Turks, Mongols and a Persian Secretarial Class in Early Delhi Sultanate

[kalu_miah]

“The Ignored Elites: Turks, Mongols and a Persian Secretarial Class in the early Delhi Sultanate" | Sunil Kumar - Academia.edu

Modern Asian Studies

Cambridge University Press doi:10.1017/S0026749X07003319 First published online
30 November 2007

The Ignored Elites: Turks, Mongols and a Persian Secretarial Class in the Early Delhi Sultanate
SUNIL KUMAR

Department of History, Delhi University, Delhi, India Email: afsoskhan@yahoo.co.in

Abstract

The consolidation of the Delhi Sultanate coincided with the Mongol devastation of Transoxiana, Iran and Afghanistan. This paper studies the Persian literature of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries invested as it was in the projection of the court of the Delhi Sultans as the ‘sanctuary of Islam’, where the Muslim community was safe from the marauding infidel Mongols. The binaries on which the qualities of the accursed Mongols and the monolithic Muslim community were framed ignored the fact that a large number of Sultanate elites and monarchs were of Turkish/Mongol ethnicity or had a history of prior service in their (Mongol) armed contingents. While drawing attention to the narrative strategies deployed by Sultanate chroniclers to obscure the humble frontier origins of its lords and masters, my paper also elaborates on steppe traditions and rituals prevalent in early-fourteenth-century Delhi. All of these underlined the heterogeneity of Muslim Sultanate society and politics in the capital,a complexity that the Persian litterateurs were loath to acknowledge in their records.

This paper is a part of a larger study on Tughluqabad, which will be incorporated in my forthcoming book provisionally titled Sites of Power and Resistance: A Study of Sultanate Monumental Architecture. An earlier version of ‘Tughluqabad’ and this paper was drafted years ago under the supervision of John F. Richards. I am extremely grateful to him for his comments, for all his kindness and support while I was at Duke. Earlier incarnations of the paper profited from the comments of David Gilmartin, Sanjay Subrahmnyam, Kristen Neuschel, Charles Young, Steven Wilkinson, Judith Dillon, Joe Arlinghaus and Ann Farnsworth. The comments of audiences at Delhi University, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi School of Sociology, Columbia University and the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, Paris, were extremely useful during revisions.This version of the paper was presented at the conference on ‘Expanding Frontiers in South Asian and World History’ held at Duke University in September 29–30, 2006. I would like to thank participants at the conference for their comments,the anonymous referee for the careful reading of the paper, and Anjali Kumar for patient discussions on the subject.

To be continued...(The entire paper is available in the link above, I will try to post more parts of as time permits, others can volunteer as well)

 

[Vinod2070]

A bunch of barbaric primitive invaders.

We have nothing to do with them. That is an eminently forgettable and sad part of our history (and world history) when a bunch of uncivilized nomads were on rampage.

Muslims suffered greatly in the rampage as well.

 

[kalu_miah]

@Wholegrain

I have interesting info about Persian influence on Mughal Empire, hope Shia's don't get mad with me. Both Babur and his son Humayun were helped by father and son Safavi, Shah Islmail and Tahmasp, both tried to convert them as a condition for their help and Safavi Iranians got access to Hindustan as a result. Babur and Humayun only pretended to convert, so that effort failed, but Shia became numerous in then Hindustan because of this history

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...ought-about-his-heritage-2.html#ixzz2f57NXXxu

In answer to this post, you have made a post:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...thought-about-his-heritage-2.html#post4768646

I agree with what you mentioned in this post that Persian was Lingua Franca in Hindustan around 3 centuries before Safavi dynasty started in around 1500. But where do you see in my post, that I implied otherwise?

The point I mentioned in that post was that "Persian influence" (not linguistic influence but rather imperial influence) in Mughal empire, due to their interaction with Safavi kings, helped spread of Shia faith in then Hindustan. The point was not about Persian as Lingua Franca, which it obviously was, mainly for bureaucracy and literature since the beginning of Muslim rule, as discussed in OP, whereas Arabic was the language of religious works and Turkic (and Mongolian to a much smaller extent after Mongols arrival on the scene post Mongol Invasion of Khwarezm) was more common among, soldiers, army and rulers.

I have opened a separate thread for Mughal Safavi interactions, where we can discuss that part of the relevant history:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...r-humayun-met-safavi-shah-tahmasp-persia.html

 

[kalu_miah]

Introducing the Sultanate Frontier Military Commanders

Social and political formations in the Indus and Gangetic plains were not unduly troubled by political developments in the mountainous Hindu Kush or Karakorum regions in the north-west. These lands were too poor and fragmented to support large state systems and the pastoral inhabitants of the area indulged in relatively localized plundering expeditions into the plains. Although trade routes into Iran and Central Asia were more easily disturbed by the turbulent politics of the region, Afghanistan seized the attention of political regimes in north India only when the area became a part of larger geopolitical developments.

In the tenth through the twelfth centuries this happened when the Ghaznavid and Ghurid regimes attempted to sustain their control over eastern Iran by the revenues extracted from north India. The challenges posed by these developments were completely dwarfed by the Chinggisid invasions of the thirteenth centuries. The Mongols seized much of western Punjab and periodically threatened the Gangetic plains, destroying agriculture, displacing pastoralists and pillaging cities. Beyond the very real threat of Mongol depredations was the ‘great fear’ that gripped the land in the 1220s and after, when it seemed as if a holocaust of proportions already witnessed in eastern Iran, Transoxiana, and Afghanistan was awaiting north India. (1 For a useful account of Mongol invasions into north India during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries see Peter Jackson, ‘The Mongols in India’, Cambridge University, Department of History, Ph.D. dissertation, 1976.)

The need to secure the Sultanate regime from Mongol marauders led to the delineation of a frontier’ that needed to be defended. At least during the early-thirteenth century this was carried out through garrisoned cantonments in the Punjab. These cantonments were placed under trusted slave-commanders, the bandagan-i khass, of the monarch. They were of Turkish origin, but the patronage of their master, together with systematic efforts to bond and incorporate them in the household of the monarch, oriented their allegiance away from their ethnic roots and towards the realm of Delhi. Judging by their military records Turkish slaves did not hesitate in opposing the invading Mongol hordes, which carried in their train a large number of Turks. In other words, shared ethnicities notwithstanding, Sultanate commanders on the frontier were acculturated to serve a regime that oriented them in ways quite distinct from their original steppe habitats. (2 See Sunil Kumar, ‘When slaves were nobles: the Shamsi bandagan in the Early Delhi Sultanate’ in Studies in History, vol. 10 (1994), pp. 23–52 and idem, ‘Service, status, and military slavery in the Delhi Sultanate: Thirteenth and fourteenth centuries’ in Richard Eaton and Indrani Chatterjee (eds.), Slavery and South Asian History (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2006), pp. 83–114.). The frontier between the Mongols and the Sultanate was therefore marked by different cultural and political orientations, even if the social groups who inhabited the region were not always dissimilar.

This paper is concerned with developments of a slightly later period—the decades after the 1250s—when political fragmentation within the Delhi Sultanate and the Mongol confederacies complicated relationships across the Punjab frontier. In the years after Shams al-Din Iltutmish’s death (1236) increasing competition amongst Sultanate slave commanders drove discontented amirs into alliances with the Mongols. (3 Note the examples of the Shamsi slaves Qutlugh Khan and Kushlu Khan, competitors at different times with Ulugh Khan for influence over the Delhi Sultan, both of whom sought sanctuary with the Mongols. Slightly earlier, Ulugh Khan had supported the Shamsi prince Jalal al-Din Mas’ud who had fled to the Mongols for sanctuary in 1248. Ulugh Khan’s cousin, Shir Khan, had also sought sanctuary for a brief time with the Mongols. See Peter Jackson, The Delhi Sultanate: A Political and Military History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 73, 88–9, 111–14). Concurrently, the old concordance amongst the Chinggisid descendants was ending and the lands of eastern Iran,Afghanistan and Transoxiana were populated by rival political dispensations. Internal conflict and the search for alternative opportunities pushed many Mongol commanders and their subordinates into Hindustan and the service of the Delhi Sultans. (4 Peter Jackson, ‘The dissolution of the Mongol Empire’ in Central Asiatic Journal,Vol. 22 (1978), pp. 186–244, idem, The Delhi Sultanate, pp. 80–2, 115–6). Although Mongol raids into north India continued through the second-half of the thirteenth century, there was considerable migration of Mongol and Turkic groups searching for Sultanate patronage and instances of disaffected Sultanate amirs looking for allies in Mongol camps.

In focusing upon the second-half of the thirteenth and the early fourteenth century, the first part of my paper draws attention to the recruitment of frontiersmen by successive Sultanate regimes to guard the Punjab marches from Mongol depredations. The old traditions of policing the frontier by slave commanders slowly shifted to include new bodies of immigrants who had intruded into the region. These developments were first noticeable in the reign of Balban (1266–87) and Kaiqubad (1287–90) and then more apparent during the succeeding Khalaji regime (1290–1320). Political fortunes in the marches of the Punjab, areas that lay in the interstices between the Mongol and Sultanate dominions, fluctuated constantly and military successes (and failures) were often transient. Service here, remote, as it was, from the cohering and disciplinary structures of Delhi, also allowed for great opportunities. Ambitious Sultanate commanders adroitly used frontier manpower resources to accumulate large war bands and construct local reputations as warriors and patrons even as they remained marginal, distant groups in the courtly intrigues of the capital. And yet, when the opportunity presented itself, these frontier commanders possessed sufficient assets and initiative to march into Delhi, seize power and establish their own dynasties. Nor were these exceptional moments in the history of the Sultanate. Although in this paper I study the Khalajis peripherally and give greater attention to the early Tughluq regime, it is important to note that every Sultanate dynasty from 1290 through 1526—the Khalaji, Tughluq, Sayyid and the Lodis—had frontier origins.

The following sections of my paper unravel the social and cultural backgrounds of the frontier commanders and study the ways in which these might have complicated their relationship with Delhi. During the Khalaji regime many of the frontier commanders and their contingents were of Turkish or Mongol background and had a record of past service with Chinggisid subordinates active in the Afghanistan region. Hence the curious paradox in the deployment of these commanders: any of the frontiersmen patronized by the Delhi Sultans shared a history of past service and cultural affinities with the very people who periodically threatened the Sultanate. (5 For a valuable comparison from China see, Owen Lattimore, ‘Frontier feudalism’, in Studies in Frontier History, Collected Papers, 1928–1958 (London: Oxford Univeristy Press, 1962), pp. 514–41). Although their loyalties and investments in the cause of the Delhi Sultans must have been adequately ascertained to justify their deployment, these frontier commanders had not undergone the processes of training and acculturation characteristic of the bandagan-i khass. They were not a deracinated group but had arrived in the Sultanate with intact lineage networks and were linked to significant parts of their retinues by shared natal, ethnic and/or past service associations. Although they had accepted service with the Delhi Sultans and went on to become monarchs themselves, we are indifferently informed about the extent to which these military commanders and their retinues had made the transition from their old steppe-descended, frontier milieux to the urbane world of Delhi. Certainly, prior to their arrival as Sultans, Delhi’s literati had looked askance at people of similar social and cultural profiles.What was their reaction when groups of frontiersmen arrived in the capital as lords and masters?

As I argue in this paper, not only is the evidence on this subject extremely scanty, it is also deliberately evasive. The discourse of the fourteenth-century Persian historical narratives (tawarikh) carried their author’s vision of an ideal public order tempered by their class, cultural and ethnic prejudices. This was transcribed into an idealized history of the court of Sultan Mahmud Ghaznavi and held as a touchstone of good governance to be followed by future generations. These social and intellectual precommitments meant that the lords and masters of Delhi could not be reported as frontiersmen or ex-servants of the loathed Chinggisids. To have done so would have conveyed the sense of a Sultanate in crisis and decline. (6 For a discussion of these kinds of narratives see Sunil Kumar, ‘Service, Status and Military Slavery’, pp. 97–102..) To communicate the sense of stability and order, on the other hand, frontier commanders like Ghiyas al-Din Tughluq had to be creatively reinvented as paradigms of virtue, a veritable ‘saviour of Islam’.

Although the narratives of Sultanate histories were selective in their inclusion of information, there were other more episodic records that provided incidental information on the backgrounds of the Delhi Sultans. I use these not just to detail the frontier origins of the monarchs of Delhi, or study the impact of their arrival as Sultans on a world that had only recently treated them as ‘rustics’. As I argue in the concluding sections of the paper, it is crucial for historians today to draw attention to the ways in which the chronicles and eulogies of the Delhi Sultans ignored crucial aspects about their protagonists, how their silences and elisions (and sometimes their ignorance) misrepresented the character of their patrons. It is absolutely vital that we foreground the discursive intervention of the Persian chronicles in their representations of Sultanate history because without a sensitivity to their objectives and their prejudices we will never be able to disengage and texture their representations of a monolithic Islam, a hegemonic state and a timeless Persianate culture. Retrieving the history of the frontier military commanders allows us to recall the role of a vital, if marginalised, group of people involved in the framing of Sultanate history. That these marginalised groups happened to be the political elites and Sultans of Delhi is in itself a telling commentary on the state of the evidence and the dire need to renarrativise the history of the Sultanate. To that end my paper starts with an analysis of the reportage on the Khalajis and the Tughluqs during their deployment as frontier commanders.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

If ur talking about the composition of the nobility-
Delhi sultanate nobility was nearly entirely central asian turks and later afghans,balban purged all non turks from administration including indian muslims.Firuz shah tughlaq loosened this a little.During the lodis main nobility was afghan,same during sher shah.

Under mughals if we follow mughal texts then nobility was

In 1595 at the peak of akbar's reign-In terms of percentage of mansabs granted-
Princes 3.25%
Iranian nobles-22%
Turani nobles[uzbek/central asian]-37.3%

Together these 2 sections made up the 'old nobility' or khanzadas.
Apart from this-
afghans-3.25%
Shaikhzadas or indian muslims-11.3%
Other muslims-[arabs,saints etc]-5%
Rajputs-16.2%
Other hindu zamindars-1.2%


Now at the beginning of aurangzeb's rule -

Princes-1.5%
Iranis-27%
Turanis-24%
Afghans-6.56%
Indian muslims-11.3%
Other muslims-9.4%
Rajputs-16.8%
Marathas-2.5%
Other hindus-1.3%


Considering the predominance of persian nobles at court as administrators it also helped spread of persian,court language of both sultanates and mughals.

 

[Hosseini]

Mongoloid Turks steal our Iranian culture then invade Indians and use our culture there basically.

 

[Srinivas]

Barbaric Invaders who created bloody mess in a Great country and to a Great civilization.

 

[Vinod2070]

Barbaric Invaders who created bloody mess in a Great country and to a Great civilization.

These primitives also created a mess within their own harsh nomadic lands and also wherever they went.

Truly a dark period of human history.

 

[Icewolf]

Barbaric Invaders who created bloody mess in a Great country and to a Great civilization.

Hindostan was still a mess before the invaders came...
Dont you know that every Hindu king was fighting eachother in Hindostan before Muslim invaders came?
We civilized you guys otherwise you would have killed eachother in constant wars and caste system...

These primitives also created a mess within their own harsh nomadic lands and also wherever they went.

Truly a dark period of human history.

Those primitives civilized you Hindus and made the biggest empires of the world...
Dont forget that your ancestors were their subsidaries... And you have the audacity to act tough on the internet

 

[Vinod2070]

Hindostan was still a mess before the invaders came...
Dont you know that every Hindu king was fighting eachother in Hindostan before Muslim invaders came?
We civilized you guys otherwise you would have killed eachother in constant wars and caste system...



Those primitives civilized you Hindus and made the biggest empires of the world...
Dont forget that your ancestors were their subsidaries... And you have the audacity to act tough on the internet

Little ungrateful wretched Arab refugee from Islamist persecution whose sorry arse we saved, just be merry while you are still allowed here. It may not last very long...

Or before Malik Ishaq gets you...

You primitive barbaric nomads have the audacity to imagine you can civilize others, civilize the first civilization in the world!

You primitives are not yet civilized till today, blowing up each other for your sects and to collect your rewards...

That day even you were saying that Europe should not allow extremist Islamists.

 

[esfahanijew]

Turko-Mongol scums have no culture just claiming other people achievements land culture even scientists

 

[Water Car Engineer]

Those primitives civilized you Hindus and made the biggest empires of the world...
Dont forget that your ancestors were their subsidaries... And you have the audacity to act tough on the internet

Why are you laughing? It was the area of Pakistan and Afghanistan that got the **** beat out of when they were invading. Or do you think they were giving away flowers and sh*t when they passed that area?

Some of you Pakistani's make fun of Indians for this, which is f**king hilarious, because they were molesting the sh*ting out of that area as a whole than most parts of modern India.

BTW there was no need to bring civilization to a civilization as old as India's.

 

[Charon]

Turko-Mongol scums have no culture just claiming other people achievements land culture even scientists

Thank you for proving your butthurtness over "Turko-Mongols". Turkic peoples have at least 6 indepented states while you Iranians have only Iran and and tiny Tajikistan which is surrounded by Turkic states and Turkic peoples. 15 % of the population of Tajikistan are Uzbeks anyway. Turks usually don't give a **** about Iranians but many of you seem to be totally obssesed with us and Mongols because your ancestors were literally ruled and conquered by them

 

[Vinod2070]

Why are you laughing? It was the area of Pakistan and Afghanistan that got the **** beat out of when they were invading. Or do you think they were giving away flowers and sh*t when they passed that area?

Some of you Pakistani's make fun of Indians for this, which is f**king hilarious, because they were molesting the sh*ting out of that area as a whole than most parts of modern India.

BTW there was no need to bring civilization to a civilization as old as India's.

He is a Yemeni refugee to our lands. Running from Islamist extremists who hounded out his ancestors for his "wrong sect".

And he is in trouble again in Pakistan for the same wrong sect.

Anyway, these Arabs (and other Muslims) were massively persecuted and massacred and enslaved and raped by the same barbarians.

Arabs called the Mongols "the scourge of the God", just like the Europeans called the Turks the same.

They were their "subsidiaries" for a thousand years and still are the same.

There is no end to the identity crisis of these refugees. They don't belong here and never will.

If lucky, they will make their way back to Yemen.

Some Saudis here claim they are bombing the shyt out of these Shia in Yemen as well. So good luck to these loud mouth "brave" refugees on kaffir internet.

 

[anonymus]

@Icewolf

Do you consider it highest civilization standard if your group receives compulsory colonoscopy at every Airport in the world.

Looks like you are still, a Barbarian.