Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T13:41:39.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Art. XXII.—The Khaláṣat - at - Tawáríkh, or Essence of History; being the description and history of India as told by a Hindu two hundred years ago

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2011

H. Beveridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Khaláṣat-at-Tawáríkh is a history of India from the days of the Pandus and Kurus down to the defeat of Dárá Shikoh and the beginning of the reign of Aurangzeb. It was written two hundred years ago (1695–96) by an upcountry Hindu, whose name has been variously given as Sanjan, Suján, Saján, Shuján, and Subhán Rái. He does not name himself in his history, but he tells us that he was a native of Batála, in the Panjáb, and that he had been from his youth up in the employment of high officials as a munshi or secretary. Apparently he was a kshatriya by caste, but in my opinion he was almost, if not quite, a Sikh by religion.

Type
Original Communications
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , October 1894 , pp. 733 - 768
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1894

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 733 note 1 M. Garçin de Tassy and Dr. Rieu think it probable that the correct name is Suján—a word formed from the Sanskrit and meaning “clever” or “intelligent.”

page 733 note 2 See note A at end of paper.

page 733 note 3 I am indebted to Mr. Irvine for pointing out to me that the place is Batála and not Patiálá. Batála is a town and district in Gurdáspúr, in the Panjáb. They are described in the Imperial Gazetteer of India, and more fully in the Gazetteer of the Gurdáspúr (i.e. Gurudáspúr) district (Lahore, 1883–1884, p. 96)Google Scholar. Batála is the largest town in the Gurdáspúr district, and had in 1881 a population of 24,281. It lies 24 miles N.E. of Amritsar and about half a mile from the high road to Pathánkoṭ. The town is best known to English people in connection with A. L. O. E. (Miss C. M. Tucker).

The account of the founding and embellishing of Batála given in the Gazetteers agrees generally with that in the Khaláṣat, but it does not seem correct to say that Shamsher Khán was a foster-brother of Akbar. There was a Shamsuddín who was Akbar's foster-father, and who was killed by Adham Khán, but Shamsher Khán does not appear to have been his son. One MS. calls Shamsher Khán a eunuch. The others speak of him as Khwájah. According to the Khaláṣat, Rái Rám Deo Bhathí, zamíndár of Kapúrthala, was the founder of Batála. It is said that in his time the Panjáb was in a very desolate state on account of a flood, which had laid the whole country under water, from the Sutlej to the Chenáb, and also of the incursions of the Moguls. Rái Rám therefore got the whole of the Panjáb in farm from Tátár Khán, the Súbahdár (Governor) of Lahore, for nine lakhs of tankás. I understand this to mean rupís, but Sher 'Alí has taken it to mean ṭakas, i.e. double pice. If so, the rent would be about Rs. 28,000. It chanced, says Suján Rái, that Rái Rám embraced Mahommadanism, a circumstance which led to his advancement. In 877 a.h. (1472 a.d.), in the reign of Bahlól Lodí, Rái Rám founded Batála, and it was afterwards embellished by Shamsher Khán and others. [Apparently the Hijra date given in the text is wrong, for 1522 is given as the corresponding Vikramáditya date, but this would agree with 870 a.h. (1465 a.d.).] Suján Rái says that batálah means “change” in Panjábí, and that the town got the name of Batála because the site first chosen was not good, and so was altered to another place in the vicinity.

page 734 note 1 The passage occurs in the account of Akbar's reign. It is there stated that Sháh Ṭahmásp, the king of Persia, suggested to Humáyún that he should ally himself with the Indian aristocracy. Accordingly Humáyún afterwards married the eldest daughter of Jamál Khán, the nephew of Husain Khán Mewátí, a leading Indian Mahommadan, who probably was originally a Janúhah Rájpút (Blochmann's A'ín, p. 334, note). At the same time Bairám Khán married Jamal Khán's younger daughter, and she became the mother of 'Abdur-rahím, the Khán Khánán. Akbar went a step further and married the daughter of a Hindu. The Khaláṣat wrongly says that it was Akbar who married into Husain Khán Mewátí's family, a mistake which throws some doubt on its accuracy about Jahángír's mother.

page 735 note 1 “Materials for the History of India,” J.R.A.S., New Series, III. p. 423Google Scholar.

page 737 note 1 See note A at end of paper.

page 738 note 1 See note B at end of paper.

page 739 note 1 Elliot, viii. 3.

page 740 note 1 It appears from the extract in B.M. Or. 2055 that the Rájavalí referred to in the Makhtaṣir is not any particular book. The anonymous author merely uses it as a general name for the chronicles and genealogies of Hindu kings.

page 740 note 2 He says that there are in India twenty-two súbahs (provinces), 192 sarkárs, 4152 mahals (parganas); and that the revenue is 8 arbs, 68 krors, 26 lakhs, and 80,573 dáms, i.e. 8,682,680,573 dáms, or Rs. 217,067,014 = 22 krors of rupís nearly. A century before, viz. in 1594—95, in the reign of Akbar, there were 15 súbahs, 105 sarkárs, 2737 qasbás (parganas?), and the revenue was about nine krors, or ninety millions of rupís. (A'ín, Jarrett's translation, II. 115. In addition to the dáms there were twelve lakhs of betel leaves. We are not told their value in money.)

The eighteen súbahs described are: Sháhjahánábád (Delhi), A'gra, Allahábád, Oudh, Bihár, Bengal, Orissa, Aurangábád, Bírar, Barhanpúr (Khándesh), Malwah, Ajmír, Ahmadábád (Gujrát), Tattah and Bhakkar (Sind), Multán, Lahore, Kashmír, and Kábul. He has omitted (according to two MSS. he has included them in his description), he says, Talingánah, the Deccan, and Kandahár. I do not know how the number twenty-two is made up (perhaps Assam or Assam and Kámrúp, which are described under the head of Bengal, make up the 22). The Romer MS. gives twenty as the total number, and so does the Araish-i-Mahfil. Perhaps Suján Rái wrote Talingánah-Deccan, in which case the total number would be only twenty. Tieffenthaler, I. 66, says that in Sháh Jahán's time there were twenty-two provinces, but the list he gives contains twenty-three names. The names which he gives in addition to those in the Khaláṣat are Balkh, Badakhshán, and Baglána. The revenue was 8,800,000,000 dáms, i.e. 22 krors of rupís. In his own time (about the middle of the 18th century) the number of provinces was 23, and the revenue about 33 krors.

Baglána was in Gujrát, and is described in the Khaláṣat in the province of Ahmadábád or Gujrát. It is spoken of as being a mountainous district between Surát and Nandurbar. It is the last province mentioned in Bernier's list, which also contains only twenty names.

page 743 note 1 The account of Mahmúd of Ghazní is very full and might certainly have been written by a Muhammadan. The words jahád and káfir and maláḥid are used, and the author is more favourable to the Ghazí, and describes the success of his expeditions with more zest, than might have been expected from a Hindu. But he does not praise him indiscriminately, and he tells, with many moral reflections, the story of Mahmúd'a clinging to his possessions up to his last gasp. Perhaps Suján Rái was touched by Mahmúd's great abilities and his liberality to poets. It is clear from the description of the removal of the idol at Tháneswar (in Mahmúd's fifth expedition) and the verses which he composes or quotes on the occasion that he was not a believer in idols.

page 743 note 2 I must admit that there are some unbecoming passages, e.g. the account of Mahmúd's fourth expedition and part of the account of Sultán Altamsh. Perhaps these were what Professor Dowson had in view.

page 743 note 3 Infidels—plural of káfir.

page 744 note 1 “Historians of India,” I. xxi.

page 744 note 2 The name is not mentioned in the Persian MSS. which I have seen, but it occurs in the Araish-i-Mahfil. Just previously Suján Rái had mentioned the remarkable fact that the khádims or servants of the shrine of a Muhammadan saint, Shamsuddín Dariyái, were Hindus, and that they had preserved their position in spite of the efforts of Musalmans to displace them.

page 744 note 3 The description of Dárá's heretical practices is mainly copied from the 'Alamgírnámah of Muhammad Kázim, Bib. Ind. pp. 34–36, but it is softened, and Suján never, I think, adopts M. Kázim'a insulting way of speaking of Dárá as Be-Shikoh, i.e. “without magnificence.”

page 745 note 1 See the remarks at the beginning of the Muhammadan period, where he says that God is no respecter of religions, and that it was His good pleasure that the Hindu supremacy should come to an end, and that India should come under the shadow of Muhammadan rulers.

page 745 note 2 Bábar tells us the custom in Bengal was, that whoever succeeded in killing the King and placing himself on the throne was regarded as the legitimate monarch. Memoirs of Bábar, Erskine's translation, p. 311.

page 746 note 1 We are reminded of Locke's description of the people who “canton out

“to themselves a little Goshen in the intellectual world, where light shines, and,

“as they conclude, day blesses them; but the rest of that vast expansum they give

“up to night and darkness, and so avoid coming near it.”

page 747 note 1 Apparently this is a favourite verse with Suján Rái, for he uses it again, when praising Akbar for abolishing the jizyah or capitation-tax on infidels. He there, too, represents Akbar as applying the argument from the universality of God's goodness to kings. Kings, Akbar is represented as saying, are the shadows of God, and as His sun warms equally the good and the bad so should they regard all religions and all men with equal favour. A striking verse is quoted, which says that disputes about faith, i.e. the Muhammadan creed, and infidelity come at last to the same thing. There is but one dream, though the interpretations be different. (It is interesting to find the author of the Riyaz-as-Salátín ending his book with this verse; and making it the climax of his panegyric on the British Government.) He refers to the suspicions about Akbar's orthodoxy, and says that he was really more religious than most princes. He mentions a fact which I have not seen noticed elsewhere, viz. that 'Abdunnabí. the Çadr and opponent of Akbar, was put under the charge of Abul Fazl.

page 748 note 1 It was fabled that these princes had cups or mirrors which showed the universe.

page 748 note 2 “The chief excellency of Hindústán is that it is a large country and that it has abundance of gold and silver. The climate during the rains is very pleasant.”— Bábar's Memoirs, p. 333.

page 749 note 1 This is not merely a translation of Dante. It is the Persian “Aristo danishan peshín.”

page 749 note 2 See note C.

page 751 note 1 Persian text, p. 35.

page 752 note 1 He calls it “Batála dilkusha o ma'mur,” i.e. pleasant and heart-expanding Batála. After mentioning that in the 12th year of 'Alamgír (Aurangzeb), Mírzá Muhammad Khán, also called Mír Khání, had built a bazar at Batála when he was amín of the pargana, and that Qází 'Abdul Hye had built a house of stone and a masonry caravanserai, he says that Mánkí Rái and Suján Singh Kanungo and their sons had erected rest-houses and mosques, etc. He then speaks of a masonry well, made by Gangádhar, the son of Híránand Dhír, and of a garden made by Amar Singh in imitation of the gardens of Shálámár. He also gives an enthusiastic description of a fair held in September at a place called Achal, about four miles from Batála. He praises the beauty of the women who assemble there, and says that even the sun pauses in its course to admire the festival, and that there is no native of Batála, though he were hundreds of parasangs away, and living in great prosperity, and surrounded with delights, but would wish to be at home at such a time, and to take part in this fair. As the country is his own birthplace, he has, he remarks, thought it right to say a little about Batála, and the splendid festival. It seems evident that he only mentions the above obscure names because they are connected with himself, and that Suján Singh Kanungo must be either himself or a near relative. The mention of Híṛánand Dhír is interesting, as the writer describes himself in the extracts in Or. 1924 in the British Museum as Suján Singh Dhír.

It should be mentioned that in the Romer MS. and in the Hull MS., B.M. Add. 6564, the above-named building of a mosque or mosques is ascribed to Qází 'Abdul Hye, and that the name Mánkí is spelt Bánkí. B.M. Add. 5559 says the same thing, so that I suppose my MS. is in error in connecting the mosques with the names of the Hindus.

page 753 note 1 II. 315, Jarrett's translation.

page 753 note 2 In the account of Gujrát he states that the people collect the rain-water in underground reservoirs, which they call tánkhas. This agrees with the statement in Wilson's Glossary that the word “tank” is said to be Gujrátí.

page 754 note 1 He ascribes Sabuktigín's victory over Jaipal to supernatural causes. The Sultán was worsted, and then raised a storm of sleet and snow by defiling a fountain!

page 755 note 1 Similarly the circumstance that Ghiásuddín Balbán was fond of birds leads him into a disquisition on ornithology.

page 755 note 2 The passage in which Suján Rái describes this measure is enough to absolve him from the charge of intolerance or bigotry. Compare it with the extract from the Táríkh-i-Fírúz Sháhí quoted by Blochmann, A'ín i. 237. He also praises Akbar for putting a stop to cow-killing (gokashí), a practice which is, he says, abhorrent to the Hindus.

page 755 note 3 He ascribes to Todar Mall the introduction of Persian into the zamíndárí papers. In another place he exculpates him from the charge (mentioned by Blochmann, A'ín i. 432) that he had to do with the murder of Sháh Mançúr.

page 756 note 1 Abul Fazl never gives him the title of Sháh, but calls him either Faríd Khán or Sher Khán.

page 756 note 2 Wákiát-i-Jahángírí, Elliot vi. p. 376. “They associate and intermarry with Hindus, giving and taking daughters. As for taking, it does not so much matter; but as for giving their own daughters—Heaven protect us!” The Emperor is here speaking of the people of Rajáin, who were converts to Muhammadanism.

page 760 note 1 “Let no rich coverlet adorn my grave; this grass is the best covering for the poor in spirit, the humble, the transitory Jahánárá, the disciple of the holy men of Chisht, the daughter of the Emperor Sháh Jahán.” (The epitaph plays upon her name—Jahánárá—the ornament of the world.) She was Shán Jahán's firstborn, and was Dárá's full sister—the daughter of 'Açaf Khán, i.e. Mamtáz Mahall, being the mother of both. Jahánárá was also called Begum Sahíb and Pádisháh Begum.

page 760 note 2 Perhaps it was she whom Bernier was called in to prescribe for near Ahmadábád.

page 761 note 1 In his review of the “Memorials of Hampden.” It is curious that Archdeacon Farrar has overlooked this passage when he draws a similar parallel in his “Seekers after God,” p. 77.

page 761 note 2 Jahángír was a Muhammadan, but an Indian one, and his mother was a Hindu.

page 761 note 3 This has been remarked by MrSeton-Karr, in. an article in the Calcutta Review—“Selections from C.R.,” iii. 500Google Scholar.

page 761 note 4 Muhammad Kázim, Kháfí Khán, and Suján Rái all accuse Dárá of want of courage. Bnt it seems to me that he had plenty of pluck, though he had not the coolness of a Marlborough. Muhammad Kázim is an unblushing panegyrist of Aurangzeb. Suján Rái and Kháfí Khán have both copied from him, but I think that Kháfí Khán has also copied Suján Rái.

page 766 note 1 Tieffenthaler's, “India,” II. lix. Berlin, 1787Google Scholar.

page 766 note 2 Loc. cit. p. xxxix. n.