sultan, from
Balban to Alauddin khalji, then he goes on to talk about greater and greater use of terror in this period,
thirdly, barani talk about changes in the composition of nobility, tending to its Plebeanization from 1206
to 1526. It appeared that to barani, these factors led to crisis under Mohammad bin Tughlaq, when large
sections of Delhi nobility went into rebellion. Barani believes that foundation of history is truthful pre-
conceived notion. Throughout in his writings, barani linked history with religion. It can be inferred from
barani’s writings that barani is interested more in political developments, that is why in all chapters he
discusses about different sultans and according to his own assessment, we can see his distributed and
partiality among sultans in giving attention to them in his writings. He was the man who had immense
hatred almost for one and every person, as evident from his writings. He was very critical of Muhammad
bin Tughlaq and condemns him for his each and every administrative action and policy. Also, he made
several contradictory statements in his writings. Barani openly in his writings speaks of the
‘contradictory qualities’ of the sultan’s character, but he himself offers an explanation of how these
contradictions were in themselves a response to the changing circumstances. When Barani is in his
present, he has love for Mohammad-bin-Tughlaq but when he recalls about his past, he has nothing but
hatred for him. Historians believe that the reason, why he was so critical of him was due to his level of
frustration. He started writing history due to his personal grudges against the sultans. However, K.
Nizami says that although Isami and Ibn Battuta also supply valuable details of Mohammad-bin-Tughlaq,
but none comes up anywhere near Barani in his comprehensive study of the sultan. From the closer
reading of his work, it can be said that in his writings, he finds a space to pen down his own
psychological state in the assessment of sultan’s character.

Barani also talks about qualities of a historian and according to him historian should be truthful and
stated: even if the historian cannot speak frankly about his own time out of fear, he should write
truthfully about the past. In Tarikh, barani is greatly attracted by the contradiction between the
demands of religion and worldly experience. Barani desists from criticizing Mohammad-bin-Tughlaq for
his tolerant attitude towards the Hindus and Hinduism. He mentioned that when Firuz-shah-Tughlaq
occupied the throne the hearts of both, Hindus and Muslims were comforted and mentioned the court
of Firoz-shah-Tughlaq as the court of Allah. Barani is remarkable for his economic interpretation of the
sultanate period. He saw Delhi sultanate as an urban polity sustained by the exploitation of a large
agrarian society. Historians have even praised Barani’s capacity to perceive- before Marx, himself- that
‘the economic basis of the sultanate’ depended upon the state’s ability to appropriate the agrarian
surplus from peasantry. And according to Irfan Habib “Barani’s supreme merit lies in his perception of
the economic basis of the sultanate. Another scholar M.H. Elliot comments on Barani's failure to provide
a complete and proper list of the Mongol invasions. In his answer to Elliot, Irfan Habib gave the
explanation, that barani was more concerned with the effects of the invasion on the domestic affairs of
the sultanate than the details of the invasion. Also, from the works of the Barani it is clear that he
focuses on the internal developments and problems within the Delhi sultanate and was less concerned
with external conditions. His works also throw considerable light on the socio-economic conditions of
the country. An important feature of the Tarikh is the inclusion of reports of conversations said to have
occurred between prominent personalities of the time. However, these conversations have also
attracted debate among the historians regarding their validity. Professor A.B.M. Habibullah suggested
that it is the authors own mind projected in the book and not the real conversations.

Barani's Fatawa-I-Jahandari is the only known work devoted to political theory of the Delhi sultanate.
Fatawa-I-Jahandari is considered to be the uncommissioned text, with no known royal patron of it. It is
divided into 24 chapters called Nasihats (advices), covering more than one topic. Some historian saw the
fatwa-I-Jahanadari as the work in continuation with Tarikh-I-Firoz Shahi and even some scholars are
reluctant to study Fatwa independent of the Tarikh. The connexion between these two works of Barani
have been first noticed by professor Habibullah. According to professor Habibullah- “barani’s method of
treating history is illustrated by another of his works, namely Fatawa-I-Jahandari. The Fatawa-I-
Jahandari was probably written between 1351 and Barani’s death, not long after Tarikh-I-firoz shahi. It is
written by Barani as a kind of advisory work to sultan. Barani wrote Fatawa-I-jahandari to educate
Muslim sultans especially the sultans of Delhi, in their duty towards Islam. The basic feature of this text
was the class structure. Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni is the main protagonist of this text, who at the
beginning of every advice appears to address his sons as perfect Islamic rulers and everywhere appears
to be ideal ruler and out of the 24 chapters, 19 starts with the phrase- “son of Mahmud”. In this context,
Nilanjan Sarkar calls Mahmud as the axis of the Fatawa-I-jahandari. This barani style of writing in this
text-of using another person to legitimize one’s own ideas was very common at that time. The structure
of this text is like that- three persons are being portrayed as speaking in line one after the another, these
are- Mahmud of Ghazni, Barani himself and the third person is not known for sure, but for certain he
was the contemporary of the sultan Mahmud of Ghazni. Jahandari does not mention the name of any
particular sultan of Delhi sultanate, but he dealt with them indirectly and mentioned them collectively
as one homogenous category of ‘kings of Islam’. Barani expounded the ‘theory of contradiction’ and
emphasized that the unity of opposites is impossible and regarded that the unity of opposites is
impossible. These contradictory forces- he mentions are such that they do not completely eliminate
each other. Barani declared the monarchy to be anti-Islamic, who ruled not according to principles of
Quran and traditions of the Prophet, but according to the state laws (zawabit) made by the kings, based
on the needs of the age. However, barani advises the king to follow the old laws, if suited to the
circumstances of the day and wanted the council not the king to be responsible for the continuity of
state policy. However, Barani wanted the king to elect his counsellors with care and to be guided by
their advice. jahandari mentioned duty of king with reference to each and every institution in detail.
Brani writes “a Zabita or state law in the technique of administration is a rule of action which a king
imposes as an obligatory duty upon himself for realizing the welfare of state and from which he
absolutely never deviates”. Thus, from jahandari- we get a real and clear picture of character of the
Delhi sultanate.

Based upon Jahandari, it can be said that it was not a theocratic state and based not on ulama or any
other religious texts but upon the opinion of the king and the king and his Zawabit were expected, not
interfere with the private rights of the citizens. It is very clear from the barani writing that he is not in
the favor of king’s authority. He mentions different political groups of the time, - free-born nobles,
nobles, slave officers, Hindu mercantile class, Hindu landed aristocracy, ulama, soldiers, working class
etc. However, out of these only the first two classes were concerned and involved in the government
system. Barani's hatred for the low-Borns is also evident in Jahandari too, particularly towards Hindus. In
the words of Afsar Begum- “Barani was mentally unsound”, in his reference to Hindus. Fatwa-I-Jahandari
contains many examples of the killing of Hindus and destruction of temples, in context of military
exploits of Mahmud. He was also critical of low-born Musalmans and was against giving them education,
since education can help them to become capable and efficient. He wanted the division of Musalmans
into grades and sub-grades and wished that only free-born nobles/ Muslims to have right over all the
offices and pensions. According to Barani, a man who is a Musalman by birth is a true Musalman and
therefore condemns persons who later on converted to Islam. He seems to convert the distinction
between the low-born and high born into one between faith and infidelity, infidelity in the sense that
the conversion of the low-born is a hypocrisy. As said earlier too, he is very contradictory in his writings.
On the one hand he wrote that conversion is a hypocrisy and on the other hand, he insisted that Hindus
should be offered only with the two options-either to convert to Islam or the sword and regarded the
Kharaj and jizya levied on the Hindus to be insufficient. The fatawa-I-jahandari says, ‘religion and justice
are the twins’, and that if a king wants to achieve salvation, he must dispense justice to his subjects.
Barani regarded the loss of confidence between the king and his subjects as the major disease which
afflict kingdoms, and also condemns the rulers who does the wrong knowingly. He says to achieve good
qualities of a sultan, sultan needs to take advice from scholars, experts and intellectuals. He says that
prophet of Islam despite being messenger of God, carries his campaign regularly. He lists down four
crucial parts of rule essential for maintaining and establishing strong sultanate. These are- strong army,
filled treasury, fair system of taxation and efficient system of intelligence and communication. Barani
was of the view that a filled treasury can be used for paying army, which is possible when taxation
system is fair and to collect taxes and control army, we need efficient system of communication and
intelligence. Barani's political theory is deeply influenced by the classical thinkers of the Islamic world. In
all of his writings, greater emphasize is on Islamic law- sharia. Throughout his writings, barani provides
special attention to army and economy. He says army is important because it will make a sultan
powerful. He desires that the king should evolve such a system of administration, army, intelligences
and judicially that persons of high integrity and character should act as vehicles of good forces against
the evil forces. He regarded history as the war between good and evil.

On the whole we can conclude that, barani, throughout his writings crave for stability and hierarchy. He
seeks the wealth and welfare of the ruling classes and noble classes. Some of scholars even denied to
consider him as a historian and considers it better to call him as a religious leader. His highly good and
noble remarks for Firuz-shah-Tughlaq have come under critique by a various historian. He says ordinary
citizens were getting powerful position and that the "hearts of Muslims and Hindus were comforted”.
On this Professor Sunil Kumar remarked that he might wanted to regain his lost respect in society and
praised Firoz-shah-Tughlaq to get a position in bureaucracy. Whether this is true or not but from the
Barani’s writings it can be clearly seen that he again and again mentioned in his Tarikh-I-Firuz Shahi to
be read by Firoz-shah. According to another historian- K. Nizami, there is possibility that Barani wanted
to write not one but two books. - on from the reign of Balban to Muhammad-bin-Tughlaq and another a
full-fledged book in which he wanted to praise Firoz-shah-Tughlaq. He wanted to write it into two parts
but he couldn’t complete them, so put them together under the title- Tarikh-I-Firoz Shahi.

the choice of Barani of choosing Mahmud as a hero of his fatwa-I-jahandari is remarkabble in the sense
that Mahmud of Ghazni was easily identifiable as an ideal within Islamic political universe of India and as
a ruler upon whom aristocracy should model themselves. He portrays Mahmud in a very remarkable
way, He represented him as a past connecting present through traditions that command respect and at
present being projected as ideal who is real and accessible. On the whole we get a picture of historian
who is honest, and brought within us all the facts of the time before us and did not suppress them like
other historians to his own interest. However, he was more devoted towards elite approach of history
writing. Barani's text is full of controversy because there is a close nexus between politics and religion,
religion and bureaucracy. Barani have been compared largely with Minhaj (Tabaq at-I-Nasiri) work on
Iltutmish to show that how barani’s style of writing is unique. At that old age, in impoverished poverty
Barani spent his days in literary work, lamenting his misery as borne out by both Fatwa-I-Jahandari and
Tarikh-I-Firuz shahi. It can’t be said that Barani wrote entirely from his own memory as in Tarikh-I-Firoz
Shahi, we find list of principal officers, governors, etc. Prefixed to account of each sultan which can't be
a magic of long-lasting intactful memory. However, his clarity of thoughts and capacity to recall should
be appreciated. It can’t be denied that Barani lacks method and arrangement and his work is rather
anecdotal in character. One can easily find several repetitions of some events, which might be due to
his failing memory. His views can be gained from his statement that- Sharia is something which is to be
adjusted according to the nature of society without compromising fundamentals of Islam. He lacked the
spirit of inquiry in his work. However, one must keep in mind while reading the works of Barani, the
words of K Nizami- “Barani had a better sense of history and its spirit rather than any other Persian
chronicler of early medieval period and that despite all his shortcomings no other historian of the period
comes up near him...”.
 References-

• Nizami, K.A. (1983): Historians of medieval India (Ziya-Ud-Din-Barani). Munshiram Manoharlal

Publishers
• Habib, Irfan: Barani’s theory of the history of Delhi Sultanate. Motilal banarasidass.
• Hardy, Peter (1957): The “oratio recta” of Barani’s “tarikh-firuz-shahi"--fact or
fiction?.Cambridge university press.
• Habib, Mohammad: the political theory of the Delhi sultanate. Aakar books.