sign in sign up
<<
Home , Alai Darwaza, Amsar, Baradari (building), Bara Gumbad, Barid, Chhajja

INFORMATION TO USERS The most advanced technology has been used to photo­ graph and reproduce this from the microfilm master. UMI films the original text directly from the copy submitted. Thus, some dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from a computer printer.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyrighted material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are re­ produced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each oversize page is available as one exposure on a standard 35 mm slide or as a 17" x 23" black and white photographic print for an additional charge.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. 35 mm slides or 6" X 9" black and w h itephotographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

Accessing the World'sUMI Information since 1938

300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA

Order Number 8824569

The of Firuz Shah Tughluq

McKibben, William Jeffrey, Ph.D.

The Ohio State University, 1988

Copyright ©1988 by McKibben, William Jeflfrey. All rights reserved.

UMI 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106

PLEASE NOTE:

In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V

1. Glossy photographs or pages.

2. Colored illustrations, paper or print _

3. Photographs with dark background.

4. Illustrations are poor copy

5. Pages with black marks, not original copy. v /

6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page.

7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages

8. Print exceeds margin requirements ______

9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine ______

10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print.

11. Page(s) ______lacking when material received, and not available from school or author.

12. Page(s) ______seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows.

13. Two pages num bered . Text follows.

14. Curling and wrinkled pages ______

15. Dissertation contains pages with print at a slant, filmed a s received _

16. Other

UMI

THE ARCHITECTURE OF FIRUZ SHAH TUGHLUQ

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By

William Jeffrey McKibben, B.A., M.A.

*****

The Ohio State University

1988

Dissertation Committee: Approved by

Howard G. Crane

Susan L. Huntington Adviser Stephen F. Dale Department of History of Art Copyright by William Jeffrey McKibben 1988 To my father ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to express my sincere gratitude to the Samuel H. Kress Foundation for supporting my research in . I am especially thankful to my adviser, Dr. Howard Crane, for his insight, enthusiasm, and direction throughout the course of this project. I also want to thank Drs. Susan Huntington, Stephen Dale and Marilyn Waldman for their advice and support In addition, my appreciation is extended to Drs. Anthony Welch, Catherine Asher, Ebba Koch, Wayne Begley, and to the staff of the Archaeological Survey of India for generously devoting their time to answer my questions. For their encouragement and assistance, I am indebted to Dr. Gary Wells, Deborah Wells, Dennis

May, and Mark Ford. I am particularly grateful to my parents. Bill and Gene McKibben, for their love and support

u VITA

January 31,1954 ...... Bom - Wheeling, West Virginia 1978...... B.A., The Ohio State University 1980...... M.A., The Ohio State University

AWARDS 1984-1985, Samuel H. Kress Foundation Fellowship in Art History

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: History of Art Studies in Islamic and Indian art

ui TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNO’iVLEDGMENTS ...... ii VITA...... üi

LIST OF FIGURES...... vi LIST OF PLATES...... vü NOTE ON TRANSLITERATION...... xü CHAPTER PAGE

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Introduction ...... 1 Literature Survey ...... 5 Notes ...... 19 n. LIFE OF FIRUZ SHAH ...... 22

Life of Firuz Shah ...... 22 Historical Epigraphy of the Reign of Firuz Shah ...... 41 Notes ...... 50 m . SURVEY OF ...... 60 Urban Foundations ...... 62 ...... 67 M adrasas ...... 75 Tombs ...... 77 Palaces...... 80 Khanaqah ...... 84 Waterworks ...... 85 Acts of Restoration to pre-existing monuments ...... 87 Notes ...... 91

IV IV. THE JAMIMASJID AND LAT PYRAMID OF FIRUZABAD...... 97

Literaty Sources ...... 97 Description of the Archaeological Remains ...... 107 Inscriptions and the FuAfhaM'Firuz 5hn/u ...... 118 The Lar Pyramid: Form and M eaning ...... 129 N otes ...... 137

V. THE AND ASSOCIATED STRUCTURES AT 149 Firuz Shah’s iTzodrora in literature ...... 149 Description of the Archaeological Remains ...... 155 Inscriptions ...... 170 Conclusion ...... 182 N otes ...... 187

VI. THE PALACE AND ZAT Æ/ AT HISSAR...... 194 Literaty Sources ...... 194 Description of the Buildings ...... 200 N otes ...... 211 Vn. CONCLUSION ...... 214 Stylistic Analysis ...... 214 Classes of Structures ...... 226 Geographical Factors ...... 231 Motives for Building ...... 234 N otes ...... 244

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 249

FIGURES ...... 265 PLATES ...... 279 LIST OF FIGURES

1. Map of India. 2. Map of . Reproduced from Burton-Page, "Dihli," Encyclopedia of , v.n, p. 261. 3. Mosque, Firuzabad, drawing of east facade. Reproduced from Page, A Memoir on Kotla Firoz Shah. 4. Mosque, Firuzabad, plan. Reproduced from Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," Figure 2. 5. Mosque, Firuzabad, reconstruction drawing. Reproduced from Page, A Memoir on Kotla Firoz Shah. 6. Lat pyramid, plan of first storey. 7. Lat pyramid, cross-section. Reproduced from Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," Figure 3. 8. Lat pyramid, elevation. Reproduced from Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," Figure 3. 9. Lat pyramid, plan of second storey.

10. Lat pyramid, plan of third storey. 11. Hauz Khas, site plan. Redrawn from plan provided by Howard Crane and revised by author. 12. Hauz Khas, mosque, plan. Redrawn from plan provided by Howard Crane. 13. Hauz Khas, tomb of Firuz Shah, plan. Redrawn from plan provided by Howard Crane. 14. Hissar, Lat-Jd Mosque, plan. Redrawn from drawings provided by Howard Crane.

VI LIST OF PLATES

All plates, unless otherwise noted, are by the author. I. Mosque and lat pyramid, Firuzabad, view looking east. n. Manuscript illustration depicting arrival of lat beside Firuz Shah’s masjid, Firuzbad, from a sixteenth century copy of the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, Bankipur Library. Plate reproduced from Page, A Memoir on the Kotla. m . Manuscript illustration depicting the building of the first storey of the lat pyramid, Firuzabad, from a sixteenth century copy of the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, Bankipur Library. Plate reproduced from Page, A Memoir on the Kotla. rv. Manuscript illustration depicting the building of the second storey of the lat pyramid, Firuzabad, from a sixteenth century copy of the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, Bankipur Library. Plate reproduced from Page, A Memoir on the Kotla. V. Manuscript illustration depicting the building of the third storey of the pyramid, Firuzabad, from a sixteenth century copy of the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, Bankipur Library. Plate reproduced from Page, A Memoir on the Kotla. VI. Watercolor illustration of the lat pyramid from a nineteenth century diary of Sir Thomas Metcalf. Plate reproduced from M.M. Kaye, The Golden Calm. v n . Mosque, Firuzabad, view to southeast. Vm. Mosque, Firuzabad, view from lat pyramid looking south. IX. Mosque, Firuzabad, south ground level passage. X. Mosque, Rruzabad, west ground level passage. XI. Mosque, Firuzabad, west exterior facade. Xn. Mosque, Firuzabad, east facade. Xm. Mosque and lat pyramid, Firuzabad, view looking west (formerly the riverfront).

XTV. Mosque, Firuzbad, south exterior facade. XV. Mosque, Firuzabad, gate, view looking southeast.

vn XVI. Mosque, Firuzabad, north interior facade. XVn. Khirld Mosque, view of courtyard. Plate reproduced from Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," plate 8. XVm. Mosque, Firuzabad, west interior (^ib/a). XIX. Mosque, Firuzabad, northwest comer exterior facade. View looking south. XX. Mosque, Firuzabad, northwest comer interior facade. View looking northwest. XXI. Mosque, Firuzabad, west interior wall {) elevation. XXn. Mosque, Firuzabad, west wall (qibla), five central bays and . XXm. Mosque, Firuzbad, west wall (qibla), central . XXTV. Lat Pyramid, Firuzabad, west facade. XXV. Lat Pyramid, Firuzabad, view looking northwest. XXVI. Lat Pyramid, Firuzabad, view looking northeast XXVn. Lat Pyramid, Fimzabad, lat (Asokan ). XXVm. la t Pyramid, Firuzabad, /of, detail. XXIX. Mosque and lat pyramid, Fimzabad, view looking northeast.

XXX. Lat Pyramid, Fimmbad, second storey, detail. XXXI. Lat Pyramid, Fimzabad, third storey, detail. XXXn. Hauz Khas,madrasa, view looking southeast from ba'oli. XXXm. Hauz Khas, ha’o/i. XXXTV. Hauz Khas,madrasa, view from south block looking north.

XXXV. Hauz Khas, mosque, west facade. XXXVI. Hauz Khas, mosque, gate. XXXVn. Hauz Khas, mosque, west prayer hall. XXXVnL Hauz Khas, naosque, prayer hall, south arcade looking west XXXIX. Hauz Khas, mosque, prayer hall, central bay (left) and mihrab (center).

viii XL. Hauz Khas,madrasa, view from mosque looking south. XLl. Hauz Khas, madrasa, view of central section of madrasa and tomb of Firuz Shah from ba’oli, west and north facades. XLn. Hauz Khas, madrasa, central block (south side), upper floor colonnade. XLm. Hauz Khas, madrasa, central block (south side), upper floor colonnade. XLIV. Hauz Khas, madrasa, central block (east side), end chamber. XLV. Hauz Khas, madrasa, central block (south side), lower floor arcade.

XLVI. Hauz Khas, madrasa, central block (south side), lower floor arcade. XLVn. Hauz Khas,madrasa, central block (south side), north facade. XLVm. Hauz Khas, madrasa, central block (south side), north facade. XLIX. Hauz Khas, madrasa, central block (east side), west facade.

L. Hauz Khas, madrasa, central block (east side), west facade. LI. Hauz Khas, madrasa, central block (south side), south facade. LU. Hauz Khas,madrasa, central block (east side), east facade. Lm. Hauz Khas, madrasa, central block, end chamber, detail of spandrel with roundel of inscription. LTV. Hauz Khas,madrasa, east block, view from ba’oli looking east.

LV. Hauz Khas, madrasa, east block, lower floor, entrance to cell. LVI. Hauz Khas,madrasa, east block, lower floor, view looking south. LVn. Hauz Khas,madrasa, south block, view from ba’oli looking south. LVm. Hauz Khas,madrasa, south block extension, north facade. LDC. Hauz Khas, madrasa, south block extension, view of foundation looking west. LX. Hauz Khas, madrasa, south block extension, lower floor, north facade. LXL Hauz Khas, madrasa, south block extension, south facade. LXn. Hauz Khas, tomb of Firuz Shah, south facade.

ix LXm. Hauz Khas, tomb of Firuz Shah, south facade. LXIV. Hauz Khas, tomb of Firuz Shah, east facade. LXV. Hauz Khas, tomb of Firuz Shah, northwest comer. LXVL Hauz Khas, tomb of Firuz Shah, south entrance, arch inscription. LXVn. Hauz Khas, tomb of Firuz Shah, inscribed parapet on drum. LXVm. Hauz Khas, tomb of Firuz Shah, interior, . LXIX. Hauz Khas, tomb of Firuz Shah, interior, east wall. LXX. Hauz Khas, tomb of Firuz Shah, interior, northwest comer wall.

LXXI. Hauz Khas, tomb of Fimz Shah, west wall. LXXn. Hauz Khas, tomb of Fimz Shah, dome. LXXm. Hauz Khas, south block, lower floor, end chamber, plaster dome motif. LXXIV, Hauz Khas, view from of tomb of Rruz Shah looking west. LXXV. Hauz Khas, unidentified domed stmcture at southwest comer of compound. LXXVI. Hauz Khas, three- ("convocation" hall), east side of east block within compound wall. LXXVn. Hauz Khas, view of on east side of compound from position in front of tomb of Firuz Shah.. LXXVm. Hauz Khas, graveyard on east side of compound. LXXK. Hissar, palace, view looking south toward Lat-td Mosque. LXXX. Hissar, palace, view of interior courtyard.

LXXXI. Hissar, palace, entrance on northeast side. LXXXn. Hissar, palace, subterranean chambers. LXXXm. Hissar, palace, subterranean chambers.

LXXXIV. Hissar, palace, carved column reused as threshold. LXXXV. Hissar, palace, upper floor chamber. LXXXVI. Hissar, Lat-ki Mosque, north and west exterior facades. LXXXVn. Hissar, Lat-H Mosque, view of courtyard looking northwest LXXXVm. Hissar, Lat-ki Mosque, view of trench looking north. LXXXIX. Hissar, Lat-ld Mosque, view of courtyard looking northeast XC. Hissar, Lat-ki Mosque, prayer hall, south facade. XCI. Hissar, Lat-ki Mosque, courtyard, looking southeast. XCn. Hissar, Lat-ki Mosque, view of mosque and courtyard looking southwest. XCm. Hissar, Lat-ki Mosque, west prayer hall. XCTV. Hissar, Lat-ki Mosque, north arcade, east facade.

XCV. Hissar, Lat-ki Mosque, prayer hall, east facade. XCVI. Hissar, Lat-ld Mosque, prayer hall, interior, view looking south. XCVn. Hissar, Lat-ki Mosque, prayer hall, interior, view looking north. XCVm. Hissar, Lat-ki Mosque, prayer hall, central mihrab.

XCEX. Hissar, Lat-ki Mosque, prayer hall, northwest bay, lower floor. C. Hissar, Lat-ki Mosque, prayer hall, northwest bay, maqsura. Cl. Hissar, Lat-ki Mosque, prayer hall, carved column. Cn. Hissar, Lat-ki Mosque, view of domed structure and lat. cm . Hissar, Lat-ld Mosque, view of domed structure ?;;d lat.

CIV. Hissar, Lat-ki Mosque, view from inside domed structure looking west.

CV. Fathabad,/ar. i CVI. 'DtVtà,kushk-i shikar, lat.

XI NOTE ON TRANSLITERATION

Persian and words appear in transliterated form in this text. I have followed conventions used in the Encyclopedia of Islam, New Edition (Leiden: E. J.

Brill, 1960, et seq.), with minor modifications. Diacritical marks have been omitted.

XU CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Among the gifts which God bestowed on me. His humble servant, was a desire to erect public buildings. So I built many mosques and colleges and monasteries, that the learned and the elders, the devout and the holy, might worship God in these edifices, and aid the kind builder with their prayers.

Firuz Shah Tughluq Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi^

Firuz Shah Tughluq (r. 752-790/1351-1388),2 the fourteenth century of Delhi, allegedly had these words inscribed on the jami masjid or Friday mosque of his , Firuzabad. He ascended the throne at a time when Muslim rule of northern India had been established for 150 years. During this span of time, the successive rulers of the had changed the course of Indian history, culture, and architecture. Firuz Shah continued a building tradition which commenced at the mm of the twelfth century A.D. with the building of the Quwwat al-Islam mosque. 3 The early rulers of the Delhi sultanate quickly built other mosques, fortified cities, founded (colleges), constructed palaces and many other architectural monuments which still dot the landscape around modem Delhi. This energetic building activity continued under

Firuz Shah whose monuments, built 150 years after the Quwwat al-Islarri mosque, encompass a wide spectrum of architectural forms.4 The subject of this study is his architecture...... Firuz Shah was a prolific builder and generous benefactor of projects of public welfare. The scope of his building activity reveals that he was a man with broad interests and extensive resources. In fact, one historian of the age remarked that, in his architectural achievements, he surpassed his predecessors and monarchs of all countries.^ Firuz Shah’s monuments represent the last phase of sultanate architecture prior to ’s in 801/1398. Firuz Shah’s architecture stands in marked contrast to that of his predecessors. The physical characteristic of rubble and plaster construction, which typifies his buildings, is not encountered as frequently in the architecture of the early Delhi sultanate. The reasons for this are uncertain. Whether they include aesthetic concerns or personal preferences, or were the result of more practical concerns such as economic duress, availability of materials, or unavailability of craftsmen or stone masons who possessed the technology is unclear. His buildings possess a simplicity and modest scale compared to the monuments of later epochs. Although his monuments have distinctive architectural features which associate them with indigenous building traditions, many buildings produced under his patronage incorporate architectural forms and manifest stylistic continuities which link them with the architecture of the Islamic west.

Firuz Shah was sovereign of an Islamic state situated in the midst of a predominantly Hindu society - an infidel society from the Islamic perspective. The architectural monuments of the Muslim rulers of Delhi were created as much from a need to hold up signs to the non-Muslim population as to provide places for religious practices of the Muslim population.6 For example, the Quwwat al-Islam mosque and , inscribed with Quranic verse, were such monuments. The scale and grandeur of these monuments provided the physical means of expressing ideas of political supremacy and religious dominance. Although modem scholars have suggested specific motives for Firuz Shah’s architecture, which are addressed briefly later, these concerns are beyond the scope of this study. Firuz Shah is believed to have taken a keen interest in his various projects. For example, his personal involvement and supervision of the construction of the /ar pyramid in the kotla () of Firuzabad is recorded by contemporary historians, and his knowledge and skill in engineering matters were, according to these historians, irrefutable.7 Firuz Shah also took special pride in his efforts to preserve the monuments of his predecessors. The sultan actively repaired and restored earlier Muslim monuments and he records many of these acts in his edicts.^ In addition, Firuz Shah cultivated an environment which permitted others to patronize architectural projects. Several monuments attributed to high court officials survive. These are among the earliest instances of sub-imperial patronage of religious foundations during the period of the Delhi sultanate.9

The attribution of monuments to the patronage of Firuz Shah raises many questions. A large number of buildings have been attributed to Firuz Shah but only a few of these monuments can be identified today. Those which remain are mostly in ruinuous conditions. Only one epigraph which specffically associates the foundation of a with Firuz Shah survives. 10 No waqf document from the reign is known to survive although the sultan refers in an edict to a waqf-nama, a document also noted in a historical chronicle of the reign.H The historian. Shams al-Din Siraj ‘Afif, describes the revitalization of endowments during his reign but records of these are not extant.12 In spite of the absence of this critical evidence, however, attributions to Firuz Shah have been made on the basis of references in contemporary literature and the stylistic unity of the architectural forms themselves. Many of these buildings have been neglected in modem scholarship of Tughluq architecture. The structures most frequently discussed by modem art and architectural historians are Firuz Shah’s iat pyramid, an anomalous monument in Indo-, and the sultan’s tomb at Hauz Khas, referred to as a quintessentially typical sultanate tomb and most representative of Fimz Shah’s use of building materials. Although Fimz Shah’s reputation as a builder is well-known, the monuments which are commonly pointed to as representative Tughluq architecture of Fimz Shah’s reign are those whose patrons have been identified as high-ranking officials. The Kalan Masjid, built by Fimz Shah’s vizier or chief minister, and the so-called Tilangani tomb, situated on the grounds of Nizamuddin complex, are often singled out as typical examples. Why are Fimz Shah’s monuments ignored? In part, many do not survive, or survive in sigitificantly altered appearances. In this study, three complexes of monuments, are selected for close examination. These complexes - the sultan’s imperial mosque in Fimzabad, the Hauz Khas madrasa compound, and the fr^ontier town at Hissar - are most representative of Fimz Shah’s building projects. In all three sites, the monuments have survived nearly unaltered from the fourteenth century. Other stmctures attributed to Fimz Shah are more problematic. Some have suffered less fortunate fates, while others’ attributions are not widely accepted. In this study, historical, epigraphic, and art historical evidence is brought together. Questions concerning the basis for attributions to Fimz Shah, the stylistic features of his architecture, and the historical circumstances of his reign are discussed in order to understand the complexities of this unique patron. In Chapter n, a biography of Firuz Shah’s life is summarized in order to provide a historical perspective for his patronage. In Chapter m , the known corpus of monuments, based on literary record, is compiled. Chapter IV focuses on Firuz Shah’s imperial mosque in Firuzabad and the adjacent structure, the lat pyramid. Chapter V examines the sultan’s foundation at Hauz Khas, located on the south perimeter of Firuzabad, site of a madrasa (college), associated structures, and his tomb, which contains the only surviving major corpus of religious epigraphy of the reign. Chapter VI examines the remains of his frontier establishment at Hissar, located 130 kilometers northwest of Delhi. Finally, in Chapter VII, stylistic features of these three complexes are reviewed in the broader contexts of Indo-Islamic and western Islamic architecture, and motives for Firuz Shah’s building are suggested.

Literature Survey

Modem scholarship on Tughluq architecture is still in its infancy. Firuz Shah’s monuments have surprisingly figured less prominantly in studies of the architecture of the Delhi than one might expect from the esteemed reputation of the builder given in contemporary sources. The earliest record of Firuz Shah’s achievements was written by the pre-eminent historian of the age, Ziya’ al-Din Barani.l3 Barani is known from

four surviving works, Ta’rikh-i Fimz Shahi, Fatawa-yi Jahandari, Na’t-i Muhammadi, and Akhbar-i BarmakiyyanM His family was well-connected with the Delhi court since the time his father had risen to prominence under ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji. Barani served bin Tughluq for over seventeen years as nadim or court chronicler and continued to serve the court in that capacity under Firuz Shah. However at the beginning of Firuz Shah’s reign, Barani was implicated in a coup attempt and was banished from co u rt.l5 He spent his remaining years in exile seeking to be restored to the favor of the sultan. During this time he wrote the Ta'rikh-i Firuz Shahi until his death in 759/1357. TheTa’rikh-i Firuz Shahi recorded the history of the Delhi sultans from Balban (664-686/1266-1287) through the sixth year of Firuz Shah’s reign. Barani advocated strict adherence to the shari’a and judged the success or failure of the sultans he discussed accordingly. While 101 chapters were planned, Barani had only completed a portion of these at the time of his death. Those chapters which deal with Firuz Shah focus on the events surrounding his accession to the throne and his early reforms. Barani includes in two chapters a discussion of the sultan’s buildings and canals. His description of the madrasa at Hauz Khas is the only contemporary literary record of that institution. (His descriptions of the earlier Tughluq fouiidations at and Tughluqabad are included in earlier chapters.) Other matters which he addresses are Firuz Shah’s military feats: the campaign to (Barani lived to wimess only the first expedition) and the repelling of early Chaghatai marauders. He eulogizes the personal character of the sultan and remarks on his fondness for hunting. He also records the occasion of the sultan’s investiture by the caliph. Two editions of the Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi have been published. The Bibliotheca Indica edition, edited by Saiyid Ahmad Khan under supervision of Captain W. Nassau Lees and Maulavi Kabir al-Din, was published in 1862. This edition was a collation of two in the possession of Sir H. Elliot, one of which bore a transcription

colophon 1010/1610 and was borrowed from the Nawab of Tonk. The second edition was published by Elliot and Dowson, who translated parts of the Ta’rikh in the third volume of The As Told By Its Own Historians. Their translation was largely based on the Bibliotheca Indica edition. Only two chapters of those on Firuz

Shah’s reign are translated. Barani’s other work which is relevant to the reign of Firuz Shah is the Fatawa-yi Jahandari, completed in 1358-1359 A.D. The Fatawa is written in the form of advice fix>m to his sons and the rulers of Delhi. The work is his own personal theory of kingship and is representative of the tradition of nasihat literature of the tim e. 16 Barani viewed history as the instrument to teach religious morality through examples of the past Barani casts Firuz Shah as an ideal ruler. Barani’s interpretation of the sultan’s actions may have been influenced by his own personal misfortune and his desire to be restored to the favor of the sultan. The Fatawa-yi Jahandari is known from the India Office Library Persian manuscript (Persian MS 1149). An English translation by Dr. Afsar Begum (Mrs. Afsar Umar Salim Khan) from a manuscript in the Commonwealth Library was published in Medieval India Quarterly and was reprinted in Muhammad Habib and Afsar Begum, The Political Theory of the Delhi Sultanate. Barani’s unexpected death was an occasion of great mourning to Firuz Shah. The sultan despaired to find another historian who could rival Barani’s skills and reputation. His despair prompted him to assume the task himself and he wrote his own account of events of his reign in the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi. The Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi was a record of the achievements in the religious affairs of the state, not military victories. By his own testimony, Firuz Shah wrote the Futuhat to express gratitude to God and to provide a model which men could emulate in their lives. In this latter regard, the Futuhat may be categorized as belonging to the 8 nasihat literary tradition. The Futuhat includes a long list of the sultan’s architectural projects and restoration measures. Firuz Shah’s authorship of theFutuhat-i Firuz Shahi is attested to in a number of sources. ‘Afif, for example, states that Firuz Shah wrote his edicts after the death of Barani and had them inscribed in Firuzabad.17 ‘AfiTs statement is repeated by the later historians, Firishta and Ahmad Khan. The Futuhat thus must date from after the death of Barani, which occurred in 1357, and, because noted achievements of the latter part of the reign are absent, was probably completed within a few years.

Architectural epigraphs recording Firuz Shah’s edicts have long disappeared but the contents of Firuz Shah’s Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi survive in the form of appendices to manuscripts of the Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi by another noted historian. Shams al-Din Siraj ‘Afif, who will be discussed below. One of these manuscripts containing such an appendix is in the (Or.2039), a second in the collection of Aligarh Muslim University (copied 1299/1882), and a third is allegedly in the collection of Khan Bahadur Zafar Hasan. An edited Persian text and English translation by B. De, based on the

Aligarh manuscript, was published in the Bibliotheca Indica series in 1927. An English translation of the Futuhat by Elliot and Dowson appears in their History (3: 374-388). The Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, by an unknown author, is also believed to have been written during the reign of Firuz Shah. The vivid and detailed descriptions suggest that the author possessed firsthand knowledge of the events he recorded. In several passages of the work he relates details of the celebrated occasion of the sultan’s discovery of an Asokan column north of Delhi and his extraordinary efforts to retrieve it and transport it to Delhi. 18 He includes a step-by-step description of the building of the monument into which the column was installed. This author also discusses many other engineering projects, particularly waterworks, which Firuz Shah undertook. As noted, the identity of the author of the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi is unknown and his relationship to the sultan is also not known although he must have been close to the c o u rt.l9 TheSirat was probably written circa 1370, in the mid-part of the reign, because the author records the year 764/1367 as the time of the completion of the monument just mentioned. The text is known from a Persian manuscript in the Oriental Public Library at Bankipore, Pama dated 1002 A. H. Mohammad Hamid Kuraishi translated a portion of the work that concerned the transport of the Asokan column from Topra to Finizabad.

His translation appears in the monograph on the monument by J. A. Page in the Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India in 1937. Another valuable source for the period is a collection of documents written by ‘Ain al-Mulk, on behalf of the sultan, to the high-ranking nobles of the empire. These letters and petitions, the Insha-i Mahru or Munshat-i Mahru, provide details of the administrative and political undertakings of the sultan. Collections of Mahru’s letters are presently in the possession of Aligarh Muslim University and the Asiatic Society of Bengal.20

Shams-i Siraj ‘Afif, author of theTa'rikh-i Firuz Shahi, completed his work after the death of Firuz Shah.21 The work was written after the capture of the city of Delhi by

Timur’s army in 1398-1399. ‘Afif s relationship to the court is not known. He was not known to be a nadim like Barani and his patron is not known. ‘Afrf devotes several chapters to the architectural endeavors of the sultan, most notably the foundations at Firuzabad and Hissar. He also provides a list of monuments where Firuz Shah undertook restoration and also discusses the transport of the Asokan to Delhi. Since ‘Afif 10 witnessed the destruction of Delhi by Timur, his history is a nostalgic recollection of a past era. K s account is not always firsthand and he frequently relies on the testimony of other authorities, such as his father, as well as his own memory. According to the author, the Ta’rikh is only part of a larger composition which records the history of the Delhi sultanate j&om the time of Ghiyath al-Din Tughluq through the time of Timur’s capture. However, the known manuscripts of the work include only the reign of Firuz Shah. The name Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi has been ascribed to the work by modem historians on the basis of the surviving portions. Even these, however, are incomplete according to the author’s table of contents. ‘Afif refers to his work as the Manaqib-i Firuz Shahi'22

The Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi survives in several manuscripts, all imperfect copies. Two copies in India, one formerly in the possession of General Hamilton and another owned by Nawab Zia al-Din Loharu, were the basis for other copies owned by Sir H. Elliot, a certain Mr. Thomas, and two copies in the India Office Library (one by way of the Marquis of Hastings). The Bibliotheca Indica edition, edited by Maulavi Vilayat Husain, was published in 1891. Elliot and Dowson published an English translation of theTa’rikh in their History. Translated abstracts of the work by Lieut. Henry Lewis first appeared in the Journal of the Archaeological Society of Delhi in 1849. Additional sources for the reign of Firuz Shah which make brief references to his architectural achievements were written after his death. These include Yahya Sihrindi’s Ta’rikh-i Mubarak Shahi, completed ca. 1428, Saraf al-Din ’ Yazdi’s Zqfarnamah, written ca. 1435, and Timur’s Malfuzat-i Timuri, or Tuzuk-i Timuri, completed by 1405 A. D. Timur is said to have admired the buildings of the Tughluqs. Portions of all these works appear in English translation in the third and fourth volumes of Elliot and Dowson. 11

Muhammad Qasim Hrishta completed the Gulshan-i , also known as the Ta'rikh-i Firishta and Ta'rikh-i Nawras-nama, in 1015/1606-1607. In it he recorded the history of early Indo-Muslim , from the time of Sebuktigin of Ghazna. Writing under the patronage of Ibrahim ’Adil Shah of Bijapur, Firishta's Ta'rikh is an assimilation of earlier histories and oral tradition.23 In it he draws on Barani and the

Tabakat-i Akbari of Nizam al-Din Ahmad Bakshi (1001/1592-93). As a historical source, Firishta was considered by European scholars to be authoritative from the end of the 18th century when parts of his history first appeared in English translation. Alexander Dow translated and published the Ta'rikh in London in 1798 in two volumes as The History of Hindostan, from the Earliest Account of Time, to the Death of . A Persian manuscript of Firishta's Ta'rikh was edited by John Briggs and Mir Khairat ‘Ali Khan but was not published until 1247/1831-32 in Bombay under its Persian title Ta'rikh-i Firishtah. Briggs published an English translation of the work almost in its entirety in 1829 under the title History of the Rise of the Mohammedan Power in India, which appeared in four volumes. As a historical source, Firishta's account is suspect and his references to the architecture of Delhi are probably secondhand. The most important source for early modem scholarship on the architectural is theAthar al-Sanadid by Sayyid Ahmad Khan. Written in , the work remains one of the key documents upon which many subsequent scholars have relied. The work was initially published in 1846 and an abridged and revised edition appeared in 1854. The Athar al-Sanadid includes historical information about key monuments of the Delhi sultans and includes several woodcut illustrations of sketches of these monuments by the artist Mirza Beg Musawwir. A French translation, "Description des monuments de Delhi an 1852, d'après le texte Hindoustani de Saiyid 12

Ahmad Khan," by M. Garcin de Tassy appeared in Journal asiatique (Juin 1860, pp. 508- 536; Août-Septembre 1860, pp. 190-254; Octobre-Novembre 1860, pp. 392-451; Décembre 1860, pp. 521-543, and Janvier 1861, pp. 77-97). The work was republished in CaVnpore in 1904 shortly after the author’s death in 1898, under the same title Athar al-Sanadid (English title - Asar-oos-Sanadid, i.e.. The first literary venture of Jawad-ud- dowla Arif-i-Jang Dr. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan). Recently, R. Nath has issued an edited English translation. Monuments of Delhi, A Historical Study, published under the auspices of the Indian Insitute of Islamic Studies, , 1979.

Early scholars’ attention to sultanate architecture focused on the impressive remains in the Delhi region: James Blunt, "A Description of the Cuttub Minar, Asiatick Researches IV (1795) and Walter Ewer, "An Account of the Inscriptions on the Cootub Minar and on the Ruins in its Vicinity," Asiatick Researches XTV (1822). Firuz Shah’s monuments were first published by Henry Colebrooke in "Translation of one of the Inscriptions on the Pillar at Delhi, called the Lat of Feeroz Shah,"Asiatick Researches VII (1801). The Archaeological Survey of India also focused attention on the remains of Firuz Shah’s monuments and reports on them first appear in Arthur Cunningham, "Report of the Proceedings of the Archaeological Surveyor to the for the season 1862-1863," Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal XXXm (1864), and then in Reports of the Archaeological Survey of India I (1871), IV (1874), V (1875), and XX (1882-83). By the mid-nineteenth century, other scholars turned their attention to the urban complexes of Delhi. Henry Lewis and Henry Cope examined the ruins at Firuzabad in "Some Account of the Town and Palace of Fcerozabad in the vicinity of Delhi,...," Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal XVI (1847), and the same authors focused on an 13

early mosque in their article "Some Account of the ’Kalan Musjeed" commonly called the ’Kalee Musjeed’ within the new town of Delhi," published in the same issue of Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal XVI (1847). Some years later C. J. Campbell published "Notes on the History and Topography of the Ancient Cities of Delhi," Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal XXXV (1866-1867). In 1855 James Fergusson fîrst examined the architectural remains in his Illustrated Handbook of Architecture but his well known survey of Indian and East Asian architecture.History of Indian and Eastern Architecture, 2 volumes, did not appear until 1876. His survey offered for the fîrst time to a general audience a view of the material remains of the Indian culture. Alongside J. Briggs’s History of the Rise ofMahomedan Power in India, Fergusson’s survey of Muslim history and architectural history remained

undisputed into this century. One of the most significant works for early sultanate history appeared in 1867- 1877. Sir H. M. Elliot and John Dowson, The History of India as Told Its Own Historians, The Muhammadan Period, in eight volumes, which appeared in London in 1867-1877, continues today to be an invaluable resource for Indo-Muslin history. The volumes include English translations of portions of key historical works of the reign of Firuz Shah Tughluq, including the sultan’s Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi, ‘A fif s Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi, Barani’s Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi, and others. Elliot and Dowson’s history remains a landmark contribution. At the same time, Edward Thomas published The Chronology of the Pathan Kings of Delhi, illustrated by , inscriptions, and other antiquarian remains (London, 1871), drawing upon Sayyid Ahmad Khan’s Athar al-Sanadid. A number of handbooks and guides on the material remains in the Delhi area appear throughout the century. Besides Fergusson’s Illustrated Handbook of Delhi 14

(mentioned above), other guides appeared: Frederick Cooper, The Handbook for Delhi (Delhi 1863), H. G. Keene’s Handbook for Visitors to Delhi, and Carr Stephen’s The Archaeology and Monumental Remains of Delhi ( 1876). The latter author derived much of his information from Sayyid Ahmad Khan. All offered annotated

descriptions of numerous points of interest in Delhi. After the turn of the century, H. C. Fanshawe, Delhi, Past and Present (London 1902), G. R. Heam, The Seven Cities of Delhi (London 1906) and E. A. Duncan’s updated edition of Keene's Handbook for the Visitors to Delhi (Calcutta 1906) appeared. More recently T. G. Percival-Spear published Delhi: Its Monuments and History (London 1943) and Y. D. Sharma prepared Delhi and Its Neighborhood for the XXVI International Congress of Orientalists. The volume was published under the auspices of the Archaeoloical Survey of India (New Delhi, 1964). The Archaeological Survey of India published from 1916-1922 the List of Muhammadan and Hindu Monuments: Delhi Province in four volumes. Volumes on Delhi Zail (v. 2, Delhi 1919) and Mahrauli Zail (v. 3, Delhi 1922) include Firuz Shah’s

buildings. In addition, the Archaeological Survey also published in its Memoirs a series of monographs on sites of importance. Noted among these are Zafar Hasan, Guide to Nizammudin (1922) and J. A. Page, An Historical Memoir on the Qutb: Delhi (1926). The buildings of Firuz Shah were the focus of Memoir No. 52 (1937) published by J. A.

Page in A Memoir on Kotla Firuz Shah, Delhi. This volume includes the English translation of portions of the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi relevant to the buildings of the kotla referred to above. Alongside the Memoirs, the Archaeological Survey continued to publish its Annual Reports of the Archaeological Survey of India (Northern Circle) between 1910-11 and 1920-21. 15

Two major studies of Indo-Islamic epigraphy were compiled under the auspices of the Archaeological Survey of India; Epigraphica Indo-Moslemica, 9 volumes (1909- 1938) and Epigraphica Indica (Arabic and Persian Supplement), 8 volumes (1955-1968). Of particular interest is Zafar Hasan’s "Inscriptions of Sikandar Shah Lodi in Delhi," EJM. 1919-20 (Calcutta 1924) which includes the historical epigraph of the of Firuz Shah. Other scholars have made significant contributions to the study of epigraphy of early Indian Islamic monuments. These include Maulvi Muhammad Ashraf Husain’s

Record of All the Quranic and Non-historical Epigraphs on the Protected Monuments in the Delhi Province published in Memoirs o f the Archaeological Survey of India No. 47 (Calcutta 1936), V. S. Bendrey, A Study of Muslim Inscriptions (Bombay 1944), and relevant sections of (Jeyamuddin Ahmad’s Corpus of Arabic & Persian Inscriptions of (A.H. 640'1200) (Patna 1973). Subhash Parihar publishedMuslim Inscriptions in the , And in 1985 and brought attention to many neglected monuments of those regions. Much has been written about the architecture of the Delhi sultanate. The best known surveys are found in Percy Brown’s, Indian Architecture: The Islamic Period (Calcutta 1942) and R. Nath’s History of Sultanate Architecture (Delhi 1982). Other accounts include those in R. A. Jairazbhoy, An Outline of Islamic Architecture (New York 1972); Ziya ud-Din Desai, Indo-Islamic Architecture (New Delhi 1970) and Mosques of India (New Delhi 1971); and Satish Grover, The , Islamic 727-1707 AD. (New Delhi 1981). John Marshall’s survey in the Cambridge History of India (1928) and J. Burton-Page’s surveys in the Encyclopedia of Islam, "Dihli," n (1966) pp. 255-266, and "Hind, pt. vii. Architecture," m (1971), pp. 440-454, 16 are all useful. Anthony Welch and Howard Crane published a survey of Tughluq monuments in "The Tughluqs: Master Builders of the Delhi Sultanate,"

(1983). The most extensive survey of sultanate architecture published by the University of Tokyo, Institute of Oriental Culture (Tokyo Daigaku. Indo Shiseki Chosa Dan) in 1967-1970 is a three volume woric entitled Deri: Deri shoocho-jidai no kenzobutsu no kenkyu (English tide: Delhi: Architectural Remains of the Delhi Sultanate Period). The authors, Tatsuo Yamamoto, Matsuo Ara, Tokifusa Tsukinowa and Taichi Oshima, using photogrammetrical means, compiled plans and elevations of numerous monuments and supplemented these with photographs. The first volume contains a general list of about 400 monuments, classified among mosques, graveyards, tomb-buildings, waterworks, and miscellaneous structures, which are subdivided by form, function, and chronology. The second volume focuses on tomb architecture and discusses the typology, forms, methods of construction, and historical backgrounds of 142 monuments. Four tombs were selected for intensive study: those of Ghiyath al-Din Tughluq, Shaikh Shihab al-Din Taj Khan, Saiyid, and an unidentified twelve-pillared tomb near . The third volume focuses on waterworks and lists 52 remains of stepped wells iba’olis), dams {bands), bridges, and sluices, of which a few are examined more extensively than the rest. Unprecedented in scope, these volumes present a comprehensive inventory and photographic survey of the Delhi sultanate. These volumes were published in limited editions and are difficult to obtain. A reprinted edition, with

English translations, is planned. Several studies of the architecture of other sultanates of India have been published. These are useful for comparative purposes as well as for the fact that they 17 provide occasion reference to the Delhi sultans. Both Brown and Nath include regional developments in their respective surveys. Those surveys whose contents are germane to the study of Firuz Shah include George Michell (Editor), The Islamic Heritage of Bengal (UNESCO 1984); and Ahmad Nabi Khan, : History and Architecture ( 1983). A. Fiihrer’s early study, Sharqi Architecture ofJaunpur (London 1909), examines the architecture of Jaunpur after Firuz Shah’s foundation. A comprehensive survey of Muslim architecture of the Punjab and Haryana does not exist; however, articles on individual monuments are listed in two bibliographic sources: S. Y. Quraishi, Haryana Rediscovered: A Bibliographical Area Study, v. 1 (1985) and K. C. Yadav and S. R.

Phogat, History and Culture of Haryana: A Classified and Annotated Bibliography

(1985). Thus, scholarship on sultanate architecture has included typological and formal studies as well as archaeological and historical surveys. As noted, Firuz Shah’s monuments constitute a small part of these studies of Indo-lslamic architecture. A limited number of historical references have produced a small number of attributions yet the physical remains of many buildings commonly assigned to his patronage are scattered around the Delhi area. Epigraphic evidence which support these attributions is virtually lost. The surviving evidence culled from these sources is brought together here in an attempt to formulate some conclusions about Firuz Shah’s architecture. In the following pages, the corpus of architectural monuments attributed to Firuz Shah is reconstructed from evidence gleaned from the literary record and scant epigraphy as well as physical evidence of three of his most significant undertakings: the imperial mosque and so-called lat pyramid of his capital, the religious complex at Hauz Khas, and his frontier establishment at Hissar. By doing so, some questions about this important 18 builder should be kept in mind. What are the characteristics of the architectural forms of Firuz Shah’s monuments? What functions or purposes can be ascribed to these architectural forms? What are the prototypes or sources for these forms? V.liat is the basis for associating these forms to Firuz Shah? To what degree does the corpus of extant monuments correspond to the literary record? With these questions in mind, let us Rrst examine the historical events of his life and survey his known monuments. 19

NOTES TO CHAPTER I

1 Firuz Shah,Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), p. 382. 2 Both Hijra and Christian era dates are used in this text (Hijra preceding Ciiristian). All dates which stand alone are designated by A.H., A.D., or B.C. 3 The (Juwwat al-Islam mosque is examined by J. A. Page, An Historical Memoir on the Qutb: Delhi, Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India No. 52, Delhi, 1937. 4 Firuz Shah’s city of Firuzabad was the fifth of the seven medieval cities of Delhi: Rai Pithora, Siri, Tughluqabad, Jahanpanah, and Firuzabad. The mosque at had fallen into disrepair by Firuz Shah’s day. See Firuz Shah, Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), p. 383. 5 ‘Afif, Ta'rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 354. 6 See A. Welch, "Qur’an and Tomb," p. 257; and Welch, "Islamic Architecture and Epigraphs in Sultanate India," in Studies in South Asian Art and Archaeology, edited by A. K. Narain (forthcoming). 7 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 350-353; Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, pp. 33-42. 8 Firuz Shah,Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 383-385. 9 The most impressive examples of sub-imperial patronage include the mosques built by Khan-i Jahan Junan Shah, Firuz Shah’s prime minister. Carr Stephen,The Archaeology and Monumental Remains of Delhi, pp. 148-149, lists seven mosques attributed to Khan-i Jahan, based on Sayyid Ahmad Khan’s attributions, but not all of the attributions are accepted. Khan-i Jahan is identified by inscription on two of the seven, the Kali Masjid and Kalan Masjid, dated 772/1370-71 and 789/1387 respectively. Some other examples in Delhi include the of Shaikh Salah al-Din, near Mauda Khirki, dated 754/1353 (Nath, Monuments of Delhi, p. 36) and a saubate tomb dated 777/1375-76, near Hauz Khas (Archaeological Survey of India, Lists of Monuments, v. 3, pp. 73-74, no. 112). 10 Firuz Shah is identified by inscription in the entrance gate of the tomb at the dargah of Hazrat Nasir al-Din Roshan, Chiragh-i Delhi, dated 775/1373. The Lodi inscription on his mausoleum at Hauz Khas identifies him as the occupant, not the builder. See Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 146, footnote. 11 Firuz Shah, Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), p. 382; Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, translated in Rashid, "Firoz Shah’s Investiture," p. 71. 12 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 354-355. 20

Authors whose works predate Firuz Shah’s reign provide descriptions of the topography and monuments of Delhi^ Their accounts are useful in setting the stage for Firuz Shah’s reign, one which witnessed a proliferation of architectural monuments. Most noted among tiiese authors is the poet (b. 651/1253) whose Tughluk-nama, one of his many prose works which describes the glorious victories of Khalji and Tughluq rulers makes no reference to their architectural achievements. Amir Khusrau was patronized by ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji, Qutb al-Din Mubarak Shah and Ghiyath al-Din Tughluq. See P. Hardy, "Amir Khusraw Dihlawi," Encyclopedia of Islam I (1960), pp. 444-445. ’Isami, a court poet under , was embittered over his family’s forced migration to Daulatabad so he retired to the court of ‘Ala’ al-Din Hasan Bahman Shah and wrote hisFutuh al-Salatin in 750-751/1349-1350 under the patronage of the Bahman sultan. The Futuh, written in the manner of Firdausi’s Shah-nama, recounts the conquests of India since the (English trans. Agha Mahdi Husain, Bombay 1967). In it, he provides one of the few early descriptions of Delhi. See A.S. Bazmee Ansari, "’Isami," Encyclopedia of Islam IV (1978), pp. 92-93.

Ibn Battuta served as a qadi to the court of Muhammad bin Tughluq between 1333-1343 A.D. In his Rihla, completed in 756/1357, he described the urban landscape of Delhi. See A. Miquel, "," Encyclopedia of Islam IE (1971), pp. 735-736. Chapters on India translated by C. Deftémery and B.R. Sanguinetti, Voyage d'Ibn Batoutah, 4 vols (Paris, 1853-59); H. A. R. Gibb, The Travels of Ibn Battuta, 2 vols (Cambridge, 1958-62); and Mahdi Husain, TheRehla of Ibn Battuta (Baroda, 1953). The poet Badr al-Din Chach wrote a panegyric description of Delhi and the palace of Khurrambad in the Qasa’id (portions translated by Elliot and Dowson). Shihab al-Din ‘Abbas al-’Umari wrote about monuments of Delhi and Daulatabad without having visited the subcontinent. Based on traveler’s descriptions, he completed the Masalik al-absar fi mamalik al- in (Trans. I.H. Siddiqi and Q.M. Ahmad, Fourteenth Century Account of India under Muhammad bin Tughluq, Aligarh 1971.

14 Biographical details about Barani’s life are provided by Hardy, Historians of Medieval India, pp. 20-39; Hardy, "Diya’ al-Din Barani," Encyclopedia of Islam I, pp. 1036-1037; and Habib, "Life and Thought of ," in Political Theory of the Delhi Sultanate, pp. 117-172. 15 Ibid. Details about his banishment are sketchy. Barani himself relates in his Na’t-i Muhammadi that he was confined to the Pahtez fortress for five months. 16 Nasihat literature consisted of books of advice which were paradigms or mirrors for princes to emulate. 17 According to ‘Afif the text of the Futuhat was inscribed on the of the Kushk-i Shikar, the dome of the Kushk-i Nuzul, and the of the stone mansion at 21

Firuzabad. Elsewhere he repeats that it was inscribed on the tower of the Kushk-i Nuzul. ‘Afif Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 316. 18 There were two columns brought to Delhi but the author of the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi mentions only one. ‘Afif discusses both columns. ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 350-353. 15 Hodivala suggests that the author of the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi may be ‘Abd al- ‘Aziz Shams Bahanuri, author of an alleged work Tawarikh-i Firuz Shahi and translator of a Hindu text, Brihat Samhita of Varahamihira, a text found by Firuz Shah during his plunder of a library in Nagarkot (Kangra). See Hodivala, Studies of Indo-Muslim History, v. 2, p. 130-131. 20 Hodivala, Studies in Indo-Muslim History, v. 1, p. 338. Hodivala discusses the Asiatic Society of Bengal group. The Aligarh University collection is edited by S. A. Rashid assisted by Muhammad Bashir Husain (, 1965). 21 For a discussion of ‘Afif s work and biographical details, see Hardy, Historians of Medieval India, pp. 40-55.

22 Themanaqib ("merit" or "virtue") is a literary genre which is usually reserved for biographies of saints and Muslim holymen. According to Hardy, the application of this genre to a biography of a sultan is unusual and he claims that ‘Afif "superimposes upon events a pattern required by the literary genre..." The same author contends that ‘Afif models the sultan "in conformity with an abstract ideal." See Hardy, Historians of Medieval India, p. 41. 23 Firishta is believed to have depended heavily on Barani’s Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi, but he seems to be unaware of ‘Afif s work. See Hardy, "Firishta," Encyclopedia of Islam 2 (1966), pp. 921-922. CHAPTER n

LIFE OF FIRUZ SHAH

The history of Firuz Shah’s reign is given by numerous modem authors.! Their accounts are derived largely from contemporary texts by Barani and ‘Afif, and tire Sirat-i Firuz Shahi. Later historians, Firishta and Nizam al-Din, who draw upon these early authors’ accounts, present little new information. These authors provide biographical facts about the man and record the main events of his reign. Although they offer dates of major campaigns and noted events, a decisive chronology is only partially known. Our understanding of Firuz Shah’s life is further enlightened by the sultan’s own statements, which he records in theFutuhat-i Firuz Shahi. He is believed to have been a lavish patron but this role is only partially understood. The Sirat-i Firuz Shahi relates that Firuz Shah participated in the conception and design of the lat pyramid and closely supervised its construction, but little is revealed in other contemporary sources about the part he played in the building process. Whether he provided revenue from personal or state resources is unknown. Likewise, information about the patron-worker relationship is scant, and records of endowments and revenue dispersal are altogether lacking. But, nonetheless, the contemporary histories and the sultan himself remark about his fondness for building.

In addition to contemporary literature, the history of Firuz Shah can also be reconstructed, in part, using historical epigraphy. This evidence, contained on

22 23 monuments constructed during his reign, has largely disappeared. Although this evidence is severely lacking, a small body of historical epigraphs survives which points to a broader scope of patronage, at times influenced by the sultan, than that on the imperial level. With these considerations in mind, let us begin by examining the life of

Firuz Shah known from literary sources. The Tughluqs were of Turkic origin and came to India from Khurasan,2 In his Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi, ‘Afif traces back the origin of the line to three brothers who came to India during the reign of ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji (r. 695-715/1296-1316) and resided in the region of Dipalpur.3 The collapse of the Khalji sultanate occurred when Khusraw Khan, an individual favored by the Khalji sultan Mubarak Shah (r. 716-720/1316-1320), renounced his conversion to Islam and usurped the throne of Delhi. Ghiyath al-Din Tughluq, the military governor of Dipalpur and Multan, seized power in 720/1320 and established a new ruling Muslim line.4 Abu’l-Muzaffar Firuz Shah was bom in 709/1309, the son of an sipahsalar (army commander), Rajab, who was the brother of Ghiyath al-Din Tughluq G hazi.5 His mother, Bibi Na’ila, was a Hindu from the Punjab, the daughter of the Rana of Dipalpur, a zamindar (landholder).^

Little is known about Firuz Shah’s childhood.? His father died when he was seven whereupon his upbringing fell into the hands of his uncle Ghiyath al-Din Tughluq.

When Ghiyath al-Din ascended the throne in 720/1320, Firuz Shah’s education in the affairs of state began. When he was eighteen, Ghiyath al-Din died and his tutelage was continued under Muhammad bin Tughluq, the brother of Ghiyath al-Din. Muhammad bin Tughluq appointed Firuz Shah as naib-i amir-hajib (deputy of the lord chamberlain) and granted him the title na’ib bar-bak which carried a command of 12,000 horses. 24

When M uham m ad bin Tughluq divided his empire into four administrative territories, he placed one under Firuz Shah so the young man could gain experience.8 The circumstances surrounding Firuz Shah’s accession are confusing. Both Barani and ‘Afif devote significant attention to it but their versions of the events do not always agree. Muhammad bin Tughluq had reigned for 45 years when he met his death while campaigning in , most likely a result of food poisoning. He is believed to have designated Firuz Shah as his successor.9 Firuz Shah was present in the royal encampment in Thatta on the campaign to Sind during which Muhammad died and he was elected to succeed his uncle by members of court and ‘' who accompanied the cam p aig n . 10 ‘Afif mentions that Firuz Shah was reluctant to assume the responsibilities of sultan and instead desired to make the pilgrimage to . Firuz Shah was in his early forties when he ascended to power. The preceding reign of Muhammad bin Tughluq had been a tumultuous one, marked by continuous campaigning and administrative reform. From Muhammad bin Tughluq’s tutelage, he possessed the necessary requisites for the job and he was a seasoned veteran in affairs of

state but despite his talents, Firuz Shah’s reticence about succeeding him underscored his perception of the burdens which temporal leadership of the age carried. But the decision of the members of the imperial camp prevailed and Firuz Shah was convinced to accept. Nonetheless, much controversy has surrounded the circumstances of Firuz Shah’s accession. 11 Although Barani and ‘Afif diverge on details of his selection, both authors assert the logic of Firuz Shah’s selection and emphasize his popularity. Firuz Shah’s investiture took place in Thatta on 24 Muharram 752/March 23, 1351 A.D. In his first act as sultan he appointed Shirabru Chashm as his chief minister orImad al-Mulk (Pillar of State).l2 His career as a builder began shortly after his accession. While enroute back to 25

Delhi from Thatta, Firuz Shah founded the town of Fathabad, in commemoration of the birth of his son Fath Khan. This foundation is the earliest foundation attested to in contemporary sources. Firuz Shah was not the military giant that his predecessor was nor did he take excessive pride in his military achievements. He had inherited a secure empire from

Muhammad bin Tughluq. The latter was the empire builder of the , consolidating a territorial expanse which extended from to Bengal and from the Punjab to the Deccan. In fact, he collapsed and died while in pin-suit of conquest of Sind. In contrast, Firuz Shah focussed his attention less on military engagements and territorial expansion and more on administrative and leisurely pursuits. Empire building was not among his ambitions. This may be in part due to the belief that he shunned bloodshed, often in the guise of sparing fellow , and he frequently acquiesced to political factions and relinquished territories. He made overtures of conquest and on more than one occasion but his imperial ambitions paled beside those of his predecessor. Moreover Firuz Shah makes no mention of military campaigns in his edicts, the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi, in which he records his victories or achievements. Firuz Shah’s first military encounter after assuming command was directed against the Chaghatai mercenaries who had plundered the encampment at Thatta. Firuz also successfully prevented Chaghatai bands from entering Delhi shortly before his return from Thatta. 13 However, Firuz Shah’s career as a military commander was spotted with indecision and impulsivenesss.l4 Some authors have attributed his actions to imperial ambition. Other motivating forces are betrayed in his concern for maintaining stability and he frequently accepted territorial losses in turn for peace. 15 His major campaigns took place early in his reign, when he undertook two expeditions into Bengal. His 26 ventures into the region are better known for the legacy he left behind him - in particular, his architectural foundation of Jaunpur - rather than the battles he fou g h t. 16

Although the motive for the initial campaign to Bengal in 754/1353 has been disputed, it is likely that Firuz Shah intended to suppress Haji Ilyas Shah who had set himself up as an independent ruler of Bengal in 746/1345 and assumed the title Sultan

Shams al-Din Ilyas S h a h .l7 Firuz Shah encountered Shams al-Din on the banks of the Kosi River and forced his troops to flee to the fortress on the island of Ikdala which offered protective jungle and waterways. Firuz Shah’s feigned retreat succeeded in luring Shams al-Din out of the fort and his troops pursued him until he sought refuge once more in the fort at Ikdala. Fimz Shah’s troops then besieged the fort. But, to avoid the bloodshed of Muslims, he negotiated peace. The first expedition to Bengal (Lakhnauti) took eleven months. Upon returning to Delhi, Firuz Shah commenced building his palace at Firuzabad (ca. 755/1354). Firuz Shah’s Kotla was the first city of Delhi to be situated on the banks of the Jumna River. During the time following his campaign to Bengal, Firuz Shah also ordered construction of a college or madrasa at the tank of ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji at Hauz Khas on the southern fringe of Firuzabad. In addition, he also founded Hissar (ca. 757/1356), to the northwest

of Firuzabad, in Haryana, only a few miles from his earlier foundation at Fathabad.l8

The region underwent significant change as a result of the excavation of two canals by his orders. While he was in residence in Hissar, he received an emissary, Zafar Khan, who requested that he return to Bengal. Firuz Shah returned to Bengal at the plea of Sultan Fakhr al-Din, the mler at , who sought revenge for his father-in-law’s

death at the hands of Shamsal-D in. 19 27

The second campaign to Bengal has been described as a leisurely procession. Firuz Shah conducted his army through Kanauj and where he stayed for six montlis, founded the city of Jaunpur (760/1359) as a base for future campaigns in the east, and arrived in Bengal only after Shams al-Din had died. The latter’s son Sikandar succeeded him and like his father, Sikandar retreated to the fort at Ikdala to permit his ministers time to appeal for peace on the basis of Muslim fellowship. Their negotiations resulted in Sikandar’s concession of the throne at Sonargaon to the khan-i ’azam, Zafar Khan. Zafar Khan however declined and returned with Firuz Shah to Jaunpur. Although Firuz Shah had responded to threats against his empire during his expeditions to Bengal, the Bengal rulers had already set themselves up as autonomous rulers in eastern Bengal as early as 737/1336. Ilyas Shah (r. 746-759/1345-1358) and his

successors annexed western territories and united all Bengal as a separate sultanate.20

Firuz Shah’s loss of territory is glossed over by contemporary historians. Instead, the sultan’s expeditions are presented as campaigns to protect the interests of oppressed Muslims. Shortly after Firuz Shah arrived back in Jaunpur, he embarked upon a campaign to Orissa. The campaign was the most impulsive of Firuz Shah’s military ventures. Although his motives for the expedition are unclear, ‘Afif remarks that he pursued Adaya, the Rai of Jajnagar, in emulation of the Ghaznavid ruler, Mahmud Sebuktigan,

and he removed the idol of Jajnagar from holy city of Puri to Delhi and placed it in an ignomious position, but it is equally likely that the reputed wealth of the had attracted the sultan’s attention.21 The author of the Sirat-i Firuz Shah and ‘Ain al- Mulk, in the Insha-i Mahru, describe the destruction of the Puri temple, the confiscation of the idol, and the massacre of .22 The campaign to Orissa typifies Firuz Shah’s 28 impulsive temperament and indecision. The campaign took nearly six months during which time the absence of news concerning the whereabouts of the Tughluq ruler and army created panic in Delhi. The campaign to Bengal and the excursion to Orissa lasted two years and seven months before Firuz Shah and his army returned to Delhi in Rajab 762/1360. If not for the extraordinary leadership and loyalty of Firuz Shah’s vizier Khan- i Jahan, the situation in Delhi could have had tragic consequences. Firuz Shah spent the four years following the Bengal campaign preoccupied with hunting, conducting affairs of state, and building.23 During this time he completed the palace {kushk) at Firuzabad and began a second. Despite the debacle in Orissa, Firuz Shah commanded the respect of his army and when a plea for troops was sounded for a campaign to Sind, many were eager to join. Firuz Shah undertook the campaign to Sind (767-768/1366-1367) to carry out the wishes of his predecessor, Muhammad bin Tughluq, whose death had stopped short its conquest Sind was now ruled by a certain Jam Babinya.24 According to ‘Afif, Firuz Shah’svizier, Khan-i Jahan encouraged him to undertake the campaign to carry out his predecessor’s will and to besiege one fortress a year in accordance with his duties as sultan.25 It proved to be Firuz Shah’s most disastrous military venture.26 He returned home with a fraction of the men who left with him. The ill-fated campaign to Thatta was Firuz Shah’s last major military undertaking. During the campaign to Sind, it is likely that Firuz Shah passed through Multan, whose architectural heritage included at this time the tomb of Rukn-i ‘Alam, purportedly intended for Ghiyath al-Din Tughluq. Following the Sind expedition, Firuz Shah discovered the pillars or lats in Topra and , north of Delhi, and had them brought 29 to Firuzabad in 769/1367 where they were erected besdie theyomi masjid in the kotla and in the kushk-i shikar on the northern ridge of Delhi. Throughout his reign Firuz Shah undertook expeditions to suppress rebellious factions, Hindu insurgents, and religious heretics. When he undertook the campaign to Nagarkot (Kangra) to destroy the temple located there he did so with the same religious zeal which prompted the mission to Puri.27 in other cases, insurgents in Gujarat and

Etawa were thwarted by imperial armies dispatched by the sultan.28 And, when a zamindar of Kutehr brutally assassinated the governor of Badaoun and his brothers, Firuz

Shah pursued the assassin withvengeance.29 The zamindar escaped but Firuz Shah returned to the region annually on the pretext of hunting to pursue him. Firuz Shah’s intolerance of non-Muslims sometimes gave way to bmtal and vicious measures which one author has described as the "blackest spot on his character." The sultan was an orthodox Sunni and in his religious bigotry, he is regarded by some historians as a precursor of and .30 In regard to infidels he was unrelenting and exacted severe punishments. For example, the author of the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi describes the mission to Puri in terms of a holy war or jihad."^^ The author states that Firuz Shah ordered the destruction of the temple and the casting into the sea of its spoils, the defilement of the main image of Jagannath, and the confiscation of the idols to

be placed upon the thresholds of mosques for Muslims to tread upon. This level of desecration and the impulse which motivated it can only be understood as an act of Jihad. ‘Afif s attempts to rationalize the sultan’s actions are refuted by these authors’ accounts. Firuz Shah enacted similar atrocities upon Hindus in Nagarkot (Kangra) in 764/1363 when he ordered his troops to desecrate the temple of Jvalamukhi by having the idol broken, and its fragments mixed with cow’s flesh and placed into bags which were 30 hung from the necks of brahmins.^2 it is said that he sent the main image to or

Mecca to be placed beneath the feet of pilgrims. In the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi Firuz Shah records several occasions when he dealt with religious heretics and Hindus insurgents. At the village of Maluh he states: "I forbad the infliction of any severe punishments on the Hindus in general, but I destroyed their idol and instead thereof raised mosques."33 He is said to have destroyed numerous temples and idols, burned books, killed Hindu leaders and prohibited zimmi

(non-believer) practices in a Muslim country.34 in addition, he required the and zar-i zimmiya, taxes on non-believers, from all H indus.35 The levying of these taxes had been eased in prior times but he no longer exonerated brahmins from paying the jizya. However, the brahmins' protests, fasts, and threats of self-immolation caused Firuz Shah to at least reduce the am o u n t3 6 He was also, of course, intolerant of atheists and those who claimed divine status. He describes in the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi, for instance, the banishment of Ahmad Bahari, who claimed himself to be a prophet and referred to himself as possessing divine status,

and the imprisonment of his foUowers.37 In another case, a certain Rukn al-Din, a man who claimed himself to be Madhi and and to have received divine revelations, was

convicted by him of heresy, brutally killed and his bones ordered broken.38 Firuz Shah

says in his Futuhat: "God in His mercy and favour made me. His humble creature, the instrument of putting down such wickedness, and abolishing such heresy; and guide me

to effect a restoration of true religion."39

He also was an opponent of religious "innovation" or fasad. He states in the Futuhat that in Gujarat, for example, he punished a pupil of ’Ain Mahru, who set himself as a shaikh and claimed to be divine, ordered his books to be burned and his disciples 31 disbanned.40 He was also relentless in his actions against partisans and heretics. He suppressed the shi’as and ordered their books bumt.41 His actions against heretics imulhid) and sectarians (abahtiyan) who indulged in wine, sexual intercourse, and other

"abominable" acts were harsh.42 He had the leaders of sects beheaded and the practices stopped. Although Firuz Shah took decisive action against "irréligion and sins opposed to the Law" he was equally concerned to stop atrocities against fellow Muslims.43 Throughout his reign Firuz Shah devoted himself to the prevention of unlawful killing and the inflicting of torture on fellow Muslims. He often stopped the course of a battle in order to urge peaceful negotiations and spare bloodshed of fellow Muslims. Firuz Shah is attested to have been a devout orthodox Muslim and his adoption of theShari’a as a basis for his administration points to his strong f Geological commitment to Sunni doctrine. But in addition, the profusion of mosques and madrasas and other religious architecture represents the physical manifestation of his commitment and his concern for the salvation of his people through observance of basic practices of the

Islamic faith.44 The observance of prayer {salat) was one of the compulsory obligations of all Muslims. Firuz Shah encouraged prayer and urged infidels to embrace Islam. Although these are perfunctory duties of a sultan, the importance of prayer was underscored by his employment of Qur’an readers and his erection of a tas-i ghariyal (clock tower). The tas-i ghariyal was probably not an architectural rrronument but an apparatus which publicly announced the hour of the day to alleviate doubts of devout

Muslims regarding the hour of prayer.45 In addiiton, the Hauz Khas madrasa, a Sunni institution, functioned as the center of religious education of the capital. Its reputation 32

reflected the increasing importance of the shari’a in the administrative framework of the

state. Many of Firuz Shah’s buildings reflect his concern for the Muslims’ observance of the basic tenets of the faith. For example, Hissar, located on the road between Firuzabad and parts of the empire to the northwest, served as a serai for travellers and

pilgrims on Hajj to the Islamic homelands. In addition, he firequently aligned himself with religious orders through his charitable support and personal visits to holy men and

pilgrimages to shrines of saints.46 In fact, it will be shown from epigraphic evidence, that Firuz Shah intended his own tomb at Hauz Khas to serve as a pilgrimage spot. In the

cultural milieu of India, pilgrimage was an important practice. The tirtha or pilgrimage site was an integral part of both the Buddhist and Hindu religions. Firuz Shah revived the Islamic practice by repairing the tombs of saints and former sovereigns and

encouraging pilgrims to visit them .47 His support of religious orders and encouragement

of Islamic practices of prayer (salat), charity (zakat), and pilgrimage (hajj) indicates that piety was a significant element if Firuz Shah’s architectural patronage. Many of Firuz Shah’s monuments, then, were intended to uphold observance of Islamic ritual. Even his building projects which served utilitarian purposes, such as his numerous water works,

fulfilled the sultan’s responsibility to oversee the welfare and protection of the population, both Muslim and non-Muslim. From the time of his accession, he was preoocupied with acts of personal piety.48 For example, he took pity on and provided for fakirs (ascetics) and encouraged the

practice of zakat or alms-giving, one of the basic tenets of the Muslim faith. His endowments and personal largesse to the devout and their institutions, for example Sufi khanaqahs, also were charitable gestures. He often sought the counsel of holy men, such 33 as Shaikh al-Islam Shaikh Kutb al-Din who advised that he abstain from wine and hunting. He attempted to relocate Shaikh Nur al-Din from Hansi to his newly created town at Hissar but the shaikh preferred to remain in Hansi. ‘Afif records that it was a usual practice for the sultan to make pilgrimages to the tombs of holy men and saints to invoke their prayers prior to embarking on long joumeys.49 On his return to Delhi after his accession he made a pilgrimage to Ajodhan to visit the tomb of Shaikh al-Islam Farid al-Hakk and he returned to the shrine before his conquest to Sind.50 In the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi Firuz Shah mentions many tombs and shrines which he had restored to use.51 ‘Afif also records that, as a practice, Firuz Shah consulted the Qur’an for "augury" and that Firuz Shah’s trust in Divine will was strong.52 Jn 776/1374 he went on a pilgrimage to the tomb of Salar Mas’ud Ghazi at Bahraich where he claimed to have seen the spirit of Salar Mas’ud in a dream. Firuz Shah was moved by the apparition and underwent initiation into a dervish order shortly after.53 Firuz Shah’s devotion to the ‘ulama’ was also firm. His predecessor, Muhammad bin Tughlug, had alienated many member of the ‘ulama’ and elite population of Delhi with his forced relocation to Devgir (Daulatabad) in the Deccan. Firuz Shah undertook many measures to restore the ’ulama’s trust in his leadership and he often provided for their needs and religious education through endowments. His alliance with the ‘ulama’ had been formed from the beginning of his reign as a means of securing his position as the rightful heir to the Tughluq throne. His accession had been clouded by a tenuous political crisis which ensued upon Muhammad bin Tughluq’s unexpected death. Recognition of his right to be sultan by the religious authority of the community was therefore necessary. 34

To affirm this right, Firuz Shah reinstated the recitation of the names of former sovereigns during the khutba, an action which served to emphasize his legitimacy.54 In addition, he records in the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi that his greatest honor was to receive robes of investiture from the Abbassid Caliph in .SS Firuz Shah was the last sultan of the period to receive this honor. Recognition by the Caliph reinforced Ids claim to the throne and served as a testament to his legitimacy. From the perspective of contemporary sources, Firuz Shah was an adept administrator. Both Barani and ‘Afif are generous in their praise. ‘Afif points in nostalgic retrospect to the prosperity of his reign. His interpretation however must be cast in light of the fact that he wrote hisTa’rikh-i-Firuz Shahi when Delhi’s fortunes had turned bitter following the destruction of the city by Timur’s army. Although Firuz Shah’s reign is usually described as one of prosperity and abundance, and his compassion for the welfare of his people unprecedented, it is likely that such hyperbolic accounts were exaggerated and masked an otherwise grave economic situation. Indeed the economic condition of the Tughluq empire took a precipitous decline after Firuz Shah’s death. In the same manner that his military and political career was never seriously challenged, the governmental organization under Firuz Shah, in place since the time of ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji, was also not seriously tested. Contemporary sources do not report periods of famine or economic hardships such as had existed in the 1330s and 1340s under Muhammad bin Tughluq. Most goods were readily available and prices were not controlled by any centralized mechanism. Firuz Shah did not usually interfere with the activities of the mercantile class.56 35

The economy of fourteenth century India was, of course, agrarian-based.57 The cultivation of heavily forested lands in the came about in the 14th century with the introduction of new means of artificial irrigation. The digging of wells, the building of bands (dams), and the excavation of canals permitted cultivation of large tracts of land in the Gangetic plains and areas of Haryana and Punjab. Although wells and bands already existed, the excavation of canals is believed to have been introduced from by the Tughluqs.58 Under Firuz Shah large networks of canals were formed to provide water to dry regions. The cutting of two canals, Rajab-wah and Ulugh-khani, from the Jumna and Rivers to provide irrigation to Hissar is the most frequently noted of these projects by historians.59 With the diversion of a continuous water supply to dry areas, new lands were opened for cultivation. Thus, for example, Firuz Shah was able to order 1200 gardens and orchards of fruit-bearing trees planted outside Delhi in an area which had been previously unused for .60

Despite descriptions of apparent prosperity enjoyed during his reign, Firuz Shah did little to revive an economy which was already in decline from the time he inherited it from Muhammad bin Tughluq.61 In order to alleviate the discontent of the population, he enacted a number of reforms immediately upon his accession. For example, he abolished a number of taxes on market goods and services such as market dues, taxes on brokers, butchers, scribes and booksellers, taxes on the manufacture and sale of indigo, fish, grain, soap, ropes, oil, and vegetables. These he enumerates in the Futuhat-Firuz Shahifi^ All levels of the rural classes, from the nobility (khuts and muqaddams') to the peasantry (ra'iyat), enjoyed a level of prosperity previously unknown.63 Under the severe taxation of Muhammad bin Tughluq, the peasant class had rebelled. A resultant famine lasted seven years and was recorded by Ibn Battuta in 1334-35 A.D. Under Firuz 36

Shah, however, concessions were made to the heavily taxed agrarian classes. He also granted concessions to the nobility. Most important among these was the restmctuiing of the system of land revenue, reforms which increased distribution of state revenues among the nobility.64

In addition to the iqta\ a grant of land to members of the nobility, Firuz Shah restored the practice of assigning wajK villages allotted to soldiers as a means of pay, a practice which had been abolished by ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji.65 Revenue distribution was controlled through mandatory estimates every four years and audits by the imperial court. Firuz Shah says in theFutuhat that he reversed the practice of alloting one-fifth of the spoil gained from military campaigns to the captors and four-fifths to the State treasury; instead the captors benefited firom the four-fifths reward.66 Furthermore, he established a hereditary system for the nobility in which the offices held by members of the nobility and their respective iqta' and wajh assignnments were inherited by their sons, sons-in- law, slaves, and widows.67 The reign of Firuz Shah also witnessed considerable sub­ imperial patronage which is indicative of the level of comfort that the nobility enjoyed and the large amounts of revenue they controlled.68 The consumption of state revenue by the nobility, by the military and the massive slave population, and for the financing of the elaborate building projects undertaken by Firuz Shah has not been entirely evaluated but at least one author has questioned the practicality of "wholesale alienation of the revenues to the military and bureaucratic classes."69

Firuz Shah implemented thewaqf, a permanent grant of revenue generated from lands or villages, to maintain religious foundations such as mosques, madrasas, and tombs, and to help finance his architectural projects.70 The waqf^vis likewise extended 37 to other establishments for public welfare such as a {dor al-shifa), for the benetit of Muslims, where physician care, medicine, and food were provided to the sick and needy.71 He established institutions like the Diwan-i Khairat for widows and orphans and to provide dowry for unwed daughters of poor Muslim families and one for the unemployed.72

Up to the middle of the fourteenth century, the Delhi sultanate had experienced an expansion of its money economy. The disturbance of the economy under Muhammad bin Tughluq, due to his ambitious campaigns, monetary reforms, and lavish distribution of wealth to the Mideast in the form of pious largesse and trade investments, produced a critical economic situation which left the imperial treasury nearly depleted. The mid­ fourteenth century economic strain continued under Firuz Shah due to the loss of territories in Bengal and the Deccan and his public projects. Although v^aqf permitted religious institutions to perpetuate their existence, the burden on the state treasury continued during Firuz Shah’s reign. Even ‘Afif remaries that directing proceeds from a tax on water (sharb) retrieved from newly excavated canals in Hissar to provide for "the learned and religious" was a welcome relief to the public treasury.73 Under Firuz Shah, silver became rare especially after the loss of territories in Bengal and the Deccan, the primary source of the precious m etal.74

The influence of the 'ulama' on the state has been deemed by modem historians as a "retrograde step" and these authors attribute the weakening of the "administrative machinery" to their influence.75 Firuz Shah’s loyalty to the 'ulama' remained strong and his growing orthodoxy was manifested in life at the court. He forbad the practice of using gold and silver ornaments and other displays of covetous wealth such as the wearing of lavish silk and gold brocade garments. He had pictures and portraits removed 38 from garments and furnishings and had the same effaced from the walls and doors of the palaces. He also prohibited the painting of images in the private apartments of the palace and on banners and ensigns.76 His actions were motivated by religious constraints rather than economic concerns.

Being an educated man himself, Firuz Shah was a strong advocate of learning and is credited with establishing as many as thirty madrasas. Barani wrote on the king’s justice in the Fatawa-yi Jahandari'JJ But as to the king’s gifts to the leaders of the Saiyyeds, religious scholars, shaikhs, men of virtue or wisdom or skill, persons or merit, travellers, the helpless and the needy - his grants to schools and mystic houses {khanaqahs) and his expenditures on all occasions where charity is recommended - the more there is of all this, the greater will be the king’s success in this world and his rewards in the next In such matters there can be no question of excessive expenditure or lack of thrift The precept that there can be no over-expenditure in good works is based on thus principle. The preservation and education of the Muslim community were primary concerns of Barani, who gave little regard to the economic distress such expenditure might cause. Under Firuz Shah, teachers were paid by the state and students received stipends. The sultan granted allowances to learned men and Qur’an readers.78 In the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi, he states that allowances made to the learned doctors of the Law were recorded in hiswaqf-nama.^9 He encouraged learned men to travel to all parts of the empire to pass on their knowledge. He had books translated and on one occasion he had a Hindu text on philosophy, astrology, and divination, which he found in Nagarkot (Kangra) at the Temple of Jvalamukhi, translated into Persian as Dala’il-i Firuz Shahi.^0 He was fond of history and, as noted, patronized Barani. He is known from contemporary sources to have been a patron of the performing arts. On the sabbath, following prayers, as many as 39

3000 musicians, story-tellers, and athletes entertained at court He publicly observed the 'id festivals, Shab-i bara‘t, andiVûu-roz (New Year).8l The slave population associated with Firuz Shah’s court is said to have included artisans of all kinds. It is probable that he maintained an atelier of calligraphers, bookbinders, and illuminators at court in order to copy and embellish manuscripts of religious texts. ‘Afif refers to the copying of books by slaves at the court.82 It is equally probable that he employed painters to illustrate manuscripts but no specific reference is given in contemporary sources. However, in the latter part of his reign, his growing orthodoxy changed the character of his patronage and he directed his efforts almost exclusively to architecture. He mentions his fondness for building in the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi.^'i Firishta credits him with building 50 dams, 40 mosques, 30 colleges with attached mosques, 20 palaces, ICX) carvanserais, 2(X) towns, 30 reservoirs, 100 , 5 mausolea, ICX) public baths, 10 monumental pillars, 10 public wells, 150 bridges, and numerous gardens and pleasure houses.84 Such numbers of building projects are astonishing even in spite of his long reign but only a fraction of these structures are known today. Construction plans were reviewed by the diwan-i wizarat and money was allocated from the royal treasury. Firuz Shah ordered that no expense be spared and ‘Afif reports that, "work should not be stopped for want of funds."85 The chief architect Malik Ghazi Shahna oversaw projects and ‘Abdu-1 Haqq (Jahir Sundhar) supervised the artisans.86 Indeed, the character of his buildings, constructed primarily of rubble masonry and decorated with plaster in contrast to the polychromed stone of earlier Tughluq monuments, may be a reflection of the economic strain on the treasury. ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji is reported to have employed as many as 70,(XX) men for his architectural projects and Firuz Shah 40 probably employed a significant number also .87 Except for Barani’s statement in the

Fatawa-yi Jahandari, noted before, contemporary historians are silent about the details of expenditures involved in building construction. Firuz Shah’s administrative talents permitted him to maintain control of a firagile economy. The prosperity so frequently noted by historians is a transient moment, albeit a prolonged one, in the early sultanate. Upon Firuz Shah’s death, the political and economic fate of the sultanate took a precipitous decline. The last years of Firuz Shah’s life were chaotic and the extent to which he exercised his authority vacillated. In these years Firuz Shah twice abdicated the throne and designated his son and subsequently grandson as his successors.88 Prince Nasir al- Din Mahmud was unable to exercise authority over insurgent factions at court and Firuz Shah resumed his authority for a short period. Some authors have suggested that he and his son co-reigned. However, Firuz Shah preferred to retire to a religious life in his latter years and asserted no active role.89 The brief interim during which he resumed the

throne was likely used to designate and secure the legitimate succession of his grandson Ghiyath al-Din, the son of his deceased son Fath Khan. Firuz Shah died on 3 Ramzan 790/23 October 1388 and was buried in a mausoleum at Hauz Khas.90 A rapid succession of sultans in the following years did nothing to stabilize the weakened Tughluq sultanate. Timur’s capture of Delhi in 801/1398-1399 brought an uneventful

conclusion to the era. 41

Historical epigraphy of the reign of Firuz Shah

The body of epigraphic evidence available from Firuz Shah’s reign is limited. The epigraphs which survive from his reign fall within two general categories: religious or historical. The religious, or non-historical, epigraphs will be examined later, in the discussion of the monuments of Hauz Khas, where these occur. The historical epigraphs, examined here, can be divided between those which identify Firuz Shah as builder and those which identify Firuz Shah as the reigning monarch during the time the edifice to which they are attached was built. The former group is virtually non-existent. The latter group, however, includes a small group of epigraphs in Delhi, a few in the Punjab, and a group concentrated on monuments in Biharsharif, in the province of Bihar several

hundred kilometers east of Delhi. The body of historical epigraphy which identifies Firuz Shah as builder is confined to one inscription on the gate of the enclosure of the tomb of the Chisti saint Nasir al-Din Mahmud Chiragh in Delhi.9l

In the name of God! Auspicious is the mention of His name. The building of this glorious dome was [finished] in th year of the august, strengthened with tlie help of the merciful, Abu al-Muzaffar Firoz Shah, Sultan; May God perpetuate his kingdom; in the year 775, date of the flight of the Messenger of God, on \^ o m be God's blessing. Greeting. The inscription attributes that foundation to Firuz Shah but the monument to which it is attached is an accretion of forms which belong to several later time periods. The other important inscription is one found on the Qutb Minar which identifies

Firuz Shah as the person who repaired theminar after it had been struck by lightning.92

The Minar was injured by lightning in [the months of] the year 770 [1369 A.D.]. By the Divine ^ c e Firoz Sultan, who is exalted by the favour of the Most Holy, built this portion of the alifice [muqam] with care. May the inscrutable Creator preserve it from all calamities. 42

These two examples directly associate surviving structures with Firuz Shah. All other buildings thus far attributed to his patronage are missing foundation inscriptions. In addition, other restoration projects such as the unique qibla portico on the madrasa-xovcto of Nasir al-Din Mahmud (the "" tomb) are attested to by the sultan in the

Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi but not by inscription.93

The virtual absence of historical epigraphy associated with Firuz Shah leaves a number of questions about his role as patron unanswered. This is not to suggest that historical .epigraphy was not employed by Firuz Shah on his monuments. To the contrary, Firuz Shah probably did incorporate foundation epigraphs in his buildings but, due to the ephemeral plaster medium he preferred, they have perished. It must be pointed out here that theFutuhat-i Firuz Shahi was only alleged to have been an architectural inscription. No trace of it survives in the physical remains of the period. And the contents of an inscription on a column in Fathabad, believed to belong to Firuz Shah, are unknown so assignation to Firuz Shah is premature. Thus, the corpus of historical inscriptions is unimpressive but, a signiticant group of epigraphs appear on buildings which were built during his reign on the sub-imperial level by high-ranking nobles and provincial officials. Although these generally identify the builder, the date and function of the building, they also provide the name and titulature of the ruling monarch. The most significant example in Delhi is an inscription attached to the Kalan Masjid, built by Firuz Shah’s vizier, Khan-i Jahan Junan Shah, son of his first vizier

Khan-i JahanM aqbul.94 The inscription, located on the domed gate, ideiitifies him as the patron of the mosque and Firuz Shah as the reigning sultan;95

By the grace and mercy of God, in the reigp and sovereignty of the religious King, strong by the help of the Merciful, Abu’l-M u^far Firoz Shah, Sultan, may his reign last forever, this mosque was built by the son 43

of the slave of the threshold of Junah Shah Maqbal entitled Khan Jahan, son of Jahan, may God be merciful to this slave. Any one coming to this mosque is to pray for the benefit of the King of the Muslim and of this slave, and remember [them] in [their] Fateha and Ddilas, and may God forgive [such a man] for ever. By the grace of the prophet and his posterity, this mosque was finished, on the date the 10th of Jamad al- Akhir, the year 789 [Hijra]. The Kalan Masjid mosque, dated 789/1387, is located in Shahjahanabad, near the Kotla. The mosque remains in good repair today. It belongs to the two-storied plinth plan and shares close affinities with the Firuz Shah’s imperial mosque in thekotla and was probably copied after it96 The fact that the vizier patronized a mosque of this magnitude points to the level of wealth among the nobility. In aU, seven mosques in the Delhi area have been attributed by Sayyid Ahmad Khan to Khan-i Jahan but not all of these attributions are accepted.97 For example, it has been demonstrated that the Begampur mosque (Jahanpanah) was in fact Muhammad bin Tughluq’s of Jahanpanah, an attribution accepted here.98 The basis for Sayyid Ahmad Khan’s attributions are stylistic similarities. Of the seven mosques mentioned by him, though, the Kalan Masjid and the Kali Masjid are the only ones inscribed. The Kali Masjid, located near the dargah of Nizamuddin, also contains an epigraph identifying Khan-i Jahan Junan Shah as the patron and the date of construction as 772/1370-71. This mosque, belonging to the cross-axial plan mosque type, was probably copied after Firuz

Shah’s KhiridM asjid.99

The Kalan Masjid inscription refers to Firuz Shah as a religious king, whose strength was a mark of divine sanction. The mosque was erected to facilitate daily prayer and, in addition, to be a place of prayer for the benefit of Firuz Shah and the builder, a sentiment echoed in Firuz Shah’s own words in the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi (page 1 above). This congregational mosque, therefore, served a dual purpose: for prayer in general and 44 for prayers specifically to benefit the sultan. It is possible that, by ascribing such a purpose K) the mosque, the vizier had premonitions of the sultan’s death the following year. The reference to Firuz Shah’s religious temperament is also made in an epigraph attached to a small tomb, known as the Saubate-tomb, located to the northwest of Shah

Abdul Haq’s tomb near the dargah of Qutb S a h ib .100 The epigraph, inscribed in the dome, is dated to 777/1375-76, and refers to "the emperor Firuz Shah, the cherisher of religion." The deficiency of historical epigraphs from the reign of Firuz Shah on Delhi monuments is unfortunate. However, a number of epigraphs exist on monuments outside of Delhi. 101 Besides the Fathabad column, whose contents have been alluded to by Horn and Parihar, a group of epigraphs concentrated primarily in Biharsharif identify Firuz Shah as sovereign of that region. All are foundadon inscriptions, usually identifying the builder, date, and function of the building, but many provide useful insights about Firuz Shah. The Tughluqs held sway over Bihar from 1327 A.D., when it was acquired by Muhammad bin Tughluq, through ca, 1372 A.D., when the province was lost under Firuz Shah. Many of the inscriptions contain titulature which reflects how Firuz Shah’s authority was perceived in outlying regions. Most of the epigraphs coincide with Firuz Shah’s expeditions through that region while enroute to Bengal. The epigraphs, ranging from 753/1353 through 774/1373 have been collected by Qeyamuddin Ahmad in his study of epigraphy of Bihar although many, as Ahmad notes, had attracted the attention of earlier scholars. All the inscriptions are Persian, with the exception of one mixed Persian-Arabic epigraph, written in a thuluth script. 45

The first of these epigraphs, dated 753/1353, is contained on the entrance to the mausoleum of Malik Ibrahim Bayyu, a Sufi saint, in Biharsharif, near Patna. The inscription begins; 102

During the reign of the world-conquering monarch, may he be muroz [new year’s day] in the spring of the kingdom, the emperor of the world, Sultan Firuz, who became victorious over the rulers of the world... The couplets of the inscription go on to identify Malik Bayyu and record the time of his death. Another inscription on the same monument identifies Malik Bayyu as an iconoclast who broke idols and wielded the sword of truth against infidelity. Ahmad relates that, in fact, little is known about the Malik and suggests that he was the governor of Bihar whom Shams al-Din Ilyas Shah of Bengal conquered and killed, an act which instigated Firuz Shah’s first campaign.103

Another Persian inscription, dated 761/1359-60, on a building of unidentified function in Biharsharif, is a record of restoration. In it, Firuz Shah’s sovereignty is recognized. 104

This auspicious building was renovated in the reign of the justice-fostering king,

emperor of the world, Firuz Shah, through whom niches and pulpits [mosques] flourished; through the efforts and at the instance of the favorite servant, [who is] the barid of the khitta in the period of the just king, angel-natured, Malik of perfect competency, Fahim [who is] renowned in the seven climes.

Seven hundred [years] were past since the date of the [Prophet’s] Migration and sixty-one besides [A.H. 761=1359-60] 46

May the king be on the throne of good fortune forever, as victorious and successful as his name [Firuz=victorious]. The allusions to world conqueror, emperor, and victorious king certainly invoke an image of a military giant but in fact, it has been shown that Firuz Shah’s miltary prowess was relatively non-agressive, if not conciliatory. The inscription coincides with Firuz Shah’s second campaign to Bengal. A reference in a contemporary manuscript reiterates the fervor of the campaign: "there was panic among God’s creation on account of the presence of the victorious armies of Firuz Shah."105

Another inscription in the Amber dargah in Biharsharif also records the construction of a m osque: 106

The edifice of this mosque of blessed foundation and the ka'ba-like arch was constructed during the reign of the lord of the earth and king of Solomon’s standard, who is confident of the Merciful, Abu’l-Muzaffar Firuz Shah, theSultan, may God perpetuate his kingdom; and, during the governorship of the great Khan, Asadu’l Haqwad-Din, Ulugh A'zam Da’ud Khan, may God honour his helpers; [by] the humble one [who is] hopeful of the [favour of the] Mighty Lord [namely] Khwaja Bangal Khani may God recompense Mm with a fine reward, on the &st of die month of Rabi* I, year five and sixty and seven hundred (8 December 1363). Da’ud Khan is thought to be the son of Malik Ibrahim mentioned above and his successor as governor of Bihar. An undated inscription in the dargah of Shah Qumais in Biharsharif, which probably records the construction of a mosque, again alludes to Firuz Shah’s religious temperament and his encouragement of the building of mosques. 107

[God, the most High, has said] One who believes in God and the Last Day causes mosques to be built litis auspicious [mosque] was buUt 47

[in the reign of] the king of the world, [who is] confident of the support of the Merciful, Abu’l Muzaffar Firuz Shah, theSultan, [may God] perpetuate... [by] the servant of the honourable Khanzada Malik Siraj al-Din [son of] Sidaiman, dated the second of [Shawwal]... Khanzada Malik Siraj al-Din was probably a high-ranking official whose position is uncertain. Another Persian inscription, dated 767/1365, now in the Indian Museum, Calcutta, was originally attached to Bayley Sarai in Biharsharif. The inscription is fragmentary but in it the reference, "Firuz Shah, the prop of the Universe" is still intelligible. 108 A fragmentary inscription, dated 774/1373, in situ in a private house in

Biharsharif refers to "the merciful, AbuT Muzaffar Firuz Shah, theSultan," but the purpose for which it was intended is not k n o w n . 109 An undated epigraph bearing Firuz Shah’s name also appears on a slab of uncertain provenance but last traceable to Biharsharif. The fragment reads: HO [Sultan] who is shelter of the world, [and who is] contident of the support of the merciful, Firuz Shah theSultan... The inscription appears on the reverse side of a two-sided tablet. The obverse of the slab mentions an officer, periiaps the builder, who was hajib or "chamberlain for the Hindus of the kingdom," but the name of the reigning monarch is obliterated Ahmad

believes that the slab was removed &om its original location by Firuz Shah who had the former king’s name effaced and its reverse side inscribed. Yet another fragmentary inscription, in situ in an enclosure wall of Fadlu’llah Gosain’s tomb in mahalla in Biharsharif, includes the phrase; "took place in the prosperous reign of the ruler of the world, Firuz Shah."lH 48

Ahmad also includes an Arabic and Persian inscription, dated 774/1373, in situ in a mosque in Tajpur Saran in Saran District, which records the construction of a fort by a certain Mukhlis Da’ud K h a n i . 1 12 The fragmentary epigraph refers to "Abu’l Muzaffar Firuz Shah, theSultan, May God perpetuate his kingdom and sovereignty." Ahmad points to this epigraph as evidence of Tughluq in northwest Bihar.

Several observations can be made about this group of Bihar inscriptions. First, of course, is that building activity in the area was enthusiastically pursued. Although none of the known inscriptions identify Firuz Shah as the builder, they point to a considerable level of sub-imperial patronage, perhaps as a result of Firuz Shah’s encouragement. Most, if not all, monuments were built by high-ranking officials who, in some cases, continued their own dynastic precedents. For example, successive foundation epigraphs can be assigned to a dynasty of governors of Bihar. All of the epigraphs which contain Firuz Shah’s name recognize his sovereignty and most identify him as sultan. Many reiterate his religious beliefs, his just disposition, and his reputation as a builder of mosques. The perceptions of him as an imperialist, however, are stated in universal nomenclature: shelter of the world, prop of the universe, emperor of the world, lord of the world, world-conquering monarch, and victorious over rulers of the world. Ahmad points out that the phraseology of these inscriptions was sterotypic and that they were nearly interchangeable without any substantive change in their m e a n i n g s . 113 it is possible that the repetitive titulature found in them is based on prototypes formulated in Muhammad bin Tughluq’s reign.H4 If this were the case, then the Tughluqs encouraged sub-imperial patronage in Bihar over an extended period of time. However the inscriptions dated to Firuz Shah’s reign depart from those of his predecessor’s in their 49 omission of the name of the caliph, contained in at least two epigraphs belonging to the latter’s reign. The concentration of the epigraphs in Biharsharif suggests that it was an outpost of the Tughluq governors and a religious center of the province. Its former reputation as a major Buddhist center perhaps influenced its growth as a Muslim cen ter. 115 in fact, the sub-imperial initiative is pointed to as an acceptable means of stating piety. 116 The Bihar inscriptions collectively provide valuable evidence which has almost disappeared from the Delhi monuments. Although these epigraphs do not provide direct evidence about Firuz Shah’s patronage, they shed light on his influence on sub-imperial patronage in this part of his empire. The historical perspective provided by evidence in contemporary literature and epigraphy establishes a framework for examining individual monuments attributed to Firuz Shah. The attributions of extant monuments to him is based almost entirely on literary evidence. In the next chapter, these literary sources are compiled and a list of monuments is reconstructed and surviving structures are identified. Without the confirmation of foundation inscriptions, all attributions can be called into question, but where textual and epigraphic evidence is lacking, art historical evidence - similarity of architectural form and stylistic conventions - provides. 50

NOTES TO CHAPTER II 1 Probably the best known modem histories of Firuz Shah include Jamini Mohan Baneijee’s History of Firuz Shah Tughluq (1967), Manazir Ahmad’s History of Firoz Shah Tughlaq (1978), and chapters on Firuz Shah in Agha Mahdi Husain’s Tughluq Dynasty, to name only a few, 2 Riazul Islam, "Firuz Shah Tugluk," Encyclopedia of Islam, p. 924. The desi^ation "Tughluk" (alternatively "Tughluq") is a modem innovation and is not mentioned by contemporary Persian authorities. 3 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 271. Details of Tughluq ancestry are given, according to ‘Afif, in his Manakib-i Sultan Tughlik. This manuscript is now lost.

4 Bosworth, The Islamic Dynasties, pp. 190-191. 5 ‘Afif, 2'a’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 271. His full name, Abu al-Muzzafar Firoz Shah, is given in the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi. See Rashid, "Firoz Shah’s Investiture," p. 70. It also appears in several instances in architectural epigraphy (as reigning monarch, not the builder). 6 Hardy, Historians of Medieval India, p. 43, states that the events surrounding the parents of Firuz Shah and his life prior to his accession were intended by ‘Afif to "read as hagiology, full of signs and portents of coming greamess. Events are mentioned for their symbolical import." 7 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 273-274. 8 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 274. ‘Afif notes in the Ta’rikh that he explains the motives for Muhammad bin Tughluq’s actions in his Manaqib-i Muhammad bin Tughluq, a manuscript now lost. 9 The accession remains a question of debate. Both Barani, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 266-267, and ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 275-286, assert that his election was by unanimous consent of those who accompanied the royal entourage to Thatta. It is not certain who was in attendance and whether this was an election by the ‘ulama’ or the military. Barani mentions Makhdum 2^da ‘Abbasi, the Shaikh al- Shaiyukh of Egypt, Shaikh Nasir al-Din Mahmud Oudhi, and "chief man" attending the camp. ‘Afif identifies members of the camp as khans, princes, learned men, shaikhs, and officials. In either event both ‘Afif and Barani have chosen to downplay the possibility of struggle and emphasize Firuz’s election as logical, legitimate, and even ordained by God. Bosworth, Islamic Dynasties, p. 186, recognizes the short interim during which Mahmud was placed on the throne in Delhi by âiw aja Jahan. Although ‘Afif reports that Firuz Shah forgave the Khwaja for his actions, he acquiesced to his execution. Some authors have suggested that Firuz Shah was designated as regent by Muhammad bin Tughluq and that he usurped the throne (Wolseley Haig, JRAS (1922), p. 365); for discussion of this point, see Majumdar (Editor), The Delhi Sultanate in The History and Culture of the , p. 90 and p. 107, footnote 1). Modem historians accept the 51 belief that Firuz Shah was elected. Baneijee,History of Firuz Shah Tughluq, pp. 12-18, discusses the question of his succession at length in light of traditional Muslim practice. 10 The 'ulama' was the collective religious community. Members included not only the pious clergy ('ulama'-i akhirat) but people who were were knowledgable of Islamic Law (‘ulama’-i dunya or "worldly"). 11 The accession of Firuz Shah was clouded by circumstances in Delhi. Khudawand Zada, the daughter of Ghiyath al-Din Tughluq and sister of Muhammad bin Tughluq, advanced her own son, Dawar Malik, the nephew of Muhammad. Malik Saif al-Din Khaju was sent from Thatta to thwart the claim, insisting that the youth was incompetent and unable to assume the responsibilities of rule. His argument was convincing and Dawar Malik was instead given the title of naib bar-bak. Afterwards Firuz Shah considered the claim without animosity and he regularly visited Khudawand Zada in the following the Friday sabbath. Moreover, he spared her life when she was implicated in an assassination attempt on him a few years later. See ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 276,278,290,292.

A second claimant to the throne was advanced by Khwaja Jahan Ahmad Ayas, the vizier left in charge of Delhi during Muhammad bin Tughluq’s absence in Sind. Rumors of Muhammad bin Tughluq’s deatii, the attack on the imperial troops by the Chaghatai bands at Thatta, and the uncertain fate of Firuz Shah led Khwaja to react to the exigencies of the moment and he advanced a son of tliat sultan, Mahmud. Although Mahmud’s accession is recognized by Bosworth, he never actually exerted authority or gained recognition of the ‘ulama’. See Bosworth, The Islamic Dynasties, p. 186. Later, as Firuz Shah approached the city of Delhi, members of the court who had supported the Khwaja’s action defected in the face of the former’s popularity and military advantage. Firuz Shah granted the vizier leave from court but was afterwards indicted in the IGiwaja’s subsequent death. See Husain, Tughluq Dynasty, pp. 390-391; Majumdar, The Delhi Sultanate" p. 91; Hardy, Historians of Medieval India, p. 45; ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 279. ‘Afif refutes the idea that Khwaja Jahan had acted out of line. The relationship between Firuz Shah and Khwaja Jahan was good. When Firuz Shah approached Delhi, the Khwaja fled to Hauz Khas from where he appealed for for^veness ^p. 284-285). Firuz Shah banished him from the court and he was killed while enroute to Samana.

12 Barani, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 267, and ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 277-278. 13 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 278. 14 Riazul Islam, "Firuz Shah Tughluk," p. 924, says that Firuz Shah was "thoroughly incompetent as a general: his conduct of war suffered from his professed desire to avoid all bloodshed and his vacillating judgment" 15 Ibid., p. 924. Riazul Islam states that Firuz Shah had a "keen desire to regain provinces lost by Muhammad bin Tughluq particularly Bengal and Deccan but his 52 campaign to Bengal resulted in a loss of the territory and the campaign to Sind was concluded in a similar manner. He never undertook a campaign to the Deccan. 16 His campaigns to Bengal are described at l e n ^ by ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 293ff and pp. 303ff. The extent of his architectural legacy is only beginning to be understood. The foundation of Jaunpur during his second Bengal campaign is well known. Epigraphy is the key to rediscovering some of these monuments. See (Qeyamuddin Ahmad, Corpus of Arabic & Persian Inscriptions of Bihar (AM. 640-1200), Patna, K. P. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1973. Pages 23 through 73 deal with inscriptions of the Tughluq sultans. Dani, Muslim , p. 58, contends that the Bengal ruler Sikandar Shah constructed the famous Adina Masjid in emulation of Firuz Shah’s capital of Fimzabad. 17 Firishta, Ta’rikh (Briggs), p. 259, and Majumdar, The Delhi Sultanate, p. 91. ‘Afif attributes the pursuit of Shams al-Din as the motive for the campaign. It is unlikely that Firaz Shah had other motives. It is not certain whether his campaign was a calculated move to regain the Bengal or in response to a plea for help. Barani states that Ilyas Shah was harassing Muslims and Hindus. See Ahmad, "Barani’s References to ‘The Hindus’," p. 297. The Insha-i Mahru contains a letter justifying the invasion of Bengal to suppress tire tyrant and injustice of Haji Ilyas and invites all classes of men to desert him. See Hodivda, Studies in Indo-Muslim History, v. 1, p. 338; Riazul Islam, "Firuz Shah Tughluk," p. 924, suggests that Bengal was already lost by Muhammad bin Tughlug but Majumdar, p. 91, suggests that Firuz Shah acknowledged its independence in 1356, subsequent to the first campaign implying that his peace negotiations after the first campaign granted this concession. Hardy, Historians of Medieval India, p. 46, says that Firuz Shah went to Bengal the first time in search of fame. 18 Although he does not provide a specific chronology, ‘Afif gives the dates of the founding of Firuzabad and Hissar as occurring between the two Bengal campaigns. ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 298-299 and 302-303. 19 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 303-305. The plea was delivered by Zafar Khan, the son-in-law of Shams al-Din, who was loyal to Fahr al-Din. 20 See Bosworth, Islamic Dynasties, pp. 193-194. An inscribed tablet, dated 769/1367, whose provenance is beUeved to be Champanagar in Bihar, records the foundation of a mosque by a general Ulugh Taghi Khan. The inscription begins: In the name of God, the best of Names. This mo^ue was constructed in the reign of the Sultan, warrior in the cause of religion, Sikandar Shah, son of Ilyas Shah, theSultan. See Ahmad, Corpus of Arabic & Persian Inscriptions of Bihar, p. 54. 53

‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 312-315. The Puri temple is identified as the Jagannatiia temple, a Vasinava temple built by the Ganga rulers in the mid­ eleventh century A.D. It remains in active worship today. 22 Majumdar, The Delhi Sultanate, p. 94. 23 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 317. 24 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 322, refers to Jam and Babiniya as two separate persons. Firishta (Briggs, p. 263) considers them one and the same. 25 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 320. 26 Firuz Shah’s troops approached Sind by water. Embarking his troops on 5000 boats to Thatta, the sultan accompanied the fleet along the riverbank. A grain shortage and pestilence killed nearly three quarters of his horses and interrupted the campaign. The troops had hoped to retire to Gujarat for reinforcements and supplies but instead were plagued by continuing famine, equine pestilence, and disloyalty. For six months no news was received in Delhi. The vizier Khan-i Jahan maintained order in Delhi despite rumors of Firuz Shah’s disappearance. Following this tragic interim, the rains alleviated the dire situation and Firuz Shah was able to continue into Gujarat where he dismissed the governor, Amir Husain, for treason. The imperial troops returned to Sind during the harvest season to find the people of Thatta unprepared. Peace was quickly negotiated and Firuz Shah extended generous concessions in return for recognition of his sovereignty. 27 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 317-318; Firishta, Ta’rikh (Briggs), p.263. 28 Firishta,Ta’rikh (Briggs), p. 264; Majumdar, The Delhi Sultanate, p. 96. 29 Majumdar, The Delhi Sultanate, p. 76; Firishta, Ta’rikh (Briggs), p. 265.

Majumdar, The Delhi Sultanate, pp. 103 and 106. 31 See Baneijee, History of Firuz Shah Tughluq, pp. 58-59; and Majumdar (Ed.), The Delhi Sultanate, v. 5, pp. 93-94. Both authors discuss the interpretations by modem scholars of Firuz Shah’s motives for undertaking the expedition to Puri. 32 Firishta,Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 63. 33 Firuz Shah,Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), p. 381. 34 Ibid., p. 381. 35 Ibid., p. 380. 36 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 366. 54

Firuz Shah,Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), p. 378. 38 /Wd., pp. 378-379 39 /W .,p . 379. 40 7W.,pp. 379-380.

41 Ibid., pp. 377-378. In his actions against Shi’as, Firuz Shah singled out the Rawafiz. 42 Ibid., p. 378. 43 Ibid., p. 375. 44 Welch and Crane see the broadening of the base of architectural patronage as an acceptable means of expressing piety as well as a significant element in the development of an architectural style. See Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 160. 45 The tas-i ghariyal was allegedly placed near the kushk-i shikar. Hodivala speculates its location near the observatory which he identifies as Pir Ghaib on the northern ridge of Delhi. Hodivala, Indo-Muslim History, v. 1, p. 325. 46 Asher suggests that the linkage between saints and royalty was a means of creating an elevated and fabricated genealogy; for Sher Shah, it underscored his legitimacy. See Asher, Patronage of Sher Shah Sur, pp. 298 and 301. 47 Firuz Shah’s prohibition against Muslim women visiting graves, expressed in the Futuhat, seems to have been motivated as much out of concem for their personal safety as proscribed by Muslim Law. Firuz Shah, Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), p. 380. 48 Firuz Shah,Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), p. 387 and 377. 49 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 321. 50 Ibid., p. 282 and 321. 51 Firuz Shah,Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 383-384. 52 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 329. 53 Ibid., p. 362.

54 Firuz Shah,Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), p. 376. 55 Ibid., p. 387. 55

56 Raychaudhuri and Habib, The Cambridge Economic History of India, v. 1, p. 188. The authors state that Firuz Shah abandoned all attempts at controlling prices, resulting in a "happy time" for merchants and engrossers. See also ‘Afif, Ta’rildi (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 344-347.

57 Raychaudhuri and Habib, The Cambridge Economic History of India, v. 1, p. 98.

58 76/d., p. 49.

59 Ibid., p. 49; ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 300; Firishta, Ta'rikh (Briggs), p. 260.

60 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 345; Raychaudhuri and Habib, Cambridge Economic History, pp. 53 and 101. 61 Raychaudhuri and Habib, Cambridge Economic History, p. 73.

62 Firuz Shah, Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), p. 377; Baneijee, History of Firuz Shah Tughluq, pp. 122-123. 63 Raychaudhuri and Habib, Cambridge Economic History, p. 55. 64 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 347.

65 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 289; Hardy, Historians of Medieval India, p. 47; Raychaudhuri and Habib, Cambridge Economic History, p. 73. 66 Firuz Shah, Futuhat, p. 377. 67 Ibid., p. 387.

68 Anthony Welch and Howard Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 127. 69 Hardy, Historians of Medieval India, p. 50, makes note of the alienation of wealth when he assesses ‘Afif’s positive comments about the prosperity of the reign. The institution of slavery grew to unprecedented proportions under Firuz Shah. According to ‘Afif, the slave population in Delhi was 180,000, compared to 50,000 under ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji. Firuz Shah forbade the export of slaves which closed the slave market. The slaves included artisans, attendants, soldiers, concubines, and personal bodyguards of the sultan. One modem author points to the large slave population as a disturbing factor in the state.

70 Firuz Shah, Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 384-385; Raychaudhuri and Habib, Cambridge Economic History, p. 75. 56

‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 361; Firuz Shah, Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), p. 385. 72 ‘Afif, Ta’rikk (Elliot and Dowson), p. 361.

73 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson, p. 301. 74 Raychaudhuri and Habib, Cambridge Economic History, p. 97, attribute the exhaustion of the royal treasury to the scale of military operations, the loss of the provinces of Bengal and Deccan (both sources for the precious metals of the currency), and the already depressed money economy of the middle of the 14th century.

75 Majumdar, The Delhi Sultanate, p. 107. 76 Firuz Shah, Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), p 382; ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 363. Simon Digby gives a different translation of ‘Afif’s passage than that in Elliot and Dowson: And that quantity of the customs which were established as governmental usage [?] and tiiose customs appeared in conflict with the Shar’iat, he forbade them all; one of these [was] the drawing of animate forms [naqqashi-yi-musawar] in the private apartments [mahall-i-khilvatgah] of the Sultan: and [as for] that, it is the custom of kings that they always arrange picture galleries with figures in their place of rest [albatta dar -i-aramgah ishan nigarkfujnahayi-musawar rast kunand\. Sultan Ferozshah, out of his great fear of God, ordered that they should not make pictures of living forms in those galleries...because it is in conflict with the Shar’iat: and in the place of the depictions of figures [suratgari] they should draw a design [naqsh] with various kinds of Bostan [orchard, garden, sc. flowering trees] in accordance with the desires of friends...for die spectacle [tamasha]. See Simon Digby, "Literary Evidence for Painting in the Delhi Sultanate," Bulletin of the American Academy of Benares, vol. I, Varanasi, 1967, p. 53. 77 Barani, Fatawa-yi Jahandari, parts translated and edited by Habib and Begum as The Political Theory of the Delhi Sv.l:anate, p. 18. Barani’s advice is presented in the form of a paradigm for Muslim rulers. He does not cite Firuz Shah by name. 78 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 361. 79 Firuz Shah,Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), p. 382.

80 Firishta,Ta’rikh (Briggs), p. 263. 81 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 361-362. 82 Ibid., p. 341. 57

Firuz Shah,Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 382-385. 84 Firishta,Ta'rikh (Briggs), p. 270. 85 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 354-355. 86 Ibid., p. 354. 87 Raychaudhuri and Habib, Cambridge.Economic History, p. 81. 88 Firishta,Ta’rikh (Briggs), pp. 266-267. 89 Majumdar, The Delhi Sultanate, p. 97; ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 362. ‘Afif writes: "As long as he lived he paid attention to the elders of the religion, and towards the end of his reign, he himself became a shaveling." Shaveling is a reference to tonsure, or shaving of the head in preparation for initiation into a dervish order. 90 Firishta,Ta’rikh (Briggs), p. 267, states that Firuz Shah died at the age of 90 however if one accepts ‘Afif s word that he was bom in 709/1309, then he was 79 years old when he died. See also Majumdar, The Delhi Sultanate, p. 108, footnote 21. 91 Stephen,Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 146, fn. 92 The Persian inscription given in the text in located on the doorway of the fifth storey. Firuz Shah’s repairs to die Qutb Minar have been been the topic of much discussion. Page, Historical Memoir on the Qutb, pp. 19-20, indicates that the fourth and fifth stories of the minar were probably Firuz Shah’s construction. Besides the Persian inscription, two nagari inscriptions on the minar refer to repairs in 1369 A. D. Page (pp. 34 and 42-43) gives the following translations from the Archaeological Survey’s reports. The firstnagari inscription (on the 8th course of the third balcony): On Thursday, the 15th day of the dark fortnight of Phalguna in the year Samvat 1425 (i.e., 1369 A.D.) lighming fell. The [monument] was [then] repaired in the year Samvat 1425. The architects were Nana, Salha, Lola and Lashmana The second nagari inscription (on the left abutment of the fourth balcony):

Cm. In the auspicious reign of the illustrtrious Firoz Shah Sultan on Friday the 5th of the bright fortnight of Phalguna in the year Samvat 1426, the restoration of the Minar was carried out in the palace or temple of Visvakaiman. The architect was the maternal grandson of the son of Chahadadevapala; the measuring cord was drawn and the foundation laid. 93 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 154. 94 ‘Afif mentions that Khan-i Jahan Maqbul was a convert from Hinduism. See Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 152, fn. 58

Archaeology and Monumental Remains, Tpç. 151-152. 96 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 139. 97 The attributions of the seven mosques were made by Sayyid Ahmad Khan. Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 149) accepted Sayyid Ahmad Khan’s attributions but only two of the mosques, the Kalan Masjid and Kali Masjid, have foundation epigraphs. 98 Nath,Sultanate Architecture, pp. 56-57; Husain, Rise and Fall, pp. 119-120; Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 161, fn 45. 99 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 139; Husain, A Record of All Quranic andNon-Historical Epigraphs, p. 21. 100 Archaeological Survey, Lists of Monuments, v. 2 Mahrauli Zail, p. 73-74, no. 112. The authors state that they do not know why the tomb is referred to as the "Saubate- tomb." The tomb, belonging to the chhatri type is situated within a walled enclosure. The latter contains three mihrabs on the west. It is presently maintained by waqf of Mutawalli Khadims of the dargah of Qutb Sahib. The identity of Shah Abdul Haq is uncertain but it is doubtful that he is Firuz Shah’s deputy architect referred to in the Futuhat. 101 Welch and Crane have pointed out the existence of epigraphs on four mosques which date from the reign of Firuz Shah: a mosque built by an amir, Malik Shahin Bek, dated 767/1366, in Hansi; a Friday mosque, dated 772/1371 in Ladnum, built by Firuz Shah’s master of the hunt; and two mosques in Didwana, both dated 779/1377, built by a weaver and a baker, respectively. See Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 127; Epigraphica Indica: Arabic and Persian Supplement (1953-1954), p. 2; (1949-1950), pp. 18-20. 102 Ahmad, Arabic & Persian Inscriptions of Bihar, p. 35. 103 Ibid., pp. 36. Ahmad (p. 38) identifies Malik Bayyu as Ibrahim ibn Abu Bakr popularly known as Ibrahim Bayyu, who carried the title of Saif al-Daulat and was a maqta' of Bihar. Desai believes tiiat he was the governor of Bihar. Ahmad (pp. 38-40) discusses the historical evidence, sometimes contradictory, surrounding this man. 104 Ibid., p. 43.

105 Ibid., p. 44 and fnl. Ahmad cites this reference from a copy of a manuscript, Malfuz al-Safar, dated 927/1520-21, in Phulwari Khanaqah Library. The quote is part of a conversation, under the heading date of 12 Safar 762/December 23, 1360, between the author of the Malfuz and a saint Sharf al-Din. 106 Ibid., pp. 45-46. Ahmad suggests that Da’ud Khan belonged to a family whose descendents were treated favorably by Firuz Shah. Also, Ahmad notes that the 59 builder Bangal Khani had probably rendered service to the sultan during his previous expedition. 107 /W .,p . 52. 108 Ibid., p. 48. The inscription also refers to Khanzada Sulaiman, the son of Ulugh Da’ud, who is believed to be yet another successor as governor of Bihar. 109 Ibid., p. 56. 110 Ibid.,]?. 61.

111 Ibid., p. 63. 112 Ibid., p. 58.

113/Wd., p. 61. 114 /hid., pp. 23-32. 115 Ibid., pp. 41-42. Ahmad notes that Sufi saints often selected Buddhist sites as their base. 116 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 160. CHAPTER m

SURVEY OF MONUMENTS

The following survey of monuments is primarily based on attributions made in literary sources. The texts, the same as those which provide the events of the reign, are historical in nature and mention Firuz Shah’s architecture in passing. In a few cases, the authors briefly describe a particular foundation and disclose its purpose,but they reveal little about Firuz Shah’s motives for building it. The entries of the survey are arranged typologically, starting with urban foundations, followed by mosques, madrasas, tombs, palaces, khanaqah, and waterworks (canals, bands or dams, and ba’olis or tanks). These are followed by a list of buildings to which Firuz Shah ordered repairs. The latter, entitled "acts of restoration to pre-existing monuments," is limited to those structures enumerated by the sultan in the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi. Whereas some categories appear incomplete, only those monuments which are mentioned in literary sources or whose attributions have been convincingly put forward by modem scholars are included. The task of ascribing the hundreds of canals, tanks, and dams which remain in India to specific patrons without definitive evidence is virtually impossible. For this reason, the list of waterworks may appear deficient when compared with the testimony of historians. In the discussion of each monument, reference is made to tlie primary literary souice which supports the attribution and provides a date. In a few instances, references

60 61 are made to modem scholars who confirm or refute the attribution. Only those references which are relevant in establishing each attribution are given rather than a comprehensive survey of every mention of an individual monument in lierary sources. Many of the monuments in the survey are discussed according to their function although they are parts of larger complexes which include other structures with different purposes. These monuments are listed separately, according to their respective functions, in the survey and are examined more extensively is discussions of the complexes, to which they belong, in subsequent chapters. Individual monuments of these sites are designated in the survey accordingly: the jami masjid and lat pyramid of Firuzabad (*), the madrasa and associated structures of Hauz Khas (**), and the /ar-ki mosque and palace of Hissar (***). The other monuments included in the survey, in various states of disrepair or problematic in their attributions, are not discussed elsewhere. The monuments listed in the following pages are the known corpus of buildings attributed to Firuz Shah. Their attributions are based on the premise that Firuz Shah provided the funds for their construction and assumed some role in their concept and design. Although very little is known about the building process itself, architecture is the product of many laborers who remain unidentified. ‘Afif sheds some light on two of these individuals and provides some details about the building process in the Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi'A Sultan Firoz excelled all his predecessors on the throne of Delhi in the erection of buildings, indeed no monarch of any country surpassed him. He built cities, forts, palaces, bands, mosques, and tombs, in great numbers. Malik Ghazi Shahna was the chief architect, and was very efficient; he held the gold staff [of office]. Abd al-Haqq, otherwise Jahir Sundhar [was deputy, and] held die golden axe. A clever and qualified superintendent was appointed over every class of artisans. The financial officer [diwan-i wizarat] examined the plan of every proposed building, and made provision so that the work should not be 62

stopped for want of funds. The necessary money was issued from the royal treasury to the managers of the building, and then the work was begun. Thus it was that so many buildings of different kinds were erected in the reign of Firoz Shah. If these administrators kept records, they have not survived. In addition, records of waqf, purported to have been kept, have also vanished. The only historical record of these buildings is found in literature and scant epigraphy. Likewise, there is no evidence that treatises on building, such as those which exist for Hindu, Ottoman, or European architectural traditions, were known or followed. Thus, our understanding of the patronage phenomenon of fourteenth century India must be derived from the physical forms themselves.

Urban foundations

Although Firishta credits Firuz Shah with establishing 200 towns, only a small number of urban foundations today trace their origin to him. ‘Afif singles out seven of his foundations in the Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi: Of cities, there were Hisar Firozah and Fath-abad ...Firoz-abad, Firoz-abad Harm Khira, Tughlikpur-i Kasna, Tughlikpur-i Muluk-i Kamut, and Jaunpur, besides sundry other places and forts which he repaired and strengthened.2

Of the cities which ‘Afif’ mentions only a portion can be identified today.

1. Fathabad, Haryana, 752/1351

‘Afif reports that Firuz Shah founded Fathabad while enroute home from the Thatta campaign during which Muhammad bin Tughluq had died and Firuz Shah was elected to succeed him (Figure 1).3 63

The Sultan had left Sarsuti, and, having made several marches, had reached Ikdar, here he was joined by, and received homage from, Khan-i Jahan. Another pleasure which the Sultan received on the same day at this place was the birth of a son, who was named Path Khan. The Sultan founded a town there, to which he gave the name of Fath-abad. Little remains of Firuz Shah’s original foundation. At a later time a column, believed to be Asokan in origin, was erected on the site.4 This probably occurred after the Asokan columns were brought to Delhi and placed beside the jami masjid and Kuskh Shikar, an event which took place in 764/1367. Today Fathabad is a populous and prosperous city. Firuz Shah’s lat is the only survivng remnant of his fourteenth century A. D. establishment

2. Firuzabad, 755 A.H./1354 A.D. Firuz Shah established his capital on the west bank of the Jumna River, nine kilometers north of Jahanpanah (Figure 2). The city stretched from Indrapat (site of Purana CJila today) to the Kuskh Shikar located just north of Shahjahanabad on the northern ridge. The city extended as far south as the Hauz Khas madrasa near Jahanpanah. ‘Afifwrites;5

The Sultan having selected a site at the village of Gawin, on the banks of the Jumna, founded the city of , before he went to Laknauti the second time. Here he commenced a palace...and the nobles of his court having also obtained [girijtand\ houses there, a new town sprang up, five kos distant from Delhi. Eighteen places were included in this town, the kasba of Idaipat, the sarai of Shaikh Malik Yar Paran, thesarai of Shaikh Abu Bakr Tusi, the village of Gawin, the land of Khetwara, the land of Andhawali, the land of the sarai of Malika, the land of the tomb of Sultan Raziya, the land of Bhari, the land of Mahrola, and the land of Sultanpur. So many buildings were erected that from the kasba of Indarpat to the Kushk-i shikar, five kos apart, all land was occupied. There were eight public mosques, and one private mosque...The public mosques were each large enough to accommodate 10,000 supplicants. 64

Firuz Shah returned from Bengal (Lakhnauti) in 755/1354 and immediately commenced construction of his capital. ‘Afif reports that following his second campaign to Bengal, Firuz Shah was occupied with building and completed the kuskh at Firuzabad and began a second kuskh in the middle of the town.6 Sayyid Ahmàd Khan corroborates ‘Afif by placing the date of foundation to 755/1354.7 The kotla is heavily fortified by bastioned walls similar to those at Tughluqabad and its plan provides a prototype for Mughal forts of later centuries.8

Most of Firuzabad has disappeared. The only portion of Firuzabad remaining today is the kotla or citadel which has been ravaged, in part, by subsequent builders in the area. The walls of thekotla still stand. The ruined foundations of the palaces are entirely undefined. The masjid and lat pyramid are extant but have lost significant portions of their structures (noted below). The ba’oli (tank) is also extant but has lost parts of its upper structure.

3. Hissar, 757/1356

Located 130 kilometers northwest of Delhi, Hissar (or Hisar Firuza) supplanted nearby Hansi, an important Ghaznavid outpost, as the provincial city of the region (Figure 1). Hissar was built in part to accommodate pilgrims and travelers enroute between the subcontinent and Khurasan and the Arab . Firuz Shah’s attempt to develop it into a religious center was not particularly successful. Firuz Shah began construction of Hissar in the second year (757/1356) after he returned from Bengal (755/1354). The building is reported to have taken the next two and a half years.9 The site is known for a number of projects which Firuz Shah undertook. In order to provide water to the fort he excavated two large canals from the 65

Sutlej and Jumna Rivers. These fed water into a large ba’oli excavated inside the fort and battlements were constructed on top of the soil from the ba’oli excavation. Within the fort he built a mosque and a palace which, according to ‘Afif, had "no equal in the world." Firuz Shah is believed to have erected the column which stands in the courtyard of the mosque (the Lat-ld masjid) but no contemporary author refers to it. 10

Today, both the palace and lat-ki mosque are extant and both are in good states of repair. The palace vaults are mostly intact, but entrance into the palace is restricted.

4. Jaunpur, 760/1359 While enroute to Bengal for the second time in 760/1359, Firuz Shah interrupted his campaign and stopped in the Awadh, founded a town, and took up residence there for six months before continuing eastward (Figure 1). ‘Afif reports the occasion in the Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi'M The Sultan then marched through Kanauj and Oudh to Jaunpur. Before this time there was no town of any extent {shahr-i abadan] there, but the Sultan, observing a suitable site, determined upon building a large town. He accordingly stayed there six months, and built a fine town on the banks of the Kowah, to which he determined to give the name of Sultan Muhammad Shah, son of Tughlik Shah, and as that sovereign bore the name of Jaunan, he called the place Jaunanpur [Jaunpur]. Jaunpur grew into a flourishing town even before the Sharqi sultans established it as the center of an independent sultanate at the end of the fourteenth century. Virtually no trace of fourteenth century construction remains in this thriving city. The only extant structures of Jaunpur which remain from Firuz Shah’s days are the foundations of the Atala mosque, which he had built on the foundation of a Hindu temple. 12 The mosque, however, is a product of Sharqi builders. 66

5. Firuzpur, 784/1382 Firishta attributes the foundation of Firuzpur to the year 762/1360 after Firuz Shah returned from his second campaign to Bengal and before he left for Sind. 13 This same author places the town in the province of Sirhind, 14 miles from Badaon. The town has been alternately identified as the modern-day towns of Beoli and Firuzpur-Iklehri.l4

On the other hand, Yahya Sihrindi places the foundation to the latter part of the reign in the year 784/1382. He remarks that the town acquired the name Pur-i Akhirin or "last town" because it was Firuz Shah’s last foundation. 15 The town today has a canal and a large ba’oli remaining from the fourteenth century A. D.16

6. Firozabad Hami Khira, date unknown, located in Haryana/Punjab region, pre-1357 A.D. The town is referred to as the "fort of Firuz" by Timur in his Memoirs and in the ZafarnamaX! The village of Hamikhera today is located twelve miles west of Sirsa. The Ghaggar (Kakkhar) canal was dug through the fort of Sarsuitt and continued to Hami Khira.l8

7. Tughlikpur-i Kasna, date unknown

Identified as the modem village of Tughalpur, two miles from Kasna in the Bulandshabar district. 19

8. Tughlikpur-i Muluk-i Kamut, date unknown

Identified as one of three modem villages with the name Dhulkot, one in district, a second in Ludhiana, and a third near Ambala . 67

The physical remains of Firuz Shah’s towns do not correspond with the number given in written record. In the cases of his major foundations at Firuzabad, Hissar, and Jaunpur, modem urban growth has encroached upon the fourteenth century remains, and in some instances, have entirely replaced Firuz Shah’s structures. Nonetheless, fourteenth century A. D. descriptions of Firuzabad and Hissar are reflected in the ruined remains of these fortresses.

Mosques

The number of mosques built by Firuz Shah also does not correspond to the historical record. Firishta attributes 40 mosques, and an additional 30 which were attached to colleges, to him.20 ‘Afif is unusually silent about Firuz Shah’s mosques.2i

Even in his lengthy discussions of Firuzabad and Hissar, he avoids comment except to remark that the Topra column was erected next to the jami masjid. Also, when ennumerating specific buildings erected by Firuz Shah, ‘Afif excludes any mention of mosques.

Large monumental pillars (lats) are connected to two of Firuz Shah’s mosques, at Firuzabad and Hissar. Two additional pillars are believed to have been raised by him and may possibly have been connected to mosques, however, their original contexts have been lost. Firishta credits Firuz Shah with erecting ten monumental pillars during his reign. If these lats were attached to mosques, then six of them are unaccounted for. 68

1. Lat, Fathabad, Hissar district, ca. 752/1351 Inside the precinct of the Idgah is a remnant of a lat, possibly Asokan in origin. The lat has been associated, in other cases, with a mosque and probably functioned as a type of minar., a concept which is examined in depth in the following chapter. The lat of Fathabad bears a Tughra Arabic inscription which is said to trace the genealogy of the Tughluq line.22

Thelat is fragmented at its top and bottom but large portions of its inscription are decipherable. It sits within an enclosure probably not contemporary with it.

2. Masjid within thedargah of Hazrat Nizamuddin (also known as the Jam’at Khana Masjid), 754/1353 According to Sayyid Ahmad Khan the mosque was built by Firuz Shah around

754 A.H./1353 A .D .23 Firuz Shah is believed to mention the foundation in the Futuhat-i Firuz ShahL'2^ But Shaima attributes its construction to in the year 1325

A .D .25 Nizamuddin was a venerated place before Firuz Shah’s reign and a mosque

probably already stood on the site. The statement which Firuz Shah makes in the Futuhat is that he built a "meeting room." On the basis of his statement Sayyid Ahmad Khan attributes the mosque to Firuz Shah. The form of the mosque is unique. Its central domed chamber is joined on the north and south sides by arcades, each sporting a pair of . The plan of the mosque and the five dome configuration are not encountered elsewhere in Delhi at this time. Nath has observed affinities between the central chamber and the Alai Darwaza, a Khalji

gateway located at the Quwwat al-Islam m osque.26 Quranic inscriptions in naksh and script are contained on the . The mosque has no dated epigraph except for a 69 modem Persian inscription on the facade which identifies the death date of Nizam al-Din to be 725/1325.27 The attribution to Firuz Shah is possibly spurious.

The mosque is still in use today. Its form has been altered and additions made which are probably not contemporary with its central chamber.

3. KhirkiMasjid, ca. 1352-1 3 5 4 A.D., Khirki village, , near Jahanpanah KhirkiMasjid has traditionally been regarded as a product of the latter part of the reign of Firuz Shah. Sayyid Ahmad Khan attributes the mosque to sub-imperial patronage in the declining years of the reign. He counts it among the mosques founded by Khan-i Jahan, Firuz Shah’svizier, and dates it to 789/1387.28 A. Welch and H. Crane attribute the uninscribed monument to Firuz Shah in the early years of the reign.29 A summary of the authors’ attribution is as follows. Between 7 5 5 /1 3 5 4 and 7 91/1388 Firuz Shah’s architectural activity was concentrated in Firuzabad (Hauz Khas being an exception). The population of Jahanpanah shifted away from the area after Firuzabad was begun and given the existence of a monumental mosque in the form of Muhammad bin Tughluq’s Jami masjid, the authors conclude that a mosque of the scale of Khirki would not have been erected after the foundation of Firuzabad. Instead the authors suggest that Khirki was ordered by Firuz Shah as a pious foundation in Jahanpanah where Firuz Shah resided upon his accession and represents the "earliest instance of Firuz Shah’s architectural patronage." The authors therefore attribute the mosque to royal patronage in the years ca. 1 352-1354 A.D.

KhirkiMasjid is an example of the cross-axial m osque.30 Built on a high plinth the square plan mosque is symmetrically arranged and subdivided into twenty-five units, four being open courtyards. Nine of the remaining units arc covered with nine domes 70 each. The flat roofs of the intermediary units mask the vaulting. The mihrab is located within a domed chamber which projects off the qibla side of the mosque. The other three sides of the mosque have domed gateways (pishtaq) which are symmetrically arranged and are identical to the qibla side. Four comer towers and each pishtaq is flanked by engaged minars which relate directly in their form to those at the Jahanpanah mosque in Begampur.

The mosque is extant and in a good state of repair.

* 4. Jami’ Masjid of Firuz Shah, Kotla Fimz Shah, 755/1354

Fimz Shah’s imperial mosque, located within the walled enclosure of the kotla was probably constructed contemporanious with the foundation of the city upon his return from the first Bengal campaign in 755/1354. The mosque was the principal mosque of the city at the time of Timur’s capture of the city in 801/1398 when Timur had his khutba read in it.31 According to both Barani and ‘Afif the mosque accommodated large assemblies.32 Firuz Shah makes no mention of the mosque in the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi. Sayyid Ahmad Khan refers to an octagonal dome which was inscribed with the

Futuhat. However, the dome no longer existed in his day.33

The mosque is of the two-storied plinth type and has a plan. It is constructed of rubble core masonry faced with plaster. The mosque is extant but lost significant portions of its east end, all its prayer hall vaulting, and all ornamentation. The mosque will be discussed in greater detail in the Chapter IV. 71

** 5. Masjid at Hauz Khas Madrasa, ca. 755/1354 Being the mosque for Firuz Shah’s madrasa at Hauz Khas, it is attached to the madrasa on its northernmost point. The Archaeological Survey of India places its construction around the year 755/1354, contemporary with the madrasa. This attribution appears to be based on Sayyid Ahmad Khan’s Sanadid.^ Barani discusses the madrasa at length but does not refer to its mosque. However he mentions the observance of congregational prayer.35 Welch and Crane assign the mosque to the year 761/1360 however Firuz Shah was already on his way to Bengal and occupied with the foundation at Jaunpur at this time.36

The mosque is a simple hypostyle prayer hall arrangement with arcades on the north and south sides of the courtyard. Today, the prayer hall, part of the south arcade, and the gate are extant and are in need of repair. The mosque will be discussed further in Chapter V.

*** 6. Lat-ki Masjid, Hissar, 757 A.H./1356 A.D. The lat-ki masjid is dated contemporaneously with the foundation of Hissar in 757/1356. Although Firuz Shah devoted two and a half years to the building of this provincial town in the Punjab, its mosque was probably one of the first edifices completed.37

The form of the mosque is a simple prayer hall with an arcade extension on its north end. Situated on a high plinth the mosque sits above a catacomb of cells of uncertain purpose. A trench surrounds the structure and a ba’oli is sunk in the courtyard. An unidentified domed structure and Asokan lat stand in the courtyard. The lat is probably not contemporary with the building. It was most likely installed after 764/1367, 72 the year in which Firuz Shah discovered and had transported two Asokan lats to Firuzabad. The mosque is extant and in a good state of repair. The lat-ki masjid will be examined in Chapter VI.

7. Masjid, Jaunpur, Awadh, 760 /1359 Firuz Shah founded Jaunpur in 760/1359 during his second Bengal campaign. He resided in the town for a period of six months and upon his return to it following the campaign, he launched a campaign to O rissa.38 The remains of Firuz Shah’s mosque, built on the foundation of a dismantled Hindu temple, have been integrated into a much larger mosque known as the Atala Masjid built by Ibrahim Sharqi in 810/1408. Traces of fourteenth century A. D. construction are not discernable. The form of the present mosque belongs to idiom of Sharqi architecture, not T ughluq.39

8. Mosque at the Tomb of Nasir al-Din Mahmud (the Sultan Ghari tomb), south Delhi, near Mahipalpur village, ca. 1360-1370 A.D. The tomb of Nasir al-Din Mahmud, built by Dtutmish in 629/1231, suffered so much damage by Chaghatai attacks on it in the early fourteenth century A. D. that it required substantial repairs. In the process the mosque within its fortified walls was transformed. The rebuilding was undertaken by Firuz Shah in the decade of the 1360s and he records the restoration in the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi AO Sayyid Ahmad Khan corroborates the sultan’s statement.41

The form of the mosque is an anomaly. It resembles a classical facade with fluted columns and a pedimented entablature.42 The source of inspiration is uncertain although 73 some authors suggest that a traveller like Ibn Battuta, who was familiar with classical prototypes, may have provided a verbal description to the architect.43 The building materials were white marble and the epigraphy suirounding the mihrab may be contemporary with the restoration.44

This wall mosque is in a good state repair today.

* 9. Lat pyramid, Kotla Firuz Shah, Firuzabad, 764/1367 Although not a mosque by itself, the lat pyramid stands next to and was originally connected with the jami masjid of Firuz Shah. Firuz Shah brought the Asokan lat from a site 130 kilometers from Delhi and designed the unique pyramidal-shaped structure to support it. The details of the discovery and transport of this Asokan lat are provided in the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi and ‘Afif s Tarikh-i Firuz ShahiA^ The event took place in 764/1367.

The form of the monument is unique. It is a three-storied pyramid with a solid core. The periphery of each storey consists of rows of interconnected cells. The lat protrudes from the top and was originally capped by an elaborate finial. The lat is believed to have served as a minar for the adjacent mosque. The pyramid is extant but is missing its comer towers (emphasizing its pyramidal profile) and its upper balustrade and . The lat is broken at its summit. The lat pyramid is discussed further in the Chapter IV.

10. Congregational mosque, Jahannuma, ca. 764/ 1367

The Jahannuma palace is located on the northern ridge of Delhi and is believed to be the same as thekuskh shikar mentioned by contemporary historians. ‘Afif provides 74 the most detail about this complex located on the northen fringe of Firuzabad a few kilometers north of the kotlaA^ From what little is known about the complex, it consisted of a hunting palace, a mosque, a tomb, and an Asokan lat. The site is most noted for the Asokan lat brought to it in 764/1367, at the same time the lat was brought to the kotla mosque.

The mosque may not be extant. It correspond to the so-called Pir Ghaib, one of two remaining stmctures located at the northwest comer of the site, but Pir Ghaib has also been identified as the Jahannuma palace.47 The form of the mosque is impossible to decipher from the ruins of Pir Ghaib, a two-storied structure which is only part of a much larger edifice.48

11. Masjid Chaurahiya in thedargah of , , Delhi, 776/1374

Sayyid Ahmad Khan attributes the mosque to Firuz Shah on the basis that it is contemporary with the tomb at the site, 776/1374. Carr Stephen does not assign the mosque to a specific patron but remarks on its affinities to the mosques built by Firuz

Shah’svizier Khan Jahan.49 The form of the mosque is a simple prayer hall with a partially enclosed courtyard. This wall mosque has been altered by later additions and restoration.

12. Mosque in the dargah of Shah ‘Alam at Wazirabad, ca. 1375 A.D. The mosque and tomb of Makdum Shah ‘Alam are located in Wazirabad (Timurpur), eight and a half kilometers north of Firuzabad. Percy Brown mentions the mosque as one of the significant mosques of the period and places it around 1375 A. D.50 Welch and Crane assign the mosque to Firuz Shah’s patronage on the basis of its type, a 75 prayer hall with an open courtyard, a type favored by Firuz Shah.51 The prayer hall consists of five bays, three of which are dom ed.52 The mosque is extant and in good state of repair.

The mosques constructed by Firuz Shah display a variety of forms. In addition to those which stand independently, some were probably attached to madrasas or tomb structures, as wall mosques. Also, it is not certain which mosques were Friday mosques. The ones at Firuzabad and Hissar were undoubtedly intended for the Friday sabbath but theminbar is absent from the latter.

Madrasas

Barani discusses Firuz Shah’s madrasa at Hauz Khas at length, but ‘Afif does not mention it, or, for that matter, any of his colleges. Firishta attributes the sultan with building thirty colleges.

** 1. Madrasa of Firuz Shah at Hauz Khas, ca. 1352 A.D. The madrasa was built by Firuz Shah at the location of a ba’oli initially excavated by ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji. Firuz Shah revitalized use of the ba’oli early in his reign and continued building activity at the site until his death. The site is an accretion of architectural forms, including the madrasa, a mosque, and several tombs. Most details about life at the madrasa are provided by B arani.53 The form of the madrasa is a continuous block of cells and arcades, covered by vaulted ceilings, and attached to a mosque and Firuz Shah’s mausoleum. Ancillary buildings include a convocation hall in 76 the form of an open pavilion with cupola roof and several chhatri or pavilion tombs. The madrasa is discussed in Chapter V. Themadrasa has lost significant portions of its eastern block and a small section of its south block extension. Despite these losses, the remaining structures of the madrasa are in good states of repair.

2. Madrasa of Firuz Shah at Siri, before 1357 A.D.

Barani describes the atmosphere of the madrasa at Siri like the heavens.54 The madrasa was headed by Sayyid Nizam al-Din Samarqandi and is said to have been located in an beautiful setting but its exact location is not known. The monument does not survive and its form is unknown.

3. Madrasa of Sultan Shams al-Din , south Delhi, near Mahipalpur village, ca. 1370 A.D. Themadrasa, built by Iltutmish, was completely rebuilt by Firuz Shah according to the Futuhat-i Firuz ShahL^S The madrasa is identified as the madrasa-Xamh of Nasir al-Din Mahmud (the Sultan Ghari tomb). Firuz Shah allegedly re-erected the madrasa without changing its form .56

Themadrasa-xomh of Nasir al-Din Mahmud is in a good state of repair today.

4. Madrasa at thedargah of Qadam Sharif, ca. 776/1364

Themadrasa was attached to the tomb of Fath Khan. Themadrasa is probably contemporary with the tomb and mosque at the site which Sayyid Ahmad Khan assigns to the year of Fath Khan’s death in 776/1374.57 77

The madrasa is extant but later additions and alterations have obscured its original form.

Tombs

Despite the importance which Firuz Shah assigned to the practice of visiting the tombs of holy men and saints, ‘Afif neglects to identify them except in the most general terms. Firishta, who attributes largf*. numbers of other types of structures to the sultan, claims that he built only five mausolea. This unusually small number suggests that the practice of building tombs was not regarded with the same prestige by the sultan as the construction of other religious or secular structures. Firuz Shah’s attention to repairing already existing tombs and revitalizing the tombs of former sovereigns as pilgrimage sites however attests to the importance he assigned to them.

** 1. Tomb of Firuz Shah, Hauz Khas madrasa, ca. 1388 A.D. Firuz Shah’s mausoleum is identified by an inscription over the south doorway which records repairs to the tomb by Sikandar Shah Lodi in 913/1507-1508. The tomb was probably built in the latter part of the reign, ca. 1388. Its form is a square plan domed structure with battered walls, constructed of rubble masonry covered with plaster. The form emulates the earlier royal Tughluq tomb of Ghiyath al-Din at Tughluqabad. The interior of the tomb is inscribed with Quranic verses which constitute the only known body of inscriptions from the period.

The tomb is in a good state of repair today and, unlike other monuments of the period, its ornamentation is almost entirely intact. The tomb and its epigraphs are examined in Chapter V. 78

*** 2. Unidentified tomb, Lat-ki Masjid, Hissar, ca. 1356 The square plan domed structure located in the courtyard of the Lat-ki Mosque of Hissar has been commonly identified as a tomb however the structure probably functioned as a gate or portal for the Lat-ki Mosque on whose plinth it stands. The structure is in a good state of repair. It is discussed further in Chapter VI.

3. Charbuiji Masjid, near Kushk Shikar, Delhi, date unknown The structure known as the Chaubuiji Masjid (mosque of four towers) located on the northern ridge is generally believed to have been intended as a tom b.58 This two- storied structure has a central chamber with a smaller chamber on either side. The structure originally had four domes, from which it derives its name. The monument is extant but is in an advanced state of ruin. Only one dome, which covers the upper level chamber, remains. The monument was altered in Mughal times.

4. Tomb of Fath Khan in the dargah of Qadam Sharif, Paharganj, Delhi, 776/1374 Firuz Shah allegedly had the mausoleum constructed for his own use but instead interred his son’s remains in it after the latter’s untimely death in 776/1374.59 The enclosure subsequently became the burial place of other members of Firuz Shah’s family. The square plan masonry tomb is located on a platform. A marble footprint of the

Prophet {qadam sharif) was placed over Fath Khan’s grave by Firuz Shah.60 Thedargah is in active worship today, particularly during a festival on 12 Rabi’ul-Awwal. 79

The tomb’s present setting has been altered with the construction of the Masjid Chaurahiya (mosque no. 11 above), a madrasa {madrasa no. 4 above), a ba’oli {ba’oli no. 2 below), and the enclosure.

5. Tomb of Makdum Shah ‘Alam, Wazirabad, ca. 1375 The tomb belongs to the chhatri or pavilion type, frequently employed in early sultanate architecture.^! The tomb stands in the courtyard of the mosque of Shah ‘Alam (mosque no. 12 above). It is in good repair today.

6. Tomb and entrance gate, dargah of Hazrat Nasir al-Din Roshan, Chiragh-i Delhi, 775/1373 Shaikh Nasir al-Din Mahmud, the last of the great Chisti saints of Delhi and successor of Nizam al-Din Auliya, died in 757 / 1356.62 The saint was interred in a barahdari, a domed structure 30 feet square in plan with a masonry dome 40 feet in height. The structure is a domed chamber with twelve pillars. A dome was originally built by Firuz Shah in 749/1350 before the saint’s murder and was possibly replaced by a more permanent structure after the saint’s death. An inscription dated 775/1373 is contained on the marble arch of the domed entrance gate on the northeast comer of the enclosure.63

In the name of God! Auspicious is the mention of His name. The building of this glorious dome was [finished] in the reign of the august, strengthened with the help of the merciful, Abu al-Muzaffar Firoz Shah, Sultan; May God perpetuate his kingdom; in the year 775, date of the flight of the Messenger of God, on Whom be God’s blessing. Greeting. The tomb has been renovated and altered. 80

In addition to the tomb structures listed, there are numerous structures, mostly belonging to the chhatri type, which are unattributed. Several chhatris located on the grounds of the Hauz Khas madrasa are believed to have been built under his direction. These, however, have also been assigned to the Lodi period. The attribution remains inconclusive.

Palaces

His palaces [kushkl were those of Firoz, Nuzul, Mahandwari, Hisar Firozah, Fath-abad, Jaunpur, Shikar, Band-i Fath Khan and Salaura.64 ‘Afif’s list is intriguing because he suggests that the Nuzul palace was a structure separate from the palace of Firoz (Firuzabad). This has an important bearing on identifying the location of the inscriptions of the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi which will be discussed in the following chapter. Also, the mention of the palace at Jaunpur ends speculation as to whether one had been built by Firuz Shah.

1. Palace at Kotla Firuz Shah, Firuzabad, begun ca. 755/1354 and completed ca. 762/1360 The palace complex within the citadel or kotla was Firuz Shah’s permanent residence after he abandoned the Jahanpanah palace upon completion of the kotla. The palace is in such an advanced state of ruin that its plan and form cannot be deciphered. ‘Afif describes three palaces where Firuz Shah conducted durbar or sat in state.65 The first, -i sahan-i gilin (palace of the clay court), also referred to as the mahal-i angur (palace of grapes,) was intended for the reception of "khans, maliks, amirs, officials and distinguished literary men." The mahal-i -i chobin (palace of the wooden gallery) 81 was for the reception of the sultan’s personal attendants. The mahal-i bar-i ‘am (palace of the public court), also known as the -i miyanagi (central quadrangle), was for general receptions.

Except for foundations and undefined ruins, all palaces of the kotla are lost.

2. Kuskh-i Shikar or Jahannuma palace, nothem ridge, Delhi, ca. 764/1367 The extant structure known as Pir Ghaib is possibly the only remnant of the Jahannuma (world showing) palace, also known as the Kuskh-i Shikar (hunting palace). The sultan was fond of hunting and is said to have spent much time at this hunting palace. Built early in his reign, the palace seems to have developed into an extensive complex. It contained a mosque and Firuz Shah had one of two Asokan columns (the one from Meerut) which he brought back to Delhi erected at the site.66 Today only two architectural monuments (Pir Ghaib and Charbuiji masjid) stand near the fragment of the Asokan column. The column was seriously damaged in an explosion in the 18th century. Timur described the palace as "a fine building on top of a hill by the banks of the Jumna."67 Beglar identified the Pir Ghaib as the remaining portion of the Jahannuma palace and speculated that it originally extended east to the crest of ridge, over 110 feet, where he observed additional foundations. The area is being obscured today by encroaching urban development. The surviving ruins on the ridge have not been conclusively identified as to their functions. The Pir Ghaib is a two-storied firagment of a large building, now lost.68 82

*** 3. Palace, Hissar, ca. 757/1356 The palace of Hissar still stands within the fortress however its present condition restricts access to it. The palace was partly subterranean, built on and submerged into a summit of a hill. The plan was a complex labyrinth which gained legendary status. ‘Afif describes the complex corridors of the palace and the darkness of its inner chambers from which exit was necessarily conducted by trained attendants.69 The palace is a series of interconnected vaulted chambers supported on reused stone columns and rubble and plaster piers. ‘Afif notes that its reputation was unrivalled anywhere in the world. The palace is extant and most of its vaulting is intact. Access to it is limited today.

5. Mahal (Diwan Khana), Hissar, ca. 757/1356 This small mahal stands on top the fortress wall to the north of the palace. It is attributed to Firuz Shah on the basis of its style and its location near the fortress. Themahal is in a good state of repair.

6. Palace, Jaunpur, ca. 760/1359 ‘Afif’s reference to a palace at Jaunpur is the only evidence that one was built. The sultan founded Jaunpur and took up residence there for six months in 760/1359. The location of his palace is not known but it probably stood in the vicinity of the A tala mosque, the site of Firuz Shah’s original mosque. No palace structure survives but the Cihil Satun, a palace built by. Firuz Shah’s governor, may be representative of palace architecture of the reign. The Cihil Satun was destroyed during the Mutiny but it was the subject of a sketch which fortunately survives.70 The palace is not extant. 83

7. Kushk Mahal, Delhi (within Tin Murti House compound), ca. 1360 A.D, Welch and Crane have identified four palaces (nos. 7-10) which the authors attribute to Firuz Shah’s patronage.? 1 None of the four contain epigraphs or are referred to in contemporary literature. The attributions are based on common stylistic elements, their locations in areas which Firuz Shah is known to have developed architecturally, and the premise that Firuz Shah was fond of hunting. The authors contend that none of the four were intended for prolonged residence. AU four palaces are vaulted structures. Kushk Mahal is extant.

8. Malcha Mahal, ca. 1360A .D .72

Malcha Mahal is extant.

9. Bhuli Bhatiyari-ka Mahal, Delhi, 755/1354

Sayyid Ahmad Khan mentions this palace in the Athar al-SanadidJ^ It was the residence of Bu ‘AU Bhatti, an individual of unknown status. It is located today near the dargah of Saiyid Hasan Rasul-Numa, near a dam beUeved to have been buUt by Firuz Shah. It is the site of a Brahmanical festival of Pavan-Prchcha.

Themahal is extant.

10. Mahal in the viUage of Mahipalpur, south of Delhi, ca. 1360 A.D. Themahal is extant. 84

11. Kushk-i Anwar or Kushk-i Mehndiyan, opposite the kotla near Jail-khana, ca. 755/1354 Popularly attributed to Firuz Shah because of its location near the kotla, its form is an arched under a plinth with five chhatris, one in each comer and one in the center of the plinth. Sayyid Ahmad Khan assigns it to the reign of Firuz Shah, but not to his patronage.74 The kushk was already in ruins by his time, but Sayyid Ahmad Khan relates that it was a site of celebration for the saint Sayyid Abd al-Qadir al-Gilani, popularly known as Bara Pir (great saint). A feast which was celebrated at the site included as part of the celebration a paper kiosk (mehndi) surrounded by lights, hence the name given to the palace. Thekushk is ruined and only one chhatri remains.

Palace architecture during the reign of Firuz Shah has suffered the most decay. Whereas relgious structures were apparently more carefully preserved, palaces were simply rebuilt or altered. The small number of hunting pavilions which remain offer the only physical evidence about palace architecture of the period. Muhammad bin Tughluq’s palace at Jahanpanah (the so-called Bijai Mandel) may provide a prototype for those built by Firuz Shah, but the functions of spaces of that palace are not know n.75

Khanaqah

He also built monasteries, and inns for the accommodations of travellers. One hundred and twenty khankahs [monasteries] were built in Delhi and Firozabad for the accommodation of the people of God, in which travellers from all directions were receivable as guests for three days. These one hundred and twenty buildings were full of guests on all die three hundred and sixty days of the year. Superintendents and officers of 85

theSunni persuasion were appointed to these khankahs, and funds for their expenses were furnished from the public treasury.76

1. Khanaqah located at the tomb of Rukn al-Din, son of Sham al-Din, Malikpur Firuz Shah mentions thiskhanaqah specifically in the Futuhat-i Firuz ShahiP’i No trace of this building survives.

Despite the 120khanaqahs mentioned by ‘Afif. all of them have vanished. The khanaqah form suffered a vacillating existence in sultanate architecture of Delhi. Tolerance of Sufi orders brought a resurgence of the khanaqah as an architectural form, but the loss of Tughluq period khanaqahs leaves most questions about their form unanswered. One must turn to architecture of the Deccan for architectural examples of thekhanaqah form.

Waterworks'^^

Canals: Firuz Shah is credited with excavating the largest network of canals in India until the 19thc en tu ry .79 Barani writes in the Ta’rikh-i Firuz ShahU^O During the auspicious Firuz Shah’s reign, the canals, one hundred and twenty miles long, were led off from the rivers, the Jamuna and the . The water flowing through them irrigated the desert and desolate tracts where no well or lake existed [before]. The depth and width [of certain canals] has made the use of boats possible, people travel in boats covering distance from one to the other place.

1. Rajab-wah canal, excavated from the Jumna to H issar,8 l ca. 1356 86

2. Ulugh-khani canal, excavated from the Jumna to Hissar, ca. 1356

3. Firuz-shahi (Firuzabad) canal, cut from the Sutlej River, ca. 1356 With its origin in the Sirmur and Mandali hUls, it joined seven other canals and led to Hansi and Hissar.

4. Ghaggar (Kakkhar) canal This Ghaggar flowed through the Sarsuitt fort to Hami Khira.

5. Nahr-i Ganj (Ganges) Canal Located near Badaun, an area where Firuz Shah was fond of hunting, its waters fed the Doab. Barani mentions this canal but ‘Afif and Sihrindi do not.82

6. Canal excavated from the Buddhi Jumna River which led to the Firuzabad reservoir83

This canal was cut from the old bed of the Jumna R iver.84

Bands (Dams) Bands: Fath Khan, Malja (into which he threw a body of fresh water[ab-i zamzam]), Mahpalpur, Shukr Khan, Salaura, Wazirabad, and other similar strong and substantial bands.^5

To ‘Afifs list can be added the dam near the Bhuli Bhatiyari-ka Mahal (above) which Sayyid Ahmad Khan attributes to Firuz Shah.86 87

Ba’oli (tanks):

1. ba’oli, Kotla Firuz ShahF i r u z a b a d , 87 ca. 1354

The best-preserved ba’oli of the period, it has lost portions of its uppermost storey and crowning cupolas.

2. ba’oli. Tomb of Fath Khan in dargah of Qadam Sharif,88ca. 776/1374

3. ba’oli, Lat-ld Masjid, Hissar, ca. 757/1356

More than any other category of building types, those structures which were engineered for the accumulation of water reserves or to facilitate movement of water for purposes of irrigation and supply, are probably the most numerous. However, the task of identifying the engineer of numerous canals and dams, or builder of the many ba’olis, which remain in northern India, is ambitious, if not impossible. Nonetheless, Firuz Shah’s reputation for undertaking such projects on a grand scale led Firishta to claim 50 dams, 30 reservoirs, 5 wells, 150 bridges and 10 public wells to his credit. In the case of waterworks, such numbers are probably not exaggerated.

Acts of restoration to pre-existing monuments

The list provided here replicates the list of restorations which Firuz Shah enumerates in the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi. Some can be identified with existing monuments today. These are noted in the list. The extent of Firuz Shah’s repairs is, for the most part, not detailed. Only those instances where his repairs have substantially 88 changed the appearance of the monument are elaborated upon. In most cases however, Firuz Shah’s repairs were confined to replacing wooden doors, draperies, and no doubt mending breaks in the structures. ‘Afif writes:89

The Sultan also repaired the tombs of former kings...It is a custom among kings while they are on the throne to appropriate villages and lands to religious men in order to provide means for the maintainance and repair of their tombs. But these endowments had all been destroyed, and the grantees being divested of them, were reduced to distress...The Sultan carefully repaired all the tombs and restored the lands and villages after bringing into cultivation such as had been laid waste. He sought out and restored the superintendents and officers of these endowments who had been driven out of them.

1. Masjid-i jama’ of , built by Sultan Mu’izz al-Din Sam (Quwwat al-lslam Mosque)

2. Minara of Sultan Mu’izz al-Din Sam (Qutb Minar)

Firuz Shah’s repair of the Qutb Minar is noted by an inscription on the monument;90 This Manara was injured by lightning in the months of the year 770. By the divine grace of Firuz Sultani...built this place up with great care.

The author of theSirat-i Firuz Shahi recalls that Firuz Shah was on a hunt at the place of origin of the Ganges canal when he received the sad news that lighming had struck the minar.91

3. Mosque at the tomb of Sultan ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji and the abdarkhana, within the madrasa (located at the southwest comer of Quwwat al-lslam Mosque, no longer extant) 4. Tomb of Sultan Mu’izz al-Din Sam (located in (Jila Rai Pithora, near Quwwat al-lslam Mosque, no longer extant)

5. Tomb located at the madrasa of Sultan Shams al-Din lltutmish (Tomb of Nasir al-Din Mahmud or the so-called "Sultan Ghari" tomb) 89

6. Tomb of Sultan Mu’izz al-Din, son of Sultan Shams al-Din Dtutmish, Malikpur

7. Tomb of Sultan Rukn al-Din, son of Shams al-Din lltutmish, in Malikpur 8. Tomb of Sultan Jalal al-Din 9. Tomb of Sultan ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji and the abdarkhana 10. Tomb of Sultan Kutb al-Din

11. Tomb of Khizr Khan, son of Sultan ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji 12. Tomb of Shadi Khan 13. Tomb of Farid Khan 14. Tomb of Sultan Shahab al-Din 15. Tomb of Sikandar Khan, son of Sultan ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji 16. Tomb of Muhammad Khan 17. Tomb of ’Usman Khan 18. Tombs of grandsons of Sultan ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji 19. Tombs of the sons of the grandsons of Sultan ’Ala’ al-Din Khalji 20. Tomb of Shaikh al-lslam Nizam al-Hakk wa al-Din and meeting room 21. Tomb of Malik Taj al-Mulk Kafuri, the vizier of Sultan ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji 22. Dar al-aman or House of Rest. (This monument has been identified as the tomb of

Ghiyath al-DinT ughluq)92

23. Hauz-i ‘Alai or tank of ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji (Hauz Khas) 24. Hauz-i Shamsi or tank of lltutmish 25. Jahanpanah 26. All the of the former sovereigns of Delhi (Qila Rai Pithora, Lalkot, Siri,

Tughluqabad, and ‘Adilabad) 90

Firuz Shah concentrated his restorative measures to the numerous tombs and shrines in the area arotmd Delhi. His interest in restoring the monuments of his predecessors attests to his concern that the architectural legacy of the Delhi sultans be preserved. The list he provides undoubtedly falls short of the scope of his endeavors but it demonstrates the sultan’s regard for arhitectural traditions of the past. The monuments listed above constitute the known corpus of Firuz Shah’s architectural legacy. From this group of individual monuments, several which belong to larger complexes, have been selected for closer examination. The basis for their selection is three-fold. First, they are in relatively good states of repair and essentially

unaltered since the fourteenth century A. D. Second, they are considered to be Firuz Shah’s most significant undertakings. Third, they possess physical characteristics which are representative of Firuz Shah’s building style and provide clues about possible motives for their construction. The first complex, consisting of the jami masjid and lat pyramid, is believed to have been Firuz Shah’s imperial mosque. The second complex, the madrasa and its associated religious and funerary structures at Hauz Khas, served as the educational center of the state. The third complex at Hissar, over a hundred kilometers northwest of Delhi, was the base of the provincial government in that region, and represents the frontier settlement. Each of these three complexes provides evidence, in their physical remains, of Firuz Shah’s motives as a patron, his role as an architect, and manifest the style which is identified with him. 91

NOTES TO CHAPTER HI 1 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 354-355.

2 Ibid., p. 354. 3 Ibid., p. 283. 4 The column of Fathabad is published in Subhash Parihar,Muslim Inscriptions in the Punjab, Harayana, and Himachal Pradesh (1985), p. 18 (No. 3.6), but without transcription or translation of its inscription. 5 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 302-303. The jami masjid was probably one of the nine mosques mentioned by ‘Afif. Others which have been identified are Masjid Khas, probably located near the Kotla and intended for the sultan’s harem; Masjid Naib Barbak, patronized by the sultan’s brother; Masjid Bahre-i Shahnah, possibly patronized by Malik Bahr, master of the sultan’s elephants; Masjid Nizam al- Mulk, brother-in-law to the sultan; a mosque in the Kushk-i Shikar on the ridge; a mosque in the village of Andabhata or Indrapat; and two erected by the sultan’s vizier Khan Jahan probably identified as Kalan Masjid and one near the Jajnagar gate. See Hodivala, Studies in Indo-Muslim History, v. 2, pp. 124-125. 6 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 317. 7 Saiyid Ahmad Khan, "Descriptions des monuments de Delhi en 1852," Journal Asiatique (June 1860), pp. 533-535. 8 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 129. 9 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 298-300.

10 The palace at Hissar is described by ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 299, but the Asokan column is not mentioned by any contemporary author. 11 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 307.

12 J. Burton-Page, "Djawnpur," Encyclopedia of Islam\ A. Führer, Sharqi Architecture of Jaunpur (London 1909).

13 Firishta (Briggs), p. 262.

14 Hodivala, Studies in Indo-Muslim History, v. 1, p. 389.

15 Sihrindi, Ta’rikh-i Mubarak Shahi (Bibliotheca Indica) p. 142; Baneijee, History of Firuz Shah Tughluq, p. 189, places the date to 1385 A.D. 16 In the course of excavating the canal, a prehistoric fossil, perhaps that of a mastadon, as well as human bones of extraordinary proportions, were discovered. See 92

Firishta (Briggs), p. 262 and footnote. Briggs observed that the canal was no longer extant. 17 Timur, Malfuzat-i Timuri, p. 427 and Zafarnama, p. 491. See Hodivala, Studies in Indo-Muslim History, v. 1, p. 386. 18 See Ahmad, "Diyauddin Barani's Perception of Irrigation as an Agent of Change in Society," Islamic Culture 61 (1982), p. 68.

19 Indo-Muslim History, V. l,p. 136. 20 Firishta,Ta’rikh (Briggs), p. 270. 21 'Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 350 and pp. 354-355. 22 The Fathabad column epigraph is long, consisting of 36 concentric bands of inscription. It is not known how much of the inscription is lost but, judging from the height of the column, it probably survives in almost its entirety. The lat inscription is published in Subhash Parihar,Muslim Inscriptions in the Punjab, Harayana, and Himachal Pradesh, 1985, p. 18 (No. 3.6) and illustration 7. A translation of it was allegedly done by Maulvi Ziyauddin Khan but it has not surfaced. See P. Horn "Muhammadan Inscriptions from the Suba of Delhi," Epigraphica Indica 2 (Delhi 1970), pp. 130-159 and 424-437; and H. B. W. Garrick, "Report of a tour in the Punjab and Rajputana, in 1883-84," A.SJ. Reports v. 23, Varanasi, n.d. Not all authors accept an Asokan origin for the Fathabad lat.

23 Saiyid Ahmad Khan, "Descriptions des monuments de Delhi en 1852," Journal asiatique (Oct.-Nov. 1860), p. 406. II a écrit lui-même: "J’ai entièrement fait construire de nouveau cette mosquée (lieu de réunion); elle n’était pas située, dans l’origine, au même endroit." Nath refutes the attribution to Firuz Shah. Nath,Monuments of Delhi, p. 41, fn. 10.

24 Sultan Firoz, Futuhat (EUiot and Dowson), p. 384. Firuz Shah remarks that he repaired the tomb of Shaikh al-lslam Nizam al-Hakk wa al-Din and built a "meeting room." 25 Sharma,Delhi and Its Neighborhood, p. 116. 26 Nath, Sultanate Architecture, p. 49. 27 Nizam al-Din was a Chisti saint and friend of ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji and Muhammad bin Tughluq. See Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 104. 93

Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Journal asiatique (Oct.-Nov. 1860), p. 415; Nath, Monuments o f Delhi, p. 40; Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 149. Carr Stephen includes the Khirki Mosque with six other mosques of Khan Jahan, an attribution based on Sayyid Ahmad Khan. 29 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 138 and p. 162, footnote 59. 30 Ibid., p. 138; Brown, Indian Architecture: Islamic Period, p. 24. Brown does not identify the patron of the mosque but dates it to ca. 1375 A. D. The mosque is illustrated in Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," Figure 5 and Plates 7, 8, and 9. 31 Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Journal asiatique (Oct.-Nov. 1860), p. 407; Malfuzat-i Timuri (Elliot and Dowson), p. 447. 32 Barani, Ta’rikh (Bibliotheca Indica), pp. 561-562; ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 303. ‘Afif includes it among the nine mosques of Firuzabad.

33 Sayyid Ahmad Khan reports that the dome still existed in ’s reign. He cites Firishta as his source. Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Journal asiatique (Oct.-Nov. 1860), p. 407. 34 Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Journal asiatique (Oct.-Nov. 1860), p. 397; Archaeological Survey of India, Lists of Monuments, v. 3, p. 180, no. 310; Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 83. Carr Stephen discusses the madrasa but makes no mention of the mosque. The cathedral mosque mentioned by Ibn Battuta during his visit to Hauz Khas must be a pre-Firuz Shah structure.

35 Barani, Ta’rikh (Bibliotheca Indica), pp. 562-564. 36 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 140. Firuz Shah departs for Bengal in 760/1359. Although it is possible that he ordered the mosque to be built during his absence, it is unlikely that he permitted its construction without his closest supervision. 37 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 298-299. ‘Afif discusses the canals, battlements and palace but does not mention the mosque. 38 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 307.

39 The Sharqi characteristics are the largeiwans with domes. Large pyramidal gateways which resemble Egyptian pylons conceal the domes from the courtyard side. See Burton-Page, "Djawnpur," Encyclopedia of Islam, v. 2, pp. 498-499; Nath, Sultanate Architecture, pp. 96-107; A. Führer, Sharqi Architecture of Jaunpur (London 1909). 40 Firuz Shah,Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), p. 383. Firuz Shah also rebuilt the madrasa which had been completely destroyed. 41 Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Journal asiatique (Oct.-Nov. 1860), pp. 392-393. The attribution stands entirely on the basis of Firuz Shah’s testimony. 94

Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," Plate 25. 43 Ibid., p. 139. 44 Husain, A Record of All the Quranic and Non-historical Epigraphs, p. 89, no. CIX. Husain does not attribute the epigraphy to either lltutmish or Firuz Shah. 45 Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, in J. A. Page, A Memoir on Kotla Firoz Shah: Delhi, pp. 33-42; ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 350-353. ‘Afif mentions the transport of two columns, the second being placed in die kuskh-i shikar. Barani died in 1357 so his Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi provides no account of the event. 46 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 353.

47 Sharma, Delhi and Its Neighborhood, p. 136; Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 152. Welch and Crane believe that Pir Ghaib is the remnant of the congregational mosque of Jahannuma. 48 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," Plate 22. 49 Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Journal asiatique (Oct.-Nov. 1860), p. 412; Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 148. 50 Brown, Indian Architecture, p. 21. Brown includes the mosque with a group which he assigns to the decade beginning 1370 A.D. The ^oup includes Kali Masjid (ca. 1370), Begumpuri Mosque at Jahanpanah (c. 1370), Khirki Masjid at Jahanpanah (c. 1375), and Kalan Masjid at Shahjahanabad (c. 1375). 51 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," pp. 139-140 and Plate 10. 52 Within the mosque in a rear comer is the earliest example of a zanana gallery. See Burton-Page, "Dihli," Encyclopedia of Islam, v. 2, p. 262. 53 Barani, Ta’rikh (Bibliotheca Indica), pp. 561-565. 54 Ibid., p. 565.

55 Firuz Shah,Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), p. 383. 56 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 154. 57 Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Journal asiatique (Oct.-Nov. 1860), pp. 411-412. 58 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 152; Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 144. 59 Shdjvasi, Delhi and Its Neighborhood,^. 133. 95

^ Hodivala, Studies in Indo-Muslim History, p. 344. Hodivala identifies the stone footprint as one which had been presented to Firuz Shah by the Egyptian Caliph, an act mentioned in the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi. See Firuz Shah, Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), p. 387. 61 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," Plate 10.

62 Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 145. 63 Ibid., p. 146 footnote. 64 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 354.

65 Ibid., p. 343. 66 Ibid., p. 353. 67 Malfuzat-i Timuri (Elliot and Dowson), p. 432. 68 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," Plate 22. 69 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 299.

70 Burton-Page, "Djawnpur," Encyclopedia of Islam, pp. 498-499 and Plate VUI.

71 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 152. 72 A plan of Malcha Mahal is reproduced by Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 153, figure 10, and plate 23. 73 Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Journal asiatique (Oct.-Nov. 1860) p. 409; Nath, Monuments of Delhi, p. 38. 74 Saiyid Ahmad Khzn, Journal asiatique (Oct.-Nov. 1860) pp. 408-409; Nath, Monuments of Delhi, pp. 37-38; Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 122.

75 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," Plates 20 and 21. 76 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 354. 77 Firuz Shah, Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), p. 383-384. 78 Most canals and structures built to convey and store water are still in use today. For this reason, their present conditions are not noted. Many waterworks of the Delhi sultanate are surveyed and photographs of their remains reproduced in Tatsuo Yamamoto, Matsuo Ara, Tokifusa Tsukinowa, and Taichi 96

Oshima, Delhi: ArcJùtectural Remains of the Delhi Sultanate Period (in Japanese), University of Tokyo, 1967-1970. 79 Raychaudhuri and Habib, Cambridge Economic History, p. 49. 80 Barani, Ta'rikh (Bibliotheca Indica), p. 567; translation given in Siddiqui, "Waterworks and Irrigation System in India during Pre-Mughal Times," Islamic Culture (Jan. 1984), p. 13. 81 Both the Rajab-wah and Ulugh-khani canals are cited most frequently by contemporary authors as, for example, ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 300; Also see Baneijee, History of Firuz Shah Tughluq, p. 119 and p. 147, fns. 25-26. 82 Barani, Ta’rikh (Bibliotheca Indica), p. 567;Siddiqui, "Waterworks and Irrigation," cites the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, f. 790b. 83 Baneijee, History of Firuz Shah Tughluq, p. 142, mentions the Buddhi canal and cites Sihrindi as his source. 84 See Hodivala, Studies in Indo-Muslim History, v. 2, p. 148. 85 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 354. 86 Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Journal asiatique (Oct-Nov 1860), p. 409. 87 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 149, plan, section, and elevation illustrated in figure 9. 88 Nath,Monuments of Delhi, p. 39. 89 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 354-355. 90 Bendrey, A Study of Muslim Inscriptions, p. 105. 91 Siddiqui "Waterworks and Irrigation," p. 14 and footnote 74 cites the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi i{.190h). 92 Saiyid Ahmad Khan identifies the dar al-aman as the tomb of Tughluq Shah and Muhammad bin Tughluq. Tughluq Shah’s tomb is well known but few modern scholars acccept that Muhammad bin Tughluq is interred in this spot. See also Nath, Monuments of Delhi, p. 35. CHAPTER IV THE JAMI MASJID AND LAT PYRAMID OF FIRUZABAD

Literary sources

Firuz Shah built a largejami masjid or congregational mosque (Plate I) within the kotla (citadel) in Firuzabad. Because of its prominent location in proximity to the palace, it is considered to be his imperial mosque, the one in which he fulfilled his personal religious obligations. The kotla is located a few kilometers to the north of Jahanpanah, Muhammad bin Tughluq’s foundation, along the west bank of the Jumna River (Figure 2) just to the nonh of Indrapat, the site of the sixteenth century , and south of the seventeenth century Shahjahanabad, site of the and the Jami Masjid of present- day Delhi. Firuz Shah’s mosque is situated on the east perimeter of the kotla where it was protected by the Jumna River which flowed beside the citadel in the 14th century. Thejami masjid is a remarkable structure not so much because of the mosque proper but because of a peculiar structure, the lat pyramid, which is located on its north side. The lat or pillar which is embedded in it is believed to have served as a minar to the mosque. Although the mosque and lat pyramid are conceived as a single mosque complex, they were built at two different times. Firuz Shah ordered the construction of the mosque early in his reign. Following his return to Delhi in 755/1354-1355 after the first campaign to Bengal, he selected the site and commenced the building of Firuzabad. i The date of the jami masjid, inferred from historical references, coincides with the

97 98 founding of the city. ‘Afif does not mention the construction of the mosque specifically but implies its existence when he discusses the addition of the lat pyramid fifteen years later. The mosque contains no surviving historical epigraphs. Following his return in 762/1360 from the second campaign to Bengal, Firuz Shah resumed the building of his capital but the mosque is believed to have been completed prior to this time.2 The building activities began once more in 769/1367 with the erection of the lat pyramid. The Sirat-i Firuz Shahi records this event to have occurred during Muharram 769/September 1367 and reports that the lat was raised to its upright position on 4 Safar

769/30 September 1367.3 Literary references to the mosque are few. Barani, who died in 758/1357 before the celebrated occasion of the construction of the monument is, of course, silent about the lat pyramid in his Tarikh-i Firuz Shahi but he mentions the jami masjid in Firuzabad briefly, noting that during the sabbath it housed a congregation so large that no space remained in the lower or upper stories nor in the courtyard.4 The contemporary historians mention the mosque only in passing and instead concentrate on the extraordinary lat pyramid. In describing the foundation of the city of Firuzabad, ‘Afif writes in the Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi, "There were eight public mosques and one private mosque,...The public mosques were each large enough to accommodate

10,000 supplicants.''^ ‘Afif surely includes the congregational mosque within the kotla among the nine mosques he enumerates. In a later chapter the author devotes much attention to the lat. He relates that after returning from the expedition to Thatta, Firuz Shah discovered two stone columns during an excursion north of Delhi. "One was erected in the palace (kushk) at Firozabad, near the Masjid-i jama’..."6 ‘Afif infers in this 99 statement that construction of the kotla mosque was already finished and that the lat pyramid was not part of its original conception. The events surrounding the discovery of the two lats are mentioned by ‘Afif in the ninth chapter of theTa’rikh-i Firuz Shahi'J After Sultan Firoz returned from his expedition against Thatta, he often made excursions in the neighborhood of Delhi. In this part of the country there were two stone columns. One was in the village of Tobra, in the district [shikk] of Salaura and Khizrabad, in the hills [koh-payah]; the other in the vicinity of the town of Mirat. These columns had stood in those places from the days of the , but had never attracted the attention of any of the kings who sat upon the throne of Delhi, till Sultan Firoz noticed them, and, with great exertion, brought them away. One was erected in the palace [kushk] at Firozabad, near the masjid-i jama’, and was called the minara-i zarin, or Golden Column, and the other was erected in the kushk-i shikar, or Hunting Palace, widi great labour and skill...When Firoz Shah first beheld these columns, he was filled with admiration, and resolved to remove them with great care as trophies to Delhi. Khizrabad is ninety kos from Delhi, in the vicinity of the hills. When the Sultan visited that district, and saw the column in the village of Tobra, he resolved to remove it to Delhi, and there to erect it as a memorial to future generations.

‘Afif goes on to describe the lowering of the lat onto a bed of silk cotton and the removal of a large square stone at its base. The lat was then wrapped with reeds and raw skins and transported by carriage to a boat on the Jumna which carried it downstream to Firuzabad. The task required the labor of thousands of men.

When the pillar was brought to the palace, a building was commenced for its reception, near the jami' masjid, and the most skillful architects and workmen were employed. It was constructed of stone and chunam, and consisted of several stages or steps [poshish]. When a step was finished the column was raised on to it, another step was then built and the pillar was again raised, and so on in succession until it reached the intended height. On arriving at this stage, other contrivances had to be devised to place it in an erect position... The square stone, before spoken of, was placed under the pillar. After it was raised, some omamenàl friezes of black and white stone were placed 100

round its two capitals [do sar-i an\, and over these there was raised a gilded copper cupola, called in kalas. The height of the obelisk was thirty-two gaz\ eight gaz was sunk in its pedestal, and twenty-four gaz was visible. On the base of the obelisk there were engraved several lines of writing in Hindi characters. Many Brahmans and Hindu devotees were invited to read them, but no one was able. It is said that certain infidel Hindus interpreted them as stating that no one should be able to remove the obelisk from its place till diere should arise in the latter days a Muhammadan king, named Sultan Firoz,... ‘Afif then describes the removal of the second lat from Mirat and its erection on a hill in thekushk-i shikar. He does not mention however any mosque in connection with it. The author continues: Every great king took care during his reign to set up some lasting memorial of his power. So Sultan Shams al-Din lltutmish raised the large pillar in the masjid-i jama' at old Delhi, the history of which is well known. In these days, in the year 801 H (1398 A.D.), Amir Timur, of Khurasan, has m arché into India, and by the will of fate has subdued the empire of Hindustan. During his stay of some days in Delhi, he inspected all the monuments of former kings,...and among them these two obelisks, when he declared that in all the countries he had traversed he had never seen any monuments comparable to these. In these passages ‘Afif offers several reasons for the sultan’s actions: to provide a minar for his mosque, to acquire a trophy, to erect a memorial to future generations, and to erect a memorial of his power. ‘Afif wrote the Ta’rikh around 1400, after Timur’s capture of Delhi in 801/1398-1399, over thirty years after the event. He also mentions that he was only twelve years of age when he witnessed the raising of the lat but his recollection of it concurs for the most part with another account in the Sirat-i Firuz

Shahi.^ This text also describes Firuz Shah’s discovery, removal and erection of the lat in the kotla.^ In fact, the Sirat notes that Firuz Shah saw the pillar for a second time before deciding to move it. The author of the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi reiterates ‘Afif’s assertion that the pillar was transported and erected in the Firuzabad mosque after that 101 mosque had been built. The author also does not mention any details concerning the construction of the mosque, its existence being implied. Instead, he concentrates on details of the construction of the lat pyramid. The King of Islam now prayed to the Almighty God that he may be enabled to remove the stone pillar and re-erect it near the Jum’ah mosque of the Javan [Jumna]. The sages and wise men of the time were simply astonished at the sight, and though they dived deep into the sea of thought they succeeded not in bringing out the pearl of the solution of these secrets - namely whence and how this heavy and lofty stone monolith was brought to this place and what were the exact engineering methods employed in its erection here. Verily such an achievement could hardly have been accomplished by human beings for the simple reason that it is beyond the powers of Man... Such were the things which the King heard; [but] as he was determined to remove the pillar he said "By the grace of the Creator, who sees and hears everything, we shall remove this lofty pillar and make a minar of it in the Jum’ah Mosque of Firozabad where, God willing, it shall stand as long as the world endures.” So the King ordered the engineers and all the wise, shrewd, and ingenuous men of the time to devise, each according to his own intelligence, understanding and ingenuity, the means of taking down the pillar, its removal to Firozabad, which is die resort of all the occupants of the inhabited quarters, and its re-erection in the Jum’ah Mosque of Firozabad and to let the king know of the various methods they would suggest.

But, the author continues to say that the wisest men were not able to advise the king and only Firuz Shah possessed the "sound knowledge and perfect wisdom" to achieve the task deemed impossible by them.

Although the author of theSirat-i Firuz Shahi is unknown, his detailed account of

virtually every step of the process and his understanding of the complicated engineering skill involved indicate that he was an eye-witness. His deference to the sultan’s talents

suggests that he was also close to the court. 10 The Sirat provides a long detailed account of the process of lowering the pillar and placing it on a cart in order to move it to the riverbank. Devices contrived of ropes 102 and pulleys are described to the smallest detail. The lat was successfully loaded onto the boat which carried it to Firuzabad. The following extracts from this narrative are examples of the author’s penchant for detail.U From the boat [the King ordered that], the pillar should be removed and carried to the mosque at Firozabad, just in the same way as it had been carried on the cart before and shiftôl from the cart on to the boat; so that by the grace of God Almighty the pillar may be erected in the mosque; and whatever the King had wished or intended God was gracious enough to grant. The King of Islam ordered that a large pit sixty-one yards square be dug to a depth of seven yards, and that it be filled in with stone and mortar [masonry], until the masonry is level with the ground surface, where it should measure only 60 yards square. To these dmensions it [die plinth] should be raised to a height of three yards of which the lower yard may be left out of consideration and the top of the remaining two yards considered as the floor of a series of arched chambers. Thus the walls of the chambers shall commence at a height of three yards [from the ground surface] and raised to a height of six yards and a half, the roof being eight yards wide and serving as the floor of the second storey. Above this should be constructed on [intersecting] arches, the second or middle storey forty-four yards square, six yards and a half in height with its roof eight yards wide and forming the floor of the third storey. And the third storey of this building should be 28 yards square in plan. Of this, a space of nine yards in width on all four sides should be covered by eight domes, leaving a space of ten yards square in the centre where the pillar shall have to be erected. On this central space should be constructed, very carefully, a pakka masonry platform with stone and mortar. The third storey should also be six yards and a half in height, the total height of all the three stories together being 22 yards and a half. TheSirat passages were accompanied by nine illustrations, believed to be copied from illustrations in an original fourteenth century manuscript. These illustrations are schematic renderings, from bird’s-eye perspective, of the steps of the process. Four of them, which include architectural plans, are presented here. One (Plate II) depicts the arrival of the pillar on its cart in front of the mosque of Firuzabad. The ground plan of the mosque and its gate are shown in disproportionate scale. However the ground plans 103 represented in these illustrations are remarkably similar to the actual structure. A second illustration (Plate HI) depicts the pillar being raised to the first storey of the pyramidal foundation. Two other illustrations (Plates IV and V) represent the second and third floors respectively. The height of these three stories and the column is described in the Sirat as forty- two and a half yards from the ground level. A capital was placed on top of the pillar which brought the total height of the monument to an even fifty yards. The capital, made of colored stones, consisted of a pedestal, a myrobalam-shaped , a globe, and a crescent.12 At the four comers of the third storey were placed four figures of lions, each measuring 4 yards square and 5 yards in height. Neither these lions nor the capital mentioned in the Sirat survive. The sculpted lions are not mentioned in any other account but the capital is referred to by several observers. The Sirat also mentions that the pillar was polished and gilded and describes the splendor of the lat in poetic term s: 13 This pillar, high as the heaven, is made of a single block of stone and tapers upward, being broad at the base and narrow at the top. Seen from a hundred farsang it looks like a hillock of gold, as the Sun when it spreads its rays in the morning. No bird - neither eagle, nor crane - can fly as high as its top; and arrows, whetherkhadang oikhatai, cannot reach to its middle. If thunder were to rage about the top of this pillar, no one could hear the sound owing to the great distance [between the top of the pillar and the ground]. O God! how did they lift this heavy mountain [i.e., the pillar]?; and in what did they fix it [so firmly] that it does not move from its place? How did they carry it to the top of the building which almost touches the heavens and place it there [in its upright position]? How could they paint it all over with gold, [so beautifully] that it appears to the people like the golden morning! 104

Is it the lote-tree of paradise [tuba] which the angels may have planted in this world or is it the heavenly ''sidraK' which the people imagine to be a mountain? Its foundations have been filled with iron and stone; and its trunk and branches [i.e., shaft and capital] are made of gold and corals. The lat was raised on the north side of the monument which was closed in after the lat was firmly implanted in its base. A pavement of marble, red, and black stones was laid at its base and a corridor (sabat) was then constructed between the lat (south side) and the north side of the mosque. This corridor has disappeared but, despite skepticism about its existence, a nineteenth century watercolor rendering of the mosque and pyramid depicts i t (Plate V I ) . 14

In the concluding paragraphs of the Sirat chapter, the authorw r i t e s : 15 And after it had remained an object of worship of the polytheists and infidels for so many thousands of years, through die efforts of Sultan Firoz Shah and by the grace of God, it became the minar of a place of worship [masjid] for the Faithful... And from the taking down of this heavy pillar from its old site to its reerection at Firozabad, none but his Majesty, whose rule be perpetuated, had any say in the matter of general plans or particular details. The Sirat contends that the lat was to serve as a minar and was consciously adopted from serving an infidel purpose for use in a Muslim edifice. From evidence presented in ‘Afifs Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi and the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, thelat pyramid was constructed simply to provide a foundation plinth for the lat and to raise it to a position from which it could be seen. Both authors corroborate that it functioned as a minar for the adjacent mosque. During his conquest of Delhi, Timur visited the mosque and is said to have had thekhutba recited in it. Timur writes in the Malfuzat-i Timuri, hism em oirs: 16 I started from Delhi and marched three kos to the fort of Firozabad, which stands on the banks of the Jumna, and is one of the edifices erected by Sultan Firoz Shah. There I halted and went in to examine the palace. I 105

proceeded to the masjid-i Jami\ where I said my prayers and offered up my praises and thanksgivings for the mercies of the Almighty. Afterwards I again mounted, and proceeded to pitch my camp near the palace of Jahannuma. Although he does not refer specifically to Firuz Shah’s mosque in the kotla, he admired the monuments of the Delhi sultans and desired to emulate their building projects in Samarqand.17 I ordered that all the artisans and clever mechanics, who were masters of their respective crafts, should be picked out from among the prisoners and set aside and accordingly some thousands of craftsmen were selected to await my command. All these I distributed among the princes and amirs who were present, or who were engaged officially in other parts of my . I had determined to build a masjid-i Jami' in , the seat of my empire, which should be without a rival in any country; so I ordered that all builders and stone-masons should be set apart for my own especial service. The seventeenth century historian Firishta, who wrote his Ta’rikh or Gulshan-i Ibrahimi in distant Bijapur, also mentions the Firuzabad mosque but not the lat pyramid.

He identifies it as the mosque which Timur so admired and desired to replicate in Samarqand that he took the same architects and masons to build it. 18 Firishta states that Firuz Shah "caused his regulations to be carved on the Masjid of Ferozabad" and refers to an octagonal dome which crowned the mosque that contained eight slabs inscribed with the ordinances of the sultan, now believed to be the Futuhat-i Firuz S h a h i . In another passage he again refers to Firuz Shah’s mosque "on the stones of which he had inscribed the history of his reign."20 The inscribed slabs were allegedly located on the eight sides of an octagonal drum which supported a dome, the location of which is uncertain. But the suggestion that it was located in the center of the courtyard is archaeologically tenuous.21 It is not certain whether Firishta ever visited Delhi but his emphasis on the inscribed dome and his neglect in mentioning the monument containing the lat, which had attracted so much attention, suggests that his account was probably secondhand. One 106 eighteenth century witness, Captain Franklin, describes an octangular dome of brick and stone approximately 25 feet in height located it in the center of the mosque but the only traces of such a structure are six capitals found at the site in the nineteenth cen tu ry .22 In the Athar al-Sanadid, Sayyid Ahmad Khan identifies the ruined structure which lay beside the Asokan lat in the Kotla Firuz Shah as the "Jami’-i-Firozi" or the congregational mosque of Firuz Shah Tughluq. He dates the mosque to 755/1354, which coincides with the founding of Firuzabad.23 He also identifies Firuz Shah’s mosque as the one in which Timiu" had thekhutba recited when he captured the city in 801/1398-99. In Sayyid Ahmad Khan’s day the mosque was in ruins and stripped of its epigraphs. The stone slabs which, according to Firishta’s testimony, bore the contents of the Futuhat-i Firuz Shah, had disappeared. Sayyid Ahmad Khan asserts however that the dome was

still intact during the reign of Jahangir (r. 1605-1627 A.D.) but does not cite his source.24 In addition to this historical note, Sayyid Ahmad Khan is the earliest author to identify the Topra lat with the emperorA soka.25 Modem scholarship on the jami masjid and lat pyramid is tilted in favor of the latter structure. Discussions of the lat pyramid have focussed on the relationship between textual sources and the formal features of the monument.26 The structure is singled out by nearly every historian and art historian in studies of Firuz Shah as his supreme achievement in building, but it is hardly representative of his building projects or Tughluq architecture. Modem scholars have generally avoided drawing conclusions

about its symbolic content or meaning in Indo-Islamic architecture. Whereas thelat pyramid has received much attention by modem scholars, Firuz

Shah’s mosque has been largely neglected.27 Discussions of mosque architecture of the period concentrate on Khirki Masjid, Kalan Masjid, or the Begampur mosque 107

(Muhammad bin Tughluq’s mosque of Jahanpanah), as representative examples. The present condition of Firuz Shah’s mosque limits discussions about its original form, which is determined, in part, from the physical forms of these other mosques.

Description of the Archaeological Remains

The jami masjid of Firuz Shah (Plates VII and VIE) is a two-storied plinth m osque.28 The lower storey or plinth provides an elevated foundation for the worship area which occupies the second storey. The plinth is rectangular in plan and consists of a solid rubble core with an exterior perimeter of vaulted bays. These bays occur on all four sides of the mosque and are separated by wide arches which form a continuous corridor (Plates DC and X) completely around the mosque’s ground level. Entrance into the corridor is gained through a number of arched openings on all four sides of the plinth. This corridor in turn gives access to a series of interior cells embedded in the solid core of the plinth. These cells, oblong in plan and covered by corbelled ceilings, are distributed on all four sides of the plinth. The eleven exterior openings of the ground level give access to nine interior cells on both the east and west sides of the mosque; the arches at the comers lead directly into the corridor along the north and south sides of the plinth. The west wall{qibla) of the mosque (Plate XI) is intact; each of the eleven arched openings on the ground level of the facade is contained within a recessed rectangular frame. Although the wall of the east end of the mosque (Plates XII and XIII) has fallen away exposing the inner cells of the plinth, it probably reflected a similar configuration. A drawing of the east side of the mosque (Figure 3) reconstructs the east facade along the riverfront. The north and south (Plate XIV) walls are also nearly similar in elevation. 108

The ground-level corridor, constructed of rubble walls and covered by groin vaults, may possibly have been covered with plaster. The walls and ceilings of the interior cells were originally finished with plaster. The purpose of the cells in the plinth is uncertain but analogies can be made with monuments outside the . For example, the Riistem Pasha Mosque in Istanbul, an Ottoman mosque, has similar cells which were occupied by merchants, whose profits provided waqf revenue for the mosque. Modem scholars suggest that the cells in Firuz Shah’s mosque may have had a similar function or alternatively, may have served as a m adrasa.‘29

There are several entrances to the upper level of the mosque. The main entrance, emphasized by a monumental portal, is located on the north side of the mosque (Plate XV). An additional pair of stairs is located within the ground level corridor on the north side, to either side of the portal. A similar pair is in the south corridor. The location of the portal on the north was probably necessitated by the mosque’s location next to the river but it is unusual because it does not allow an axial approach as would be the case if the gate was opposite the qibla wall as, for example, in the mosque at Jahanpanah.30 The portal of Firuz Shah’s mosque, the primary entrance to the mosque, was probably built at the same time the mosque was completed and is depicted in the ground plan in one of the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi illustrations (Plate II).

The portal (Plate XV) survives nearly intact. It is a square-plan domed chamber and is similar in its plan and form to the portal of Muhammad bin Tughluq’s mosque at Jahanpanah.31 The structure extends 20 feet 3 inches from the north wall and is 27 feet wide. The dimensions of the interior chamber are 14 feet 6 inches square and the diameter of the dome is the same dimension. It is constructed of rubble and ashlar walls 109 faced with plaster. In its original state its plastered walls most likely would have been whitewashed. The gateway sits at the level of the sahn or courtyard and is approached by stairs on its north and west sides. The exterior facades on the north, east, and west sides of the structure are similar. Each exterior facade consists of a raised rectangular frame. This frame contains a recessed arch whose spandrels are set back. The arch is in turn pierced by a smaller arched opening. The facade on the south opens into the courtyard of the mosque (Plate XVI). The facades of the gateway originally contained carved stone work, possibly inscribed, but these were removed.32 The portal is crowned with a low hemispherical concrete and mbble dome, which sits on an octagonal drum, supported by . The walls and drum are crowned with a crenelated parapet. Today the courtyard {sahn) of the mosque is a large open space measuring 154 feet X 131 feet (Plate Yin and Figure 4). However, a reconstruction drawing (Figure 5), based on archaeological evidence and analogous structures, reveals the presence of vaulted enclosures surrounding the sahn. If this rendering is accurate, then the north, south, and east sides of the mosque consisted of rows of domed bays, three deep. The prayer hall on the west wall (qibla) was two bays deep. However, the plan of the mosque included in the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi (Plate II) suggests that only a single row of bays occurred on the east, north and south sides, but the prayer hall, if interpreted correctly, was three bays deep and eight bays long. Although the evidence which is brought forward in these sketches is conflicting, one can surmise that the enclosures did surround all four sides of the courtyard and were probably covered with domes, much like the prayer hall of the Jahanpanah or Khirki mosques (Plate XVII). The qibla side was emphasized either by a greater number of 110 bays or bays of higher elevations. Franklin describes the mosque in 1793 A.D. as having four cloisters with domed roofs supported on 260 stone columns, sixteen feet high.33 The actual plan of the prayer hall and surrounding enclosures (Figure 4) can be more specifically determined by archaeological evidence.

The restored pavement of the courtyard today defines what is believed to be the perimeter of the prayer hall. From this evidence, the dimensions of the open courtyard are determined to have been originally 76 feet x 52 feet. The courtyard was therefore modest in scale compared to its present size and probably was more akin to the scale of the courtyards of the Khirki Masjid (Plate XVII) than to the vast open court of the Jahanpanah mosque.

Theqibla wall (Plates XI and XVIII) survives but the enclosed prayer hall which covered the west end of the mosque has disappeared. The qibla is oriented toward the west as dictated by the direction of prayer toward Mecca. The elevation of the exterior facade (Plate XI) shows a high massive wall supported by the arcade of the plinth. The wall is battered, a characteristic feature of Tughluq architecture, and its surface is undecorated and uninterrupted except for tiny light wells which admit light into an extremely narrow passageway (zanana) located within it above the level of the floor (Plate XIX). The zanana is entered by stairs located in the northwest and southwest comers of the prayer hall. A wide projected portion of the exterior facade emphasizes the location of the mihrab (prayer niche) area of the mosque. The qibla wall is thick, constructed of rubble and ashlar masonry and faced with plaster.34 The overall impression of the exterior is that of a fortress wall. However, its foundation in this respect is in doubt since the mosque was already protected by the defensive walls of the kotla. I ll

Today only portions of the north and south walls of the jami masjid (Plates VIII and XIX) survive and the east wall has disappeared. The elevations of the north and south walls were similar. Each was pierced by arched openings on the plinth level which lead into the corridor which circumambulates the mosque, and above by smaller arched openings on the second level. The arches on both levels are contained in rectangular recesses (Plates XIV and XIX). The upper portion of the walls were solid except for the area closest to the qibla. Here the upper portions of the wall were pierced by additional large arched openings (almost twice the size of those of the lower row) which admitted light, as a clerestory would, into the ends of the prayer hall. One surviving portion of the north wall, visible in Plate XIX, shows this configuration in the wall elevation toward the west end of the mosque. The bridge which connected the lat pyramid and the mosque probably intersected the north wall of the mosque at this point. Its location coincided with a subterranean tunnel, an opening to which is still visible below the north wall. The interior facades of the mosque walls reveal the elevation of the prayer hall and surrounding enclosures. The interior facade of the north and south walls were similarly divided at regular intervals into a series of interconnected bays which surrounded the courtyard. The domes of the roof of these sections would probably have

been supported by arcuated construction, evidence of which is seen in the areas of the ruined walls which have broken away. The domes of the roof were probably supported by squinches. The qibla wall is divided into eleven bays (Plate XVIII). The five central bays contain five niches or mihrabs. Remains of the roof structure on the north end (Plate XX) indicate that the west prayer hall had a higher roof elevation than the enclosures on the north and south sides of the mosque. The high vaulted ceiling appears to have 112 extended the length of the qibla wall. The bays at the northwest and southwest corners were probably emphasized by higher domes, similar to those which occur in a contemporary mosque in Hissar which will be examined later. The walls of the bays between the comer bays and the five central bays each possess a two-storey elevation (Plate XXI). The lower part of the wall is a series of small niches, two per bay. The upper part of the wall of each bay contains a large single blind- arch niche, similar to the open clerestory arch of the north wall mentioned earlier. Small openings from the zanana gallery occur at the uppermost portion of the bay wall, just beneath the point of the . The report of the Archaeological Society of Delhi in 1847 indicates that a floor of an apartment, approximately six feet above the prayer hall floor, existed in the three bays on the north end of the prayer hall and three bays at the south end.35 These apartments, which are believed to have joined with the zanana gallery within theqibla wall have entirely disappeared. It is not known how far east these upper apartments extended. The clerestory of the north wall may have admitted light to the apartment in the northwest comer. The upper apartments may have served as maqsuras for the sultan. Similar structures occur in the the mosques at Jahanpanah and Hissar. The five central bays of the qibla wall (Plate XXII) were covered by a higher roof elevation. The elevated maqsura at the comers of the prayer hall did not extend over the central five bays. Each bay contains a mihrab, small and simple in design, recessed in rectangular borders which in turn are recessed within larger arched frames. The spandrels of these arches are also recessed in the wall. The central mihrab (Plate XXIII) is not distinguished from the other five in scale. However, its altered appearance today provides no clue to its original profile. It is unknown whether the prayer hall was 113 enclosed by a screen wall similar to those at the Quwwat al-Islam mosque or the Ardha’i- din-ka-Jhonpra mosque in . Both of these mosques had a screen wall with a large central wan in the center, possibly an influence from .36 The five central bays may have been visible through a large central and the side apartments masked by the screen wall on either side of it. However, if a screen wall shielded the prayer hall, it probably did not reflect the two-storey elevation of the interior. It is most likely that Firuz Shah’s mosque resembled other Tughluq mosques whose facades consisted of rows of identical arched openings, like the Khirki or Kalan mosques. The Jahanpanah mosque possesses a large central iwan, part of a four-iwan Iranian mosque plan, but it is unlikely that Firuz Shah borrowed this element as he did others from it. Theqibla facade of Firuz Shah’s mosque was constructed of a rubble core which would have been faced with plaster. The plaster is mostly gone today and the rough surface of the core is exposed. The small openings of the zanana do not occur in the five central bays. It is likely that qibla wall was enriched with some inscriptional and decorative motifs in stucco relief but these are lost. Also, any epigraphs which may have once adorned the mihrabs have disappeared. The overall decoration of the mosque was probably spare, conforming to the austere treatment of surface decoration typical of most

of Firuz Shah’s monuments. Unfortunately the loss of all architectural embellishment on the mosque leaves this conclusion tentative. The compilers of the 1847 report of the Archaeological Society of Delhi observed on the north wall two round plaster ornaments,

each containing an inscription of the Muslim creed.37

A well is located in the center of the courtyard of the mosque. The depth was determined to be approximately 25 feet. The remains of six (of eight) column capitals were found in the debris that was strewn around this area when surveyors first examined 114 the monument. These capitals were described to be the type used in chhatri or pavilion structures. The surveyors expressed doubts about the well’s function and subsequent attempts to excavate it were stopped by its unstable walls. Page suggested that the well may have been connected by a gallery to the river side of the mosque but no archaeological evidence supports his observation. The lat pyramid (Plates XXIV, XXXV, and XXVI) has received more attention by contemporary historians and modem scholars than the mosque itself. It is a peculiar monument of Indo-Muslim architecture, not only in form but also in function. The lat pyramid is a square plan three-storey structure which sits to the north of the mosque near the gate or portal. The plan of the structure is symmetrical so each facade is virtually a mirror of the other three. The pyramidal structure provides a foundation for the lat or column (Plates XXVII and XXVni) whose base is buried in the solid core of the monument. The lat extends several feet above the roof level and was visible for great distances. The profile of the monument has changed from its original appearance. Low domed chambers containing stairwells, which once stood at the comers, have fallen away (Plate VI). The elaborate capital which once sat on top of the pillar has disappeared and the column itself is broken near its top.38 The lat, originally a monument of the Buddhist religion, is

incorporated by Fimz Shah into a monument of the Islamic faith. This Asokan lat and others like it are attributed to the Mauryan emperor Asoka who, upon conversion to the Buddhist faith, commemorated his religious belief by having them erected throughout northern India.39 Fimz Shah assimilated them into Islam by ordering them installed into Muslim edifices on at least four occasions.40 Contemporary historians relate that the third century B.C. inscriptions of Asoka were undecipherable to the people of the 115 fourteenth century.41 It is interesting to note, however, that the inscriptions on the pillar were not effaced by Firuz Shah. Rather, like those on the iron pillar of the Quwwat al- Islam mosque, they remain intact on the column to the present day. As noted, Firuz Shah brought the Asokan column to Firuzabad from the vicinity of Topra, over 100 miles away in the Punjab. In a series of articles about the pillars of Asoka, John Irwin confirms Alexander Cunningham’s identification of the site and the latter’s contention, as well as Sayyid Ahmad Khan’s belief, that the Topra column was

Asokan in origin.42 in fact, Irwin goes so far as to classify the Topra column into

"Method A" category pillars, based on the method of installation into stone bases which they share. Irwin points out that a stone base removed by Firuz Shah’s men is mentioned in the Sirat-i Firuz ShahiA"^ Although no top emblem was discovered by Firuz Shah or mentioned in the Sirat, Irwin suggests that one probably existed. In particular, it may have been a lion(s) depicted in a heraldic style based on ancient near eastern motifs. He bases this supposition on his belief that other Asokan columns of "Method A" group possess lion capitals of this style. The reference in the Sirat to sculptures of four lions which stood at the four comers of the upper floor of Firuz Shah’s monument is a curious observation in light of this hypothesis. But, as the author of the Sirat points out, Firuz Shah had a non-figural capital placed on top of the column. Hyperbolic descriptions of the monument’s height given in verses of the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi are clearly exaggerated but its elevated position provided an unobstructed view of the column from all vantages in and outside the kotla (Plate XXIX). The column was clearly meant to be seen. The actual height of the pyramid is 46 feet 6 inches from the ground to the roof level, the point where the lat becomes visible. A balustrade with cupolas (chhatris) originally raised the height of the structure an additional 16 feet. J.A. 116

Page gives the dimensions of the lat as 42 feet 7 inches in height and 25.3 inches in diameter at the top and 38.3 inches in diameter at the base.44 The lat is buried an additional 4.1 feet beneath the roof of the structure. The stone of the upper portion of the column is finely polished. The lower unpolished base of the lat is believed to have been originally buried at Topra. The height of the lat is now less than it was originally because the elaborate capital which Firuz Shah put on top of the column is now absent. The present-day pyramidal foundation conforms closely to the description of it in the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi. The structure is a solid rubble core surrounded by a series of vaulted cells on each level. The lowest or ground level plan (Figure 6) is 118 feet square. The ground level consists of a series of interconnected vaulted cells, two in depth, with arched openings providing access to each cell along the perimeter. The Sirat illustration (Plate ni) depicting the plan of the first storey shows multiple entrances along each side which open into long corridors. This latter plan approximates the actual plan of the building. A cross-section of the monument (Figure 7) also shows the double row of cells of the ground level. The floor of the first storey was originally raised above ground level and the respective entrances were approached by stairs. Cells at the comers contained stairs which provided access to the upper levels and subterranean tunnel. The cells are constructed of ashlar masonry and vaulted. The purpose of this complex of cells, like those in the ground level of the mosque, is uncertain.45

The second floor plan of the lat pyramid (Figure 8 and Plate XXX)) is 85-86 feet square. Foundations of four comer chambers indicate that originally the stairwells were enclosed at this level. These no longer survive except for fragments at the southwest and southeast comers (Plate XXV). A nineteenth century Company artist’s rendering of the structure before the Mutiny of 1857 A.D. (Plate VI) depicts the comer towers of the 117 monument intact.46 Also, other nineteenth century illustrations of the lat pyramid reveal that the low flat domes of these chambers were still intact.47 A reconstructed elevation (Figure 9) perhaps best illustrates the profile of the monument with its comer chambers. The condition of the monument today is considerably dilapidated from its original form. The comer towers were 20 feet square in plan and the vaulted cells on this level are much larger with wider arched openings (Plate XXX). The cells, only one deep on this level, are interconnected with wider passageways so that the effect is that of a continuous chamber, 45 feet 4 inches long and 9 feet 9 inches wide. Stairs permitting access to the upper storey are located at the four comers of this level. Narrow openings at the left of each facade allowed access to the stairwells but the comers where these stairs were located have crumbled away. The corridor which connected the lat pyramid to the mosque originally probably joined the former at its south side near the west end of this storey, but the Archaeological Survey has expressed doubts as to whether a bridge existed at all.48

The third level (Plate XXXI) is 54-55 feet square in plan and consists of a ring of eight cells, three per side (one on each of the four sides and the four comer cells). Each cell is interconnected and is entered through an arched opening. The size of each cell on this level is 9 feet 9 inches square. All three stories are constructed of rough ashlar masonry. Any traces of plaster facing are gone and it is likely that the monument was not

intended to have a finished plaster surface although the Archaeological Survey speculated that it was plastered with chunam (the same type of plaster which faces the mosque) or, less probable, faced with red sandstone.49

An arcade is thought to have once surrounded the lat on its top storey. This level provides the roof to the web of cells beneath it and is the point at which the column 118 becomes visible at its base. The arcade (Figures 7 and 9) no longer exists except for the bases of two of the columns. The four comers of the arcade were accentuated by four cupolas (chhatris). Beglar indicated that a gallery in the uppermost storey had been broken through disclosing an inner chamber covered by a dome, four feet in diameter.50 He alleges that the pillar stood on top of this dome. If such a chamber existed, it is now sealed.

The overall impression of the lat pyramid today is that of an open pavilion. Although the loss of the comer chambers has diminish the monument’s massive profile, the repetitive arched openings along the facades conceal the solid mass of its core. The pyramidal shape and the profusion of arches lend visual emphasis to the height of the column. Viewed from a distance, the monument appears to sweep upward, no doubt a desired effect and one which conforms to the exaggerated descriptions of its height in the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi.51

Inscriptions and the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi

No Muslim inscriptions are known to survive in the physical remains of the mosque but, as already noted, the Archaeological Society of Delhi noticed two roundels of stucco decoration which contained inscriptions of the Muslim creed. On the other hand, the lat is inscribed with several epigraphs which date as early as the third century B.C. and as late as the sixteenth century A.D. Unfortunately none of the lat inscriptions belongs to Firuz Shah. One of two nagari epigraphs dated Samvat 1581/1524 A.D. names Suritan Ibrahim, identified as Sultan Ibrahim Lodi.52 Much attention has been directed to these lat inscriptions by modem historians but they have little if any relevance 119 to Firuz Shah. ‘Afif mentions in the Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi that neither Brahmans or Hindu devotees of Topra were able to decipher them but he writes, "It is said that certain infidel Hindus interpreted them as stating that no one should be able to remove the obelisk from its place till there should arise in the latter days a Muhammadan king, named Sultan Firoz."53 ‘Afif clearly points out that Firuz Shah and members of his entourage were suspicious of this interpretation. The author of the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi concurs that the inscriptions were "unintelligible." Firuz Shah allowed the inscriptions to remain intact but, more curiously, he did not add any Muslim inscriptions to the column. Following the example of Qutb al-Din Aibek, who ordered the erection of the iron column in the Quwwat al-Islam mosque, Firuz Shah left the surface of the Firuzabad column unaltered, but since the inscriptions were undeciphered, they probably posed no threat or embarrassment to him. The omission of inscriptions related to Firuz Shah on the lat itself by no means excludes the possibility that epigraphs existed elsewhere on the foundation. It is unfortunate that no religious epigraphs survive in the mosque. The two inscriptions observed by early surveyors provide the only clues to what the epigraphs might have contained. A similar group of epigraphs, expressions of the Muslim creed, appear in the mosque at Jahanpanah but these constitute the extent of inscriptions known to exist in it.54 Other mosques of the period, such as those at Tughluqabad and ‘Adilabad, do not survive. The Quwwat al-Islam mosque, built by the Muizzi and Khalji sultans, provides one precedent for religious epigraphy on mosques of early sultanate Delhi. The combined epigraphs of the Quwwat al-Islam mosque, the Alai Darwaza, and the Qutb Minar are the only surviving corpus of mosque epigraphs prior to the

Tughluqs.55 It is known that Firuz Shah regarded these monuments highly. In the 120

Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi he records that he restored them and when the Qutb Minar was struck by lightning he is reported to have been saddened by the report and ordered the minar repaired.56 It is likely that he looked to the inscriptions of the Quwwat al-Islam mosque as a model in terms of content for the epigraphy intended to enrich his own mosque at Firuzabad. The inscriptions on the Qutb Minar, from the Qur'an and hadith, warn against idolatry and polytheism and emphasize the monotheism of the Islamic religion.57 The mosque inscriptions, on the other hand, emphasize the importance of prayer and encouraged adherence to Islam and observance of obligatory practices incumbent on all Muslims. Anthony Welch has interpreted the epigraphs of the Qutb Minar, which are directed to non-Muslims, as marking a symbolic appropriation of Hindustan to the Dar al-Islam.^^ The inscriptions of the qibla screen of the Quwwat al- Islam mosque, he believes, were intended for Muslims. Further, Welch determined that, based on the contents of the inscriptions on the Qutb Minar and Quwwat al-Islam mosque, these monuments served a different purpose than the Ghaznavid and Ghurid minars at Ghazni and Jam, antecedents of the Qutb Minar. Although the scope of the inscriptional program of Firuz Shah’s mosque is unknown, historical accounts are contradictory in regard to it. Barani is silent about inscriptions of the mosque. ‘Afif also does not make specific reference to any inscriptions on the mosque but he reports that Firuz Shah:59

...caused the following lines, of his own composition [az zaban-i khweesh], to be inscribed in letters of gold on the walls [’imarat] of the Kushk-i Shikar-rav, and on the domes of the kushk-i nuzul, and the walls [‘imarat] of the of stone which are within the kushk-i shikar-rav at Firozabad: "I made a great hunt of elephants,and I captured so many: "I performed many glorious deeds; and all this I have done "That in the world and among men; in the earth and among mankind, these verses 121

"May stand as a memorial to men of intelligence, and that the people of the world, and the wise men of the age, may follow the example." On the basis of ‘Afif’s statement, these verses are believed to be extrapolated from the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi but they do not appear in the text which remains to d ay .60

The sixteenth century historian, Nizam al-Din Ahmad Bakhshi, states in the Tabaqat-i Akbari, completed in 1001/1592-1593, that eight chapters of Firuz Shah’s history were inscribed on eight sides of the dome of the jami masjidfi'i Firishta, who wrote his Ta’rikh in 1015/1606-1607 and refers to both Barani and Nizam al-Din as his authorities, also refers to inscriptions being on the Firuzabad m osque-62 According to Firishta’s testimony, Nizam al-Din had stated that Firuz Shah introduced "many excellent laws...He caused his regulations to be carved on the Masjid of Ferozabad, of which the following may be taken as an sam ple... "63 Firishta then recites recognized passages from theFutuhat-i Firuz Shahi. It is not known for certain if Nizam al-Din or Firishta were aware of ‘Afifs Tarikh-i Firuz Shahi but neither of them appears to have had knowledge of it.64 Later, Sayyid Ahmad Khan, on the basis of the testimony of Firishta, also places the words of the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi on the dome of Firuz Shah’s Jami masjid.^^ The confusion surrounding the location of the inscription of the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi has produced contradictory interpretations. Modem scholars traditionally look to Sayyid Ahmad Khan as an authority for these details but a number of facts can be put forward to refute the common belief that the text of the Futuhat was located in the mosque. First, Barani’s silence on the matter corroborates ‘Afifs assertion that the Futuhat was composed and therefore inscribed after his death. Also, the author of the Sirat does not mention the Futuhat or any inscriptions in the mosque. The inscribing of the mosque must have taken place during ‘Afif’s lifetime and since he states that he wimessed the construction of the lat pyramid in 770/1359 he certainly would have known 122

the inscribed dome referred to by these later historians.66 It is unlikely that, if Firuz

Shah’s words were inscribed on the imperial mosque of Firuzabad, ‘Afif would choose to ascribe its location to alternate locations. No authority before the end of the 16th century, when Nizam al-Din wrote the Tabaqat-i Akbari, places the location of this inscription in the jami masjid. Neither Firishta nor Nizam al-Din corroborate ‘Afifs statement in the Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi and it is likely that neither was aware of its existence. ‘Afif was not regarded with the same esteem as Barani and it is possible that his testimony was considered less reliable or more probably his Ta'rikh was not known to later historians. ‘Afifs patron and his relationship to the court are unknown and much of his account was compiled

from collective memories, but many details contained in the Ta’rikh are still eye-witness accounts. He would at least be aware of any inscription of the sultan if one had occupied such a prominent position as the Futuhat is claimed to have occupied. Written after Tughluq sovereignty had waned, ‘Afif’s work may have disappeared into obscurity, only to resurface after the sixteenth century. Otherwise it is difficult to explain why details that ‘Afif gives regarding the location of Firuz Shah’s "composition" escaped the notice of Firishta or Nizam al-Din. Firishta, who wrote under the patronage of Ibrahim ‘Adil Shah of Bijapur in 1018/1609-1610, probably never visited the jami masjid in Firuzabad. Nizam al-Din, on the other hand, wrote under the patronage of the Mughal emperor Akbar and is known to have derived many of his facts from earlier historical works.67 The location of a dome in the mosque complicates the problem further. According to Sayyid Ahmad Khan’s testimony, Firishta is imprecise about its location

except to say that it crowned the m osque.68 The only extant dome is the dome covering the portal. It is unlikely that the epigraphs would have been inscribed on this dome 123 because of its low profile and the virtual invisibility of its drum. It is more likely that the dome referred to by Firishta was situated in a central location within the courtyard or over the prayer hall on the qibla side of the mosque. J.A. Page relates that the center of the courtyard was thought to contain the foundation for a domed structure on top of a cistern or well shaft.69 In 1793 A.D., Franklin described an octangular dome of brick and stone, 25 feet high, situated in the center of the mosque, but he makes no mention of any inscriptions on it.70 The Archaeological Society of Delhi reported finding six capitals in the debris scattered around the mouth of the well.7l Sayyid Ahmad Khan also states that the dome of the mosque was still intact during the reign of Jahangir (r. 1605-1627 A.D.), but he does not cite his source.72 If this evidence is accepted, then Nizam al-Din would be expected to describe it with more precision. But the testimonies of the sixteenth century historians are irreconcilable with those of the fourteenth century historians. The preponderance of literary evidence, together with the lack of indisputable archaeological evidence, suggests that the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi was not inscribed on the jami masjid and the very existence of the dome is spurious. ‘Afifs statement that Firuz Shah’s composition was engraved on the palace at Fimzabad - more specifically, the dome of the Kushk-i Nuzul (in front of the audience hall in thekotla) and the Kushk-i Shikar (on the northern ridge) and on the stone minarets of the Kushk-i Shikar - becomes the most credible resolution.73

Besides the question of its location, the content of the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi is unusual for a mosque inscription. It has been stated by modem scholars that "the only Tughluq mosque with extensive epigraphy was limited to a highly personal, though piously Sunni, statement."74 The Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi is unusual in that its content consists of a narrative of the events of the reign, although it is certainly personal and 124 piously Sunni. Whether it is was intended for a Muslim religious monument, however, is doubtful. Fortunately, the text of the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi survives in manuscript form.75 It is a unique historical document and its personalized narrative lends credence to the alleged authorship of the sultan himself. This fact is generally undisputed.76

Firishta’s statement that Firuz Shah "caused his regulations to be carved on the masjid...,'' implies that theFutuhat was drafted for that sole puipose.77 ‘Afif, familiar with the circumstances surrounding the writing of the verses, asserts Firuz Shah’s authorship but ascribes the location of the sultan’s composition to secular buildings. The absence of any mention of it in the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi casts doubt on its existence in the mosque. By examining the contents of the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi, one may more clearly determine its propriety for a Muslim religious structure. The prose of the Futuhat is unsophisticated and could easily be read by literate Muslims in contrast to the highly stylized epigraphs of later Muslim builders which were often undecipherable even to literate Muslims. The sequence of events listed here is the same order in which they appear in the surviving text.78 Firuz Shah opens the Futuhat with laudatory praises of the Prophet and deference to the Creator who:

...gave me a disposition for discharging my lawful duties and my moral obligations...My desire is that, to the best of my human power, I should recount and pay thanks to the many blessings He has bestowed upon me, so I may be found among the number of His grateful servants. First I would praise Him because when irréligion and sins opposed to the Law prevailed in Hindustan, and men’s habits and dispositions were inclining towards them, and were averse to the restraints of religion. He inspired me His humble servant with an earnest desire to repress irréligion and wickedness. Firuz Shah then enumerates his deeds or victories over irréligion. The Futuhat covers a range of topics. The first includes his successful efforts to alleviate hardships on fellow Muslims. First he stopped the persecution of Muslims which had occurred in 125 previous reigns. He stopped unlawful killing, the inflicting of torture, and adjudicated punishments according to the Qur’an. He restored the practice of reciting the names of former sovereigns in the khutba during the Friday sabbath and feast days. He abolished taxes which were not prescribed by the Qur’an, in particular, taxes levied for services and products in the marketplace. He also lessened the amount of spoil appropriated for the public treasury following conquest to the one-fifth portion dictated by Muslim law. In these first four edicts Firuz Shah encouraged adherence to Muslim Law (shar’ia) and stopped practices which ran counter to Muslim religious authority. Firuz Shah then turned his attention to sectarian issues and heretical practices. He reprimanded Shi’as for proselytizing, punishing the most zealous, and ordering their books burnt He suppressed the practices of heretics (mulhid) and sectarians (abahtiyan) which included wine drinking and carnal debauchery. He imprisoned atheists, in particular a certain Ahmad Bahari, who claimed himself to be a prophet, and banished his

followers. Rukn al-Din, who claimed to be a Mahdi and was charged with heresy by the ^ulama\ suffered a horrible death by having his bones broken by members of the ‘ulama’. He also punished ’Ain Mahru, a shaikh in Gujarat, for fasad (innovation). In all cases Firuz Shah leveled severe punishments against the leaders and showed leniency toward their followers whom he encouraged to embrace Islam. He abolished the custom of pilgrimage by Muslim women to tombs because the practice was unauthorized by Muslim law and because many had been victims of "rakes and wild fellows of unbridled passions and loose habits."

In the next passages, Firuz Shah turned his attention to infidels. He ordered the demolition of Hindu temples and executed the leaders of Hindu groups who "seduced others into error." He ordered payment of the zar-i zimmiya and jizya, taxes levied against 126 non-believers in return for their protection. Although he ordered the execution of Hindu leaders of Maluh village, he states," I forbad the inflicting of severe punishments on the

Hindus in general, but I destroyed their idol temples, and instead thereof raised mosques." Besides Maluh, he enacted similar punitive measures against the inhabitants of the villages of Tughlikpur, Salarpur, Salihpur, and Kohana. In accordance with his orthodoxy, he enacted measures which affected court life. He prohibited the use of gold and silver vessels and substituted bone for gold and jewels in arms. He also prohibited the wearing of ornamented garments, paintings of figures and devices on horse trappings and tents, vessels, and all objects. He ordered pictures and portraits, which had been painted on the doors and walls of the palaces, effaced. He restricted the customary wearing of robes of honor and silk and gold brocade garments by men of the court. Firuz Shah then reflects at length upon his achievements in erecting public buildings and restoring those of his predecessors, enumerated in Chapter III above. Few monuments constructed by the early sultans escape his notice. He revived old endowments and set up new waqfs for their maintainance. He revitalized pilgrimage sites and founded a hospital (Par al-shifa). In an extraordinary move to reconcile his predecessor’s transgressions, he offered gifts to the families of Muslims who had been persecuted or executed by Muhammad bin Tughluq. From them he exacted deeds of their assuagement and placed these beside that sultan’s tomb. In a similar spirit, he reinstated lands which had been confiscated during former reigns to rightful claimants. He encouraged infidels to embrace Islam and states that great numbers did so. He protected Muslims’ land and property and attended to the needs of the poor and needy. 127

He particularly looked after the needs of religious recluses {fakirs). He encouraged the elderly to repent their sins and to prepare for the afterlife. He assured employment to the sons of faithful servants. Firuz Shah’s final thoughts turned to the occasion of the arrival of an emissary from the caliph in Egypt who confirmed his authority as deputy of the caliph and granted him the title ofSayyid al-Salatin.^^ Firuz Shah concluded the Futuhat with the words:

My object in writing this book has been to express my gratitude to the All- bountiful God for the many and various blessings He has bestowed upon me. Secondly, that men who desire to be good and prosperous may read this and learn what is the proper course. There is this concise maxim, by observing which, a man may obtain God’s guidance: Men will be judged according to their works, and rewarded for the good that they have done. TheFutuhat-i Firuz Shahi is indeed an extraordinary document. The sequence of events is not always fluid; in fact, the text seems to be a collection of nonsequiturs. The author’s message at times becomes lost in the profusion of details. Adherence to the Muslim Law (Shar'ia) is a recurrent theme and the author states that he composed the verses for others to emulate. The Futuhat is therefore a form of advice (nasihat) to all man aspire to a proper life. Firuz Shah’s thanksgiving to God and his prescribed course of action is an expression of his piety. The propriety of placing such a statement in the epigraphs of a religious edifice would be in keeping with his desire to publicly affirm his piety, but the historical and archaeological evidence to support this supposition is absent. It must be pointed out that Firuz Shah no where mentions in the Futuhat that he intended to have its verses engraved on any architectural monument. Indeed the text is long and only a summary of its contents could have been engraved in stone. The text is a curious one for religious epigraphy; he lists his deeds as prescribed by the Law, but he does not cite the Law itself. The personalized version of orthodoxy presented in the Futuhat is the 128 very quality which makes it inappropriate for a religious monument Instead, the text was probably more suitable for a secular palace, where personal aphorisms were appropriate. The date of the Futuhat is not determined. Most of the events which Firuz Shah records escape the notice of Barani and ‘Afif. ‘Afif claims that Firuz Shah commenced writing his composition after Barani’s death in 758/1357. In addition, the year of the repair to the Qutb Minar, known by an inscription on that monument to be 770/1369, is implied by the Futuhat to be in the past. Since Firuz Shah mentions the repairs to Qutb Minar in his list of restorations, he must have completed the Futuhat after 770/1369. But the absence of any mention of his most important campaigns - the two expeditions to Bengal and one to Sind - and the absence of any mention of the campaigns of jihad to the temples of Puri (Orissa) and Nagarkot (Kangra) are inexplicable. Other events of importance that fail to get mentioned include the erection of the lat pyramid in 769/1367. In fact, none of his major architectural achievements are noted. Rather he simply states, "I built many mosques, colleges, and monasteries." It is not unreasonable to assume that Firuz Shah began his career as patron of architecture before he came to the throne. If this scenario is accepted, then the Futuhat was composed early in his reign (ca. 1357-60 A.D.). If he composed the verses for inclusion on the palaces at Firuzabad, then he would have done so around the time they were built, that is, early in the reign. But, the inclusion of a reference to his repair of the Qutb Minar in the text casts doubt on an early date. The questions surrounding the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi are not likely to be resolved. 129

TheLat Pyramid: Form and Meaning

The lat pyramid is an extraordinary structure, unique not only to India, but to Muslim architecture generally. Although contemporary authorities shed some light on the purpose of this peculiar monument, it is an anomalous monument in Indo-Muslim architecture. In theTa’rikh-i Firuz Shahi, ‘Afif states that Firuz Shah brought back two pillars to Firuzabad. One of these was erected in the palace (kushk) at Firozabad, near the jami masjid, and was designated the Minara-i zarin, or Golden Column, and the second pillar was erected in the kushk-i shikar, although it is not known to have been located by a m osque.80 ‘Afif refers to both columns as lasting memorials of the sultan’s power. He also testifies that Timur inspected all the monuments of the Muslim sovereigns..."and among them these two obelisks, when he declared that in all the countries he had traversed he had never seen any monuments comparable to these," but there is no specific mention of the lat pyramid in Timur’s memoirs {Malfuzat-i Timuri).^'i TheSirat-i Firuz

Shahi also makes several references to the Topra column as a minarfi^ Firishta, however, is silent about the lat. The combined testimonies of these historians leave little doubt that the mosque and the lat were conceived to be part of one mosque complex. The discovery of the lat was a propitious occasion for the sultan who undoubtedly saw in it an opportunity to rival the famed Qutb Minar, a product of an earlier legacy. He was also certainly aware that ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji aspired to erect a minar which would surpass the height of the Qutb Minar but it never rose past the first stage. The Qutb Minar and the truncated foundation of ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji’s minar stood as reminders of the ambitions of these early Delhi sultans. 130

‘Afif points out that Firuz Shah emulated Iltutmish, who he claims set up the iron pillar which stands in situ today in the courtyard of the Quwwat al-Islam mosque. The iron pillar is remarkably similar in form and concept to Firuz Shah’s newly acquired

/ût.83 Dating from the Gupta period, it bears an inscription describing the conquests of

Chandra (identified recently as the Gupta king Samudragupta). In addition, several other inscriptions are carved on its surface, the oldest being a Persian inscription dated

964/1556.84 It has already been pointed out that the inscription was not effaced and no additions were made by Qutb al-Din Aibek who is believed to have placed it in its present site or by any Muizzi or Khalji sultan. Although the origin of the Gupta period pillar is not known, it is believed to have been a dhvaja-stambha for a Vaishnava temple, perhaps the Hindu temple upon whose foundation the Quwwat al-Islam mosque was erected.85 Fimz Shah’s retrieval of the Topra pillar and raising it next to his mosque was clearly a conscious act of emulating Iltutmish.86

Fimz Shah’s /or pyramid, however, is a synthesis of two architectural monuments in the Quwwat al-Islam mosque. It functions as an emblem appropriated from an infidel religion, in the manner of the iron pillar, and also has symbolic associations like the Qutb

Minar. The lat was probably intended by Fimz Shah to have a symbolic function.87By incorporating it into a Muslim religious stmcture, Fimz Shah appropriated and adapted an emblem of the pagan world for Islamic purposes and, in a symbolic sense, converted

the dar al-harb (the pagan world) to the dar al-islamfi^ Fimz Shah’sminar had similar symbolic connotations as the iron pillar and the Qutb Minar, both of which were intended

to mark the dar al-islam.^^ In this manner, the Fimzabad lat, a pre-Islamic emblem which had lost meaning in fourteenth century Indian society, gained new meaning.

Despite its unusual form, the lat pyramid could have functioned as a minaret. The 131 would have been able to ascend to an elevated position on the roof of the pyramid above the level of the adjacent mosque walls in order to call the faithful to prayer but the lat itself, of course, could not be climbed. The Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi of ‘Afif and the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi both mention popular beliefs about the column but nothing in the contemporary accounts indicates that Firuz Shah or members of his court had any knowledge of the column’s former association with Asoka.90 Instead, the pillar was associated, on the popular level, with immortals of superhuman strength and intellect. Any mortal, they believed, who was able to move it possessed exceptional qualities and divine inspiration. Both ‘Afif and the Sirat emphasize that Firuz Shah was able to move the pillar because it was God’s will that he do so. Firuz Shah’s act is thus a mark of divine sanction bestowed on the Tughlug ruler. The mystique surrounding the pillar and the difficulty of removing it to Firuzabad enhanced Firuz Shah’s reputation to heroic proportions. The symbolism of the Firuzabad pillar has attracted the attention of a number of modem scholars. Nath suggests that the sultanate miners, in particular the Qutb Minar, were commemorative monuments because the call to prayer was not performed from them.9l He adds that categorically the miners of the Turks in India were "entirely and wholly symbolic." Nath assigns Firuz Shah’s lat to this group. He proposes that at the time of its inception, and throughout its early development, the minar was conceived of as a symbolic device much as the Hindu dhvaja-stambha represented. The origin of the pillar (stambhe), however, he traces to an earlier epoch when pan-Buddhist influences were ubiquitous throughout Central and West Asia (Parthia, Bactria, Uttarapatha).92 He claims, and probably correctly, that the predominantly Hindu population of the fourteenth 132 century accepted the idea of symbolic content, albeit Muslim, because they were predisposed to it. In addition, Nath sees similarities of a general sort between plans of Muslim monuments like Firuz Shah’s mosque and lat pyramid and plans of Buddhist viharas and Hindu temples. But in strictly formal terms he cites precedents for the Ou»b Minar in the

Ghazni and Jam minars of present-day and refutes the theory first proposed by Sayyid Ahmad Khan that the first stage of the Qutb Minar was a Hindu monument converted to Muslim purpose.93

In the broader context of the Islamic world, the minar also had formal precedents and carried symbolic associations as well. Grabar suggests that the minaret or minar was "a symbolic expression of the presence of Islam directed primarily at the non- Muslims."94 This symbolism, he contends, is broadened to include symbolic expressions of social, imperial, or personal prestige. In some contexts, the minar even acquires significance as an aesthetic device. Ettinghausen and Grabar assert an Iranian origin for theminars of Afghanistan and India. The form was translated to stone in India although its purpose, according to these authors, remains uncertain.95 Some minars of Khurasan and Central Asia had funerary commemorative associations while others were victory monuments.96 Yet others may have been symbolic markers of certain families or quarters of a town. In rarer cases the minar served as a lighthouse or beacon to travelers in remote regions.97 The authors go further in suggesting that the shape and purposes of the great minars of Ghazni and Jam in Afghanistan were "monumental expressions of individuals’ devotion" because of their epigraphic emphasis on the patron’s piety.

The Ghaznavid minars at Ghazni (attributed to Mas’ud m , ca. 1114-1115 A.D. and Bahram Shah, ca. 1117-1153 A.D.) and the Ghurid minar of Jam (ca. 1153-1203 133

A.D.) are thought to have been isolated monuments, not associated with mosques.98

Although commonly referred to as victory towers, at least one of these minars (Jam) is in a remote area. Proclamations of victories would be obscured by their inaccessible locations.99 Theminar at Khwaja Siah Posh, the most probable formal prototype for the Qutb Minar, is believed to have stood beside a mosque.lOO A. Welch concluded, on the basis of its epigraphs, however, that the purpose of the (Jutb Minar was not the same as the Ghaznavid and Ghurid minars. Rather, the epigraphic message of the Qutb Minar was directed to the predominantly non-Muslim population of India and addressed a set of political and societal circumstances unique to the Indian subcontinent

Minars did not occur in Tughluq architecture prior to Firuz Shah’s lat. The presence of the lat pyramid and its minar was highly unusual in Tughluq mosques.

Mimetic minars, which mirror the Qutb Minar, appear in the portals of Iltutmish’s Ardha’i-din-ka-Jhonpra mosque in Ajmer and in the Khirki and Jahanpanah mosques of

Delhi. Firuz Shah’s detachedminar can also be interpreted conceptually as a mirror of the Qutb Minar. It served the same purpose for the Firuzabad mosque as the (Jutb Minar did for the Quwwat al-Islam mosque, that is, it commemorated the expanding boundary of the dar al-islam and its physical form was a constant reminder to non-Muslims of the

Muslim presence. The function and monographic meaning of Firuz Shah’s lat, therefore, was related to the Qutb Minar, but its form was one more familiar to the indigenous population. Hindus were able to relate to its meaning because of a long-standing tradition of pillar symbolism. Although the Qutb Minar and Firuz Shah’s minar are formally different, they are, thus, conceptually the same. ‘Afif’s comment that every great king erected some lasting memorial of his power is therefore manifested in the lat p y ra m id . lOi Firuz Shah surely recognized the impact 134 which an architectural monument impressed upon the populace. His decision to place the lat next to his imperial mosque was undoubtedly intended to emphasize his authority and the triumph of Islam. Because earlier sultans had erected similar monuments to commemorate the dominance of Islam, Firuz Shah continued the tradition and thereby established himself as their legitimate successor. Welch and Crane corroborate the theory that Firuz Shah’sminar was a trophy, but also feel it to be a symbol of Tughluq dynastic legitimacy.l02 Firuz Shah’s act of emulating the earlier sultans of Delhi represented an accepted step in the legitimization process. In addition to these purposes, however, it also served as a public affirmation of his piety. In the context of the Islamic world, the minar carried symbolic connotations of Muslim authority and piety. Firuz Shah’s ability to accomplish the extraordinary feat was regarded by the author of the Sirat as an act of p iety . 103

...every one of these works was done exactly according to the orders and suggestions of His Majesty the King, the refuge of Faith, may God give him power always to preserve and establish pious institutions [for public welfare]. The act of constructing architectural ediOces to house religious institutions and to accommodate religious practice such as prayer was seen as a pious gesture to the Muslim community. Such acts served to preserve religious practice and insure stability of the framework of Islamic society. As sultan, Firuz Shah’s responsibilities included the spiritual as well as material well-being of his subjects. In this regard the sultan’s role as protector of the religion was manifested, in part, through his building projects. By building, therefore, he was able to underscore his legitimacy. The minar was perceived by Muslims differently than in the context of Hindu society, whose symbolic expressions were unfamiliar to Muslims. The reuse of building 135 materials by Muslims derived from the temples of unbelievers and appropriation of pre- Islamic sites to Muslim purposes was also an old and long-lived practice in the Muslim w orld. 104 Despite its unique form, the lat pyramid conceptually fits with Islamic tradition. Formally, however, the monument resembles no other building in either the

Muslim or Hindu architectural tradition.105 Firuz Shah’s lat pyramid is, thus, an idiosyncratic monument, unique in all Muslim architecture. However, in order to fully comprehend the lat pyramid as a monument belonging to the tradition of Islamic architecture, it must be recalled that the form of the jami masjid

to which it was attached, falls within the known canons of Islamic architecture.106

Although the mosque form too is anomalous in Indo-Muslim tradition because it is raised on a plinth, its worship area conforms to a standard hypostyle arrangement. The plinth is a form which is typical, if not unique to buildings of Firuz Shah. Whether the plinth had practical applications or only symbolic associations is not known. The plinth was possibly adapted from a long-standing tradition of plinth architecture in India, particularly in the north, where Hindu temples were frequently raised on plinths forming a structure resembling a mountain and symbolizing Mt. Kailash, the home of Hindu gods, but precedents for plinth mosques also exist in the architecture of the western Islamic world such as the Ottoman mosque of Rustem Pasha in Istanbul. In India, many mosques

were erected upon the foundations of demolished Hindu temples, as for instance the Quwwat al-Islam mosque. There is however, no mention by historians that the jami masjid of Firuzabad was constructed on a pre-existing foundation. Firuz Shah’s adoption of a standard hypostyle plan for his imperial mosque, similar to the Quwwat al-Islam mosque and the Ardha’i-din-ka-Jhonpra mosque in Ajmer, suggests that he looked to Muslim precedents for the plan of his mosque. 136

The austere appearance of the Firuzabad mosque however contrasts the elaborately carved stonework and elegant decorative motifs of these former mosques. The Quwwat al-Islam mosque and the Ajmer mosque are constructed with stone indigenous to the region while the facades of Firuz Shah’s foundations are covered with undecorated plaster, concealing a rubble core. The military character, so often noted in Tughluq buildings, is as much endemic to the construction materials Firuz Shah favored as to the militarized circumstances of the age. 107 The mosque has the massive battered walls typical of Tughluq architecture. The vaulted enclosures, with their low hemispherical domes and the heavy massive appearance of the mosque characterizes Tughluq mosques like Khirki, Jahanpanah, and Kalan Masjid, rather than earlier prototypes. After the Tughluq period, the two-storey mosque form is abandoned. The lat pyramid was not replicated by any subsequent ruler of the Delhi sultanate. In fact, the minar, in subsequent periods of the sultanate, does not attain the striking proportions or retain its symbolic associations to the degree it had in these early monuments. The custom of appropriating sites and reusing construction materials, practiced on such a wide scale by the early sultans, is also less frequent in the following periods. After the demise of the Tughluqs and following the Timurid conquest, the rulers of Delhi turned away from the fundamental messages expressed on these early monuments and turned to expressions of power and empire. 137 NOTES TO CHAPTER IV

1 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 302-303; Firishta, Ta’rikh (Briggsj, p. 260; Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Athar al-Sanadid in Journal asiatique (June 1860), p. 407; R. Nath,Monuments of Delhi, p. 37. 2 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 317. ‘Afif records that the sultan passed his time pursuing three interests: hunting, directing affairs of state, and building. He also states that upon arrivai into Delhi from Bengal, the town of Firuzabad was "not yet populous" and the kushk (palace) and fort were not yet constructed. Firuz Shah returned to the Kushk-i-, the palace of Jahanpanah, since only one kabba or public pavilion was built.

3 Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, pp. 33-42. The Sirat, pp. 35 and 41, mentions that the discovery of the lat occurred in 769/1367, after the conquest of Sind. Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 129 places the event in 757/1356 citing as his source J.D. Beglar, Archaeological Survey of India, Report, v. IV (1874). This date is repeated in the Archaeological Survey’s Lists of Monuments, v. 2 Delhi Zail (1919), p. 74. Sayyid Ahmad Khan assigns the event to 770/1368. Athar al-Sanadid in Journal asiatique (August-September 1860), p. 231. 4 Barani, Ta’rikh (Bibliotheca Indica), pp. 561-562. ‘Afif states that Barani’s death occurred just upon Firuz Shah’s return from the second Bengal campaign, in 758/1357. See ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 316. 5 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 303; See also Hodivala, Studies in Indo- Muslim History, v. 2, pp. 124-125 and page 91, footnote 5 above. 6 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 350. 7 JW .,pp. 350-353.

8 Ibid., p. 351. 9 Passages from the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi are cited from a partial translation by Mohammad Hamid Kuraishi in Page, A Memoir on Kotla Firoz Shah, Delhi, pp. 33-42. Kuraishi based his translation of a sixteenth century Persian manuscript in the Oriental Public Library (No. 547), Bankipore, Patna, which is believed to have been copied from a fourteenth century original. The manuscript contains a colophon date 1002 A.H. and refers to to the twentietii regnal year of Firuz Shah (772/1370). 10 Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, p. 33. 11 Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, pp. 38-39. 138

Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, p. 39 and p. 41. The author describes the capital twice in his text. The second description is more detailed:

...a gilt fmial, seven and a half yards in height, and consisting of a pedestal (,kursi), a myrobalan-shaped ornament (halila), a flat moulding (tas), a dentil reel, a vase (subu), a second reel and smaller vase {subuchah) and a third reel, a flask (surahf) and a crescent (mah), was put up on the top of the pillar as the crowning ornament. William Finch describes the lat and its capital after his visit to the lat pyramid in 1611, during the reign of Jahangir. His account is included in Robert Keir, Voyages and Travels (1824), vol. 8, p. 292:

Delhi is situated in a fine plain; and about 2 coss from thence are the ruins of a hunting seat, or mole, built by Sultan Bemsa (Firuz), a great Indian sovereign. It still contains much curious stone-work; and above all the rest is seen a stone pillar, which, after passing through three several stories, rises twenty-four feet above them all, having on the top a globe, surmounted by a crescent. It is said that this stone stands as much below in the earth as it rises above, and is placed below in the water, being aU one stone. Some say Naserdengady, a Patan king, wanted to take it up, but was prevented by a multitude of scorpions. It has inscriptions. In divers parts of India the like are to be seen.

13 Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, pp. 41-42. The verses included in the Sirat are considered to be by the poet Maulana Mutahir of Karra, whose work was freely borrowed by the author without attribution. See Riazual Islam, "The Age of Firoz Shah," Medieval India Quarterly (1950) i/I, pp. 32-33. The poet’s description is based on the column’s actual attributes. Firuz Shah’s, stepped pyramidal form does resemble the slopes of a mountain and the elevated position of the lat made it visible at great distances. Its light color and its polished surface reflect the sunlight and earned its reputation as the Minar-i zarin or golden minar. The lat and its pyramidal foundation thus embody the physical characteristics of height, solid form, and luminescence which the poet describes. The poet’s allusion to the universal axis (axis mundi) and the form of a mountain are symbols commonly attributed to pillars, albeit Buddhist, Hindu, or Muslim. ‘Afif, Ta’rikh, p. 350, states tiiat the column was designated the Minar-i zarin, or golden column, because of its gold finial. The Sirat-i Firuz Shahi (p. 41) states, probably incorrectly, that the column itself was gilded. 14 The watercolor is contained in "Reminiscences of Imperial Delhie," also known as the "Delhie Book," the diary of Sir Thomas Metcalfe which has been recently published in The Golden Calm, edited by M. M. Kaye. 15 Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, p. 42. 139

Malfuzat-i Timuri (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 448-449. Firuz Shah’s mosque is commonly regarded as the one in which Timur had his khutba recited and the one that the latter desired to copy in Samarqand. But the Malfuzat-i Timuri does not make this clear. In fact, Timur was impressed by several remains of Delhi, including the CJuwwat al-Islam mosque in Qila Rai Pithora, which he designates "Old Delhi," Jahanpanah, and Siri. VvTieh he says he had thekhutba read in the city, he does not distinguish which city he is referring to. See Malfuzat-i Timuri (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 444-447 and Archaeological Survey of India, Lists of Monuments, v. 2, p. 73. Sayyid Ahmad Khan identifies Firuz Shah’s mosque as the one in which Timur had hiskhutba recited. Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Athar in Journal asiatique (August-September 1861), p. 407. 17 Malfuzat-i Timuri (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 448-449. 18 Firishta, Ta’rikh ^riggs), p. 286. Timur’s imperial mosque, the Bibi Khanum Mosque, was located in Samaqand. Ibn ‘Arabshah zdso mentions diat Timur built a jamV or mosque in "the Indian style" in Samaqand. See Pederson, "Masdjid," Encyclopedia of Islam, first edition, p. 355, who cites Ibn ‘Arabshah, Vita Timuri, Ed. Manger, 1767, p. 444 sqq. In addition, the Bengal sultan, Sikandar Ilyas Shah, is believed to have sought to emulate Firuz Shah in constructing the Adina Masjid in Pandua. See Dani, Muslim Architecture in Bengal, p. 58. The dearth of architectural monuments immediately following the Timurid sack of Delhi may be in part due to his confiscation of the skilled labor force. 19 Firishta, Ta’rikh (Briggs), p. 268; See also Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Athar in Journal asiatique (October-November 1860), p. 407 and Nath, Monuments of Delhi, p. 37. 20 Firishta,Ta’rikh (Briggs), p. 286. 21 Page, A Memoir on the Kotla., p. 6. 22 Page, A Memoir on the Kotla, p. 7. Page cites the account of Franklin in 1793 A.D. The whereabouts of these capitals today is uncertain. 23 Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Athar in Journal asiatique (October-November 1860), p. 407. 24 Ibid., p. 407. It is possible that Sayyid Ahmad Khan refers to Finch’s account of his visit to the court of Jahangir in 1611 but Finch does not mention a dome, rather the globe and crescent on top the lat. 25 Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Athar in Journal asiatique (August-September 1860), pp. 229-233. Alexander Cunningham first identified the village of Topra in the Punjab as the site referred to in the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi. Cunningham, Report of the Archaeological Survey of India XIV (1882), p. 78. The Asokan inscription on the column is repeated on 140 pillars at Allahabad, Mattia, and Radhia. See James Prinsep, "Interpretation of the most ancient inscriptions on the pillar called the lat of Feroz Shah, near Delhi, and the Allahabad, Radhia and Mattitdi pillar, or lat, inscriptions which agree therewith," Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal VI (1837), pp. 566-609. Tom Coiyat and Whittaker, early travelers to Delhi, attribute the column to Alexander the Great, who erected it, they say, as a memorial to his victories in India. This story is a fabrication and has no archaeological basis. See Robert Kerr, Voyages and Travels, 1824, v. 9, p. 423. 26 The earliest mention of the lat pyramid in literature is Sayyid Ahmad Khan’s Athar al-Sanadid in Journal asiatique (August-September 1860) pp. 229-233; Prinsep, "Interpretations of the most ancient inscriptions on the pillar called the lat of Feroz Shah,"JASB 6 (1837), pp. 566-609; Archaeological Survey of India, Reports Vol. I, p. 145,161f.; Vol. rv, pp. Iff., 72; Journal of the Archaeological Society of Delhi (1850), p. 73; Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains (1876), pp. 129-139; Cooper, Handbook for Delhi, p. 47; Fanshawe, Delhi: Past and Present (1902), pp. 222-225; Hearn, Seven Cities of Delia (1906), p. 66, 124. A more complete list of early literary references is appended to the discussion of the stmctiue in A.S.I., Lists of Monuments II: Delhi Zail (1919), pp. 74-80, no. 117. The lat pyramid is also discussed in Marshall, "Monuments of Muslim India," Cambridge History o f India in (1928), pp. 590-591, Plate X, Figure 18; Page, A Memoir on Kotla Firuz Shah, Mémoires of the Archaeological Survey of India No. 52 (1937), pp. 3-5; Brown, Indian Architecture: Islamic Period (1942), pp. 23-24. More recent references include: Burton-Page, "Dihli," Encyclopedia of Islam II (1966), p. 258; Majumdar (Ed.), History and Culture of the Indian People, Vol. VI The Delhi Sultanate, 2nd Edition (1967), p. 680; Baneijee, History of Firuz Shah Tughluq (1967), pp. 186-187; Yamamoto, Ara, and Tsukinowa, Delhi: Architectural Remains of the Delhi Sultanate I (1967); Chatteiji, Architectural Glories of Delhi (1969), pp. 35-40; Sharma, Delhi and Its Neighborhood, 2nd Edition (1974), p. 131; Husain, Tughluq Dynasty (1976), pp. 411-420; Nath, History of Sultanate Architecture (1978), pp. 34-35; Grover, Architecture of India: Islamic (1981), pp. 40-41; Welch and Ciane, "The Tughluqs," Muqarnas I (1983), p. 133. 27 See Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains (1876), pp. 126-128. A list of early references to the mosque is given in Archaeological Survey of India, Lists of Monuments II Delhi Zail (1919), pp. 72-74, no. 116. See Marshall, "Monuments of Muslim India," Cambridge History of India HI (1928), pp. 590-591; Page, A Memoir of Kotla Firoz Shah, Delhi, Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India No. 52 (1937), pp. 6-7. See also Burton-Page, "Dihli," Encyclopedia of Islam II (1966), p. 158; Yamamoto, Ara, and Tsukinowa, Delhi: Architectural Remains, I (1967); Baneijee, History of Firuz Shah Tughluq (1967), p. 186; Majumdar (Ed.), DelM Sultanate (1967), p. 680; Sharma, Delhi and Its Neighborhood (1974), pp. 130-131; Nath, Sultanate 141

Architecture (1978), p. 67; Nath, Monuments of Delhi (1979), p. 37; Welch and Crâne, "The Tughluqs," (1983), p. 130. 28 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 130. 29 Ibid., p. 130 and footnote 48. Also see Hearn, Seven Cities of Delhi, p. 56. Hearn suggests that the plinth may have been intended to accommodate uneven terrain of the site. 30 A precedent for a non-axial mosque plan is seen in the position of the Alai Darwaza, a portal in ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji’s extension of the Quwwat al-Islam mosque. The Alai Darwaza sits on the south side of that mosque. 31 The Jahanpanah gate is illustrated in Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 132, Plate 3. 32 Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 127. Stephen cites the report of a committee of the Archaeological Society of Delhi who investigated the mosque and lat in 1847. A summary of their report is published by Stephen (pp. 126- 128) but the plans which accompanied the report were destroyed in the 1857 Mutiny. The authors mention the removal of stone work from the gate but do not say whether it was inscribed. See also, A.S.I. Lists of Monuments, v. 2, p. 72. 33 Franklin, Asiatic Researches, v. 8, plate IV. Citation in Page, A Memoir on Kotla, p. 7.

34 The mosque was also whitewashed. Father Monserrate, who visited the city during the reign of the Mughal emperor Akbar, described Firuz Shah’s mosque: Delinum [Delhi] is noteworthy for its public buildings, its remarkable fort (built by Emaumus [Hamayun]), its walls and a number of mosques, especially the one said to have been built by king Peruzius [Feroze Shah Tughlaq]. This mosque is constructed of wonderfully polished white marble, the exterior is covered with brilliant whitewash, made by mixing lime with milk, instead of water. It shines like a mirror; for this mixture of lime and milk is not only of such remarkable consistency that no cracks appear in it anywhere, but also when polished it shines most magnificently.

The existence of marble, referred to by Monserrate, is spurious. It is also interesting to note that Monserrate does not mention the lat or dome, alleged to have been inscribed with Firuz Shah’s ordinances. See The commentary of Father Monserrate, S. J., on his journey to the Court of Akbar. Translated from the Latin by J. S. Hoyland and annotated by S. N. Baneijee. London (Oxford University Press), pp. 96-97. 35 The report of the Archaeological Society of Delhi is cited in Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, pp. 126-128. See foomote 32 above. 142

36 Tsukinowa Tokifusa, "The Influence of Seljuq Architecture on the Earliest Mosques of the Delhi Sultanate Period in India, Acta Asiatica 43 (1982), pp. 37-60. 37 The report of the Archaeological Society of Delhi (1847) cited in Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 127. 38 Thelat was damaged at an undetermined time, perhaps as suggested, a result of lightning or a canon ball. In a photograph of the monument Ulustrated in Hearn, The Seven Cities of Delhi (1906), the pillar appears unbroken but missing its capital. 39 John Irwin, "‘Asokan’ Pillars: a reassessment of the evidence - Part I," Burlington Magazine (November 1973), pp. 714-715. 40 Two lats were installed in Firuzabad, one in the lat pyramid and the other one in the Kushk-i Shikar. See ‘Afif,Ta’rikh, pp. 351-353. Two other lats have been attributed to Firuz Shah - one in Hissar and a second in Fathabad. See Subhash Parihar, Muslim Inscriptions in the Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh, p. 18, No. 3.6, and plate 7. Irwin expresses doubt about the Fathabad attribution. See Irwin, "‘Asokan’ Pillars - Part 4" Burlington Magazine (November 1976), p. 744, footnote 47. 41 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh, p. 352; Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, p. 34. 42 John Irwin, "‘Asokan’ Pillars: a reassessment of the evidence," Burlington Magazine 115 (November 1973), pp. 706-720; "‘Asokan’ Pillars: a reassessment of the evidence. Part II: Structure," Burlington Magazine 116 (December 1974), pp. 712-727; "‘Asokan’ Pillars: a reassessment of the evidence. Part IE: Capitals," Burlington Magazine 117 (October 1975): pp. 631-643; "‘Asokan’ Pillars, a reassessment of the evidence. Part IV: Symbolism," Burlington Magazine 118 (November 1976): pp. 734- 753. 43 Irwin, "‘Asokan’ Pillars - Part 2," Burlington Magazine (December 1974), p. 720. 44 Page, A Memoir on the Kotla, p. 3 and p. 5; Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 130; and Archaeological Survey of India, Lists of Monuments, V. 2, p. 79. The height of thelat (excluding its pyramidal foundation) has been variously described as ranging from 24 feet to 50 feet ‘Afif describes the height of the obelisk as 32 gaz with 8 gaz sunk into the pedestal leaving only 24 gaz visible (The gaz is equivalent to 18 1/2 inches). ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 352. TheSirat-i Firuz Shahi, p. 39, describes the lat as 22 yards in length, 20 of which were exposed. The building is reported to be 21 1/2, hrinpng the total to 41 1/2, not 42 1/2 which the author states. However the combined height of the pyramid and lat is about 88 feet. 45 One unusual explanation was offered by Muhammad Anim Razi, author of the Hqft-i-Kalim, who stated that the structure served as a menagerie and aviary during the 143 reign of Akbar. See Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 129, second footnote. 46 The painting is contained in the "Delhie Book," a diary of Sir Thomas Metcalfe, published in The Golden Calm, edited by M. M. Kaye. 47 Early renderings are included in Asiatick Researches (1802) and Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1797). The latter journal published a sketch, geometrical elevation and plan of the lat pyramid. A drawing by E. Therond, reproduced in H. K. Kaul, Historic Delhi: An Anthology (Delhi: Obrford University Press, 1985) shows the lat pyramid with only one dome (on the southeast comer of the uppermost level) intact. A drawing published by Husain, Tughluq Dynasty, plate facing p. 421, is possibly mistakenly identified as the kushk-i shikar. It represents a structure, with comer domed chambers intact, identical to the lat pyramid. 48 Archaeological Survey of India, List of Monuments, v. 2, p. 72. 49 Archaeological Survey of India, Lists of Monuments, v. 2, p. 80. Heam, The Seven Cities of Delhi, pp. 54-55, mentions a sketch showing the red sandstone facing but the whereabouts of this drawing is uncertain. 50 J.D. Beglar, Archaeological Survey of India, Reports, TV (1874). See also Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 129. 51 Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, p. 33. 52 The earliest inscription in Pali is believed to be Asokan in origin (third century B.C.). Two inscriptions in nagari script are dated Samvat 1220/1163 A.D.. One describe the victories of a certain Chohan Prince Visala Deru of Sakambhari. The second names Sri Bhadra Mitras (or Subhadra Mitra). There are two Gupta period inscriptions and several short inscriptions of a later date, the most legible name Surya Vishnu Subhamaka Kana, Hara Singht Subama Kakana, Charma Subanak (Charma Sabana Shara), and Siddh Bhayan Kamath Joji. One of two inscriptions bearing the date Samvat 1581/1524 A.D. contains the name Suritan Ibrahim. See Cunningham, Reports, Archaeological Survey of India I, p. 167; Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, pp. 134-138 footnotes; J.A. Page, A Memoir on Kotla Firoz Shah, Delhi, pp. 26-29. 53 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 352.

54 Husain, A Record of All Quranic and Non-historical Inscriptions, p. 84; Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 158. These inscriptions, in plaster, are located in roundels in the spandrels of the arches. They include "God" (Allah) and "God is sufficient for me." 55 Page, An Historical Memoir on the Qutb: Delhi, Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India, No. 22 (1970), Appendix II. 144

Firuz Shah,Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), p. 383; Siddiqui, "Waterworks and Irrigation," p. 14 and fn 74. Siddiqui cites Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, f. 790b. 57 A. Welch, "Qur’an and Tomb," p. 257; "Islamic Architecture and Epigraphs in Sultanate India," A.K. Narain (Ed.), Studies in South Asian Art and Archaeology, forthcoming. 58 Ibid., p. 257. 59 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 316. ‘Afif states that Firuz Shah wrote his composition (thought to be the Futuhat) after he failed in his efforts to find a replacement for the esteemed historian Barani. 60 These specific verses do not appear in Elliot and Dowson’s translation but are thought to be extrapolations from the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi. 61 Khwajah Nizamuddin Ahmad Bakshi, Tabaqat-i Akbari, translated by B. De, Bibliotheca Indica series, vol. 1 (1927), p. 257.

62 Firishta, Ta’rikh (Briggs), p. 268; P. Hardy, "Firishta," Encyclopedia of Islam, V. 2, pp. 921-922. 63 Firishta, Ta’rikh (Briggs), p. 268. 64 Baneijee, History of Firuz Shah Tughluq, pp. 209-210. Baneijee states that Nizam al-Din’s sources appear to be Barani and ‘Afif, but that Firishta does not include ‘Afif. Given his ignorance of the lat pyramid, it is probable that Nizam al-Din was unfamiliar with ‘AfiTs Ta’rikh. 65 Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Athar in Journal asiatique (October-November 1860) p. 407. 66 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 351. 67 Hardy, Historians of Medieval India, p. 1 and 94. For example, Nizam al-din Ahmad also drew upon the Futuh al-Salatin of Isami as a source for Tabaqat-i Akbari. The Futuh was written 7 or 8 years before Barani’s Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi and independently, under the patronage of a ruler who had "thrown off the rule of Delhi." 68 Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Athar in Journal asiatique (October-November 1860), p. 407. 69 Page, Memoir on Kotla, pp. 6-7. 70 Ibid., p. 7. Franklin’s account originally appeared in Asiatic Researches.

71 Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, pp. 126-128. 145

Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Athar in Journal Asiatique (October-November 1860), p. 407. The moment of the destruction of the buildings of Firuzabad is unknown. Whether the mosque was ravaged by a conqueror or deteriorated from the effects of age and climate is uncertain. TTie suggestion that the mosque was destroyed by Timur is unlikely. See Malfuzat-i Timuri (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 448-449. That it was quarried by Sher Shah or in their subsequent building projects is equally improbable. If the mosque had been destroyed prior to the seventeenth century A.D., then Neither Nizam al- Din nor Firishta would to have been able to see the epigraphs in situ if they had desired to do so. 73 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 316; Hodivala, Studies in Indo-Muslim History, p. 339, clarifies Elliot and Dowson’s translation of the Kushk-i Shikar as Kushk- i Shikar-rav. Hodivala also claims that the kushk was derived from Central Asian origins, where it was a movable wooden house used by the Uzbegs. Several kushk or "towers of wood" were built for Muhammad bin Tughluq, and later Humayun and were kept ready for emergencies. The kushk of Firuzabad were probable more permanent structures, in particular, the term becomes synonymous with the palace. See Hodivala, Studies in Indo- Muslim History, Supplement v. 2, pp. 110-111. 74 Welch and (Trane, "The Tughluqs," pp. 158-159. 75 Firuz Shah, Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 374-388. The Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi survives in the form of two manuscripts, both of which form appendices to ‘Afif’s Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi. One manuscript is in the British Library (Or. 2039) and the other is located in the library at Aligarh University. The two manuscripts are nearly identical. See N.B. Roy, "Futuhat-i-Firuzshahi,"JRASB Letters, Vol. YE (1941), pp. 61-62. 76 Roy, "Futuhat-i Firuzshahi," JRASB Letters VU (1941), pp. 62-63. 77 Firishta, Ta’rikh (Briggs), p. 268. 78 References to the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi made in the next few paragraphs are cited from Elliot and Dowson, History of India as Told By Its Own Historians, v. 3, pp. 375-388. 79 The Sirat-i Firuz Shahi also discusses Firuz Shah’s investiture. An English translation was done by Sh. Abdur Rashid, "Firoz Shah’s Investiture by the Caliph," Medieval India Quarterly Aligarh i/1 (1950), pp. 66-71. 80 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 350-351,353. 81 Malfuzat-i Timuri (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 448-449; ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 353. 82 Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, p. 34 and p. 42.

83 The iron pillar is discussed by Page, An Historical Memoir on the Qutb: Delhi, p. 10 and Appendix IE. 146

^ Ibid., Appendices HI (a) and IE (b). The 964/1556 inscription contains the name ‘Ali Asghar Husain, an unknown individual. The remaining post-Gupta inscriptions are in nagari script and dated in the Samvat era. They belong to a period after 1556 A.D. 85 Ibid., p. 6; Nath, History of Sultanate Architecture, pp. 12,31-32. 86 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 353. 87 Nath, History of Sultanate Architecture, pp. 34-35. 88 Grabar, Formation of Islamic Art, p. 114. 89 A. Welch, "Qur’an and Tomb," p. 257. 90 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 350; Sirat-i Firiiz Shahi, pp.33-34. The Sirat-i Firuz Shahi mentions that the piUar was traditionally thought to have been located next to a temple erected some four thousand years in the past. The absence of any mention of a temple reinforces the hypothesis that Asokan columns frequently stood alone. Other popular beliefs about the column given in the Sirat include a story about a certain Biswal Deva, Chohan, Rai of Sambhal, an idol worshipper. The coincidental mention of a Chohan prince named Visala Deva in one of the inscriptions suggests that the men of the day were able to read at least part of one epigraph. Also, the Sirat relates the story that Mongol kings tried to split the pillar by fire, unsuccessfully. ‘Afif relates that these pillars were walking sticks of a giant, Bhim, who lived during the time of the Pandavas, an age equivalent to the Homeric Age of Greece. 91 Nath,History of Sultanate Architecture, p. 33. 92 Ibid., p. 33 and footnote 65. Nath uses the term Hindu dhvajastambha in a categorical sense, including Jain, Buddhist, and Brahmanical aspects.

93 Sayyid Ahmad Khan, Journal asiatique (August-September 1860), pp. 245- 246. His theory was upheld by Beglar, ASJ. Reports IV, p. 41 and 48-58. Cunningham refutes the theory. Cunningham, A.SJ. Reports I, pp. 189-194, and IV, pp. v-x. See also Nath,Monuments of Delhi, p. 32 and footnote 16. 94 Grabar, Formation of Islamic Art, p. 114. 95 Ettinghausen and Grabar, The Art and Architecture of Islam 650-1250, p. 273 and p. 291. 96 The funerary associations of these towers derives from the tomb towers or gumbads of Khurasan and Central Asia, such as the Samanid period tomb of Gumbad-i Qabus (1006 A.D.) 147

The Arabic word manara, ftoiii wiiicii minar is derived, means "lighthouse." 98 The Ghazni towers are published in S. Flury, "Das Schriftband an der Tiire des Mahmud von Ghazna, 998-1030," Der Islam 8 (1918), pp. 214-227; S. Flvuy, "Le Décor épigraphique des monuments de Ghazna, " 6 (1925), pp. 61-90; J. Sourdil-Thomine "Deux minarets d’époque Seljoukide en Afghanistan," Syria 30 (1953), pp. 108-136; and U. Scerrato, "The first two excavation Campaigns at Ghazni, 1957-1958," East and West NSIO (March-June 1959), pp. 23-55. 99 Maricq remarks that when he "discovered" the minar at Jam in 1957 that he caught sight of it only after he was practically on top of it. The minaret at Jam has been published by A. Maricq and G. Wiet, "Le minaret de Djam. Le découverte de la capitale des sultans ghorides (XH-Xm siècles)," Mémoires de la Délégation archéologique française en Afghanistan 16 (1959), Paris. Further studies of it have been published by Judi Moline, "The Minaret of Gam (Afghanistan)," Kunst des Orients 9 (1973-74), pp. 131-148; and William Trousdale "The Minaret of Jam: A Ghorid Monument in Afghanistan," Arc/weo/ogy 18 (June 1865), pp. 102-108. 100 The Khwajah Siah Posh monument is published in F.R. Allchin and Norman Hammond (Ed.), The Archaeology of Afghanistan, New York, 1978. Nath, History of Sultanate Architecture, p. 25 and plate XXVII. The possible prototype for the Khwaja Siah Posh minar is one at Nad-i Ali, since collapsed. It is described by Fischer in Archaeology of Afghanistan (Ed. by Allchin and Hammond), p. 366, and G P. Tate, Seistan, Calcutta, 1912, p. 202.

101 ‘Afif, Ta'rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 353. 102 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 127.

103 Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, p. 41

104 Appropriation of pre-Buddhist symbols and architectural forms into the Buddhist religion marks an indigenous tradition of appropriation in India. The pre- Buddhist pillar cults were gradually assimilated into Buddhist practices. See Irmn, "‘Asokan’ Pillars - Part I," Burlington Magazine (November 1973), pp. 715-717. Irwin also states that the "custom of erecting sh ^e s on spots already made sacred by earlier cults has been common throughout India and was followed even by the Muslims who, in this same area, often founded cemeteries on top of stupas." He cites the Muslim graveyard on top of the mound at Vaisali as an example.

105 Similaries can be seen between Firuz Shah’s lat and the pillar tombs of Malindi and Mambruti on the east African coast. See James Kiikman, "The Great Pillars of Malindi and Mambruti," Oriental Art NS IV, 2 (1958), pp. 55-67. Ironically, these pillar tombs marked the graves of leaders of African descent, in contrast to those of Arab or non-African ancestry. The latter were interred in domed chambers, a form ubiquitous in the Islamic world, or pavilions (chhatris). The similarity of architectural forms between east coastal Africa and the Indian subcontinent has been pointed out (pp. 56-57) and may be a result of active sea contact. 148

106 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 133.

107 j.C. Harle, The A n and Architecture of the Indian Subcontinent (1986), p. 425. CHAPTER V HAUZ KHAS MADRASA AND ASSOCIATED STRUCTURES

Firuz Shah’smadrasa in literature

During the reign of Firuz Shah, Hauz Khas (Plate XXXII) was an important center of Muslim learning. The complex is located beside a large ba’oli or reservoir known as Hauz-i Alai and consists of a number of edifices, including a madrasa or college, a mosque, several tombs and the mausoleum of Firuz Shah himself, the founder of the madrasa. Under Firuz Shah themadrasa gained prominence, even overshadowing the reputed madrasa of ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji located next to the Quwwat al-Islam mosque at Qila Rai Pithora and the madrasa built by Dtutmish located at the mausoleum of Nasir

al-Din Mahmud in Mahipalpur.l Hauz Khas, or Hauz-i Alai, was an important site for the Tughluqs, being the battleground on which Ghiyath al-Din defeated Khusraw Khan, usurper of the Khalji throne, and set up Tughluq rule.2 Despite the political associations of the site, the reputation of Hauz Khas rests primarily upon the madrasa which Firuz Shah built and the

religious climate which he fostered. Although the madrasa of Firuz Shah became one of the leading centers of Muslim learning of early sultanate India, little is known about its development, its disciples, or its disciplines. Upon his accession Firuz Shah first established his capital in old Delhi.3 He is believed to have occupied the palace at Jahanpanah (Kuskh-i Humayun, possibly the structure known today as the Bijai Mandai) built by Muhammad bin Tughluq until his

149 150 own palace was completed at Firuzabad.4 Jahanpanah had been infrequently used by Muhammad. Its proximity to the Hauz-i Alai may have affected Firuz Shah’s decision to build the madrasa there. The transformation of Hauz Khas into a center of learning appears to have progressed quickly and the madrasa rapidly gained a widespread reputation as the foremost college of Delhi of the time. Firuz Shah’s choice of a site near the centers of old Delhi and earlier Tughluq foundations was no coincidence.^ Hauz Khas is located on the southernmost fringe of Firuzabad several kilometers south of the kotla (Figure 2), situated off the main road between Qila Rai Pithora, Siri, and Firuzabad. ‘Afif reports that this road accommodated heavy traffic and descriptions of it indicate that it was actively used before Firuz Shah had hismadrasa built.6 The chronology of the site is not revealed in epigraphs or in contemporary literature. Historians indicate that building activity probably occurred over a long period of time. The sequence started with the construction of the ba'oli during the reign of ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji. The mosque and the madrasa buildings on the east side of the ba’oli were probably completed in the early part of Firuz Shah’s reign. Additions were made to themadrasa at different times during the reign, probably first at the southeast comer and then an extension of the madrasa on the south side of the ba'oli. These latter additions, which include Firuz Shah’s tomb (the tomb of the founder) and portions of the madrasa contiguous to it, were probably completed in the latter part of the reign. A number of chhatri buildings, mostly ancillary tombs, and other structures were added at undetermined times, perhaps as late as the reigns of subsequent .Lodi rulers. But without epigraphic evidence or waqf documents the chronology remains inconclusive. The site has subsequently undergone restorative measures by the Archaeological Survey of India. 151

The foundation of the ba'oli has been attributed to ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji in 695/1295.7 The large ba’oli, which became known as the Hauz-i Alai after the ruler, is said to have spanned an area of more than 100 bighasfi Firuz Shah had the tank dredged and the stone embankments repaired.9

The Hauz-i ’Alai, or tank of ‘Ala al-Din, had no water in it, and was filled up. People carried on cultivation in it, and had dug wells, of which they sold the water. After a generation [karn] had passed I cleaned it out, so that this great tank might again be fiUed from year to year. It is described by Ibn Battuta as one of the two major tanks in Delhi, the other one

being the Shamsi tank west of Mehrauli.lO Ibn Battuta describes the site, after his visit to

it during the reign of Muhammad bin Tughluq as a place of festive celebration and religious observance. 11

Between Dilhi and the ‘Abode of the ’ is the ‘private tank’, which is larger than that of the Sultan Shams al-Din. Along its sides there are forty pavilions, and round about it live the musicians. Their place is called Tarab Abad [‘City of Music’] and they have there a most extensive , a cathedral mosque, and many other mosques besides. I was told that the singing girls living there, of whom there are a great many, take part in a body in the tarawih prayers in these mosques during the month of Ramadan, and the lead them in these prayers. The male musicians do the same. I myself saw the male musicians on the occasion of the wedding of the amir Saif al-Din Ghada son of Muhanna, when each one of them had a prayer mat under his knees, and on hearing the adhan [call to prayer] rose, made his ablutions and performed the prayer. Hauz Khas was already inhabited during the time of Ibn Battuta’s visit and the presence of mosques and the observance of prayer during the month of Ramadan which he describes indicates that it was used for religious practice early on. The madrasa’s seclusion in a garden setting and its religious ambiance made it an ideal location. 152

The transition from the Tarab Abad or city of music described by Ibn Battuta to the center of Muslim devotion described by Barani seems to have occurred rapidly. Barani writes before his death in 1357 A.D. in the Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi'A^ Because this madrasah is a monument of good works and public benefaction, prayers, obligatory and superogatory, are constantly being offered within its precincts. "Ihe five compulsory prayers are offered in congregation according to the Sunna. The Sifis offer the chasht prayer [offered between sunrise and meridian], ishraq [prayer offered soon after sun-rise], fay al-zuwal [prayer offerwi immediately before mid-day], awabin [prayer offered immediately after sunset] prayers, and tahajjud [prayer offered in the latter part of the night] prayers, praise God night and day and send benediction on and sing the praises of the Sultan constantly. People who know the by heart recite the full text every day; the travellers raise their voices to the heavens when they cry Allahu Aicbar. Through the endowments of Sultan Firuz Shah, these people get stipends, inams, allowances and charities in cash, and every day tables covered with delicious dishes are spread before the people. A^osoever from amongst the pious men, scholars, men who have learnt the Quran by heart, members of the congregation, devotees and persons engaged in religious practices and whosoever from amongst the worshipers of God chooses to go to or enter the Madrasah-i Firuz Shahi, attains comfort and ease and with an easy mind devotes himself day and night to the task of praying for the long life of the king of Islam. Its magnificence, architectural proportions and pleasant air make it unique among the great buildings of the world such that it would be justifiable if it claimed superiority over the khwarnaq built by Sinmar or the palace of Kisra. Barani attributes the foundation of the madrasa to Firuz Shah. The fact that it bears his name and that he is interred in the central tomb supports his attribution. The attribution is confirmed by a number of other authorities. The author of the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi assigns the madrasa to Firuz Shah and states, "Its academic reputation traveled far and wide and people flocked to it from different parts of the country."13 Sihrindi places its construction in the year 753/1352.14 Timur mistakenly attributes ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji’s tank to Firuz Shah and mentions the presence of buildings aroimd it. He does not, however, identify the buildings as a madrasa but he identifies the tomb on the banks 153 of the tank as Firuz Shah’s. 15 Sharaf al-Din Yazdi repeats the same information in the

ZafarnamaA^ ‘Afif is silent about the madrasa in his Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi. Sayyid Ahmad Khan coiroborates Barani’s attribution and also identifies the central tomb as containing the grave of Firuz Shah. However he attributes the construction of the tomb to the year 792/1389, assigning it to the patronage of Nasir al- Din Muhammad Shah, the son and successor of Firuz Shah, an attribution which has not been widely accepted. 17 It is unlikely that Nasir al-Din possessed the ingenuity, the time, or the financial resources to undertake such a venture. The tomb is carefully located in the plan of the madrasa’, its position is not an afterthought. The attribution to Firuz Shah must be based upon historical and stylistic grounds in light of the unfortunate absence of a historical inscription. The madrasa is described by Barani as a center of intellectual activity and the congregations in its jami masjid were so large that no space remained within the mosque or courtyard.18 Barani elaborates on the cosmopolitan atmosphere of the center when he describes its accommodations as including hostels for both teachers and students, guest houses for casual visitors, and rooms for imams, muazzins, hujrahs, and for those who wished to spend their time in religious devotions and meditations. The relationships which developed between teachers, students and alumni were encouraged and continued a long tradition of the Muslim learning process. The principal of the madrasa, Maulana Jalal al-Din Runrd is recognized by Barani as a celebrated scholar of his time. 19 Maulana Jalal al-Din was said to have been educated in all four schools of Muslim law and was knowledgeable in the fourteen sciences. In addition, he was able to recite the Qur’an according to the seven accepted methods and had mastered the five standard collections of hadith. 154

Barani provides these few details about the disciplines taught at the college. The primary disciplines which he identifies were (Quranic exegesis), hadith (The Traditions of the Prophet), and fiqh (jurisprudence). From what is known about Maulana Jalal al-Din’s background, it is conceivable that the curriculum also included many non­ religious sciences including ilm-i nujoom (astronomy), ilm-i riyadi (mathematics), ilm-i tabibi (physical sciences), ilm-i tibb (medicine), khan (), nahv-i sarf (grammar), maani-i bayan (rhetoric), and ilm-i nazri (speculative sciences).20

Sayyid Ahmad Khan also identifies Sayyid bin.Jamal Husaini as a principal professor {mutawali or sadr mudarris) of the madrasa. Sayyid Yusuf, who died in 780/1388, is buried at the site. Husain identifies the grave located on the south side of the southern block of the madrasa buildings as his tomb.21 The atmosphere cultivated at the madrasa has been described to have been pleasant and well-suited to the purpose of the institution. Barani remarks that "travellers who came from outside entered into this building and forgot all their worries and fatigue...as if they were in the heavens."22 Mutahhar of Kara, a poet of the time, eulogizes the madrasa in similar terms.23

The moment I entered this blessed building through the gate, I saw an even space as wide as the plain of the world. The courtyard was soul- animating and its expanse was life-giving. Its dust was musk-scented and its fragrance possessed the odour of amber. There was verdue everywhere and hyacinths, basils, roses and tulips were blooming and were beautifully arranged so far as the human eye could reach. It seemed as if the last year’s produce had in advance the current year’s fruits, such as pomegranites, oranges, guavas, quinces, apples and grapes. Nightingales, so to say, were singing their melodious songs everywhere. It appeared as if they had guitars in their talons and flutes in their beaks. The garden which he described was carefully laid out and a large platform, 10 or 11 feet in height and 40 cubits square crowned with a cupola roof, was located in the 155 center of it. An extant structure, an open pavilion with three cupolas (Plate LXXVI), which is thought to have served as a convocation hall for the madrasa, may be the same one mentioned by Mutahhar.24 The poet describes the walls of the madrasa as smooth and lustrous with reflective surfaces, like talc or mica, and hues of vermilion, and its gold domes and terraces, which were reflected in the lake, dazzled spectators.25 Carpets from Shiraz, and Damascus were spread throughout the buildings and the teachers and students wore religious garb similar to the Syrian jubbah and the Egyptian dastar. Mutahhar even describes the food which was served.26 In spite of poetic liberties,

Mutahhar probably captures the quality of life at themadrasa. The buildings, situated in an attended garden were no doubt a splendid environment and among the finest structures of the day. The Hauz Khasmadrasa is mentioned in nearly every study of Firuz Shah, but surprisingly, it is only briefly mentioned in discussions of his architecture.27 Instead, the tomb of Firuz Shah is frequently referred to by modem scholars as the most representative monument of his reign, as well as a typical example of the sultanate mausoleum.28 The tomb is often cited as an example of the eclectic style and unusual building materials found in Firuz Shah’s monuments. The remaining structures of the site - the mosque, chhatris, and a few subsidiary structures - are virtually ignored by modem scholars.29

Description of the Archaeological Remains

The consists of several buildings, not all of which belong to the period of Firuz Shah. Themasjid, themadrasa buildings and the tomb of Fimz Shah 156 have been attributed to his reign, however other buildings and ancillary tombs, may possibly belong to the later Lodi period. The plan of the site reveals that the buildings of the complex were arranged along two sides of the large ba’oli (Plate XXXII and Figure 11). The madrasa overlooks the south and east sides of the tank and the two wings of the expansive structure are joined at the southeast comer at the tomb of Firuz Shah. The two-storey madrasa is built on a sloping hill. The east and south sides face gardens, level with its upper storey. The north and west sides face the ba’oli, which extends from the foundation of the lower storey. Both stories on the north and west facades are open, offering a view of the reservoir (Plate XXXm). Access to the ba’oli is gained by stairs which lead down to the level of the tank at several points along the foundation.

Mosque The masjid (Plates XXXIV and XXXV) is located on the north end of the complex and is joined to the east block (the portion of the madrasa which lies to the east of the ba’oli). Entrance into the mosque from the upper level gardens is on the south side of the courtyard. The remains of a domed structure at the southeast comer of the mosque

(Plate XXXVI) probably functioned as a gate. This structure, which measures 26 feet 6 inches in its exterior dimensions, houses an inner chamber 17 feet square. The structure is a smaller version of other gateways of the Tughluq period, in particular that of Firuz Shah’s mosque at thekotla and of the Jahanpanah mosque built by Muhammad bin

Tughluq. The Hauz Khas mosque, oriented to the west, is a hypostyle structure with a covered prayer hall surrounding three sides of an open courtyard (Plate XXXVIl and 157

Figure 12). The courtyard measures 43 feet 4 inches by 39 feet 8 inches. The east end was not enclosed by an arcade and extended from the mosque to a distance defined by the gate at the southeast comer and a circular bastion at the northeast comer, approximately 42 additional feet. The courtyard today extends even further. Much of the prayer hall has collapsed. The remaining foundations reveal that the prayer hall had vaulted bays on the north, south, and west sides of the courtyard. The north bays are completely gone. The north and south arcades were originally four bays wide (39 feet 8 inches) and two bays deep (19 feet 3 inches). Each bay was covered by a groin vault. The west prayer hall, mostly intact, consists of nine bays, one deep, and measures 81 feet 3 inches in length along the north-south axis and 12 feet 7 inches wide. Each bay is longer on its east-west axis than wide. The pair of bays at the northwest and southwest comers are separated from the central five bays by wider passages and join the north and south arcades. Theqibla wall is pierced by which open to the exterior (Plates XXXVin and XXXV).30 The center bay opens onto a balcony which extends 9 feet 3 inches from the exterior wall and permits access to the ba’oli below by stairs which descend from it. The balcony is covered by a cupola. The location of this balcony is unorthodox, occupying the position normally reserved for the central mihrab. Instead of a central mihrab, two mihrabs are located in bays which immediately flank the central bay (Plate XXXIX) shows, on the left, the central bay with its currently blocked entrance, and the bay to its right containing a mihrab). Two additional mihrabs are located in the end bays. Stairs concealed in the south wall give access to the roof of the prayer hall and a parallel set of stairs on the exterior of the south wall descend to the ba’oli. 158

The mosque is dated by the Archaeological Survey of India to circa 755/1354 or the beginning of the reign of Firuz Shah, at the same time that building activity at the kotla was underway.31 The cathedral mosque described by Ibn Battuta may be the one located on the north end of the madrasa since no other mosques of this magnitude are in proximity to the site. But if this is the case, then the mosque would have to pre-date Firuz Shah since Ibn Battuta visited Hauz Khas during his predecessor’s reign. However the form and building materials of the mosque are consistent with other monuments built under Firuz Shah. The mosque is constructed of roughly dressed ashlar and rubble masonry and faced with plaster, materials preferred by Firuz Shah’s builders. The mosque therefore would seem to belong to the early years of Firuz Shah’s reign, before Barani’s death in 758/1357.

The hypostyle arrangement of its plan (Figure 12) is a common form of early Indian mosques, but the form of the Hauz Khas mosque has no specific antecedent The battered profile and raised center of its west exterior facade (qibla) is similar to the west facade of Firuz Shah’s jami masjid in the kotla. But, other decorative elements of the facade are unique; in particular, its central balcony. Instead of the uninterrupted siuface found on the exterior of the kotla mosque, the west facade of the Hauz Khas mosque is characterized by the domed balcony and a pair of descending stairs. Additional features, such as the raised windows, enclosed by pierced stone screens and resting on corbelled supports, are reminiscent of indigenous Indian forms rather than Muslim forms. Firuz Shah typically experimented with new forms and these unusual architectural elements of the Hauz Khas mosque are representative of the type of iimovation he tested. However, the unique elements found on the Hauz Khas mosque are not repeated in other mosques of his reign.32 159

The madrasa - central block The madrasa of Firuz Shah was located within the two-storey structure which spans the length of the east and south edges of the ba’oli (hereafter designated as the eastern and southern blocks) and joined at the southeast comer at the tomb of the founder, Firuz Shah (Plate XL and Figure 11). The madrasa consisted of a series of interconnecting cells and passages along both stories. These are believed to have served as living quarters as well as classroom spaces for the college. The facades facing the ba’oli are pierced by openings on the two levels which offer a view of the ba’oli. The opposite facades are only open on the upper level, along the garden. The lower storey cells are accessible from the upper level by stairs located at several points in the structure. The core of the madrasa (Plate XLI), located at the southeast comer of the expanse of structures at a point where the east and south blocks of the L-shaped plan join, seems to represent one phase of construction. Its symmetrical plan and integrated architectural units indicate that it was conceived as a stractural entity. The portions of themadrasa contiguous with the tomb of Firuz Shah are symmetrical. Each side spans a length of 82 feet from the central tomb. The central tomb and the two adjacent wings of themadrasa are coimected by passageways off the respective north and west walls of the central tomb. These passageways open into square plan domed chambers approximately one-third the scale (15 feet 3 inches square) of the central tomb. These chambers in turn open into a colonnade of fifteen bays (Plates XLU and XLIU), three aisles wide and 5 bays long, each covered by a corbelled vault. The bays of the central aisle are wider (5 feet 8 inches) than those of the side aisles and emphasize the central axis of the 160 monument. The bays of the central aisle are covered by octagonal corbelled vaults. The bays of each side aisle are 5 feet square and are covered by corbelled hexagonal vaults. Each colonnade terminates in a domed chamber identical to the one contiguous with the central tomb. The end chamber of the north wing has broken away revealing its construction (Plate XLFV). The wall of the upper level square chamber graduates through means of corbelled squinches to form a nearly rounded base on which the dome would have sat The walls are constructed of rubble and faced with plaster (chunam). The upper level floor was supported beneath on a domical vault formed from roughly cut ashlar and rubble. The arcuated construction of these chambers is emphasized on the roof by domes, in contrast to the flat roof over the trabeated bays in between. The corridors on the lower level (Plates XLV and XLVI) reflect the plan of the upper storey - a series of connected bays. The ceiling of this level is an arcuated system and supports the floor of the level above. The arcade consists of three rows of columns located along its long axis. While the exterior row is double, the central row is a single file of columns. The innermost columns are engaged, separating niches recessed in the interior wall. The columns of this arcade, like those of the upper level, are square, with undecorated bases and capitals.33 The arches which spring from them are high and their spandrels are decorated with single rosettes. The arcade terminates, like the corresponding upper level, into larger chambers, identical to those at the opposite end, next to the central tomb. These chambers are formed from massive piers which provide the foundation for the floor above. The ceilings are low domical vaults constructed from rough ashlar and mbble masonry, and were originally plastered and decorated. The end chamber on the west side still retains traces of plastered ceiling which is divided by a linear design of silhouettes of intersecting domes (Plate LXXm). 161

The north (Plates XLVn and XLVIII) and west (Plates XLIX and L) facades of the central block of the madrasa are open on both stories. The facade consists, from bottom to top, of a high foundation, the lower storey arcade, the upper storey colonnade, and a flat roof with two domes at its ends. The lower storey consists of five pointed arches which spring from a row of square columns. The spandrels of the arches, each decorated with a single rosette motif, are recessed. Each arch is framed by vertical and horizontal pilasters, an element which emphasizes the compartmentalization of the interior space. The columns are undecorated and have plain bases and capitals. The upper level colonnade consists of five openings, corresponding to the lower level, separated by square columns. The superstructure appears heavy and massive and masks the vaulting of the interior. The flanking chambers are also open on both upper and lower levels. The lower storey window is a simple arched opening with a slightly protruding floor supported on corbels. The upper storey window, on the other hand, is a raised balcony (Plate XLIX and L). It sits forward from the wall similar to the balcony on the mosque facade. The floor is supported by corbelled brackets and each balcony is covered by a half-domical vault and chajjas (eaves) supported on columns. Chajjas appear over the upper storey colonnade as well. Whereas the west and north facades (the ba’oli side) of this section of the madrasa are symmetrical, the east and south facades (the opposite side) are different. The soutli facade (Plate LI) is pierced by four entrances, one in each of the two domed chambers, one between these, and one in the passage between the madrasa and Firuz Shah’s tomb. The entrances are simple post and lintel construction and over each is an arched opening with a recessed panel of stone lattice. The roofline of this facade has 162 remnants of a crenelated parapet. The east facade (Plate LII) reflects a similar configuration except that the central colonnade is open. The construction materials used throughout the madrasa are rubble and ashlar masonry, materials typically used in buildings of Firuz Shah’s reign. Although many surfaces of the facades are exposed today, the surfaces were probably originally covered by plaster and whitewashed. Architectural elements, such as raised balconies, relieved the otherwise austere facades. Decoration was kept to a minimum, such as the simple rosettes found in the spandrels of arches. Also found in the spandrels are medallions inscribed with words of the Muslim creed like those in the upper chamber of the north end (Plate LIII). The central block of the madrasa has undergone restoration by the Archaeological Survey of India and is in a better state of preservation than the remaining sections. The symmetrical arrangement of this part of the madrasa and its proximity to the tomb suggest that it should be assigned to a later phase of construction, at a time when the tomb was built. The careful placement of the tomb in relationship to the madrasa buildings next to it indicates that this section was conceived as a single unit. It is possible that Firuz Shah continued building onto the madrasa toward the end of his reign when he devoted himself more to religious pursuits. On the other hand, it is equally possible that Firuz Shah built his tomb far in advance of his d e a th .3 4

Madrasa - east block The sections of the madrasa in the east block, beyond the central block, are incongruent with the remaining structure and probably represent separate phases of construction. The remainder of the east block (Plate LTV), on the east side of the ba’oli. 163 is in an advanced state of disrepair. It spans a length of 220 feet and is situated between the madrasa building just discussed and the mosque. This section is joined, on its nonh end, to the mosque but, on its south end, it is separated from the madrasa for a length of 47 feet A continuous foundation however suggests that these units were originally joined. This section of the madrasa spans a length of approximately 173 feet and represents a separate phase of construction. The standing walls of the lower storey possess the massive character and pronounced batter of Tughluq monuments. The remains of the ground storey indicate that the east block consisted of a long corridor with individual cells along its interior. Each cell is entered through a simple trabeate opening over which an arched window was placed (Plate LV). The east section of the madrasa was originally two-storied but only a fragment of the upper storey survives. The ground storey served as a foundation for the upper level which is nearly obliterated except for a wall segment on the south end of the section (Plate LVI). The configuration of the upper storey is unknown but it is believed to have been a series of vaulted bays. On the basis of similar construction materials and the recognizable Tughluq features - the battered wall and rubble masonry - Ae structure belongs to Firuz Shah’s reign. Its proximity to the mosque suggests that it was built in the early part of the reign, before the time when the sections adjacent to Firuz Shah’s tomb were completed.

Madrasa - south block The south block of the madrasa (Plate LVII) also extends beyond the central block (82 feet) for another 133 feet, bringing the length of the entire block from the central tomb to 215 feet. This portion of the block (Plate LVHI) represents yet another 164 phase of building activity. The widened foundation (Figure 11), nearly twice (47 feet) that of the central core (26 feet), and its location at the extremity of the wing supports this hypothesis. The extension of the south block is dominated by a two-storied domed chamber similar to the domed chambers of the central core. The foundation of the entire extension is closer to the ba’oli, therefore breaking the alignment of the wing from the rest of the madrasa (Plate LIX). It is connected to the rest of the block but it is uncertain what the original intention of the builder was. The transition between this section and the remaining block is not smooth and the axis, manifested elsewhere in the continuous corridor of the madrasa, is interrupted here. The consists of a series of cells on two levels, symmetrically arranged on either side of the central chamber. The ground level plan (Plate LX), like that in the east block, is an arrangement of individual cells off a passageway. The remains of an arcade on the upper storey probably reflects an equivalent plan in the opposite east block. The purpose of the domed chamber is not known, but it is most likely part of the madrasa - perhaps functioning as a classroom - rather than a tomb. The chamber is approximately 20 feet square in plan. Its north facade (Plate LVni) is nearly identical to the domed chambers of the adjacent section of the madrasa. Both stories have openings with raised balconies suspended on corbelled brackets. The similarity between this facade and the other facades in the block suggests that they were intended to match but the difference in scale and its position closer to the ba’oli, refutes this belief. In addition, the ribs on the exterior of the dome differ from the smooth profiles of the other domes and also indicate that the extension belongs to different time of construction. 165

The south facade of the chamber (Plate LXI) has a raised surface which contains a named recessed arch. This arch is pierced by a doorway with a small arched opening above its lintel. Additional entrances, simplified versions of the center entrance, occur on either side of the facade.

Tomb of Firuz Shah The tomb of Firuz Shah (Plates LXn and LXm), located in a central position, dominates the site by its scale and height The tomb is 44 feet 6 inches square in plan (Figure 13) and its dome rises to over twice the elevation of the adjacent domed chambers of themadrasa. The tomb is oriented to the south and its four walls are pierced with openings. The north and west walls open into the respective wings of the madrasa but direct access is screened by a wall which breaks the axis, a measure which provides more privacy for the tomb chamber. The east wall provides entry directly from the grounds of the site but the south entrance, preceded by a veranda surrounded by a low wall and railing, is the primary entrance to the tomb. Of the four unmarked cenotaphs within, the central one is commonly identified as Firuz S h a h ’s.35 None of the cenotaphs is inscribed. The tomb is constructed of rubble masonry faced with plaster. The building materials of the tomb are modest compared to the materials of its prototypes, the tomb of Ghiyath al-Din Tughluq at Tughluqabad and Lai Gumbad (presumably Muhammad bin

Tughluq’s tomb) near Jahanpanah, which were faced with red, speckled sandstone.36 The tomb is elevated above ground level by means of a low plinth, making it level with themadrasa. The plinth extends on the cast side of the tomb (Plate LXTV) on the same level as the floor of the tomb, providing a platform whose function is unknown. 166

The south veranda (Plate LXII) extends from the tomb below the level of the plinth and is enclosed by a low wall faced with stone and surmounted by a low balustrade with a double row of horizontal rails. The veranda measures 39 feet by 28 feet.37 The south and east sides of the tomb are the only two with exposed facades. The facades are almost identical. The central portion of each is raised and heightened from the tomb walls and marked by a band of stone omament along its base. This band does not continue along the rest of the exterior wall. The walls possess the batter of Tughluq architecture although it is not as pronounced as that of the tomb of Ghiyath al-Din. The top of each facade is decorated with a stringcourse carved with a crenelated parapet; each crenelation contains a single rosette motif. The stringcourse rests on top of a narrow band of red and white stone.38

The east and south facades of the tomb contain entrances within recessed arches. The jambs of the entrances rest on square bases and support layered corbelled lintels which form an arched configuration similar to the one in the chamber of the south block extension (Plate LXI). The top lintel supports a smaller arched opening inset with a panel of stone lattice of star-shaped and circular voids (Plate LXV). The spandrels of the arch contain rosettes. The arch itself is ornamented with a double line naksh inscription incised in stucco, parts of which are lost.39 The east entrance is blocked at its base by a solid stone rail which is low enough to cross. The arch of the east entrance is devoid of inscription. The north and west facades (Plate LXVI) both contain a pair of blind recessed-arch niches high on the wall. These niches do not occur on the other two facades and they help relieve the undecorated surfaces of these facades. The tomb is crowned by a hemispherical dome which rests on a high octagonal drum. A variation of the crenelated stringcourse (a triple-lobed parapet) is located on the 167 top rim of the drum. Each lobe of the crenelation contains a floral motif or roundel inscribed with the Muslim creed (Plate LXVII). The interior of the tomb is a square chamber (28 feet 7 inches) capped by a domical ceiling (Figure 13 and Plates LXVIII and LXDC). The lower portions of the walls of the interior are unadorned and each contains a central opening. The south and east walls open onto the gardens. The north and west walls give access to the contiguous buildings of the madrasa. The recessed arch in the west wall (Plates LXX and LXXI), where themihrab is normally placed, contains a passage to the south block. The entrance is not direct; rather by turning left, one is able to pass through the niche. The absence of a mihrab, usually encountered in sultanate tombs, is inexplicable. That one must tread through themihrab could be construed as blasphemy. The transition between the four walls to the circular base of the dome is accomplished by a series of squinches and pendentives (Plates LXIX and LXX).40 Eight arched squinches transform the wall into an octagon which in turn expands to sixteen sides. The corbels exhibit a rudimentary muqarnas. Each arch contains a double layer decorative motif, the lower an and the upper a line of Quranic verse in naksh script. The spandrels of each arch contain medallions of verse and at the center of each arched recess is a roundel with a decorative motif. The medallions are repeated in the intrados of the dome (Plate LXXII). The dome bears a band of inscription within the circumference of its base and a concentric band of inscription near its apex. The intrados of the dome is subdivided by interlocking bands which form trapezoidal areas, each decorated with stuccoed medallions with incised epigraphs. The design of the intrados probably derives from a motif of interlocking silhouettes of domes, seen elsewhere in the 168 madrasa (Plate LXXni). The tomb is copiously inscribed. The content of its epigraphs are examined below.

Miscellaneous buildings at Hauz Khas Most of the remaining structures of the Hauz Khas complex are tombs of prominent men v/hose associations with the madrasa warranted commemoration. At the southwest comer of the site are two domed structures, one of which is identified as the tomb of Sayyid Yusuf bin Jamal Husaini, a principal (mutawali or sadr mudarris) of the madrasa (Plate LXXIV). The tomb is believed to have been constmcted around 780/1388, the year of his death and coincidently the same year of Firuz Shah’s death. It is a square plan domed chamber stylistically similar to the other buildings of the madrasa and is contained within an enclosure. Its construction at the end of the reign of Firuz Shah represents the last phase of Tughluq building on the site. A second domed structure (Plate LXXV) is unidentified but probably is a tomb or a residence.41 The old entrance into the compound, located on the west, is now closed. Entry into the enclosure today is through a gate situated on the east side. Little is known about the unidentified chhatri monuments which are located within the compound wall today. One chhatri structure, possessing three cupolas, is thought to have been a convocation hall (Plate LXXVI). The remaining five chhatris (Plate LXXVII) have been commonly identified as tombs and have been assigned to both

Tughluq and Lodi patronage.42 Their proximity to the graveyard at the northeast comer of the compound (Plate LXXVni) supports this identification. The Lodi sultans built

several mausolea in the area, some in close proximity to Hauz K has.43 Although the form of the chhatri was employed from the time of the Muizzi sultans, its form remained 169 virtually unchanged, making attributions on the basis of style impossible.^ None of the chhatri tombs at Hauz Khas bear historical inscriptions, only Quranic. During the decade following Firuz Shah’s death, subsequent Tughluq rulers were in power for only brief periods. Royal foundations subsequent to Firuz Shah seem to have been virtually non-existent except for minor graves. Firuz Shah’s son and grandson were interred at Hauz Khas, possibly in his mausoleum. None of the later Tughluq rulers is known to have built his own mausoleum. The sudden eclipse of imperial patronage no doubt brought hard times to the madrasa of Firuz Shah. It had depended on revenue from the imperial treasury as well as waqfs. The day-to-day functions of the madrasa were most likely curtailed and indeed its very survival may have been jeopardized. After the demise of the Tughluqs and the Timurid sack of Delhi at the end of the fourteenth century, the successive Sayyid and Lodi rulers moved their capitals away from the city and the area around Hauz Khas became a vast necropolis.45 Virtually nothing is known about the madrasa institution patronized by the Sayyid and Lodi mlers. Sikandar Lodi visited Hauz Khas and ordered repairs to its buildings during his reign, an event noted by an inscription dated 913/1507- OS located on the tomb of Firuz Shah (Plate LXV), but the repairs were probably confined to stmctural repairs and some additional embellishment. Although the rich epigraphy inside the mausoleum of Firuz Shah has been attributed to Sikandar Lodi’s patronage it seems unlikely that this sultan would have ordered this type of extensive refurbishment The epigraphy is generally accepted to coincide with the construction of themausoleum.46 Sikandar Lodi’s additions were therefore probably mostly cosmetic in nature: for example, the parapet on the mausoleum. Waiting Tughluq patronage and the 170 necessity of repairs to the buildings of the site indicate the distressed financial circumstances of the madrasa by 913/1507-08, a hundred years after Tughluq rule.

Inscriptions The tomb of Firuz Shah is an epigraphically rich monument. The embellishment of tomb and commemorative architecture with inscriptional messages was a long­ standing Muslim tradition. In fact, calligraphy was preferred as a basic form of decoration on most architectural monuments.47 The tomb of Firuz Shah is inscribed predominantly with verses from the Qur’an and with hadith. The only historical inscription, set in place by Sikandar Lodi in 913/1507-08, is located over the south doorway (Plate LXV). This fragmentary inscription, in naksh script incised in plaster, identifies this structure as the burial place of Firuz Shah:48

...Kings Sultan, Sikandar, son of the king of kings Sultan Bahlol Shah, may God perpetuate his reign and kingdom and exalt his glory, on the 20tii of the August month of Ramazan, the year 913...Kings Sultan Firoz Shah, may his dust be sanctified and paradise be his resting place... Sikandar ordered repairs to the monument in 913/1507-08. In addition to this inscription of Sikandar Lodi, the only other epigraphs on the exterior of the monument are contained in small circular medallions. These record the name of God {Allah). The interior of the tomb on the other hand contains numerous inscriptions, most from the Qur'an and a few consisting of hadith or Traditions of the Prophet. The inscriptions are confined to the upper portions of the walls and domed ceiling and are all in naksh script. The walls and cenotaphs are devoid of any epigraphic embellishment, which was probably the original intent of the builder. The eight arches which form the zone of transition to the dome are filled with Quranic verse cut into the plaster surface. 171

The arch over the south entrance contains verses from sura 3: 95-96 preceded by an invocation (basmallah):49

In the name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful Certainly the first house appointed for men is the one at [Mecca], blessed and a guidance for die nations In it are clear signs: [It is] the Place of Abraham; and whoever enters it is safe; and pilgrimage to the House is a duty which men owe to God - whoever can find a way to it.

The placement of these verses at the entrance is appropriate. The custom of visiting the shrines and tombs of holy men and past sovereigns was practiced by Firuz Shah himself, as ‘Afif notes, prior to undertaking any prolonged campaign.50 The sultan likewise considered such tombs and shrines important enough to order restoration to them.51 The Quranic reference to pilgrimage at the entrance of Firuz Shah’s mausoleum suggests that his tomb was meant to function as a pilgrimage site.52 Earlier tombs, for example, the heavily inscribed tomb of Dtutmish (ca. 1235 A. D.) and the tomb of Nasir al-Din Mahmud (the Sultan Ghari tomb, 1231 A.D.) are believed to have served as pilgrimage sites also. Both are inscribed with the identical sura as that in found in Firuz Shah’s tomb and in all three cases, delete the final line of the verse.53 The deliberate omission of the last line of this verse, a reference to non-believers, is an unusual phenomenon. Like the two earlier mausolea, the location of Firuz Shah’s tomb within the confines of a Muslim institution would attract few non-Muslim visitors, except in cases where they intended to desecrate the tomb. The inscription contained in the arch at the southeast comer is from sura 59:21 and is also preceded by the basmallah'M

In the name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful 172

Had we sent down this Qur’an on a mountain, thou wouldst certainly have seen it falling down, splitting asunder because of the fear of God, And We set forth these parables to men that they may reflect

The east and northeast arches continue sura 59: 22-24: He is God besides Whom there is no God: The Knower of the unseen and the seen; He is the Beneficent, the Merciful. He is God, besides Whom there is no God; the King, the Holy, the Author of Peace, the Granter of Security, Guardian over all, the Mighty, the Supreme, the Possessor of greatness. Glory be to God from that which they set up [with Him]! He is God; the Creator, the Maker, the Fashioner: His are the most beautiful names. Whatever is in the heavens and the earth declares His glory; and He is the Mighty, the Wise. These verses, which contain references to the Qur'an, its revelation, and the omnipotence of God, also appear in the tomb of Dtutmish and the Tughluq tomb of Zafar

Khan located in the fortified enclosure of Ghiyath-al Din’s to m b . 55

The north and northwest arches of Firuz Shah’s mausoleum contain the Throne verse, sura 2:255 preceded by a basmallah: In the name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful God - there is no god but He, the Ever-living, the Self-subsisting by Whom all subsist. Slumber overtakes Him not, nor sleep. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth. Who is he that can intercede with Him but by His permission? He knows what is before them and what is behind them. And they encompass nothing of His knowledge except what He pleases. His knowledge extends over the heavens and the earth, and the preservation of them both tires Him not. And He is the Most High, the Great. The Throne verse, which stresses MusUm monotheism, is probably used more often than any other in Muslim architectural epigraphy throughout the Islamic world. Besides its appearance on the tombs of Dtutmish and Nasir al-Din Mahmud, it is employed on other types of monuments such as the Qutb Minar. Its use in India has been 173 deemed especially appropriate in view of the political circumstances which resulted in

Muslim sultans supplanting Hindu ldngs.56 The Throne verse appears twice in the tomb of Firuz Shah, on these arches and again in the dome, the most prominent location in the mausoleum.

The west and southwest arches of the tomb contain sura 3: 25-26 preceded by an invocation:

In the name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful Say: O God, Owner of the Kingdom, Thou givest the kingdom to whom Thou pleasest, and takest away the kingdom from whom-Thou pleasest, and Thou exaltest whom Thou pleasest and abasest whom Thou pleasest. In Thine hand is the good. Surely, Thou art Possessor of power over all things. Thou makest the night to pass into the day and Thou makest the day to pass into the night; and Thou bringest forth the living from the dead and Thou bringest forth the dead from die living; and Thou givest sustenance to whom "Hiou pleasest without measure. These verses also appear in the tomb of Dtutmish and stress divine power, with particular reference to God’s power as the one who gives and takes away life on Judgment Day. Each of the arches is framed by spandrels which contain plaster medaUions inscribed with the : There is no god but God; Muhammad is the Prophet of God. The verses contained in the eight arches are considered appropriate ones for a mausoleum. The reference to the sanctuary of God and pilgrimage at the entrance, to the revelation of the Qur’an and the omnipotence of God in the east and northeast arches, to God’s omnipotence and monotheism on the north and northwest arches, and the continued focus on divine power and Judgment Day on the west and southwest arches complete the epigraphic message of the arches. 174

The dome of the tomb is also heavily inscribed in the interior (Plate LXXII). Each inscription is in naksh script and cut into the plaster surface. The drum of the dome is from the Qur’an, sura 59:22-23: In the name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful He is God the Most High He is God besides Whom there is no god: The Knower of the unseen and the seen; He is the Beneficent, the Merciful. He is God, besides Whom there is no god; the King, the Holy, the Author of Peace, the Granter of Security, Guardian over all, the Mighty, the Supreme, the Possessor of greatness. And He is the All-Hearing and the All-Seeing, the Best Master and the Best Helper Many of the asma’ al-husna, the ninety-nine attributes or names of God, have fallen away. These Quranic verses appear here for the second time. They also occupy positions on the east and northeast arches below and are a statement of divine power. These verses, along with the asma’ al-husna, collectively emphasize the very essence of god. They appear twice also on Etutmish’s tomb. At the center of the intrados of the dome in a concentric band of Quranic inscription is the repeated Throne Verse {sura 2: 255-257) in naksh script cut in the plaster:

God - there is no god but He, the Ever-living, the Self-subsisting by Whom aU subsist. Slumber overtakes Him not, nor sleep. To Him belongs whatever is in tiie heavens and whatever is in the earth. Who is he that can intercede with Him but by His permission? He knows what is before them and what is behind them. And they encompass nothing of His knowledge except what He pleases. His knowledge extends over the heavens and the earth, and the preservation of them both tires Him not. And He is the Most High, the Great. There is no compulsion in religion - the right way is indeed clearly distinct from error. So whoever disbelieves in the devil and believes in God, he 175

indeed lays hold on the firmest handle which shall never break. And God is Hearing, Knowing. God is the Friend of those who believe - He brings them out of darkness into light. And those who disbelieve, their friends are the devils who take them out of light into darkness. They are the companions of the Fire, therein they abide. The intrados of the dome is decorated with three concentric rows of eight plaster medallions, each inscribed with verses from the Qur’an and hadith. Several of them cannot be deciphered because of their deterioration. Some include "God" or the shahada. The larger tear-shaped medallions in the row above the base of the dome include the following hadith:

He who missed a prayer wilfully became an infidel. The world is a prison to the believer and paradise to the unbeliever. The world is a cursed [place] and...God is Ever-living. The prayer is the ascent [to heaven] to a believer. These hadith, which refer to mortal existence as a prison and stress the importance of prayer as a means of escape, are unique to this monuments? The theme of salvation is carried further in a fifth tear-shaped medallion which contains the verse from sura 6:1:

Praise be to God, Who created the heavens and the earth, and made darkness and light. Yet those who disbelieve set up equals to their Lord. A sixth medallion contains sura 1:1-7 followed by the shahada. It reiterates the theme of the Day of Judgment and the consequences to those who have fallen from the faith.

Praise be to God, the Lord of the worlds. The Beneficent, the Merciful, Master of the day of Requital. Thee do we serve and Thee do we beseech for help. Guide us on the right path. 176

The path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed favours, Not those upon whom wrath is brought down, nor those who go astray. There is no god but God; Muhammad is the Prophet of God. The seventh medallion, from sura 97: 1-5, deals with the Revelation. It is preceded by the invocation: In the name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful Surely We revealed it on the Night of Majesty - And what will make thee comprehend what the Night of Majesty is? The Night of Majesty is better than a thousand months The angels and the Spirit descend in it by the permission of their Lord - for every affair - Please! it is till the rising of the morning. The bottom row of medallions therefore sends a message to non-believers: the choice of acceptance or infidelity. The implied idea of conversion occupies an unusual position in the mausoleum. It is normally encountered near the entrance. The center row of medallions are also only partially decipherable. One is from sura 109:1-6: Say: O disbelievers, I serve not that which you serve. Nor do you serve Him Whom I serve. Nor shall I serve that which ye serve. Nor do you serve Him Whom I serve. For you is your recompense and for me my recompense. A second medallion contains verses from sura 108: 1-3 preceded by invocation. These verses also appear in the tomb of Htutmish. In the name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful. Surely We have given thee abundance of good. So pray to thy Lord and sacrifice. Surely thy enemy is cut off [from good].

A third is from sura 114:1-5 : Say: I seek refuge in the Lord of men. The King of men. 177

The God of men, From the evil of the whisperings of the slinking [devil], Who whispers into the hearts of men. The Quranic verse from sura 3: 25, contained in another medallion, appears elsewhere in the tomb, on the west arch; Say: O God, Owner of the Kingdom, Thou givest the kingdom to whom Thou pleasest, and takest away the kingdom from whom Thou pleasest, and Thou exaltest whom Thou pleasest and abasest whom Thou pleasest. In Thine hand is the good. Surely, Thou art Possessor of power over all things. The last readable inscription in the larger circular medallions is from Sura 3: 143: And Muhammad is but a messenger - messengers have already passed away before him. If then he dies or is killed, will you turn back upon your heels? Each of these large circular medallions contain floral or inscriptional designs in its center. The inscriptions include "God," or "O, God," or "There is no god but God; Muhammad is the Prophet of God." This row of medallions continues the warning to disbelievers found in the first row of medallions and the theme of divine power to give and take life and repeats the plea for salvation. The top row of medallions, near the apex of the dome, contain inscriptions from hadith which reiterate the supremacy of God and give the the names of the Prophets.58 There is no god but God, Abraham is the friend of God. There is no god but God, Jesus is the Spirit of God. There is no god but God, Moses is the Speaker to God. There is no god but God, Muhammad is the Prophet of God. And God has full control over His affair, but most people know not Kingdom is for God

And may God confer blessings on Muhammad, the best of His creation and all has family. By Thy mercy, O Most Merciful of the merciful. 178

The inscriptions contained in the twenty-four medallions on the dome, directly above the cenotaphs, may reflect the sultan’s wishes for salvation.59 The domical inscriptions present a slightly different message than the inscriptions of the arches. Those on the arches are concerned with divine power and do not contain admonitions to non-believers. The verses stressing monotheism and divine power which are repeated emphasize the puipose for which mankind is on earth, that is to serve God. The choices made by an individual in his lifetime determined the rewards and punishments of the afterlife. The downplaying of the warnings to non-believers by relegating them to less visible positions (in the medallions of the dome), is probably incongruent with the primary function of the monument. Since these warnings typically appear on the exterior entrances of tombs and in highly visible public monuments like the Qutb Minar, the omission of explicit references to non-believers inside the tomb was probably deliberate.

Some Quranic verses which one would expect to encounter in a tomb are absent in the epigraphy of Firuz Shah’s mausoleum. The strong condemnation of idolaters and the promise of the rewards of paradise (sura 48:1-6) for those who adhere to the Muslim faith which appear on themihrab of the tomb of Nasir al-Din Mahmud and the tomb of Zafar Khan are not included. In addition, descriptions of paradise (sura 56: 10-28) and the promise of paradise for the faithful (sura 18: 107-110) which occupy prominent positions in the tomb of Dtutmish are lacking in Firuz Shah’s tomb. The omission of sura al-mulk (sura 67) which sets forth the most emphatic warnings to infidels who refuse to accept God’s revelations is also strangely absent. The sura al-mulk appears on the tombs of Dtutmish and Nasir al-Din Mahmud. The large number of non-behevers in India made the sura al-mulk a popular epigraph on Indo-Muslim monuments.60 Whoever was 179 responsible for selecting the epigraphs for Firuz Shah’s tomb was certainly aware of these other tombs. The function of the mausoleum as a monument to the ruler’s achievements for Islam and as a prelude to paradise is not entirely realized in Firuz Shah’s mausoleum.6l However, the garden setting for the tomb at Hauz Khas is probably to be understood as an antecedent of the paradisal garden symbolism found in later Mughal tombs.62

Another unusual feature of the tomb of Firuz Shah is the absence of a mihrab in theqibla wall (Plates LXX and LXXI).63 Instead this important position is occupied by the opening into the attached madrasa. This is a unique phenomenon in the context of the other surviving tombs of the period. The walls of the tomb of Dtutmish (ca. 1235 A. D.), for example, are covered with a dense field of epigraphy surrounding three mihrabs on the qibla wall. The qibla of the tomb of Nasir al-Din Mahmud (1231 A. D.) is also emphasized by epigraphy around its mihrab. The elaborate marble portico surrounding the mihrab of this tomb is believed to have been added by Firuz Shah himself in the course of restoration. The Tughluq tombs of Ghiyath al-Din the Lai Gumbad, immediate predecessors of the tomb of Firuz Shah, also contain mihrabs on their qibla walls. The inscriptions of the tomb of Firuz Shah provide a rare glimpse at epigraphy of this period. Besides the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi, aUegedly inscribed in his imperial mosque, the tomb of Firuz Shah offers the only surviving corpus of religious epigraphy of his reign. The madrasa itself is devoid of historical or religious inscriptions except for those contained in scattered plaster medallions which contain the invocations: "O God;" "God is enough for me;" "Praise be to God;" "Kingdom is for God." 180

Thechhatris located on the grounds of the Hauz Khas complex, to the east of the tomb of Firuz Shah, are also inscribed. The first chhatri has inscriptions from the Qur’an

59:21-24, preceded by the basmallah, in naksh script cut in plaster on its drum :64

In the name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful Had We sent down this Qur’an on a mountain, thou wouldst certainly have seen it falling down, slipping asunder because of the fear of God. And We set forth these parables to men that they may reflect He is God, besides Whom there is no god: The Knower of the unseen and the seen; He is the Beneficent, the Merciful. He is God, besides Whom there is no god; the King, the Holy, the Author of Peace, the Granter of Security, Guardian over all, the Mighty, the Supreme, the Possessor of greatness. Glory be to God firom that which they set up [with Him]! He is God; the Creator, the Maker, the Fashioner: His are the most beautiful names. Whatever is in the heavens and the earth declares His glory; and He is the Mighty, the Wise. There is no god but God, the King, the Truth, the Manifest; Muhammad is God’s Prophet, the chief, the trutWul, the verifier, the trusty.

These verses also occur in the tomb of Firuz Shah. A second chhatri also contains fi’agmentary inscriptions from sura 59:22, preceded by the basmallah and followed by the asma’ al-husna, the ninety-nine attributes of God, most of which are missing. In the name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful He is God besides Whom there is no god: The Knower of the unseen and the seen; He is the Beneficent, the Merciful The King, the Holy., .the Guide, the Eternal May God confer blessings on Muhammad, the best of His creation, and all his family, and bestow Ifis peace (on them) in abundance. 181

The epigraphs of the thirdchhatri are nearly identical to the previous, including theasma' al-husna: In the name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful Kc is God besides Whom there is no God: The knower of the unseen and the seen; He is the Beneficent, the Merciful

The fourth chhatri is also inscribed with verses 21-24 firom sura 59. These epigraphs are identical to those of the first chhatri with the exception that the preceding basmallah and the names from the asma’ al-husna are deleted. Sura 59: 21-24 are popular here, appearing, in full or in part, on four chhatri monuments and also in the epigraphs of the tomb of Firuz Shah - on the drum of the dome and repeated on the southeast, east, and northeast arches. These particular verses emphasize the revelation of the Qur’an and stress the onmipotence of God. The expressed theme of monotheism in the verses of the sura 59 are particularly appropriate and commonly used in epigraphs of commemorative monuments.

The inscriptions on tiie fifth chhatri are from the Qur’an {sura 3:17):

God bears wimess that there is no god but He, and [so do] the angels and those possessed of knowledge, maintaining justice. There is no god but He, the Mighty, the Wise.

The sixthchhatri is inscribed with a fragmented epigraph which is thought to be identical to the epigraphs of the second chhatri described above. The inscriptions on all thechhatris express divine power and are consistent with the message of the epigraphs of Firuz Shah’s tomb. The replication of verses on the chhatris makes clear that they were duplicated in not only their forms but iconographie content 182

The tomb of Yusuf bin Jamal, located on the west side of the compound, is inscribed with his name only, an epigraph not contemporary with its construction.

Conclusion The madrasa of Firuz Shah at Hauz Khas is one of the most unusual surviving monuments of the Tughluq period. Although earlier madrasas existed in India, they have disappeared, and knowledge about their forms and functions has been largely lost. Religious learning frequently took place in the mosques but the madrasa was the crux of Muslim learning. The construction of madrasas required significant patronage and, in addition, the consolidation of a respected body of learned scholars and 'ulama' depended on the political and social status of the patron. Rulers like Htutmish, ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji, and Firuz Shah Tughluq were able to provide sustained patronage and they encouraged the establishment of waqfs to provide ongoing support of their institutions. Few madrasas enjoyed the level of patronage which Firuz Shah made available to his madrasa at Hauz Khas and few attained the esteemed reputation it earned. Although Firuz Shah’s patronage may have been excessive, it was in keeping with a long tradition of imperial perogative. Muslim learning was perpetuated thrpugh the institutions of mosque and madrasa, and the sultan’s patronage of these religious institutions is a reflection of his responsibility to the religious community, upon whose consent his authority rested, to assure the continuation of religious education and practice. In return for his charitable support, the learned body of scholars who passed through the halls of the madrasa and endured its disciplines collectively formed the very foundation of the sultan’s political authority. This legitimacy conferred by the *ulama' was surely one of 183 the key devices employed by Firuz Shah both to secure his position as sultan and to perpetuate the religious community which he led. Themadrasa of Firuz Shah at Hauz Khas is probably representative of madrasa forms of the early sultanate period. The institution of the madrasa eludes a standardized form, a problem endemic to its very nature. To complicate the problem more, the madrasa form represented at Hauz Khas was determined to a certain extent by the topography and upon the indigenous building forms and techniques the builder adopted. For example, the pavilion (chhatri) used for the convocation hall and tombs, or the open arcades of the madrasa, forms foreign to Muslim architecture, were preferred in the hot climate of India. The buildings of the madrasa were intended to provide comfortable housing for residents of the college as well as classrooms for teaching. The garden setting of the site is perhaps the earliest surviving example in India. Later, Mughal tombs were situated in vast gardens whose char bagh plans alluded to paradise.65 The association between the tomb and the garden, a metaphor of paradise, became prevalent in India but at Hauz Khas, it is unlikely that such allusions were intended. The garden simply provided a pleasant environment for the college. In fact, among the known Tughluq tombs, only Firuz Shah’s is known to have been located in a garden setting. The fortified enclosure containing the tomb of Ghiyath al-Din represents a striking contrast to the garden of the Hauz Khas tom b.66 Although the form of Ghiyath al-Din’s mausoleum is a prototype for Firuz Shah’s tomb, its protective enclosure defies the very idea which commemorative monuments and pilgrimage sites embody. Political circumstances had changed since Ghiyath al-Din’s time and the defensive walls which surround his tomb were not deemed necessary at Hauz Khas, but the form of the tomb itself remained virtually unchanged. The square-plan tomb crowned with a dome was 184 preferred for imperial mausolea during the early period of Delhi sultans. The form is continued through the end of the Tughluq period but is adopted for sub-imperial use. In later periods the octagonal-plan tomb is preferred for sultans’ mausolea.67 The epigraphs of Firuz Shah’s tomb are the only group of religious inscriptions known to date from his reign, in contrast to the historical narrative of the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi. Whereas the latter promoted the reputation of the sultan as a doer of good deeds and who acted in accordance with Muslim Law, the tomb epigraphs reflect a pious man whose concerns were focused on religion and salvation. The Futuhat is believed to have been written early in the reign when the sultan was concerned more about political authority. The tomb epigraphs, on the other hand, were likely selected toward the end of his reign when his attention was directed to otherworldly concerns. The appearance of the Futuhat on a public monument, regardless of whether it was a religious or secular building, served to publicly declare his achievements in a way that the population at large was called to witness his deeds. The sultan’s request for their remembrance of him in their prayers was a plea for their approval of his course of action. In this way Firuz Shah obtained the recognition which would legitimize his political position. Such public affirmations of faith manifested on public monuments became part of a ruler’s legacy. Firuz Shah followed the examples of his predecessors and, in turn, his example would serve as a paradigm for his successors. Through his public avowal expressed in his public monuments, Firuz Shah was able to affirm his legitimacy. In his tomb, he emphasized a religious message more strongly than he did in the Futuhat. The acts of persecution of heretics and non-Muslims referred to in the Futuhat reflected the sultan’s worldly attempts to uphold Islam. But by quoting line and verse of the Qur'an and certain hadith in his tomb, he transcended the mundane level of the 185

Futuhat and affirmed at least formally, his piety on a higher level. Inscribed in the final years of his reign, the epigraphs of his tomb emphasize the supremacy of God and salvation. His concentration on the afterlife is a sign of his submission (islam) to God and a reflection of his personal piety. The affirmation of these beliefs in the epigraphy of an architectural monument publicly demonstrated the extent of his piety. His concern for his personal salvation is indicated by repetitious references to the afterlife and the rewards of devotion. The emphasis on the supremacy of God was simply an affirmation of his acceptance of divine power and a plea for a place in paradise. In the Futuhat, he stated this concern more directly, by asking for prayers in his behalf. Such direct statements on his part would perhaps have been considered inappropriate for his tomb, which theoretically should have been an unmarked grave.68 The religious verses selected to be inscribed in the tomb were a more universal message than the specific personalized narrative of the Futuhat. Despite the divergent means of approach, these two bodies of epigraphy served similar purposes. They both were statements of the sultan’s piety and they both succeeded in establishing his legitimacy. The madrasa at Hauz Khas was perhaps Firuz Shah’s greatest achievement in religious architecture. His sustained patronage up until his death demonstrates his concern for proper religious education of the community. The demise of the madrasa after his reign seems to have occurred rapidly, for even Timur who camped on its embankment only a decade after the sultan’s death, makes no mention of the madrasa. The alienation of the 'ulama' during the reigns of Firuz Shah’s successors may have been due, in part, to their failure to maintain the level of patronage that Firuz Shah maintained. Activity at the site seems to have been only briefly revived under Lodi rule as attested to by the inscription of Sikandar Lodi on Firuz Shah’s mausoleum. The Lodis built many 186 tombs in the vicinity and it is likely that the entire area, whose earlier cities were abandoned by the Sayyid and Lodi rulers, functioned as nothing more than a cemetery for the aristocracy. 187

NOTES TO CHAPTER V 1 Firuz Shah rebuilt themadrasa of Htutmish which had been destroyed and ordered repairs to the madrasa of ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji. Firuz Shah,Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 383-384.

2 Barani, Ta’rikh (Bibliotheca Indica), p. 477. In 752/1351, on the occasion of Muhammad bin Tughluq’s death, Firuz Shah returned to Delhi to find Muhammad’s vizier in refuge at Hauz-i Alai following his unsuccessful attempt at placing Muhammad’s son on the throne. The vizier acquiesced his claim but met with an untimely death soon after. ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 278-280, and Barani, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 266-267. 3 Firuz Shah established his capital in Delhi, perhaps as a result of pressure by the nobility and ‘ulama’. Muhammad bin Tughluq had forced members of these groups to relocate to his southern capital of Daulatabad in the Deccan, a move which caused great discontent among them. But Muhammad bin Tughluq lost Daulatabad from his territories when he later returned his capital to Delhi. His abandonment of the city resulted in the rise of local potentates and its eventual absorption into the domains of the Bahmani sultans. Firuz Shah desired but never moved to regain his predecessor’s territories in the Deccan. 4 ‘Afif relates that Firuz Shah occupied the Kuskh-i Humayun when he lived in Jahanpanah and abandoned residence there when the palace at Firuzabad was completed. See ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 316 and p. 343. 5 The designation Delhi or Old Delhi referred to Qila Rai Pithora and sometimes included Siri. Tughluq foundations were Tughluqabad and ‘Adilabad (built by Ghiyath al-Din), and Jahanpanah (built by Muhammad bin Tughluq). 6 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 303. 7 Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Athar al-Sanadid, translated by M. Garcin de Tassy, "Description des monuments de Delhi en 1852," Journal asiatique, 5th ser. (October- November 1860), p. 397; R. Nath, Monuments of Delhi, p. 30. 8 Carr Stephen,Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 83. Stephen remarks that theba’oli was approximately 70 acres in area. 9 Firuz Shah,Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), p. 383; Also see Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Athar in Journal asiatique (October-November 1860), p. 397. The tank was known as the Hauz-i Alai (Tank of ‘Ala’ al-Din) after ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji who had it dug. It was also known as the Hauz Khas (imperial pool/tank/lake) even before Firuz Shah reactivated its use. Ibn Battuta refers to it as the "private tank." 10 Firuz Shah also opened the blocked channels which fed the Hauz-i Shamsi. Firuz Shah,Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), p. 383. 188

Ibn Battuta visited India in 734/1333 - 743/1342 and recorded his experiences in a rihla or travel book. He served as a qadi in Muhammad bin Tughluq’s court in Delhi. Ibn Battuta, The Travels of Ibn Battuta, H.A.R. Gibb (tr. and ed.) vol. 3 (1971), pp. 624-625 and footnote 27. 12 Barani, Ta’rikh (Bibliotheca Indica), pp. 562-565. Translation cited from "A Medieval Indian Madrasah," Studies in Medieval Indian History, edited by Khaliq Ahmad Nizami, Aligarh Muslim University, pp. 75 and 78-79. Barani also makes reference to a second madrasa built by Firaz Shah at Siri, whose head was Sayyid Najm al-Din Samaqandi. Firuz Shah is ^ o credited with founding a third madrasa, die Madrasa-i Shahzada Firuz Khan. 13 Translation of the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi is cited from Nizami, "A Medieval Indian Madrasah,", p. 73 and footnote 6. 14 Sihrindi, Ta’rikh-i Mubarak Shah (Elliot & Dowson), p. 7. 15 Timur, Malfuzat-i Timuri (Elliot and Dowson), p. 441. 16 Yazdi, Zafarnama (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 500-501.

17 Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Athar in Journal asiatique (October-November 1860), pp. 415-416. Marshall was the first author to refute Sayyid Ahmad Khan’s attribution of the tomb to Muhammad Shah. See Sir John Marshall, "The Monuments of Muslim India," Cambridge History of India, v. 3 (1928), edited by Sir Wolseley Haig, p. 591. The attribution to Firuz Shah is accepted by Husain, A Record of All the Quranic and Non-historical Epigraphs on The Protected Monuments in the Delhi Province, Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India, No. 47 (1936), p. 74; Nath, History of Sultanate Architecture, p. 41; Burton-Page, "Dihli," Encyclopedia of Islam, p. 258; and A. Welch and H. Crane, "The Tughluqs," Muqarnas 1 (1983), p. 146. 18 Barani, Ta’rikh (Bibliotheca Indica), pp. 561-564. 19 Ibid., p. 564. 20 Barani, Ta’rikh (Bibliotheca Indica), pp. 564-565. See also Baneijee, History of Firuz Shah Tughluq, p. 183 and fn 28. 21 Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Athar in Journal asiatique (October-November 1860), p. 398; Husain, A Record of All the Quranic andNon-Historical Epigraphs, p. 77. 22 Barani, Ta’rikh (Bibliotheca Indica), p. 565. Barani also makes reference to a second madrasa built by Firuz Shah at Siri which possessed a similar ambiance. 23 Mutahhar,Diwan-i Mutahhar, Translation cited from Nizami, "A Medieval Indian Madrasah," p. 74. 189

^ Nath,History of Sultanate Architecture, p. 62. Na± suggests that the source of the form of the convocation hall at Hauz Khas is the Jaina mandapa or pillared hall. 25 Mutahhar, Diwan-i Mutahhar, cited in Nizami, "A Medieval Indian Madrasah," p. 75. 26 Ibid., p. 78. Mutahhar writes:

Pheasants, partridges, herons, fish, roasted fowl and bulky kids, fried loaves, sweets of different kinds, and other things, were heaped everywhere in large quantities. Pomegranate syrup, prepared with the mixture of sorrel, was served as a drink. Betel nuts were brought in gold and silver dishes after the meal. 27 Firuz Shah’s madrasa is published by Sayyid Ahmad Khan, Athar al-Sanadid, ia Journal asiatique (October-November 1860), pp. 397-398; Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains (1876), p. 83; Archaeological Survey of India, Lists of Monuments m Mahrauli Zail (1922), pp. 179-180, no. 309; Marshall, "Monuments of Muslim India," Cambridge History of India m (1928), p. 591, Plate X, Figure 19; Husain, A Record of All the Quranic and Non-Historical Epigraphs, Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey No. 47 (1936), pp. 76-77, No. LXXVII; and Brown, Indian Architecture: Islamic Period (1942), p. 24. More recent references are included in Burton-Page, "Dihli," Encyclopedia of Islam n (1966), p. 258; K. A. Nizami, "A Medieval Indian Madrasah," Studies in Medieval Indian History and Culture (1966); Majumdar (Ed.), Delhi Sultanate (1967), p. 680; Baneijee, History of Firuz Shah Tughluq (1967), pp. 191-192; Sharma, Delhi and Its Neighborhood (1974), pp. 80-81; Natii, Sultanate Architecture (1978), p. 62; Nath, Monuments of Delhi (1979), p. 62; Grover, Architecture of India: Islamic (1981), pp. 44- 45; and Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," Muqarnas I (1983), p. 140. 28 The tomb of Firuz Shah is published by Sayyid Ahmad Khan, Athar al- Sanadid in Journal asiatique (October-November 1860), pp. 415-416; Archaeological Survey of India, Reports Vol. IV, p. 65; XX, pp. 151-152; Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal XXXIX, p. 81; Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains (1876), pp. 157-158; Fanshawe, Delhi: Past and Present (1902) p. 252; Heam, Seven Cities of DelM (1906), p. 199; Other early references are given in A.S.I. Lists o f Monuments III Mahrauli Zail (1922), pp. 178-179, no. 308; Marshall, "Monuments of Muslim India," Cambridge History of India III (1928), p. 591, 634; Husain, A Record of All the Quranic and Non-Historical Epigraphs (1936), pp. 74-76, No. LXXVI; and Brown, Indian Architecture: Islamic Period, pp. 24-25. More recent references include Burton-Page, "Dihli," Encyclopedia of Islam II (1966), p. 258; Majumdar (Ed.), The Delhi Sultanate (1967), pp. 680-681; Yamamoto, Ara, and Tsukinowa, Delhi: Architectural Remains, Vol. II (1968); Burton-Page, "Hind," El m (1971), p. 442; Sharma, Delhi and Its Neighborhood (1974), p. 80; Nath, Sultanate Architecture (1978), pp. 61-62; Nath, Monuments of Delia (1979), p. 41; 190

Grover, Architecture of India: Islamic (1981), p. 44; and Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," Muqarnas I (1983), p.l46.

29 The Hauz Khas mosque is published in Archaeological Survey Lists of Monuments HI Mahrauli Zail (1922) p. 180, no. 310; A.SJ. Reports XX, p. 151; Sharma,Delhi and Its Neighborhood, p. 81; Welch and Q-ane, "The Tughluqs," p. 140. The Hauz Khas chhatris have been published by Husain,A Record of All the Quranic and Non-Historical Epigraphs, pp. 77-78, Nos. LXXXIX-LXXXIV; Nath, Sultanate Architecture, p. 62. 30 Archaeological Survey of India, List of Muhammadan and Hindu Monuments: Delhi Province (1922) v. 3 Maluauli Zail, pp. 178-180. The authors (p. 180) remark on the unusual features of the qibla wall of the Hauz Khas mosque. 31 Ibid., p. 180.

32 Muhammad bin Tughluq also experimented with architectural form but his innovations fell within the canons of Muslim architecture as established elsewhere in the . For example, in the jami masjid at Jahanpanah he adopts a four-won plan. See A. Welch and H. Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 159. 33 Other mosques in the area, for example, the Quwwat al-Islam mosque and the Jahanpanah mosque, reused pillars from dismantled Hindu temples. There is no evidence that this occurred at Hauz Khas. 34 The tomb of Path Khan at thedargah of Qadam Sharif is believed to have already been built by Firuz Shah for his own use, but upon the unexpected death of his son. Path Khan, in 776/1374, he interred the latter's remains in it. It is conceivable that Firuz Shah plarmed his tomb at Hauz Khas earlier in his reign. 35 Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Athar in Journal asiatique (October-November 1860), pp. 415-416. Sayyid Ahmad Khan identifies the central to be the grave of Firuz Shah. Two others have been assigned to Nasir al-Din Muhammad Shah and ‘Ala’ al-Din Sikandar Shah, the son and grandson of Firuz Shah, but Sayyid Ahmad Khan identifies their graves elsewhere in the compound without giving their specific locations. The fourth cenotaph of rubble construction is unidentifiâ. 36 Husain, Tughluq Dynasty, pp. 500-502; Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 143 and p. 162, fn 69. 37 The railing has affinities with railings of Buddhist monuments of Sanchi. This poses the possibility that native craftsmen who were familiar with the Sanchi monuments, were imported from the area around Sanchi, perhaps Daulatabad. See Nath, History of Sultanate Architecture, p. 61, and A. Welch and H. Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 146. 191

The parapets are believed to have been added in the course of repairs to the monument ordered by Sikandar Shah Lodi in 913/1507-08. See Archaeological Survey of India, Lists of Monuments, v. 3, p. 178, and Marshall, Cambridge History of India, v. 3, p. 591.

39 Archaeological Survey of India, Lists of Muhammadan and Hindu Monuments: Delhi Province, v. 3 Mahrauli Zail, p. 178. 40 Ibid., p. 178.

41 Sharma,Delhi and Its Neighborhood, p. 81. 42 Husain, A Record of All the Quranic and Non-Historical Epigraphs, pp. 77- 78; Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 158. Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Athar in Journal asiatique (October-November I860), p. 416. Sayyid Ahmad Khan identifies one chhatri as belonging to Shihab al-Din Taj IGian and Sultan Abu Sa‘id. He also states that the tombs of Nasir al-Din Muhammad Shah and ‘Ala’ al-Din Sikandar Shah were located in the compound. Nath reproduces one inscription in Monuments of Delhi, inscription no. 24.

43 Mausolea in the Delhi area built under Lodi patronage include the and in the Lodi Garden, the Chhote-Khan-Ka Gumbad in Kotla Mubarakpur, and Dadi’s Gumbad and Khan-i Alam-Ka Gumbad near Hauz Khas. See Nath,History of Sultanate Architecture, pp. 76-83, for a discussion of these monuments. 44 Early examples of chhatri tombs include those of Rukn al-Din Firoz Shah and Mu’iz al-Din Bahram Shah, located next to the Tomb of Nasir al-Din Mahmud (Sultan Ghari) and the tomb of Firuz Shah-period tomb of Makdum Shah ‘Alam (ca. 1375) in the coiurtyard of the mosque in Wazirabad (north of Firuzabad). 45 Burton-Page, "Dihli," Encyclopedia of Islam, v. 2 (1966), p. 258. 46 Marshall attributes the color plaster decoration to Sikandar Lodi. Carr Stephen and Percy Brown accept the attribution. Husain does not accept the epigraphy to have been added by Sikandar Lodi. Welch and Oane refute MarshaU’s attribution and also assign the epigraphy to Firuz Shah. Marshall, Cambridge History of India, p. 591; Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 158; Brown, Indian Architecture: Islamic Period, p. 22; Husain, A Record of All the Quranic and Non-Historical Epigraphs, p. 74; A. Welch and H. Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 159. 47 Epigraphy on Islamic monuments is discussed by a number of authors. See A. Welch Calligraphy in the Arts of the Muslim World, 1979; W. E. Begley Monumental from India, 1985; Erica Ouikshank Dodd and Shereen Khairallah, The Image of the Word, 1981; Richard Ettinghausen, "Arabic Epigraphy: (Communication or Symbolic Affirmation," Near Eastern Numismatics, Iconography, Epigraphy and History: Studies in Honor of George C. Miles, edited by Dickran K. Kouymjian, 1974; and A. Welch, "Epigraphs as Icons: The role of the Written Word in Islamic Art," The Image and the Word (1977), pp. 63-74. 192

The Lodi period inscription on the mausoleum is published in Archaeological Survey of India, Lists of Muhammadan and Hindu Monuments, v.3, p. 178; Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 158; Husain, A Record of All Quranic and Non-historical Epigraphs, p. 74; and Zafar Hasan "Inscriptions of Sikandar Shah Lodi in Delhi, Vni Mausoleum of Firuz Shah 913 H." Epigraphica Indo-Moslemica 1919-20 (1924) 49 All quotations from the Qur’an, with slight modifications, are taken from The Holy Qur’an, translated and commented on by Maulana Muhammad Ali (sixth edition) Chicago (through special arrangement with Ahmadiyyah Anjuman Isha’at Islam, Lahore, ). Husain uses an earHer edition of Ali’s translation in his A Record of All the Quranic and Non-historical Epigraphs on the Protected Monuments in the Delhi Province. Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India No. 47 Calcutta, 1936. Husain’s record and sequence of inscriptions of the Tomb of Firuz Shah, pp. 74-76, are followed here for the most part. 50 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 321. 51 Firuz Shah,Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 383-384.

52 The reference to Bakkah in these verses is equivalent to makkah, a word which connotes a "crowding together of men" and may also refer to Mecca, the site of Muslim pilgrimage and believed to be the first house of worship. See Ali, The Holy Qur’an, p. 467, foomote 157.

53 A. Welch, "Qur’an and Tomb," p. 261. Welch remarks that a similar omission occurs on the qibla screen of the Quwwat al-Islam mosque. He concludes that its use on the wall of the direction of prayer is inappropriate. Its use in these tombs is equally inappropriate.

The omitted line is "And whoever believes surely Allah is above need of the worlds." Pickthall renders a different emphasis: "As for him who disbelieveth (let him know that) lo! Allah is Independent to non-Muslims." See Marmaduke Pickthall The Glorious Koran, p. 77 (verse 97).

54 The sequence of verses followed here replicates Husain’s study. No specific sequence of verse or path of worship is intended.

55 Husain, A Record of All the Quranic and Non-historical Epigraphs, pp. 72-74; A. Welch and H. Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 158 and foomotes 68 and 104.

56 A. Welch, "Qur’an and Tomb," p. 259.

57 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 159. The authors remark that these four hadith do not appear anywhere in .

58 Ibid., p. 159. The authors add the name of the prophet Yusuf which is not included by Husain. 193

59 Ibid., p. 159.

60 Welch, "Quran and Tomb," p. 265. 61 /Wd.,p.265. 62 Wayne E. Begley, "The Myth of the and a New Theory of Its Symbolic Meaning," Art Bulletin 61 (March 1979), pp. 7-37; Glenn D. Lowry, "Humayun’s Tomb: Form, Function, and Meaning in E^ly , " Muqarnas 4 (1987), pp. 133-148. 63 Brown, Indian Architecture: Islamic Period, p. 22. Brown indicates the presence of an arched mihrab sunk into the west wall. "lire central location on the west wall however is occupied by a door.

64 The sequence and numbering of the chhatris follows the order given by Husain, A Record of All the Quranic andNon-Historical Epigraphs, pp. 77-78. 65 See James Dickie (Yaqub Zaki), "The Mughal Garden: Gateway to Paradise," Muqarnas 3 (1985), pp. 128-137. Also see fn 59 above. 66 Other mausolea at Multan are also barricaded with high defensive walls. See Ahmad Nabi KhanMultan: History and Architecture. Islamabad 1403/1983.

67 Examples of octagonal royal tombs in the Delhi area include the tomb of Muhammad Sayyid located in the Lodi Garden, the tomb of Mubarak Sayyid located in Mubarakpur, and the tomb of Sikandar Lodi also in the Lodi Garden. 68 The marking of the grave was proscribed by Islamic doctrine. See Grabar, "The Earliest Commemorative Structures, Notes and Documents," Ars Orientalis VI (1966), p. 8. CHAPTER VI THE PALACE AND LAT-KI MOSQUE OF HISSAR

Literary Sources

Firuz Shah is reported by Firishta to have founded as many as two hundred towns during his reign. This number is undoubtedly exaggerated, but it reflects the sultan’s reputation as a prolific builder. However the names of very few towns founded by him are known and the remains of even fewer survive. Of all of Firuz Shah’s urban establishments, Hisar Firoza, or Hissar, alone survives virtually unaltered from its fourteenth century appearance, in spite of modem urban growth. Firuz Shah founded the town of Hissar in the early part of his reign. In the Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi ‘Afif reports, on the basis of his father’s testimony, that the sultan was moved to help the people of the region while on a hunting expedition in the area. The fortress he built is located in Haryana along the road linking Delhi with the western regions of the Islamic world - Khurasan and the Hijaz - but still within the reaches of the subcontinent. Hissar is situated 130 kilometers to the northwest of Delhi, near the town of Hansi, an important religious center in Firuz Shah’s day, and the sultan’s earlier foundation of Fathabad, established on the occasion of the birth of his son, Fath Khan. Among all of the fortresses which Firuz Shah built on the frontiers of his empire, Hissar is the only one which survives in much its original state. In contrast, his fortress in nearby Fathabad has vanished except for a lone remnant of a lat which he is believed to have erected at the site. His other major establishment at Jaunpur, far to the east of Delhi

194 195 in the Awadh, was completely transformed by the Shaiqi sultans to the degree that virtually every trace of Firuz Shah’s buildings has disappeared. Still other towns which attribute their origins to him have vanished or remain to be identified. Hissar replaced the nearby town of Hansi as the major center of the region and Hansi’s political importance quickly declined as a consequence of the its growth. Hissar was designated by Firuz Shah as the new headquarters of the district (shikk), a position previously occupied by Hansi, and as a result of its economic prosperity, Firuz Shah reorganized the administrative structure of the region. 1 Hissar became a stronghold for the defense of Tughluq territories although this resulted more from its mere presence than any test of its military strength. It retained its strategic position through subsequent Muslim reigns, being jostled between Sayyid and Lodi possession until it was captured by ’s army under the command of Humayun in 933/1526. Babur assigned it to the Mughal prince.2 Under Akbar it formed a separate administrative unit, a sarkar. Under Humayun, Sher Shah, and Akbar, it was a mint town for bronze coinage. However its economic success resulted from its agricultural productivity, made possible by two canals excavated by Firuz Shah in the mid-fourteenth century.

The town bears the name of its founder. It was known as Hisar-i Firuza (fortress of Firuz), or Hisar Firuzabad, anglicized to Hissar. Its construction commenced in the second year (757/1356) following Firuz Shah’s return from his first campaign to Bengal, which had occurred in 755/1354. Sihrindi assigns the founding of Hissar to 756/1355.3 ‘Afif describes the foundation of Hissar in the fifth chapter of the Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi to have taken place before the building of Firuzabad which he describes in the eighth chapter. Although his chronology is not unshakable, the building was certainly well 196 underway before the sultan’s second expedition to Bengal in 760/1359. In fact, Firuz Shah is reported to have been at Hissar when he received the emissary Zafar Khan from the deposed Bengal ruler Fakhr al-Din.4 Zafar Khan is said to have been "amazed at the splendour of the court, because he had never seen the like at Lakhnauti." ‘Afif reports that the building of Hissar took two and a half years to complete. On the other hand, Barani, whose death occurred in the year following its foundation, makes no mention of Hissar in his Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shah. The question of Barani’s whereabouts in the last few years of his life may explain his omission, however despite his fall from the sultan’s favor, he would surely have known of the Hissar undertaking and could have provided an account of it. But, his description of Firuz Shah’s canals, lacking specific identification, may possibly be those in Hissar. ‘Afif’s recollection of the founding, written after the sultan’s death, is based on his father’s testimony, but his account provides the only contemporary description of Hissar. He writes in the Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi'.S

After returning victorious from Bengal, Sultan Firoz passed several successive years riding about Delhi. The author was told by his father that, in the second year after the Bengal campaign, the Sultan was in the neighborhood of Hisar Firozah, and exerted himself actively and liberally in endeavouring to provide for the needs of the country. It was at this time that Hisar Firozah was founded...In the place now occupied by the city two large and populous villages formerly stood, which were called Great Laras and Little Laras. There were fifty kharaks included in Great Laras, and forty in Little Laras. In this country there is no other village than the kharak. The neighborhood of Great Laras greatly pleased Sultan Firoz, and he thought it would be well to build a city there, for it was very deficient in water, and during the hot season travellers who came from Irak and Khurasan had to pay as much as four jitals for a pitcher full. So the Sultan resolved to build a city, being filled with hope tiiat if he built a town for the benefit of Musulmans, God would provide it with water. He therefore began the work, and persevered in it for several years, assisted by his nobles and great men. Hard stone was brought fi-om the hills of Narsai, and was used with strong quicklime and burnt bricks. A fort of great extent and height was commenced. Various officers were appointed 197

to superintend different portions of the work, and busied themselves in their respective duties, so that in course of time the fort was completed. The Sultan gave to the place the name of Hisar Firozah. When the fort was finished, a ditch was dug round it, and the earth, which was taken from its bed was spread on each side of the ditch, and along the banks of the ditch battlements were built Inside the fort a large and deep tank was formed, the water of which ran into the ditch and replenished it from year to year.

Although the area was inhabited before Firuz Shah built his fortress, it had suffered from drought. A severe famine in 736/1335 in neighboring Agroha is reported to have depopulated the town. Hissar was also plagued by similar droughts and agricultural production was impossible. The villages on which Firuz Shah built his fortress, ‘Afif reports, contained kharak or cattle pens, a circumstance which remained even after Hissar rose to prominence. However, when Firuz Shah’s irrigation projects were completed, the region underwent significant transformation. Its development into a major center of agricultural production was the direct result of the new means of irrigation made possible by the excavation of two canals, the Ulugh-khani and Rajab-wah from the Jumna and Sutlej rivers. This undertaking was one of Firuz Shah’s major achievements and upon completion, it changed the topography and course of history of the region.6

The Sultan, perceiving that there was a great scarcity of water, resolved in his munificence to bring a supply thither. He accordingly conducted two streams \juî\ into the city from two rivers; one from the river Jumna, the other from tire Sutlej. TTiat from the Jumna was called Rajiwah, and [the other] Alaghkhani. Both these streams were conducted through the vicinity of Kamal, and, after a length of about eighty kos, discharge their waters by one channel into the town. The author’s father was then in the service of the Court, and held the office of Shabnavis. He informed the author that Sultan Firoz was occupied two years and a half in building ±e town. When it was built he laid out many gardens and planted many trees, including all sorts of fruit trees...Previous to this time there had b ^n an autumn harvest, but the spring harvest failed, because wheat would not 198

grow without water. After the canals had been dug, both harvests came to maturity. The spring harvest (rabi") was made possible as a result of the new means of irrigation and along with the autumn harvest (kharif), crop productivity of the region was dramatically increased. Besides the two canals, ‘Afif states that additional water-courses, spanning distances of eighty to ninety kos, supplied an abundance of water to every village of the district.? The impetus to the economic prosperity of the region was a direct result of the canals and Firuz Shah subsequently exacted a ten percent tax (sharb) from the profits realized.

Like unto former kings, he brought many waste lands into cultivation, and subject to the payment of rent; but the proceeds of such lands were devoted to the learned and religious, among whom they were apportioned, and the public treasury was by this means relieved.

Court officers were appointed to oversee the division of revenue into the state treasury and the sultan’s private income. Other officers were appointed to examine the extent of inundation during the rainy season and to report their findings to the sultan.8 The diversion of some of the earnings to support religious and educational endeavors appears to have relieved the burden of the state in fulfilling these obligations. Through this means, Firuz Shah was able to provide for the material needs of the people as well as indirectly provide for their spiritual needs. In the Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi, Barani also writes about the benefits derived from the canals. Although he does not identify the specific region he talks about, his description corresponds closely with the sultan’s projects in Hissar. One modem author, Ahmad, identifies the territory in Barani’s passages as eastern Punjab, in the state of

Haryana.9 His opinion is corroborated by Siddiqui.lO The correlation between 199 descriptions of the Hissar canals and the unidentified canals mentioned by Barani are so close that they must be one and the same. Barani’s Ta’rikh focuses on the benefits derived from irrigation rather than engineering details:! 1

The advantage of digging canals is a wonderful advantage, for a thousand benefits accrue to the people from them and in the coming days further benefits would accrue to them. In the auspicious reign of Firoz Shah, canals resembling [in dimension] the Ganges and the Jamuna, beyond imagination, were dug out for distances of fifty to sixty Icrohs. In those desolate and deserted areas where neither wells nor tanks existed these [canals] began to flow and the need for boats came to be felt. Due to the abundance of water people began to travel by boats and gave up the land-route. If people heard of a little rainfall in this desert they moved into the area with their water-wheels and cattle...After this, [that is, the construction of canals] the people of the area will set up and live in villages and their houses will be full, and they and their children will be reUeved of the scarcity of water...In the coming days some thousands of villages will come up on the banks of these canals. ...crops and fruits of various types would grow in that area...how plentiful and cheap they would be since already the area is under cultivation and gardens have been laid out where several fruits grow. ...the people of this area have only heard of sugar-cane, wheat, gram, various fntits and flowers, but never seen them. Sugar candy, wheat and gram are brought here by traders from Delhi and its neighboring areas and sold as precious commc^ties. People of the area do not purchase sugar candy and do not eat bread made of wheat except on occasions of feasts or weddings. From now onwards as a result of the abundance of water, they will cultivate sugar-cane, wheat, gram and other superior crops. Sugar candy, vegetables, wheat, gram, and sugar-cane, which were previously imported in that area from the capital, Delhi, will be exported to other areas from here. In the area where only thorns of different types grew for farsangs, gardens would develop and different flowers and fruits would grow in them.

Various crops grow in that area and so abundantly that people carry those commodities to the capital, Delhi, for sale. The supply provided by the canals was sufficient enough, Barani reports, that even an army would not want for water. Firuz Shah’s canals, in particular the Ulugh- 200 khani and Rajab-wah, are also pointed to by the author of the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi and by

Sihrindi in the Ta’rikh-i Mubarak Shahi as one of his finest achievements.^^ The economic prosperity which resulted from Firuz Shah’s irrigation projects attested to by Barani is corroborated by ‘Afif. Hissar’s rise to prominence was also due to its geographic position, being situated along the routes connecting the west to Delhi. Besides providing strategic military defense for the empire’s boundaries, it served as a stopover (serai) for travelers. ‘Afif discloses that one of the primary reasons why Firuz Shah founded the town was to benefit Muslims, in particular pilgrims and traders. Hissar therefore provided a vital link between the Islamic homelands and the subcontinent. Firuz Shah’s attempts to develop Hissar into a religious center were less successful. He desired to attract the Chisti Shaikh Nur al-Din from nearby Hansi, but his efforts were thwarted by the shaikh’s refusal to m ove. 13 On one occasion, under the threat of Chaghatai capture, the people of Hissar are reported to have taken refuge in Hansi, which enjoyed protection because of the presence of the shaikh. Nonetheless, Firuz Shah was not able to attract a religious man of Nur al-Din’s calibre to Hissar. As a result, Hissar never enjoyed the religious climate which prevailed in Hansi. Firuz Shah’s concern for the religious purity of the region is attested to in the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi where he wrote that he destroyed the Hindu temple and expunged Hindu leaders from the village of Kohana, located in sarkar Hisar Firuza. 14 201

Description of the buildings

Unlike the monuments of Firuzabad, which have attracted considerable attention, the monuments of Hissar are only briefly mentioned by modem scholars.15 Several of Firuz Shah’s buildings still stand within the ruined walls of the citadel. The best- preserved is a small mosque, referred to as the Lat-ki Masjid, and an immense palace.

Palace The palace of Hissar was complex. The surviving remains of this partially subterranean palace still stand in a relatively good state of repair. Today, entry into the palace is limited due to the uncertainty about its structural stability. The palace has not been surveyed and its plan is uncertain. ‘Afif, however, remarks about the palace’s labyrinth plan and legendary reputation.l6

Inside the fort a palace was built, which had no equal in the world, and the various apartments of which were contrived with infinite pains. One of the arrangements of this palace was that any person, having a general acquaintance with the place, after passing through several apartments, would arrive at the centre. This central apartment under the palace was very dark, and the passages were narrow, so that if the attend^ts did not guide the visitor he would never be able to find his way out. Indeed, it is said that a servant once went into that place, and after he had been missing for some days, the guards went there in search of him and rescued him from the darkness.

The underground apartments of the sultan’s palace lie to the north of the mosque (Plates LXXIX and LXXX). The entrances into the palace are distributed at several points along its exterior. One such entrance (Plate LXXXI), located on the northeast side of the complex is a three-arch arcade which serves as a foyer or entry-way for the inner apartments. These interior apartments consist of a series of groin-vaulted bays. 202 constructed of rubble masonry and covered with plaster (Plates LXXXn and LXXXIII), materials typically associated with Firuz Shah’s buildings. The vaults of the ceiling spring from square stone piers at a point about five feet off the floor. The effect of these concave vaults is one of a vast cavernous hall. The piers or columns used to support the ceiling of the palace are carved with non-figural motifs. In all probability, they were confiscated from pre-existing structures and reused in the palace. One such column is embeded in the threshold leading into a passageway (Plate LXXXIV). Its fixed position - not random disrepair - indicates that the stone pier was intentionally built into the structure. It therefore was taken ftom another edifice, possibly a Hindu or Buddhist monument. Additional chambers of the palace are two-storied (Plate LXXXV). These chambers have solid support walls, of rubble composition and plaster, and are covered by barrel or tunnel vaults. The walls are pierced by openings to other chambers. The complicated plan of the palace remains to be determined. The living quarters of the sultan were undoubtedly separate from those of the other occupants of the palace. ‘Afif reports that the Bengal emissary, Zafar Khan, who visited the court at Hisar Firoza, was amazed at its splendour. 17 The palace described by ‘Afif resembles the actual physical remains. The dark and narrow passages, in which the unfamilar visitor in ‘Afif’s story was lost, actually exist. Indeed, the palace, with its convoluted inner sanctum, still retains its intrigue today. The palace of Hissar may be analogous to the ruined palace of Firuzabad. Firuz Shah’s architecture is characterized by tunnels and subterranean passages and he incorporated them into his palaces, including the one at Firuzabad. The concept may derive, in part, from Muhammad bin Tughluq’s alleged palace of a thousand columns in 203

Jahanpanah.18 His motives for constructing underground apartments is puzzling. One explanation - that he constructed (tahkhana) to accommodate uneven terrain - seems implausible. In the wake of its repetitive occurrence, the underground structure became a significant feature of Firuz Shah’s buildings generally.

TheLat-ki Mosque The fortress’s mosque (Plates LXXXVI and LXXX VU) consists of a prayer hall, a lat, and an ancillary structure identified as a tomb. All three structures are elevated on a plinth which encloses a catacomb of subterranean chambers. These chambers serve as a foundation for the mosque but their functional relationship to the mosque is not known. It is likely that they served no specific religious function but were simply an extension of the palace network. An L-shaped trench or ditch in the plinth defines the south and east perimeters of the courtyard and extends to the base of the domed structure on it (Plate LXXXVIII). A ba’oli has been dug in the south end of the courtyard as well. The function of the ditch is unknown. Openings along the walls of its sides (Plates LXXXIX and XC) indicate that it could not have been intended to be a moat. The ditch extends to the edge of the domed structure whose south door opens onto its edge. The south and east sides of the plinth are

enclosed by a low compound wall today (Plate XCI). The north and west sides of the plinth are occupied by the prayer hall arcade (Plate XCII). The mosque is built on a high stone foundation which encloses the basement apartments. The upper storey prayer hall is constructed of brick, covered with plaster. The exterior west facade (Plate LXXXVI) possesses the batter of Tughluq walls and the qibla is emphasized by a raised central section. Two domes, covering the comer bays of 204 the prayer hall, rise above it. A small section of the wall at the northwest comer rises higher than the rest and obscures part of the dome. The lat, situated in the courtyard, is clearly visible above the walls of the mosque. The mosque (Plate XCIH and Figure 14) is hypostyle in plan, nine bays long and two bays deep. Three additional bays which extend perpendicular fmm the northernmost bay of the prayer hall form a wing along the north end of the courtyard. The asymmetrical arrangement of the plan is unusual. The north arcade does not extend to the edge of the courtyard defined by the ditch, rather it stops short. It is possible that the arcade was intended to extend further than its three existing bays but the facade of its end wall appears to be finished, indicating that it is completed. The facade (Plate XCIV) is faced with plaster identical with the rest of the mosque. In addition, it contains a recessed panel which frames the arch of the last bay of the arcade, a surface treatment which would not make sense if it were to be extended. The wall of the opposite south end of the prayer hall (Plate XC) is more enclosed. Instead of an open arch, it is pierced by two arched openings, each framed in recessed rectangular panels. The south end bays open directly onto the precipitous edge of the trench in the courtyard, with only a narrow walkway. A lintel in each of the two openings separates an upper space, perhaps originally intended to contain a stone lattice. Two windows, whose positions correspond to the doors, occur in the wall of the trench beneath.

The facade of the prayer hall (Plate XCHI) has eight open arches; the ninth abuts the north arcade. Each bay is defined by a pair of columns from which the arches of the arcade spring. Each arch is contained within a recessed panel defined by vertical and 205 horizontal pilasters (Plate XCV). Above the arcade are corbelled projections which probably supported eaves (chajjas). These have disappeared. Above the eaves is a massive superstructure which conceals the vaulting of the interior bays. Only the bays at the two ends of the prayer hall are emphasized by domes on the roofline (Plate

LXXXVI). The facade of the arcade displays the same elevation as the prayer hall. The interior of the prayer hall (Plates XCVI and XCVH, Figure 14) is an open arcade. It spans a length of nine bays, two deep. Mihrabs are located in each of the bays. Themihrab in the center bay (Plate XCVm) is the most visually prominent one and is emphasized on the exterior of the mosque by a raised section similar to that of the jami masjid of Firuzabad. The seven center bays are similar in their plans and elevations but the end bays vary from the rest. The arcade of the southwest pair of bays is partially enclosed. The pair of bays on the opposite end, at the northwest comer, are unique. The outer bay contains stairs to the roof and subterranean chambers, and an additional set of stairs gives access to an upper apartment, situated a few feet above the floor level (Plate XCVn). The northwest bay is two-storied, the upper level having a floor but beneath it is an abyssmal drop into the subterranean chamber. The opening is blocked by stone piers. Each of the two levels of this bay contains a small mihrab (Plates XCK and C). The upper apartment may have served as a maqsura but the purpose of the lower floorless chamber is unknown.

The interior walls of the prayer hall are faced with red sandstone revetments along the base and plaster above (Plate XCVm). The wall elevation is two-storied, the lower section marked by the row of mihrabs and the upper by arched openings with stone screens, visible on the exterior facade. The columns of the prayer hall are also red sandstone, similar to the type of stone from the quarries of or Sikri. They form 206 a double row along the exterior, a single row in the middle, and are engaged to the wall in the interior and support a groin vaulted ceiling. The columns appear to have been borrowed from a pre-existing structure or, less likely, carved by non-Muslim craftsmen. Each column has a square base and octagonal midsection (Plate Cl). The column’s profile tapers to sixteen sides and then to a rounded section which is crowned with an amalaka and square capital from which spring the vaults. The amalaka is repeated in the finial of the lat in the courtyard. The motifs which adorn the column surface are lotus and vegetal designs. There is no sign of defaced imagery and they seem non-Hindu. Rather, they are reminiscent of the posts of railings which surround Buddhist monuments, similar to those at Bharhut or Sanchi. Precedents for the hypostyle mosque are seen in early Delhi sultanate mosques. An antecedent for the plinth mosque was seen earlier in Firuz Shah’s jami masjid in Firuzabad. Several features of the Hissar mosque are shared by the Firuzabad mosque. Both mosques possess battered walls and austere plaster surfaces devoid of decoration. In each case, theqibla is emphasized by a raised section at the location of the central mihrab. Both mosques are raised, although the bottom storey of the Hissar mosque is enclosed, unlike the open basement of the Firuzabad mosque. The domes covering the prayer hall of the Hissar mosque are probably similar to the domes which originally covered the prayer hall of the Firuzabad mosque, and the comer bays of the latter mosque probably possessed high domes. The interior elevation of the northwest comer, with its upper apartment or maqsura, is akin to the upper level apartments of the Fimzabad mosque. Indeed, the two mosques share many similarities, yet their apparent differences - for example, the enclosed prayer hall of the Fimzabad mosque - are more obvious. 207

The ancillary structure which sits in the courtyard (Plates CEI and GUI) has been identified as a tomb but its occupant is unknown. The absence of epigraphy and historical record leave no clue as to the identity of the occupant and no cenotaph stands within it. It may be recalled that the square plan tomb was reserved for royal persons during this tim e. 19 Aside from Firuz Shah, whose burial site is known, it is difficult to imagine who the occupant could be.20 In addition the location of the structure inside the mosque is unusual. Whoever would have achieved the stature which permitted burial within the sacred precinct of the mosque would have been an individual of special significance. The monument is probably contemporary with the mosque, as suggested by the similarity of construction materials. The walls are brick, faced with the same red and white sandstone found in the interior walls of the prayer hall.21 The dome is concrete. On the basis of its form and building materials, it is safe to attribute it to the period of Firuz Shah and contemporary with the prayer hall, circa 757/1356.

The plan of the building (Figure 14) is square with each of its four walls pierced by an opening. The south opening is contiguous with the ditch in the courtyard. An exterior staircase at the southwest comer of the building ascends to the roof. A pair of stairs in the northwest and northeast walls descend to the subterranean chamber beneath the structure. The arched opening of each facade is framed by a series of rectangular borders. The spandrels above the arch are undecorated. The arch in turn frames a smaller entrance formed by posts and lintel. The area above the lintel is filled with a stone lattice screen. A pointed dome, constructed of a rubble core and concrete, crowns the structure. It is supported on the inside by squinches. 208

The structure is positioned opposite the facade of the prayer hall of the mosque, aligned with the bay to the right of the central mihrab (Plate (3V and Figure 14). The relationship between the two structures is probably not coincidental. The form of the structure and its position within the complex suggest that its function was that of a portal or gateway, not a tomb. The absence of a cenotaph supports this hypothesis. The location of the structure opposite the qibla wall at the perimeter of the courtyard however is an appropriate position for a portal. Its position off axis of the central mihrab is not unusual in Firuz Shah’s mosques. The displaced portal of the Firuzabad mosque is one example. Antecedents for the portal form are first encountered as early as the Alai

Darwaza at the Quwwat al-Islam mosque in Delhi and are seen in other Tughluq mosques at Jahanpanah and Firuzabad. The form of the portal in early Indian Muslim architecture is identical to the foim adopted for early tombs. In addition, no precedent can be cited for the location of a tomb inside the mosque proper in early Delhi sultanate architecture. Even Htutmish’s tomb was located outside of the (Quwwat al-Islam mosque and only upon completion of ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji’s later extension was it contained within the precincts of the mosque. Small mihrabs were frequently constructed within tombs, such as the example at the tomb of Nasir al-Din Mahmud (the Sultan Ghari tomb) but congregational mosques on the scale of Firuzabad or Hissar did not contain tombs during this early period of Indo-

Muslim architecture. If the identification of the Hissar monument as a tomb is accepted, then its placement within the mosque was an unorthodox move on Firuz Shah’s part. The mosque acquired the name "lat-ki" mosque because of the lat or column which stands in the courtyard. The chunar sandstone base of the four-staged lat is believed to be Asokan in origin.22 Cunningham noticed traces of a Brahmi script 209 epigraph on it. The upper stages of the lat are red and white sandstone and are crowned with an amalaka finial. When the column was implanted in the mosque’s courtyard is unknown.23 Its erection may have coincided with the foundation of the city in 757/1356, but if this were the case, then its erection predated that of the two columns of Firuzabad 1369 A. D. Neither ‘Afif nor the author of the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, who describe the

Firuzabad columns, mention the column at Hissar, suggesting that it was raised at a time later than the construction of the mosque. The column stands in a prominent position to the west of the domed structure on the east side of the courtyard, probably the gate. The column bears no Muslim inscription, in contrast to the one in nearby Fathabad, although

Cunningham suggests that it appeared to have been worked, probably inscribed, by Firuz Shah’s men. But even in Cunningham’s day, the column’s surface was peeling and no traces of inscription remained.24

The inclusion of a column within a mosque is encountered on three other occasions during Firuz Shah’s reign, if the attributions at Firuzabad (the lat pyramid and the Kushk Shikar) and Fathabad are accepted.25 The integration of a pre-Muslim emblem into a Muslim context has precedents, as noted, in Delhi in the iron pillar erected by Etutmish in the courtyard of the Quwwat al-Islam mosque in Qila Rai Pithora and, of course, in Firuzabad. Like the Firuzabad mosque, the Hissar lat probably served as a minar for the mosque, although its function as a place from where a muezzin issued the call to prayer was only symbolically realized. The actual call was probably issued from the rooftop of the mosque. The role of the minar as a symbol of appropriation and of the presence of Islam is probably the intended purpose.

TheLat-ki Mosque of Hissar is probably representative of the form of mosques constructed in the frontier towns. Unfortunately, the loss of the mosque at Fathabad and 210 the transformation of Firuz Shah’s mosque at Jaunpur by the Sharqi sultans, leaves Hissar as a lone survivor. The construction of a mosque in these towns is an act which legitimized the settlement because the mosque was the nucleus of the religious community. Despite the political and military importance of a site, the frontier town marked the expanding boundaries of the dar al-islam. The construction of architectural forms specific to the religious practices of the community served to preserve the religious institutions of the state. Hissar demonstrates the process of the expansion of the dar al-islam. Firuz Shah transformed a sparsely populated arid region into a prosperous settlement. In some ways his foundation at Hissar is reminiscent of the founding of a ghazi outpost. Ghazis were military warriors and champions of Islam who waged campaigns of jihad in the dar al- harb. The ghazi’s ability to organize and construct a fortress in the face of challenge from a non-Muslim population, reflected his aggressive military nature as well as his pious intentions. Ghazi outposts were the stepping stones in the expansion of the dar al- islam. Certainly Firuz Shah did not face the same challenges that theghazi encountered nor did he conduct jihad in Haryana. Hissar was already located within Muslim territories. But, the underlying motives for founding Hissar were to secure the borders of thedar al-Islam and to help fellow-Muslims who inhabited the area. Hissar then was a manifestation of the sultan’s role as protector of Islam. 211

NOTES TO CHAPTER VI

1 ‘Afif, Ta'rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 3(X). ‘Afif writes: Before this time, in the days of the old kings, this country had been entered in the revenue accounts as belonging to the division [sAz/:/:] of Hansi; but now that Hisar Firozah had been built, the Sultan ordered that from henceforth the division should be called Hisar Firozah, and that the districts [ikta’at] of Hansi, Agrowah, Fath-abad, and Sarsuti, as far as Dalaurah and Khizrabad, with some other districts, should all be included in the division of Hisar Firozah.

2 Ansari, "Hisar Firoza," Encyclopedia of Islam, v. 3, p. 485. 3 Sihrindi, Ta’rikh-i Mubarak Shahi (Elliot and Dowson), p. 8. 4 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 304. 5 Ibid., pp. 300-301. 6 Ibid., p. 300. 7 Ibid., p. 301. 8 Ibid., p. 302. ‘Afif states that his father served as one of these court officers who oversaw water useage. 9 Ahmad, "Diyauddin Barani’s Perception of Irrigation," p.68.

10 Siddiqui, "Waterworks and Irrigation System," p. 15. 11 Barani, Ta’rikh (Bibliotheca Indica), pp. 567-569. Translation cited from Ahmad, "Diyauddin Barani’s Perception of Irrigation," pp. 66-67.

12 Sihrindi, Ta’rikh-i Mubarak Shahi (Elliot and Dowson IV), p. 8; See Banerjee, History of Firuz Shah Tughluq, p. 119 and p. 147, fhs 25-26. Banerjee cites references in theSirat-i Firuz Shahi (Aligarh University MS, pp. 154-155.) 13 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 302. 14 Firuz Shah,Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), p. 381; Hodivala, Studies in Indo- Muslim History, v. 1, p.343. Hodivala identifies the modem village of Gohana as the same village Kohana referred to by Firuz Shah in his edict 212

The buildings of Hissar have been discussed in two articles in Hindi by Somdatt Chopra in Jan Sahitya: "Hariyana Ka Etihasika Nagar Hissar," JS IX, Nos. 2-3 (1970), pp. 80-83; "Haryana Ka Etihasika Gujri Mahala,"JS X, No.9 (1971), pp. 55-58. Firuz Shah’s palace is mentioned in the Hissar District Gazetteer (1916), p. 245. The Hissar lat is illustrated by Marshall, "Monuments of Muslim India," Cambridge History of India HI (1928), Plate XXXVin, Figure 79. Marshall mentions a "well- known m o^ue and pillar on which the lineage of Firuz Shah Tughluq is set forth," (p. 625), but his identification of the Fathabad lat is probably confused with the Hissar lat. TheLat-ki Mosque is included in the survey of Tughluq monuments in Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 140 and plate 11. The focus of the study of epigraphy of Hissar is largely devoted to later monuments: Alexander Cunningham, ASJ., Report, 1872-73, vol. 5 (1875), pp. 140-142 and 205; Paul Horn, "Muhammadan Inscriptions from the of Delhi," Epigraphica Indica H (Reprint 1970), pp. 130-159 and pp.424-437; and Subhash Parihar, Muslim Inscriptions in the Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh, New Delhi, 1985. Miles Irving’s List of Inscriptions on Tombs or Monuments in the Punjab, 2 vols., Lahore, 1910, is devoted to Christian monuments. The inscription on the Asokan column in the mosque of Hissar was included in Cunningham’s report, reprinted B. Ch. Chhabra, "Asokan Pillar at Hissar, Panjab," Vishveshvarand Indological Journal 2 (1964), pp. 319-322. 16 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 299. 17 Ibid., p. 304.

18 Muhammad bin Tughluq’s palace at Jahanpanah is described by Ibn Battuta and Badr al-Din Chach. See Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," pp. 148-149. 19 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 146-147. 20 Although the burial site of Muhammad bin Tughluq is not certain, it is unlikely that he would be buried here since he had no associations with the site and the town was founded after his death. Muhammad bin Tughluq possibly is interred in the tomb of Kabir al-Din Awliya (Lai Gumbad). See Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 143.

21 Marshall, "Monuments of Muslim India," Cambridge History of India, Plate XXXVm, Figure 79, reproduces an early photo^ph of the Hissar lat with the domed structure visible in the background. The stone facing is removed from its walls, revealing underlying brick construction.

22 Captain Brown, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal VU (1838), p. 429, cited by Cunningham in Archaeological Survey of India Reports V (1875), pp. 140-142, and republished by B. Ch. Chhabra in "Asokan Pillar at Hissar, Panjab," Vishveshvarand Indological Journal H, pt. ii (1964), pp. 320-322. Cunningham suggests that the Hissar 213 pillar and the Fathabad pillar are parts of the same column. He also states that the inscription on the latter is not Asokan in origin but instead contains the names of pilgrims who visited the original site in the first century A.D. Chhabra, in 1964, noticed only six of eight inscriptions noted by Cunningham.

23 Cunningham implies that the Hissar lat was raised simultaneous with the Fathabad column. However, his attribution of the foundation of Fathabad and the raising of the lat to Fath Khan is incorrect. Fathabad was founded by Firuz Shah on the occasion of the birth of Fath Khan in 752/1351, and Fath Khan’s death in 776/1374, at the age of 24, makes it improbable that he was responsible for tiie erection of the lat.

24 Cxxamxi^mi, Report, Archaeological Survey of IndiaV (1975), pp. 140-142.

25 Although Irwin accepts the attribution to Firuz Shah, he expresses doubt that the Fathabad column had an Asokan origin. Irwin, "‘Asokan’ Pillars: a reassessment of the evidence, IV: Symbolim," p. 744 and fn 47. CHAPTER Vn CONCLUSION

Stylistic Analysis In the last three chapters, the literary, archaeological, and epigraphic evidence of three of Firuz Shah’s most important architectural undertakings has been examined. The collective evidence reveals that Firuz Shah sought to establish a canon of architectural expression which drew upon both Muslim and non-Muslim building traditions known in fourteenth century India. The stylistic conventions which have come to be associated with him are commonly recognized for their idiosyncratic nature rather than their traditional values. In this final chapter, those stylistic features which appear in his monuments are reviewed with an eye to identifying their consistency, their sources, and the means by which they were integrated into the architectural of this sultan. Finally, in the concluding pages of this study, some motives which possibly prompted this fourteenth century patron to achieve one of the longest and most sustained periods of building throughout the history of the Delhi sultanate will be briefly explored. Firuz Shah’s building career lasted nearly thirty-eight years.l By the time he died in 790/1388, he had left an architectural legacy that, in numbers alone, rivaled the output of all his predecessors. In fact, few of his successors built on the scale that he did. Building was, seemingly, one of Firuz Shah’s favorite pastimes and the number of monuments attributed to his patronage in contemporary chronicles reaches exaggerated proportions. It has been shown that the actual number of physical remains is considerably smaller but they nonetheless point to an enthusiatic patron.

214 215

Although he experimented with innovative means of architectural expression, he was also conscious of the traditions which preceded him. These he drew upon freely and used them as a departure for new and innovative experiments in architectural form. Three sources for Tughluq architecture have been identified: pre-Tughluq architecture of Delhi, the non-Muslim architecture of India, and the Islamic architecture of the west.2 Despite the divergent tendencies of these traditions, Firuz Shah’s buildings are influenced by all three, and borrowed elements are assimilated into a homogeneous style under him. From the surviving evidence, it appears that Firuz Shah looked primarily to the Delhi sultans as a source of inspiration for his monuments, but he preferred to emphasize architectural form and used epigraphy less than his Muizzi and Khalji predecessors, whose heavily inscribed monuments were located in the vicinity. Likewise, numerous Hindu, Jain, and Buddhist structures in the empire supplied a profuse vocabulary of forms and structural devices which are also encountered in his monuments. Yet Firuz Shah’s architecture contrasts the plastic forms and three-dimensional surfaces of non- Muslim Indian architecture. It is this quality which Brown points to as "suppression of the indigenous impulse."3 Although influences of western Islamic traditions, especially those of the eastern Iranian world, came to bear on Firuz Shah’s architecture, innovations such as the four-iVan plan of the Iranian mosque, introduced by Muhammad bin Tughluq’s builders, do not appear in Firuz Shah’s buildings. Firuz Shah was well aware of architectural precedents in the Delhi region. He need not have been far-sighted in his quest for such architectural legacies. Delhi provided ample number of sultanate monuments upon which he could draw inspiration for his own monuments. He looked to the Delhi sultans, not the former Ghaznavid or Ghurid rulers, to emulate in his building efforts. Indeed, to what extent he was 216 knowledgeable about architecture outside the subcontinent is uncertain. Since he is not known to have traveled far beyond the boundaries of the Tughluq empire, it is improbable that he saw any Ghaznavid or Ghurid monuments firsthand. Firuz Shah’s buildings have been pointed to as a decisive moment in the development of Tughluq architecture and, for that matter, of the Delhi sultanate in general. Modem authors, writing on the remains of his reign, describe them as "sombre and ascetic," "plain but serviceable," "puritanical," and possessing "unaffected simplicity" and "refined dignity."4 John Marshall identifies the virtues of Firuz Shah’s architecture to be its "vigour and straightforwardness; in its simple broad effects; and in the purposefulness with which it evolved new structural features or adapted old ones to its needs."5 In contrast, he sees its faults in the "monotonous reiteration of these self­ same features, in the prosaic nakedness of its ideas, and in the dearth of everything that might make for picturesque charm of elegance. "6 What then are the physical characteristics which have earned it this reputation?

Materials and Methods of Construction

Perhaps the major characteristic of Fimz Shah’s monuments is the consistency with which certain features occur, which collectively, have determined the uniform style most identified with the sultan. The buildings’ massive and heavy appearances, unlike pre-Tughluq monuments of the Delhi sultanate, are most firequently singled out as their dominant feature. Their solid appearance is emphasized by sloping or battered walls of high elevations and accentuated by the placement of turrets or bastions at the comers and angles. Brown has traced the battered walls of Ghiyath al-Din’s tomb, one of the earliest 217

Tughluq monuments in Delhi and a prototype for Firuz Shah’ mausoleum at Hauz Khas, to the buildings of Multan, in particular, the tomb of Rukn-i ‘Alam7 Structural mass is a result, in part, of the materials used in construction. Walls are composed of a rubble core or an undressed masonry and their surfaces are either plastered or left unfinished. The nature of rubble construction requires thick walls and many attain girths of several feet at their foundations. Wall surfaces are rarely pierced by large openings due to the necessity of mass for structural stability. The imperial mosque at Firuzabad (Plate XIX) typifies the extraordinary solid character of the sultan’s monuments. The massive west qibla wall (Plate XI) exhibits a nearly uninterrupted surface above its foundation arcade. The south wall of the same mosque (Plate XIV) represents the degree to which the wall surface can be pierced without jeopardizing the structure’s stability. Openings are usually narrow, separated by lengths of several feet, and occupy a small fraction of the overall wall surface. The same massive appearance occurs in Muhammad bin Tughluq’s mosque at Jahanpanah,8 often incorrectly identified as belonging to Firuz Shah’s reign because of its stylistic similarity to buildings produced during the latter’s reign by Khan-i Jahan. The unfortunate loss of structures at Tughluqabad and ‘Adilabad leaves the initial stages of the development uncertain. The solid quality seen in the Firuzabad mosque occurs in other buildings of the reign. For example, the Hauz Khas mosque (Plate XXXV) and madrasa (Plate LI) exemplify the unrelieved wall surfaces and heavy quality of construction which appears in many of the buildings of this site. The underlying rubble construction of walls is exposed in areas of the madrasa and mausoleum where plaster is stripped away (Plate LV and LXTV) and areas where the structure has broken away (Plate LX). Although this type of construction is appropriate for defensive structures, it was also employed in 218 religious and secular monuments. Rubble and plaster construction has been consistently identified as Firuz Shah’s buildings materials but they are by no means the exclusive ones. For example, rubble construction is confined to the lower foundation of the Hissar mosque but the second storey qibla facade is constructed with brick (Plate LXXXVI). The brick surface was probably originally covered with plaster. In either case, the preference for broad uninterrupted planes of wall surface is maintained despite the variation in building materials.

The military nature of the dynasty, and for that matter the militarized nature of the early sultanate in general, has been pointed to as an explanation for the unique character of Tughluq architecture,^ but it fails to explain the elaborate decoration of the mosques of the earlier Muizzi and Khalji sultans whose military ventures were as bold. The battered and bastioned walls of Tughluq architecture may in fact derive from a style with which its rulers were accustomed prior to arriving in India but, outside of the early fourteenth century Multan monuments, there is no physical or historical evidence to support this claim. In fact, the need for defensive architecture diminished during Firuz Shah’s reign, a period of relative political stability in Delhi. Brown, Burton-Page, and others attribute the introduction of rubble and plaster construction during Firuz Shah’s reign, in part, to the dispersal of craftsmen during Muhammad bin Tughluq’s reign, a result of the latter’s relocation of Delhi’s population to Daulatabad.lO Certainly this factor contributed to the obvious change which sultanate architecture underwent during Firuz Shah’s reign, but the uniform appearance of his buildings is probably due as much to the role which he assumed when supervising their construction. 219

Another feature encountered in Firuz Shah’s buildings is the plinth. Many structures are elevated on a foundation of vaults which frequently form a complete basement or tahkhana storey. For example, the substructures of the Firuzabad mosque (Plates IX, X, XI, Xn, XIX) and the Hissar mosque (Plate LXXXVI and LXXXVII) contain vaulted passages. Whereas the plinth of the Firuzabad mosque has a solid core, that of the Hissar mosque does not. The plinth is commonly found in northem-style

Hindu temples and it occurs in Islamic architecture outside Delhi, for example, in the Multan tombs. 11 Elevated foundations also occur in Tughluq architecture prior to Firuz Shah’s reign. Underground passages are employed in Tughluqabad, and the tomb of Ghiyath al-Din Tughluq sits on an elevated platform. 12 It is likely that the incorporation of a plinth in Tughluq architecture in general was also influenced by the practice of building mosques on the foundations of razed temples as, for example, had occurred at the Quwwat al-Islam mosque. The elevation of structures may have been due as well to practical considerations or defensive needs. In cases where structures were located next to bodies of water, as in the buildings of Firuz Shah’s kotla, or where they were contained within fortified enclosures, such as Ghiyath al-Din’s mausoleum at Tughluqabad, the elevation may have reflected practical concerns. The plinth is a commonly identified element in Firuz Shah’s monuments. For example, the Hauz Khasmadrasa is raised on a high foundation and its lower storey, submerged in the side of the enbankment which descends to the ba’oli (Plate LIX and XL), forms the foundation for the upper storey of the madrasa. A burial chamber may be concealed beneath the mausoleum of Firuz Shah within its foundation but no archaeological evidence has been unveiled to support this. The palace at Hissar (Plates LXXXI and LXXXVII) also is constructed on top of subterranean chambers, a feature 220 which probably occurred in the Firuzabad palace. In fact, underground tunnels were believed to have extended throughout the kotla. Some led to the base of the northern ridge, if literary sources are to be believed. Remnants of partially submerged passageways still exist in the kotla today (Plate XXIX). The vaults of the plinth are frequently supported by stone or rubble piers (Plates IX, X, LXXXn, LXXXm). Stone is used sparingly in Firuz Shah’s buildings, often being confined to the jambs and lintels of entrances and panels of pierced lattice above them. The entrances of the Hauz Khasmadrasa typify its use. Stone corbels provide a simple post and lintel configuration (Plate LVI) or corbelled-arch entrances (Plates LXI, LXm). Stone was also employed for architectural elements such as wall cresting or parapets and plaques above doorways, which may have contained epigraphy, but these have nearly disappeared or have been entirely lost. As noted, vaults covering interior spaces were supported on stone columns. Corbelled ceilings, sometimes referred to as "lantern" ceilings, such as those which occur in Hauz Khas (Plate XLEI) occur as early as the

Quwwat al-Islam m osque. 13 Stone also is used in projecting balconies such as those at

Hauz Khas, and chajjas or cornices, which appear for example, in Firuz Shah’s madrasa and in the mosque in Hissar.

In the lat pyramid (Plate XXX), dressed stone is employed in the of arches. In addition, stone revetments cover the lower interior walls of the Hissar mosque and the exterior walls of the domed structure in the courtyard of that mosque. The use of polychrome stone on monuments has been said to have been a practice revived in the latter part of Firuz Shah’s reign as a reaction to the austerity of his buildings. 14 In light of evidence presented by the Hissar mosque, however, this assessment of the building trends of the reign may need revised. The restrained use of stone on Firuz Shah’s 221 buildings may reflect economic conditions or unavailability of stone masons, but rubble construction is also an expedient means of building, a factor which may have determined the type of decoration as well. Other features of Firuz Shah’s architecture include a preference for multi-bayed plans for interior spaces and multi-domed roofs. These features occurred before Firuz Shah’s reign and are considered a trademark of Tughluq architecture. A prototype for the dome of Delhi sultanate architecture is found, according to Creswell, in eastern .15 The domes of the structures are usually symmetrically arranged. When they occur as a pair, one sits on either end of an expansive roofline as in the qibla wall of the Hissar (Plate LXXVI) mosque, possibly in the Firuzabad mosque, and in the Hauz Khas madrasa (Plate XLVn, LI). Interior vaulted ceilings are often obscured by flat exterior rooflines, or alternately, are reflected in a multiplicity of domes, as in other mosques of the reign such as Khirki Masjid (PlateXVII), Kalan Masjid, and earlier in the Jahanpanah m osque.16 Despite its popularity in the architecture of Delhi, the phenomenon of multiple domes may have appeared in the Deccan prior to its use in northern India. 17

The dome also occurs in other parts of mosques as an isolated element, crowning a monumental portal, or as suggested in literary sources, covering the well in the courtyard of the Firuzabad mosque. Despite its frequent occurrence in sultanate architecture, the single dome over the prayer hall, emphasizing the mihrab area of a mosque, is not employed by Firuz Shah. An isolated dome also appears as the prominent architectural feature of mausolea of the period.

The domes of Firuz Shah’s monuments are single shell and possess a low profile. The higher, double-shell dome is a phenomenon of a later age. 18 In Tughluq structures, domes are placed on top of octagonal drums which are often obscured by cresting. They 222 are fiequentiy supported by squinches or by corbelled pendentives (Plate LXX). These means of creating zones of transition had already developed beyond experimental stages before their appearance in the domed monuments of Firuz Shah. For example, the corbelled pendentive is used in the Quwwat al-Islam mosquel9 and the squinches occur in the tomb of Iltutmish.20 The zones of transition are visible in the sectional portion of the madrasa (Plate XLFV) at Hauz Khas and in the tomb of Firuz Shah (Plates LXIX, LXX). The combination of trabeated and arcuated construction, realized in the Hauz Khas madrasa, is frequently employed by builders to produce an eclecticism which is strangely familiar yet foreign to Indo-Islamic tradition. The arches of most monuments of the early Delhi sultans are true arches. Although the corbelled arch is frequently employed in early sultanate architecture, such as the screen wall of the Quwwat al-Islam mosque, the true arch appears elsewhere in the same monument.21 In Firuz Shah’s monuments, the arch profile is often pointed and appears to be four-centered (Firuzabad, Plates XVI, XXX; Hauz Khas, Plates XXXIX, XLV, XLVm, LXXI; Hissar, Plates LXXXI, XCV). The arches are frequently stilted and spring from offsets of a few inches. The arches of Firuz Shah’s structures display a variety of proportional relationships between vertical and horizontal dimensions. The lower or squat-proportioned arches are accentuated by the visual effect of the massive superstructures which they support. Although arcuated systems of construction, true arches, vaulting, and domes are associated with construction methods from outside the subcontinent, many architectural features on Firuz Shah’s buildings are indigenous in origin. Some of these elements are incorporated in the Hauz Khas madrasa. The west facade of the mosque, as well as the facades of the madrasa itself, display projecting balconies, supported on corbelled 223 brackets and covered with cupola or semi-cupola roofs (Plates XXXV, XLVII, XLIX, LIX). Wall openings are sometimes blocked by pierced stone screens, a feature which also occurs in the Hissar mosque. In addition, the chajja (comice), which becomes a common feature in Tughluq architecture, occurs in many of Firuz Shah’s monuments. The mosque at Hissar (Plate XCm), the mosque at Hauz Khas (XXXVII), and the madrasa (Plate XLIX) all retain remnants of chajjas. Chajjas appeared earlier in Tughluq architecture, in monuments such as the Jahanpanah mosque.

Whereas the central bay of mosques was commonly given architectural emphasis, themihrabs, in particular the central mihrab, were likewise accentuated. The mihrab of the Firuzabad mosque (Plate XXIII), exposed to climatic elements, has lost its plaster finish but one would expect to encounter stucco relief incised with verse in the archivolts and spandrels of the pointed arched niche. This type of decoration is encountered in the wall niches of the tomb of Firuz Shah which functions, in an unorthodox move, as a passage into the madrasa. The central mihrab of the Hissar mosque, on the other hand, is constructed from stone. It consists of a series of recessed arches set within a rectangular panel, on either side of which appears an engaged colonette. The colonette has been ascribed a Hindu origin.22 The pointed arch displays a scalloped or cusped edge, a feature not seen before in Fimz Shah’s monuments. The treatment of the mihrab is repeated in two mihrabs in the northwest bay of this same mosque (Plates XCIX and C). Fimz Shah freely borrowed from a vocabulary of indigenous forms. Besides structural elements such as chajjas, he favored architectural forms such as chhatris (pavillions) for many tomb stmctures constructed during his reign. It has been pointed out that the chhatri form underwent little change from its first appearance in sultanate 224 architecture and throughout later periods. For this reason, attribution of chhatri structures on the basis of style alone, is virtually impossible.

Ornamentation

Firuz Shah’s admiration for earlier ornamented monuments of Delhi did not supercede his personal taste. His orthodox temperament may have been a factor which contributed to his preference for architectural form at the expense of decoration. Emphasis on architectonic elements and sparing surface treatment became trademarks of his architectural monuments. The austerity of Firuz Shah’s monuments is also a marked contrast to Islamic architecture of the west. Ghaznavid or Ghurid remains, such as the minaret at Jam or the towers of Ghazni,23 or the palace at Lashkari Bazar, reflect those cultures’ preferences for ornamented brickwork and faience, elements virtually absent in Tughluq architecture.24 Even when brick surfaces occur, such as the Hissar mosque, they do not exhibit the coursing or textural effects of Iranian monuments. Although carved and molded plaster relief decoration was the primary means of ornamentation of Firuz Shah’s buildings, very few traces of it survive. Despite its perishable nature, the plaster ornament on remaining architectural surfaces indicates that it was used sparingly. This by no means excludes the possibility that these surfaces could have been covered with painted designs or epigraphy. Ornamentation is accomplished with a plaster or stucco medium. Although surface treatment is often described as austere, archaeological evidence suggests that Firuz Shah’s buildings may have possessed more surface decoration than that which survives. For example, the sultan’s mausoleum at Hauz Khas (Plate LXXII) represents a 225 decorative tendency not seen elsewhere. The interior dome and upper wall surfaces of Firuz Shah’s tomb are lavishly decorated with stucco relief, but lower interior wall and exterior surfaces are devoid of ornament (Plate LXXI). Remains of stucco roundels, inscribed with verse, in the madrasa (Plate LIII, LXV) and references that the same type of decor was used at the Firuzabad mosque, indicate that these monuments were not altogether void of embellishment Scant archaeological evidence points to a widespread use of plaster ornament in mosque architecture, especially in the archivolts, and spandrels of arches become the focus of decoration (Plate LXIX). The unfortunate loss of stucco decoration, due to its ephemeral nature, has precluded any accurate assessment of the decorative schemes and epigraphic programs of Firuz Shah’s structures.

In terms of ornamentation, Tughluq architecture provides a stylistic interlude between the Muizzi and Khalji traditions and the later developments. The austerity of Firuz Shah’s monuments, in comparison to Muizzi and Khalji structures, has been pointed to on numerous occasions but subsequent building traditions also depart from Tughluq stvle. For example, the division of wall surfaces into multiple blind niches in

Lodi-period tom bs,25 transform the boldly uninterrupted planes seen in Firuz Shah’s buildings into a compartmentalized wall space. Wall surfaces in Firuz Shah’s monuments, however, are not always bare. The qibla walls of the Firuzabad mosque (Plates XXI, XXII) and Hissar mosque (Plates

XCVI, XCVni) betray an interest in breaking up the monotonous surface into a series of blind niches and repeated arches. In a similar manner, the exterior walls of the mausoleum of Firuz Shah (Plate LXV) exhibit blind niches near the top of the wall below the crest The Hauz Khas mosque (Plate XXXV) displays a similar interest in relieving the two-dimensional surface. The preference for recessed arches set within panels at, for 226 example, Hissar (Plates XCIV, XCV) and Hauz Khas (Plates XLVm, LXm) add variety to the treatment of wall surfaces. The preference for pure architectural form, rather than dense stuface ornament, is apparent on all of Firuz Shah’s monuments. The loss of stucco ornament may explain, in part, the obvious asceticism of his buildings, but the combination of this misfortune and Firuz Shah’s aesthetic preference may offer a more plausible explanation for this phenomenon. Many features of construction and decoration encountered in Firuz Shah’s buildings existed prior to his reign. Various architectural elements and stylistic features are assimilated into a style which defies categorization into any one of the three traditions from which they originated. The imiformity of architectural style under Firuz Shah and the duration of that style has resulted in the sometimes unflattering commentary by art and architectural historians. It is perhaps unfair to attribute the development of the "militarized" or "orthodox" style of Tughluq architecture exclusively to Firuz Shah for its roots exist in the beginning of the fourteenth century. It is under Firuz Shah’s patronage, however, that the structural technology and decorative features of earlier traditions are brought together into a recognizable style, not always with harmonious results, in what

Brown calls "the birth of a new order of ideas."26 But it is within the realm of architectural form that Firuz Shah’s experimentation is most visible and his predilection for innovation best witnessed.

Classes of Structures

Firuz Shah’s contribution to Indo-Islamic architecture was of a more formal nature. Architectural features such as the multiple-domed roofs and domed comer 227 structures, tuixets and mimetic minars, constituted an innovative repertoire for his monuments, but they are not all exclusive to his patronage. Among the diversity of the architectural forms of Firuz Shah’s buildings, the functions ascribed to them fall within the known corpus of building types required for liturgical and social purposes. These classes of structures include mosques, minars, madrasas, commemorative monuments or tombs, portals, serais, khanaqahs, and palaces. But the forms of these monuments, built during Firuz Shah’s reign, do not always fall within known canons of Islamic architecture. Mosques constructed by Firuz Shah exhibit a number of types. Firuz Shah’s imperial mosque at Firuzabad belongs to a category of mosques designated two-storied plinth. This type of mosque, as might be expected, is raised on a substructure of vaults or plinth. The form is repeated in at least one mosque of the period, Kalan Masjid, built by Firuz Shah’svizier. Both mosques employ a hypostyle plan for their worship areas. The hypostyle plan has several precedents in India prior to the mid-fourteenth century A.D. For example, the plan is used in the Quwwat al-Islam mosque and the Ardhai-din-ka- Jhonpra mosque in Ajmer and it is to these monuments that we look for prototypes for the plan of the Firuzabad mosque.

The rulers of Delhi also looked to more immediate western Islamic precedents for their suructures. For example, the four-wan plan, chosen by Muhammad bin Tughluq for his mosque in Jahanpanah, derives from Iranian prototypes, perhaps as a result of the input of his Iranian architect, Zahir al-Din al-Jayush.27 But the hypostyle plan is adopted by Firuz Shah despite the apparent success of the four-wan plan in the Jahanpanah mosque. 228

Another mosque type which disappeared into oblivion after the demise of the

Tughluqs is encountered in Khirki Masjid, attributed to Firuz Shah,28and repeated in the

Kali Masjid, ascribed to Khan-i Jahan.29 The cross-axial plan of these mosques has an unknown origin. The plan is a variant of the hypostyle arrangement but with four courtyards instead of one. Thus, in his mosque architecture, Firuz Shah preferred the hypostyle plan, a plan also used in his other mosques at Hissar and Hauz Khas. Although Firuz Shah also borrowed from traditional antecedents, he did not draw exclusively from western Islamic tradition for architectural forms. His madrasa at Hauz Khas is one such example. Instead of using a madrasa form of the eastern Iranian world, he chose a form more innately Indian. The open dalan form did not reflect any association with known madrasa types and, in fact, Firuz Shah’s madrasa at Hauz Khas

is unique among known madrasa forms of the Islamic world. Madrasa forms are not easily identified in the Islamic architecture of the west. Without supporting epigraphic or historial evidence, a stracture is frequently not identifrable as a madrasa on the basis of its form alone. Madrasas of the Iranian world

are believed to be either two or four-iwan plans.30 The function of the madrasa is not prescribed by Islamic doctrine in the same way that a mosque form is determined by certain liturgical requirements, even though the madrasa form probably evolved from that of the mosque. The forms of the earliest madrasas in India - the madrasas of ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji and Htutmish - are not certain. In addition, those of the eastern Iranian world, built by Ghurid or Ghaznavid rulers, are only incompletely known. Instead of the two or four-wan plans employed in Iranian madrasas, such as the Seljuqmadrasa at

Ray, the madrasa at Khangird, the Shah-i Mashhad in Gargistan, or Zuzan madrasa, the plan of Firuz Shah’smadrasa was an axially arranged sequence of corridors and cells. 229

Firuz Shah’s madrasa then is a rare survivor of the form in Indo-Islamic architecture. Its form is instinctually indigenous; the open dalans and individual cells have affinities with Buddhist viharas or Jain mandapas'y^. but they are juxtaposed to forms which are decidedly foreign to the Indian architectural vocabulary. The domed chambers and arcuated construction throughout the buildings are commonly associated with Indo-Islamic traditions. The chhatri form, on the other hand, used in the associated tomb structures and the convocation hall of the complex, is an indigenous form adopted for Islamic purposes. As noted above, the chhatri is assimilated into Islamic architecture from an early date and its form remains essentially unchanged for the duration of the Delhi sultanate. Modem scholars point to Firuz Shah’s mausoleum as the quintessential Tughluq tomb structure or to the lat pyramid as representative of Tughluqian innovation. In fact, these monuments represent the polarity of Tughluq architecture. Whereas the mausoleum form is found throughout the Islamic world, the lat pyramid remains an isolated structure in the evolution of Indo-Islamic architecture of all periods.33 What then were the factors which determined an architectural form’s success or failure to become a part of the canon of architecture? The answer to this question may be outside a discussion of architectural form. For instance, the lat pyramid may have been intended to possess symbolic meanings, evidence for which remains tenuous.34 The minar, whether in detached or mimetic form, is used by Firuz Shah as a formal device in emulation of the earlier Delhi sultans. The minar becomes a common element in later Indo-Islamic monuments where it is used as much as an aesthetic device as for purely liturgical purposes. Firuz Shah, therefore, employed minars, whether for practical or symbolic purposes, in most mosques of his reign. For example, the mosques of Firuzabad and 230

Hissar are respectively dominated by the lats which stand beside them. Similarly, the lots at Fathabad and in the kushk-i shikar may have been intended to serve as minars for mosque structures which no longer exist. The mosque attached to the Hauz Khas madrasa however has no minar and there is no evidence to suggest that one ever existed or was intended. This may be due to the fact that this mosque served the learned population of the college, and the minar was not deemed necessary in this contained environment. Nonetheless, the minar form was an important architectural form under Firuz Shah.

Tomb structures of the period reflect standard forms. The square-plan domed chamber is used for both tombs as well as monumental portals. The presence of subsidiary elements, such as cenotaphs or mihrabs, are the only formal elements which distinguish the two. The origin of the form can be traced to the tomb towers and monumental gates of Seljuq Iran and . The square-plan domed chamber form is believed to have been reserved for imperial persons during this tim e.35 The octagonal form structure, which is preferred for royal mausolea after the Tughluqs, is first encountered during Firuz Shah’s reign in a sub-imperial monument, the mausoleum of Khan-i Jahan Maqbul Tilangani at

Nizamuddin (ca. 1368 A. D.).36

The range of functions required by Islamic practice largely determined the choice of architectural form. From the physical remains of Firuz Shah’s monuments, known Islamic forms did not necessarily satisfy this patron’s requirements. The consistency of stylistic elements indicates that, in addition to deciding form, the patron also inspired choices of design and decoration. Stylistic evidence points to a single patron whose creative impetus determined the character and direction of imperial building of the 231 empire, even on the sub-imperial level. Historical and epigraphic evidence attributes that impetus to Firuz Shah. Other factors also influenced Indo-Islamic architecture during the reign of Firuz Shah. These factors include geographical considerations and the motives of the patron for undertaking such ambitious building projects. The building phenomenon in fourteenth century India, as epitomized by Firuz Shah’s monuments, was a significant social and cultural force and reflected the values of the society or individual who was responsible for it.

Geographical factors

The relationship of individual monuments or complexes of monuments to their sites is uncertain when original contexts are lost. For example, Firuz Shah’s Kotla was the first fortress of Delhi to be situated on the banks of the Jumna River. Changes in the river’s course and surrounding topography, and urban growth since the sixteenth century A. D., have significantly altered its original context. In the fourteenth century A. D., navigational access offered new possibilities for military strategies and mercantile activities. Also, from a riverfront perspective, Firuz Shah’s citadel, with its mosque and minor, impressed passersby. In fact, the river front location of the kotla set the precedent for Sher Shah and Shah Jahan who, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries respectively, built their forts beside the Jumna. Firuz Shah’s kotla became a prototype as well for the Mughal imperial forts.37 Firuzabad replaced the older centers of Qila Rai

Pithora and Siri, and earlier Tughluq cities, as the nucleus of the empire; By building near these centers, Firuz Shah established his city as the newest "Delhi" and linked his own monuments with the architectural legacies of the earlier sultans. 232

By the mid-fourteenth century A. D., Delhi was the recognized capital of a Muslim empire. Whoever occupied the city wielded control of the empire. The fourteenth century was witness to the rise of rival sultanates in Bengal (737/1336), (747/1346), the Deccan (748/1347), and Gujarat (793/1391). Although Firuz Shah did not recognize the political autonomy of these sultans, prefening to recognize them as administrators of his empire, his efforts to thwart their claims were unsuccessful.38 The sack of Delhi by Timur’s armies at the end of the century, an act which effectively ended Tughluq rule, caused Delhi to lapse into decline. The later Saiyid and Lodi rulers took up residence in Delhi sporadically but they respectively moved their capitals to A g ra.39 By the sixteenth century A. D., the reputation of Delhi as a major metropolitan center under Firuz Shah, as Lowry points out, influenced Akbar’s decision to build Humayun’s tomb there after a hiatus of architectural development in the area.40 Akbar’s decision was a conscious move to "revitalize Delhi and to restore the rule of the Sultanate - now the - over the rest of India." Although Firuz Shah confined most of his architectural projects to the Delhi area, he also built in outlying areas, his most notable undertakings being those at Hissar and

Jaunpur. Although he possibly intended to use architecture as territorial markers of his empire, the geographical proximity of his capital, Firuzabad, to the older cities of Delhi reinforced the idea of Delhi as the center of the empire. Having established Firuzabad as his capital, Firuz Shah preferred to remain in the Delhi area throughout much of his reign.41 He desired to convert Hissar into a major city as well, but he is not known to have relocated his capital there, nor did he force members of the noble class or ^ulama' to move to his outposts. The memory of Muhammad bin Tughluq’s travesty at Daulatabad 233 possibly remained and Firuzabad therefore remained the capital of the sultanate throughout his reign.

His restoration efforts, like his building projects, were primarily concentrated in Delhi. During the course of repairing the Qutb Minar after it had been struck by lightning, Firuz Shah raised its height. His addition to this important monument is attested to in an epigraph on the minar itself and in the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi. This act of restoration may have been a move on his part to tie himself directly to the builders of this important monument rather than a concern for its aesthetic appearance. Despite the number of derelict structures in the Delhi area, Firuz Shah singled out those of his predecessors for special attention. By aligning himself with their monuments, he linked himself with the origins of the Delhi sultanate.42 Other sites also appear to have been selected for their prior associations. The Hauz Khas madrasa was placed beside the ba’oli of ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji. The site was an important location of religious activities when Ibn Battuta visited it during the reign of Muhammad bin Tughluq. Firuz Shah placed his madrasa within a garden setting, intended to provide proper ambiance for the disciplines taught at this educational institution. The laying out of gardens and diverting of water courses through them were common in subsequent reigns but the paradisaical metaphors which came to be associated with them are not indicated at Hauz K has.43 Firuz Shah’s tomb is not situated in a chahar bagh like later Mughal tombs. In fact, Firuz Shah’s water projects in general were utilitarian in nature, providing irrigation for cultivation, and he does not appear to have developed a particular taste for landscaping or for creating pleasure gaideiis.44 234

Geographical concerns, particularly in selecting a site, appear to have affected the scope and direction of Firuz Shah’s building projects. Whereas some sites had important associations already, others were selected for apparently arbitrary reasons. For example, the foundation of Fathabad occurred on the auspicious occasion of the birth of the sultan’s first-born son. The imperial entourage was encamped at the site when Firuz Shah received the happy news. The site of Hissar, on the other hand, was determined out of benevolent concern for the Muslims who resided in the area. Situated near Fathabad and the holy town of Hansi, Hissar was established on the dry plain of Haryana. In a move to aid the people of the region, Firuz Shah ordered two canals excavated to supply water to this outpost. Hissar offered no topographical advantages which affected Firuz Shah’s decision. Rather, it is likely that he hoped to build a town to serve as a resting spot for pilgrims and possibly to rival the religious prestige of nearby Hansi. Jaunpur was established early in his reign as a base from which the sultan could launch his eastern campaigns. The site was already a Hindu holy spot. By building in the midst of it, Firuz Shah may have intended to challenge Hindu sovereignty in the area. But his attempts to desecrate the Ataladevi temple met with opposition and he desisted in wholescale demolition of the temples at the site.45 Despite the importance of the site as a Hindu tirtha, Jaunpur grew into a prosperous Muslim community.

Motives for Building

Reasons for the unique character of Firuz Shah’s architecture have often been sought in the personality of the man. The extent to which Firuz Shah influenced the stylistic unity of his buildings, experimented with architectural form, and determined the 235 scope of building activity was probably a result of his close supervision of construction.

Contemporary accounts, the Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi by ‘Afif and the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, disclose that Firuz Shah was closely involved with building. In fact, he is regarded as an influential force in the development of fourteenth century sultanate architecture. The anomalous character of his buildings and the introduction of new forms possibly indicate his level of discontent with known canons of Islamic architecture. Dire economic circumstances and a dearth of skilled labor did not appear to have presented major obstacles to him. Although motives for his ambitious undertakings can be suggested on the basis of art historical evidence, the absence of supporting epigraphic and historical evidence leaves such inteipretations tentative. Firuz Shah’s influence on architectural form and design may be derived, in part, from what little is known about the patron-worker relationship. This relationship, as understood in the Indian context, was restricted by the caste in Indian society. Unlike the itinerant worker in other parts of the Islamic world, the worker’s position in the societal framework of India was pre-determined. Conversion to Islam provided some opportunity for social mobility but on the level of the laborer this rarely occurred. ‘Afif mentions in the Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi that the work force was supervised by the sultan’s chief architect, Malik Ghazi Shahna, who was assisted by a deputy, ‘Abd al-

H aq.46 Superintendents were appointed over each group of artisans. The work force is reputed to have comprised many thousands of laborers, perhaps rivaling 70,000 who had been employed by ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji. The architect served as a technician and overseer of construction but probably had little input in decisions of architectural form or symbolic content. In these matters, he deferred to the patron’s directives. From the historical evidence, Firuz Shah’s opinions seem to have closely guided the conception of 236 his monuments, and from art historical evidence, his decisions were manifested in the stylistic continuity which became the trademark of his reign. From a broader perspective, building was a public enterprise which indirectly reflected the power of the state.47 From the planning and organization, financing, mobilizing the work force, accumulation of building materials, and seeing the project through completion, the building process had an significant impact on society. Building drew upon resources of the state and, in turn, influenced its political stance, religious direction, and financial circumstances. Several authors attribute the austerity of Firuz Shah’s monuments to economic retrenchment during his reign but this explanation seems implausible in light of evidence of economic consumption in other facets of his administration, especially those within the spheres of public welfare and education.48 For example, the sultan’s preference for carved stucco and molded plaster relief instead of the elaborate stone carving found in the Quwwat al-Islam mosque and Ardhai-din-ka-Jhonpra mosque is believed to have been due to limited economic resources and unavailability of skilled laborers, but it also may have been determined by religious concerns. The economic circumstances of the reign gave the appearance of prosperity but the state treasury was strained by excessive expenditure in its public projects. For example, the necessity of levying a tax on water at Hissar points to the burdens which the public treasury withstood. In addition, the sultan states in the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi that he banned displays of conspicuous wealth at court In fact, his abhorrence of luxury led to the prohibition of gold and silver vessels, effacement of painting and imagery on the walls of the palaces, and avoidance of other trappings of wealth. The sultan’s growing orthodoxy may explain, in part, the austere nature of his architecture. The rationalization 237 that Firuz Shah was sparing in his expenditure toward architecture because of economic stringencies is less plausible in light of this evidence. Even Barani, in the Fatawa-yi Jahandari, accepted excessive expenditure for buildings intended for religious purposes. If the sultan’s intentions were determined by religious motivations, then they reflect a significant level of piety. Thus, what has been pointed to as an avoidance of plaster ornament, instinctual to native craftsmen, probably reflected Firuz Shah’s personal religious bias. The Islamic avoidance of figurai imagery, elaborated on in hadith and manifested on the architectural monuments of the Islamic world, with noted exceptions,49 was naturally in opposition to the Hindu tradition of plastic ornament. But the architecture of the Muizzi and Khalji sultans demonstrates that elaborate embellishment need not be figurai in content. Despite the loss of ornamentation during Firuz Shah’s reign, the stark simplicity of his buildings represent a departure from the earlier architectur al tradition of the Delhi sultans. Another motive which may have prompted Firuz Shah to prefer barren surfaces and weighty structures was a concern for expressing notions of his authority. The

emphasis on mass and weight, rather than decorative surface treatment, and on architectonic elements at the apparent expense of epigraphic content, may have been intended to convey other meanings. For example, in , imposing

masses are believed to have reinforced the power and authority of the Ottoman su ltan . 50

This metaphor is also seen in pre-Tughluq Islamic architecture of India. For example, the Quwwat al-Islam mosque and Qutb Minar, which possess physical attributes of solid form and height, in conjunction with epigraphic message, were intended as symbols of Islam or to convey the idea of appropriation.51 None of Firuz Shah’s monuments, however, possess the scale or monumentality of Muizzi or Khalji structures such as the 238

Qutb Minar or Quwwat al-Islam mosque but they may have communicated, nonetheless, similar intentions articulated through their solid forms. The concept of power finds further expression in the city of Firuzabad itself. Grabar suggests that cities in Islamic culture often were conceived as expressions of power. This he attributes to the urban character of Islamic society in general.52 Carefully placed architectonic units and a focus on ornamentation also served as communicative devices in Firuz Shah’s monuments. The interior of the dome of Firuz Shah’s tomb at Hauz Khas, for example, is an impressive example of strategically placed decorative motifs. The contrasting bare walls of the tomb emphasize the densely ornamented dome (Plate LXXII), where statements of monotheism and divine power are made through stuccoed reliefs of epigraphy. In addition, throughout the madrasa at Hauz Khas and probably in his imperial mosque at Firuzabad, Firuz Shah had medallions inscribed with the Muslim creed placed in key positions. Such expressions of faith were effective means of reiterating the message of Islamic monotheism provided they were not lost in a profusion of detail or in an indecipherable stylized script The impact of the message was expressed through its brevity and its position, in spandrels of arches or in domes. In this regard, the long ordinances of the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi were particularly inappropriate for mosque architecture, lending credence to the hypothesis offered here that the inscription was intended for the palace where more latitude in architectural

decoration was permitted. Although Firuz Shah ordered paintings removed from the walls of palaces, the historical contents of the Futuhat were suited to this secular context. The familarity which either Muslims or non-Muslims had with traditional forms was exploited by Firuz Shah to make even more emphatic architectural statements. The

most compelling examples are encountered in the minars erected by him. Although the 239 lat functioned as a minar for the mosque, it was also a form which operated within both the Buddhist and Hindu contexts, where it was emblematic of the universal axis, the axis mundi, the center of the universe, and M l M eru.53 The pillar was a form of monumental Indian architecture which dated prior to the Maury an era and was assimilated into the Buddhist religion under the emperor Asoka, who adopted the form as a means of communicating his religious persuasion. By the fourteenth century, the meaning which Asoka intended for the lat was lost but the concept that the pillar had symbolic meaning remained. By appropriating the form for Islamic purposes, Firuz Shah incorporated a form recognizable within indigenous cultural traditions to make an Islamic statement.^ His action also emulated Iltutmish’s act of appropriating the iron pillar for the Quwwat al-Islam m osque.55 In addition, the pillar is mentioned in popular mythology. The poet Mutahhar refers to the minar in metaphorical terms - a mountain, the lote tree of paradise, a connection to the heavens. Popular beliefs about the pillar such as these were also assimilated from pre-Islamic cults. In addition, any mortal who associated himself with the pillar linked himself with legendary figures.56 For example, Firuz Shah’s ability to uproot, transport, and raise the Topra column in Firuzabad elevated his reputation to mythic proportions. Rather than distinguishing himself from these prior associations, Firuz Shah exploited them. In terms of its formal development, the detached minar had not been incorporated in Indo-Muslim architecture since ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji’s aborted minar several years earlier. Mimetic minars, similar to those on the Ajmer mosque, appeared on the Jahanpanah mosque, the Khirki Masjid, and the Kalan Masjid, but Firuz Shah revived the detached minar in Tughluq architecture. By doing so, he reestablished a formal 240 relationship with earlier Indo-Islamic architecture and thereby reinforced the idea of the continuity of the Delhi sultanate.57

It must be recalled however that the Lat Pyramid was not a large building by standards of pre-Tughluq architecture. The monumentality of the Qutb Minar and ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji’s aborted minar dwarfed the lat pyramid and the scale of Firuz Shah’s appended mosque is modest compared to the scale of the Quwwat al-Islam mosque or, for that matter, Muhammad bin Tughluq’s mosque at Jahanpanah. Also, the concept of appropriation fits with Islamic architectural tradition where power was not symbolized by new architectural forms but expressed instead by known types.58 The reusing of materials was a common practice among Muslim builders when constructing mosques in newly conquered territories. The Hissar mosque and probably the Jaunpur mosque were built, in part, from reused materials. The reference made by ‘Afif and again in the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi that Firuz Shah intended the appropriated lots to be "memorials" stresses the importance of their commemorative role. If the lats were intended to be memorials of conquest or victory towers, then their claims are apocryphal since Firuz Shah won no important military victories. If they were commemorative structures, then what did they commemorate? In order to address this question, one must examine their formal context.

Two of the columns are known to have been associated with mosques - the Lat pyramid in Firuzabad and the Lat-ki Mosque in Hissar. The other two - the Fathabad lat (Plate CV) and the lat of the Kuskh-i Shikar (Plate CVI) - stand alone. Whether these latter two lats were intended to be associated with mosques is undetermined. It must be recalled that both ‘Afif and the Sirat refer to the lat of the jami masjid of Firuzabad as a minar and it may be possible, if not presumptuous, to identify all four lats collectively as 241 minars. But whether a mosque was built beside the column or not, it could nonetheless have marked a sanctuary for prayer. In this manner minars stood as religious memorials or reminders of prayer. Their association with mosques reinforces this notion. It must be recalled that the Qutb Minar was a symbolic marker of the dar al-islam and signified the presence of Islam .59 Also, it has also been pointed out that the original function of the minaret, as a place from which the call to prayer was issued, had fallen into obsolesence.60 But the minar retained its association with daily prayer and its physical presence could feasibly have ser/ed to remind the devout Muslims of their religious obligation. Thus, Firuz Shah’s motives are believed to have been "directed at spreading and upholding Islam through building whether monumental or utilitarian."6l Although notions of Islamic authority and appropriation of the dar al-Islam have been indicated, on the basis of epigraphic evidence, for Muizzi and Khalji monuments such as the Quwwat al-Islam mosque and Qutb M inar,62 similar evidence for Firuz Shah’s structures is absent Further, it has been suggested that Firuz Shah’s monuments express ideas of

Indo-Islamic leg itim a c y .63 The employment of genealogy as means of legitimization,

witnessed in seventeenth century Mughal architecture,64 does not appear as prominently

in Firuz Shah’s monuments. The lat at Fathabad (Plate CV), allegedly inscribed with the genealogy of the

Tughluq line, is tenuous since this Arabic text remains undeciphered. If the supposition that the inscription records Tughluq genealogy is accurate, then it represents the only instance of Tughluq historical epigraphy associated with this matter. The attribution of

the Fathabad column and its inscriptions to Firuz Shah rests on the basis that the city was his foundation. Precisely when the lat was raised is unknown and contemporary histories 242 do not shed light on it. The Fathabad lat is the only one of the four lats attributed to Firuz Shah which is engraved with a contemporary inscription. The other three lats retain traces of pre-Islamic inscriptions (and one post-Firuz Shah period epigraph) but the meaning of these inscriptions was apparently ignored by Firuz Shah. Finally, piety has been singled out as a significant factor in Firuz Shah’s buildings and central to understanding his role as patron.65 Allusions to Firuz Shah as a pious man and a benevolent ruler are made on numerous occasions in literature.66 The inscriptional evidence in the sultan’s mausoleum also indicates his concern for salvation. 67 The frenetic building projects, whether motivated by concerns for the welfare of his subjects or by more personal needs, nevertheless point to a significant level of piety wimessed in few reigns of the Delhi sultanate. Although the functions of Firuz Shah’s buildings can be identified, the meanings associated with them are less certain. Formal relationships within and outside the Indo- Islamic tradition can be established, but motives must be identified, with caution, by analogy to other reigns of Islamic sovereigns. Historical, societal, economic and religious circumstances which influenced the building process are not always known. The profusion of architectural monuments produced under Firuz Shah may have been intended to communicate messages of authority or to connote the presence of Islam to the native population, but they were just as likely intended for the Muslim population. His buildings provided a religious environment for Islamic practices of the 'ulama' and the Muslim community at large. Firuz Shah’s desires to appease the 'ulama' and their influence in affairs of state has been noted by modem historians.68 Whereas the sultan’s influence on the architectural development of the empire may have been motivated by 243 self-serving interests, his building activités came under the scrutiny of the ^ulama’ and they undoubtedly made their desires known to the sultan. Firuz Shah was indisputedly an enthusiastic patron and his motives for building served to fulfill his personal needs as well as political and religious purposes. By employing traditional Islamic forms and forms appropriated from indigenous non-Islamic traditions, he developed a unique style of sultanate architecture. His monuments represent the culmination of stylistic tendencies which appeared at the beginning of Tughluq rule, but Firuz Shah’s style, in pure form, was short-lived. Despite Timur’s admiration for his buildings, the Timurid style has little in common with it. In addition,

Saiyid and Lodi builders evolved a style which borrowed from it but departed in new directions. The "Firuzian" style was not revived. Firuz Shah’s reputation as a builder was well established before his death and his reign is reflected on as one of the golden ages of architecture in India. The collective body of newly constructed monuments and restored buildings created a legacy which would perpetuate his reputation and reaffirm imperial perogative of building into the Mughal era. 244

NOTES TO CHAPTER VH 1 Firuz Shah’s architectural career spanned thirty-eight years, in contrast to the sixteenth century ruler Sher Shah whose extraordinary building efforts were achieved in a brief span of time. Asher believes that Sher Shah’s expedient projects served to express his legitimacy quickly and succinctly. In addition, the wide geo^phic distribution of Sher Shah’s buildings served to broaden the base of his authority as well as define territorial boundaries of his empire. Asher concludes that Sher Shah’s monuments were united by their similarity of purpose: their ability "to convey a sense of the sultan’s power and authority." See Asher, Patronage of Sher Shah Sur, pp. 291,293 and 317. 2 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 159. 3 Brown, Indian Architecture: Islamic Period, p. 22. 4 Ibid., pp. 22-23; Burton-Page, "Hind," p. 442. 5 Marshall, "Monuments of Muslim India," Cambridge History, pp. 588-589.

6 Ibid., pp. 588-589. 7 Brown, Indian Architecture: Islamic Period, p. 21 and Plate XXII, Figure 1; Nabi Ahmad Khan, Multan: History and Architecture, Plates 26-27. 8 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," Plates 3 and 4.

9 Harle, Art and Architecture of the Indian Subcontinent, p. 425. 10 Burton-Page, "Dilhi," p. 262; Brown, Indian Architecture, p. 22. 11 Nabi Ahmad Khan,Multan: History and Architecture, Plates 26-27. 12 Nath, Sultanate Architecture, Plate XXXVIII; Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," Plate 2.

13 Nath,Sultanate Architecture, Plate DC. 14 Burton-Page, "Dihli," p. 263. Burton-Page points to the tomb of Kabir al-Din Awliya’ which he dates to 796/1394, built by Nasir al-Din Mahmud. The position of this tomb in the chronology of Tughluq architecture has been suggested to be earlier. See Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 162, fn 69, for a discussion of this problem. 15 Creswell suggests the Jabal-i Sang in Kirman as a prototype for the dome in northern India, See K. A. C. Creswell, "Persian Domes before 1400," Burlington Magazine 26 (February 1915), p. 97. 16 Nath, Sultanate Architecture, Plates XLVI, XLVII. 245

Meiklinger suggests that experimentation with multiple domes is evidenced in the Deccan, in monuments of Gulbarga, before it is integrated in Delhi architecture. However, the form of all domes on Deccan monuments are similar to those constructed by Firuz Shah Tughluq. See Merklinger, Indian Islamic Architecture: The Deccan, p. 71 and p. 74. 18 The double dome has a Timurid source, occuring in the fourteenth century architecture of Timur in Samaqand. The Lodi rulers of Delhi prefer domes of higher profiles but the proportional relationship between interior space and exterior profile are not resolved until the Mughals incoiporate the double shell hollow dome in their monuments. 19 Nath,Sultanate Architecture, Plate XI. 20 /W ., Plate XXX.

21 Nath,Sultanate Architecture, Plates IV, VUI. 22 Merklinger, Indian Islamic Architecture: The Deccan, pp. 87 and 102. 23 Ettinghauscn and Grabar, Art and Architecture of Islam, Illustrations 292 and 293. 24 In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, on the eve of the Mongol invasions, eastern Iran underwent a cultural florescence which spread to the fringes of the subcontinent. The rulers of the Ghaznavid and Ghurid dynasties were Sunni Muslims who launched aggressive campaigns to vanquish infidelity and expand the dar al-islam beyond the Indus. Mahmud of Ghazna was the first to plant die seeds of Muslim conquest of India. The early Delhi sultans looked to these ghazis as their forebears. See C. E. Bosworth, The Ghaznavids: Their Empire in Afghanistan and Eastern Iran 994:1040, Edinburgh University Press, 1963; and The Later Ghaznavids: Splendour and Decay, Princeton University Press, 1977. 25 Nath,Sultanate Architecture, Plates LXXVI, LXXVm, LXXX 26 Brown, Indian Architecture, p. 22. 27 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 130. The sixteenth century ruler Sher Shah deliberately chose an Afghan architect in a move to invoke his Afghan heritage as a means of legitimizing his lineage through genealogical associations. See Asher, Patronage of Sher Shah Sur, pp. 155 and 301. Sher Shah was also predisposed to employing members of certain religious movements as a means of legitimization (p. 308). 28 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 138. 29 The Kali Masjid, in Nizamuddin complex, is sometimes also referred to as the Kalan Masjid. Nath, Sultanate Architecture, Plates LXIX, LXX. 246

The iwan plan is also encountered in madrasa forms in other parts of the Islamic world. For example, epigraphic evidence found in the madrasa attached to the Sultan Hasan Mosque in Cairo (1360 A. D.) indicates that separation of individual schools of thought is reflected in die madrasa plan. Max van Berchem, Matériaux pour un corpus inscriptorum arabicorum, le partie, Egypte, Paris (1903), p. 273, no. 172. 31 For a discussion of madrasa types of the eastern Iranian world, see Sheila S. Blair, "The Madrasa at Zuzan: Islamic Architecture in Eastern Iran on the Eve of the Mongol Invasions," Muqarnas 3 (1985), pp. 75-91. 32 Nath ascribes the origin of the Hauz Khas convocation hall to the Jain mandapa. Nath,Sultanate Architecture, p. 62. 33 Welch and Crane suggest that the lat pyramid may have influenced the Panj Mahal at and Akbar’s mausoleum at Sikandra. Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," pp. 161-162, fn 51. 34 Irwin identifies "cosmogonic" purposes to the Qutb Minar and iron pillar in the Quwwat al-Islam mosque. Epigraphic evidence for the lat pyramid, an analogous monument, is absent. Irwin, "Islam and the Cosmic Pillar," p. 134. 35 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 148, fn 74; Nath, Sultanate Architecture, pp. 84-85. 36 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," Plan, Figure 7. 37 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 129. 38 A large minar beside the Bari Mosque in Chota Pandua, attributed to the early fourteenth century, may have been an architectural manifestation of the growing independence of die Bengal sultans. In addition, the Adina Masjid in Pandua, Bengal, was intended as a "visual proclamation" of Sikandar Shah’s defeat of Firuz Shah. See Asher "Inventory of key monuments, in Michell (Ed.) The Islamic Heritage of Bengal, pp. 53 and 109. 39 Burton-Page, "Dihli," p. 258. 40 Lowry, "Humayun’s Tomb," p. 141-142.

41 During periods of his absence from Delhi, he entrusted control of the capital to his vizier. Part of the delay of his return from Bengal, of course, was a six month-long building project in Jaunpur - subsequendy lost to the Sharqi sultans in 796/1394. Also, while excavating canals and building Hissar, he was ffequendy absent from the capital over a period of two and a half years, but Delhi was more accessible from this outpost. 42 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 159. 43 Begley, "The Myth of the Taj Mahal," pp. 14-16, fns. 40-41. 247

^ Firishta attributes several pleasure houses to Firuz Shah but the nature of these is unknown. The sultan is responsible for building numerous hunting pavilions or mahals which remain in the area today. Welch and Crane point to these mahals as the earliest surviving antecedents for M u^al pavilions of the seventeenth century. See Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 152. 45 Führer,Sharqi Architecture of Jaunpur, 4 and 30. 46 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 354.

47 Similarities can be seen in the public building enterprises of the Ottomans as, for example, in the SUleymaniye complex in Istanbul. See Necipoglu-Kafadar, "The Süleymaniye Complex," p. 113. 48 Burton-Page, "Hind," p. 442; Brown, Indian Architecture, p. 22. 49 Grabar, Formation of Islande Art, pp. 72-98. 50 A concern for structural solidity was manifested in the mosques of the Ottoman sultans. These concerns were not just earthquake safeguards but metaphors of power. See Necipoglu-Kafadar, "The Süleymaniye Complex in Istanbul: An Interpretation," Muqarnas 3 (1985), p. 107. 51 Welch, "Qur’an and Tomb," p. 257; Merklinger, Indian Islamic Architecture: The Deccan, p. 47. 52 Grabar, "Palaces, and Fortifications," in Michell (Ed.), Architecture of the Islamic World, p. 70. 53 Irwin, "‘Asokan’ pillars: a reassessment, IV,: Symbolism," Burlington Magazine 118 (November 1976), p. 744; Irwin, "Islam and the Cosmic Pillar," pp. 133- 145; Susan L. Huntington, Art of Ancient India, p. 45. Nath acknowledges that the symbolic content of the pillar form was well understood in Indian society. 54 Nath,Sultanate Architecture, p. 33; Diez, "Manara," Encyclopedia of Islam HI (First edition 1936), p. 227-231. Diez suggests that the detached cylindrical minaret was derived from the wooden tree pillar which was assimilated by Asoka into a stone medium.

55 Such quotations of past tradition were a royal perogrative. See Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 129. 56 The association of the column with Near Eastern and Persian culture was evident as late as the eighteenth century when the traveler Coryat believed that the column had been erected by Alexander. Such associations reinforce the monumentality of the form. See page 140, fn 25 above. 248

These pillars therefore reiterated symbolic appropriation of the land and the jahiliyya (the age of ignorance or, in India, a reference to the ignorance of the polytheistic society). Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 159. 58 Grabar, "Palaces, Citadels and Fortifications," in Michell (Ed.), Architecture of Islamic World, p. 79. 59 Welch, "Qur’an and Tomb," p. 257. 60 Merklinger, Indian Islamic Architecture: The Deccan, p. 55.

61 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 160. 62 Welch, "Qur’an and Tomb," p. 257. 63 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 160. 64 Lowry, "Humayun’s Tomb," pp. 144-145.

65 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 160. 66 The portrayal of the sultan as a religous bigot is perhaps overemphasized, but issue may also be taken with authors who point to Firuz Shah’s "fanatical habit of paying homage to ‘idols’ in Hindu temples." Invin contends that Firuz Shah’s iamge as a vengeful hater of infidels is false. Ifis assessment is entirely possible. Irwin, "Islam and the Cosmic Pillar," pp. 133-134. 67 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," pp. 159-160. 68 Nath suggests that the mounting influence of the ‘ulama' resulted in the increase in sectarian architecture. Nath, Sultanate Architecture, p. 66; Majumdar (Ed.), Delhi Sultanate, p. 107, point to the influence of the ‘ulama' as a "retrograde step." BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary Sources

‘Afif, Shams al-Din ibn Siraj al-Din. Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi. Edited as The Tarikh-i-Firoz Shahi of Shams Siraj 'Afif by Maulvi Vilayat Husain, Bibliotheca Indica, Calcutta, 1891.

_. Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi. Translated (partial) as Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi by Sir H. M. Elliot and John Dowson. The History of India as Told By Its Own Historians: The Muhammedan Period v. HI, Allahabad (Kitab Mahal) nd, pp. 269-393.

Ahmad Bakshi, Khwaja Nizam al-Din. Tabaqat-i Akbari. Edited and translated by B. De, Bibliotheca Indica I (1913,1927).

‘Ain al-Din ‘Abdullah bin Mahru. Insha’-i Mahru. Edited by S. A. Rashid, assisted by Muhammad Bashir Husain, Lahore, 1965.

Anonymous. Sirat-i Firuz Shahi. Oriental Public Library MS, Bankipur (Arabic and Persian Catalogue, Vn, 547).

______. Sirat-i Firuz Shahi. Translated (excerpt) by Mohammad Hamid Kuraishi, in J. A. Page, A Memoir on Kotla Firoz Shah, Delhi. Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India No. 52 (Delhi, 1937), pp. 33-42.

. Sirat-i Firuz Shahi. Translated (excerpt) by Sh. Abdur Rashid, "Firoz Shah’s Investiture by the Caliph," Medieval India Quarterly i/1 (Aligarh, 1950), pp. 66- 71.

Barani, Ziya’ al-Din. Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi. Edited as The Tarikh-i Feroz-shahi of Ziaa al-Din Barni, by Saiyid Ahmad Khan under the superintendence of Captain W. Nassau Lees and Maulavi Kabir al-Din, Bibliotheca Indica, Calcutta, 1862.

249 250

. Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi. Translated (partial) as Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi ofZiau-d din Barni by Sir H. M. Elliot and John Dowson, The History of India as Told By Its Own Historians: The Muhammedan Period, vol. m , pp. 93-268.

. Translated (excerpt) as The Reign of 'Alauddin Khilji, translated from Zia- ud-din Barani's Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi by A. R. Fuller and A. Khallaque, Calcutta (Pilgrim Publishers), 1967.

. Fatawa-yi-Jahandari. Translated (partial) by Mrs. Afsar Umar Salim Khan with introduction and chapters by Mohammad Habib, The Political Theory of the Delhi Sultanate, Allahabad (Kitab Mahal), 1961.

Firishta, Muhammad Qasim Hindu-Shahi. Ta’rikh-i Firishta. Translated as Tarikh-i- Firishtah by John Briggs, History of the Rise of the Mahomedan Power in India till the Year AD . 1612, Vol. II, London (Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co., Ltd.), 1909.

Firuz Shah Tughluq. Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi. Translated as Futuhat-i Firoz Shahi of Sultan Firoz Shah by Sir H. M. Elliot and John Dowson, The History of India As Told By Its Own Historians: The Muhammedan Period, vol. IE, pp. 374-388.

_. Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi. Translated by S. A. Rashid and M. A. Makhdoomi as Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi. Aligarh, 1954.

_. Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi. Aligarh University MS edited by N. B. Roy, "Futuhat-i-Firuzshahi,"Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal VH (1941) No. 2, pp. 61-89.

Ibn Battuta. Rihla. Translated as Voyages d’ibn Batoutah by C. Defiremery and B. R. Sanguinetti. Paris, 1877.

_. Rihla. Translated as The Travels of Ibn Battuta. 3 vols. Cambridge, 1958, 1971.

. Rihla. Translated (partial) as The Rehla of Ibn Battuta (India, Maldive Islands, and Ceylon) by Mahdi Husain. Baroda: Oriental Institute, Gaekwad’s Oriental Series No. ClXXn, 1953. 251

‘Isami. Futuh al-Salatin. Translated by A. Mahdi Husain as The Shahnama of Medieval India of Isami. , 1938.

Qur’an. Translated as The Holy Qur’an by Maulana Muhammad Ali. Lahore: Ahmadiyyah Anjuman Isha'at Islam, 1917. Revised 1951, Chicago: Specialty Promotions, 1973. al-Sihrindi, Yahya ibn Ahmad ibn ‘Abdullah. Ta’rikh-i Mubarak Shahi. Edited as Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi of Yahya bin Ahmad bin ‘Abdullah As-Sihrindi by M. Hidayat Hosain. Bibliotheca Indica, Calcutta 1931.

______. Ta’rikh-i Mubarak Shahi. Translated as Tarikh-i-Mubarak-shahi of Yahya bin Ahmad by Sir H. M. Elliot and John Dowson. The History of India As Told By Its Own Historians: The Muhammedan Period, vol. IV, pp. 6-88.

Timur. Malfuzat-i Timuri. Translated (partial) as Malfuzat-i Timuri or Tuzak-i Timuri: The Autobiography of Timur by Sir H. M. Elliot and John Dowson. The History of India As Told By Its Own Historians: The Muhammedan Period vol. Ill, pp. 389-477.

al-‘Umari, Shihab al-Din ‘Abbas. Masalik al-absarfi mamlik al-amsar. Translated by I. H. Siddiqi and Q. M. Ahmad as A Fourteenth Century Arab Account of India under Sultan Muhammad bin Tughluq. Aligarii, 1971.

Yazdi, Sharaf al-Din ‘Ali. Zqfarnama. Translated (partial) as Zafar-nama ofSharafu-d Din Yazdi by Sir H. M. Elliot and John Dowson. The History of India As Told By Its Own Historians: The Muhammedan Period vol. HI, pp. 478-522.

Secondary Sources

Ahmad, Imtiaz. "Diyauddin Barani’s Perception of Irrigation as an Agent of Change in Society," Islamic Culture LYl, No. 1 (January 1982), pp. 65-70.

Ahmad, Manazir. History of Firoz Shah Tughlaq. Allahabad, 1978. 252

Ahmad, Qeyamuddin. "Barani’s References to ‘the Hindus’ in the Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi - Territorial and Other Dimensions," Islamic Culture LVI (1982) No. 4, pp. 295- 302.

Corpus of Arabic & Persian Inscriptions of Bihar (A.H. 640-1200). Patna: K. P. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1973.

Ansari, A.S. Bazmee. "Hisar Firuza," Encyclopedia of Islam 3 (1971), pp. .484-485.

Ara, Matsuo. Indoshi ni okeru Isuramu seibyo ( in Medieval India - A Historical Study of the Shrines of Sifi Saints in Delhi with Reference to the Relationship between Religious Authority and Ruling Power). Tokyo: Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, 1977.

.. "The Lodhi Rulers and the Construction of Tomb-Buildings in Delhi," Acta Asiatica 43 (1982), pp. 61-80.

_, and Tsukinowa, Tokifusa. "Outline of Surveys and Studies of the Architectural Remains of the Delhi Sultanate Period," Acta Asiatica 43 (1982), pp. 92-109.

Archaeological Survey of India. List of Muhammedan and Hindu Monuments: Delhi Province, v. 2 Delhi Zail (Delhi, 1919), v. 3 Mahrauli Zail (Delhi, 1922).

Asher, Catherine Ella Blanshard. The Patronage of Sher Shah Sur: A Study of Form and Meaning in 16th-Century Indo-Islamic Architecture. Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1984.

Baneijee, Jamini Mohan. History of Firuz Shah. Delhi: MunshiramManoharlal, 1967.

Baneiji, S. K. "Firuz Shah as Seen in His Monuments and Coins," The Calcutta Review, 3rd ser., v. 85 (1942), pp. 102-113.

Bashir al-Din Ahmad Dihlawi. Waqi’at Dar al-Hukumat-i Dihli (History of Delhi the Imperial City: A Most Comprehensive Account of the History and Archaeology of Delhi). 3 vols. Delhi, 1919. 253

Basu, K. KL "Firuz Shah Tughluq as a Ruler," The Indian Historical Quarterly XVII Calcutta, pp. 386-393.

Begley, Wayne E. Monumental Islande Calligraphy from India. Preface by Z. A. Desai. Villa Park, Illinois: Islamic Foundation, 1985.

_. "The Myth of the Taj Mahal and a New Theory of Its Symbolic Meaning," The Art Bulletin LXI, No. 1 (March 1979), pp. 7-37.

Bendrey, V. S. A Study of Muslim Inscriptions. Bombay: Kamatak Publishing House, 1944.

Blunt, James. "A Description of the Cuttub Minar," Asiatick Researches IV (1795), pp. 313-316.

Bosworth, C. E. The Islamic Dynasties. Edinburgh: University Press, 1967.

_. The Later Ghaznavids: Splendour and Decay. Princeton University Press, 1977.

Briggs, John. History of the Rise of the Mahomedan Power in India. 4 vols. 1829, Calcutta 1909,1966-71.

Brown, Percy. Indian Architecture (The Islamic Period). Bombay: D. B. Taraporevala Sons & Co., 1942,1968.

Burton-Page, John. "Dihli," Encyclopedia of Islam II (1966), pp. 255-266.

______. "Dihli Sultanate: Art," Encyclopedia of Islam II (1966), p. 274.

______. "Djawnpur," Encyclopedia of Islam II (1966), pp. 498-499.

______. "Hind, pt. vii Architecture," Encyclopedia of Islam m (1971), pp. 440-454. 254

"Indo-Islamic Architecture: A Commentary on Some False Assumptions," Art and Archaeology Research Papers 6 (1974), pp. 14-21.

"A Study of in the Indian Subcontinent From the Thirteenth to the Eighteenth Century A.D.," Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies XXm, 3 (1960), pp. 508-522.

Campbell, C. J. "Notes on the History and Topography of the Ancient Cities of Delhi," Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, XXXV, Pt 1, No. IV, Calcutta (1867), pp. 199-218.

Chatteiji, Nandalal. The Architectural Glories of Delhi. Calcutta: Alpha Publishing Concern, 1969.

Chhabra, B. Ch. "Asokan Pillar at Hissar, Punjab," Vishveshvarand Indological Journal vol. II (1964), : Vishveshvarand Vedic Research Institute, pp. 319- 322.

Chopra, Somdatt "Hariyana Ka Etihasika Nagar Hissar," Jan Sahitya vol.IX, Nos. 2-3 (1970), pp. 80-83.

_. "Zila Hissar Ke Etihasika Khandhara,"Jan Sahitya vol. XU, No. 2 (1973), pp. 58-62.

_. "Haryana Ka Etihasika Gujri Mahala,"Jan Sahitya vol.X, No. 9 (1971), pp. 55-58.

Cole, Henry H. Preservation of National Monuments of India. Delhi, 1884.

Colebrooke, Henry. "Translation of one of the Inscriptions on the Pillar at Dehlee, called the Lat of Feroz Shah,"Asiatick Researches VI (1801), pp. 175-182.

_. "Inscriptions of ," Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum vol I (Reprint 1961), pp. 34-36.

Cooper, Frederick. The Handbook for Delhi. Delhi, 1863. 255

Cope, H., and Lewis, H. "Some Account of the Town and Palace of Feerozabad, in the vicinity of Delhi," Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal XVI, Pt. II (1847), pp. 971-986.

Cunningham, Alexander (Editor). Archaeological Survey of India Report 1872-73, vol. V (1875).

_. Archaeological Survey of India Report vol. XTV (1882).

_. Reports, Archaeological Survey of India, 23 vols, Calcutta (Superintendent of Government Printing), 1871-87.

Dani, Ahmad Hasan. Muslim Architecture in Bengal. Dacca: Asiatic Society of Pakistan, 1961.

Daniell, Thomas and William. Antiquities of India, Part 5: Oriental Scenery. London: William Daniell and Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, 1815.

Desai, Ziyaud-din A. Indo-Islamic Architecture. New Delhi: Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, 1970.

Dickie, James (Yaqub Zaki). "The Mughal Garden: Gateway to Paradise," Muqarnas 3 (1985), pp. 128-137.

Digby, Simon. "Literary Evidence for Painting in the Delhi Sultanate," Bulletin of the American Academy ofBenaras I (November 1967), pp. 47-60.

Dodd, Erica Cruikshank, and Khairallah, Shereen. The Image of the Word: A Study of Quranic Verses in Islamic Architecture. 2 vols. Beirut: American University of Beirut, 1981.

Duncan, E. A. Keene’s Handbook for Visitors to Delhi, rewritten and brought up to date by E. A. Duncan. 6th Edition. Calcutta, 1906.

Elliot, Sir H. M., and Dowson, John. The History of India as Told by Its Own Historians, Vols. ni-rV: The Muhammadan Period. London: Trubner and Co., 1871-1873, Reprint, Allahabad: Kitab Mahal, nd. 256

Ettinghausen, Richard, and Grabar, Oleg. The Art and Architecture of Islam 650-1250. Harmondswoith and New York: Penguin Books, 1987.

Ewer, Walter. "An Account of the Inscription on the Cootub Minar and on the Ruins in its Vicinity," Asiatick Researches XTV (1822), pp. 480-489.

Fagan, P. J. Hissar District Gazetteer. Calcutta, 1892.

Fanshawe, H. C. Delhi, Past and Present. London, 1902.

Fergusson, James, and Spiers, R. Phene. History of Indian and Eastern Architecture. 2 vols. London: John Murray, 1876,1910.

Fischer, K. "Islamic Period," The Archaeology of Afghanistan from earliest times to the Timurid period. Edited by F. R. Allchin and N. Hammond. London and New York: Academic Press, 1978.

FrykenWrg, R. E. Delhi Through the Ages: Essays in Urban History, Culture and Society. Oxford and Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1986.

Führer, A. The Sharqi Architecture ofJaunpur; With Notes on Zqfarabad, Sahet Mahet and Other Places in the North-Western Provinces and Oudh. Archaeological Survey of India, New Series Vol. I, Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing, India, 1889; Reprint, Varanasi: Indological Book House, 1970.

Gibb, Sir Hamilton, and Bowen, Harold. Islamic Society and the West: A Study of the Impact of Western Civilization on Modern Culture in the Near East. 2 vols. Oxford: University Press.

Golombek, Lisa. "The Cult of Saints and Shrine Architecture in the Fourteenth Century," Near Eastern Numismatics, Iconography, Epigraphy and Histoty. Studies in Honor of George C. Miles. Edited by Dickran K. Kouymjian. Beirut: American University of Beirut, 1974.

Grabar, Oleg. The Formation of Islamic Art. Revised Edition. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987. 257

"The Earliest Islamic Commemorative Structures, Notes and Documents," Ars Orientalis VI (1966), pp. 7-46.

"The Umayyad in Jemsalem," Ars Orientalis 3 (1959), pp. 33-62.

Grover, Satish. The Architecture of India, Islamic 727-1707 AD. New Delhi: Vikas, 1981.

Hardy, Peter. "The Duty of the Sultan (in the Sultanate Period) to Further the Material Welfare of His Subjects," The Concept of Duty in . Edited by Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty and J. Duncan Derrett. New Delhi: Vikas, 1978, pp. 147-189.

_. Historians of Medieval India. Studies in Indo-Muslim Historical Writing. London: Luzac, i960; Reprint, Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1982.

Hasan, Zafar. "Inscriptions of Sikandar Shah Lodi in Delhi," Epigraphica Indo- Moslemca 1919-20. Calcutta, 1924, pp. 1-11.

_. A Guide to Nizamuddin, Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India No. 10. Delhi: Superintendent of Government Printing, 1922.

Hearn, Gordon Risley. The Seven Cities of Delhi. London: W. Thacker, 1906.

Hingorani, Ratan Pribhdas. Site Index to A. S. I. Circle Reports. New Delhi: American Institute of Indian Studies, 1978.

Hissar District Gazetteer, 1916.

Hodgson, Marshall G. The Venture of Islam: Conscience and History in a World Civilization. 3 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974.

Hodivala, Shahpurshah Hormasji. Studies in Indo-Muslim History. Bombay, 1939, Supplement=Volume H, Bombay, 1957. 258

Horn, Paul. "Muhammadan Inscriptions from the Subah of Delhi," Epigraphica Indica: A Collection of Inscriptions Si^plementary to the Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum of the Archaeological Survey H. Edited by James Burgess and A. Führer. Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing, 1884; Reprint 1970, pp. 130-159,424-437.

Hosten, Rev. H. "Firoz Shah’s Tunnels at Delhi," Journal and Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal VIII, Nos.7 & 8 (July-August 1912), pp. 279-281.

"Father A. Monserrate’s Description of Delhi (1581), Firoz Shah’s Tunnels," Journal and Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal New Series Vol. VII, 1911, Calcutta (1915), pp. 101-108.

Hultzsch, E. "The Delhi Topara Pillar Inscription," Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum vol. I (1925), pp. xv-xvii, 119-137.

Husain, (Agha) Mahdi. Tughluq Dynasty. New Delhi: S. Chand, 1976.

______. Rise and Fall of Muhammad bin Tughluq. London, 1935.

Husain, Maulvi Muhammad Ashraf. A Record of All the Quranic and Non-Historical Epigraphs on the Protected Monuments in the Delhi Province, Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India, No. 47. Calcutta: Government of India Central Publication Branch, 1936.

Irwin, John. "‘Asokan’ Pillars: a reassessment of the evidence," The Burlington Magazine 115 (November 1973), pp. 706-720.

‘Asokan’ Pillars: a reassessment of the evidence , Part II: Structure," The Burlington Magazine 116 (December 1974), pp. 712-727.

‘Asokan’ Pillars: a reassessment of the evidence. Part HI: Capitals," The Burlington Magazine 117 (October 1975), pp. 631-643.

_. "‘Asokan’ Pillars: a reassessment of the evidence. Part IV: Symbolism," The Burlington Magazine 118 (November 1976), pp. 734-753. 259

"Islam and the Cosmic Pillar," Memorial Volume to Professor Alber Hàrtel. Berlin, 1988, pp. 133-145.

Islam, Riazul. "The Age of Firoz Shah," Medieval India Quarterly i/I (Aligarh, 1950), pp. 25-41.

______. "Firuz Shah’s Invasions of Bengal," Journal of the Pakistan Historical Society m (1955), pp. 35-39.

______. "Firuz Shah’s relations with the Deccan,"Islamic Culture xxxvi/3 (1952), pp. 8- 12.

______. "Firuz Shah Tughluk,"Encyclopedia of Islam II (1966), pp. 924-925.

_. "A Review of the Reign of Firoz Shah (1351-88 A.C.)," Islamic Culture XXm(1949),pp. 281-297.

Kaye, M. M. (Editor). The Golden Calm: An English Lady's Life in Moghul Delhi, Reminisences by Emily, Lady Clive Bayley, and Her Father, Sir Thomas Metcalf New York: Viking Press, 1980.

Keene, H. G. Delhi. First Edition. Agra, 1873.

Kerr, Robert. A General History and Collection of Voyages and Travels. Vols. Vni and DC. Edinburgh: William Blackwood, 1824.

Khan, Ahmad Nabi. Multan: History and Architecture. Islamabad: Institute of Islamic History, A. H. 1403/1983.

Khan, Sayyid Ahmad. Athar al-Sanadid. Lakhnau, 1847. Translated by M. Garcin de Tassy as "Descriptions des monuments de Delhi en 1852, d’après le Texte Hindoostani de Saiyid Ahmad Khan," Journal asiatique vol. 15-17 (June 1860), pp. 508-536; (August-September 1860), pp. 190-254; (October-NoveniUer 1860), pp. 392-451; (December 1860), pp. 521-543; (January 1861), pp. 77-97.

_. Athar al-Sanadid. Translated (partial) and edited by R. Nath. Monuments of Delhi Historical Survey. New Delhi: Indian Institute of Islamic Studies, 1979. 260

Lehman, Fritz. "Architecture of the Early Sultanate Period and the Nature of the Muslim State in India," Indica 15,1 (1978), pp. 14-31.

Lewis, Henry, and Cope, Heniy. "Some Account of the ’Kalan Musjeed’ commonly called the ’Kalee MusjeW' within the new town of Delhi," Journal of the Asiatic Society ofBengalXVl, Ft. 1 (1847), pp. 577-589.

Lowiy, Glenn D. "Humayun’s Tomb: Form, Function, and Meaning in Early Mughal Architeture," Muqarnas 4 (1987), pp. 133-148.

Majumdar, R. C. (Editor). The History and Culture of the Indian People: Vol. VI The Delhi Sultanate. 2nd Edition. Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1967.

Marshall, John. "The Monuments of Muslim India," Cambridge History of India III Turks and Afghans. Cambridge, 1928, pp. 568-640.

Mehta, J. L. Advanced Study in the History of Medieval India (1000-1526 AD.). New Delhi: Sterling Publishers, 1979.

Merklinger, Elizabeth Schotten. Indian Islamic Architecture: The Deccan 1347-1686. Warminster, England: Aris & Phillip LTD, 1981.

Metcalf, Barbara (Editor). Moral Conduct and Authority: The Place of Adab in South Asian Islam. BeAeley: University of California Press, 1984.

Michell, George (M tor). The Islamic Heritage of Bengal. UNESCO Protection of Cultural Heritage Research Papers 1,1984.

Architecture of the Islamic World: Its History and Social Meaning. New York: William Morrow, 1978.

Naqvi, S. A. A. "Sultan Ghari, Delhi," Ancient India, Bulletin of the Archaeological Survey of India, No. 3 (January 1947), pp. 4-10.

Nath, R. History of Sultanate Architecture. New Delhi: Abhinav, 1978. 261

Monuments of Delhi Historical Survey. New Delhi: Indian Institute of Islamic Studies, 1979.

. Islamic Architecture and Culture in India. Delhi: B. R. Publishing Corp., 1982.

Nigam, S. B. P. "Religious Attitude of Muslim Rulers in India (711 A.D. - 1388 A.D.)," Islamic Culture LVI (April 1982) No. 2, pp. 97-104.

Nizami, Khaliq Ahmad. "A Medieval Indian Madrasah," Studies in Medieval Indian History and Culture. Edited by K. A. Nizami. Allahabad: Kitab Mahal, 1966.

Some Aspects of Religion arui Politics in India during the 13th century. Aligarh, 1961.

Oaten, Edward F. European Travellers in India during the 15th, 16th and I7th centuries. London: Kegan Paul, 1901.

O’Flaherty, Wendy Doniger, and Derrett, J. Duncan. The Concept of Duty in South Asia. New Delhi: Vikas, 1978.

Page, J. A. A Memoir on Kotla Firoz Shah, Delhi. Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India, No. 52. Delhi, 1937.

An Historical Memoir on the Qutb: Delhi. Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India, No. 22. Delhi, 1926.

Parihar, Subhash.Muslim Inscriptions in the Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh. New Delhi: Inter-India Publications, 1985.

Prinsep, James. "Interpretation of the most ancient of the Inscriptions on the Pillar called the Lat of Feroz Shah, near Delhi and of the Allahabad, Radhia, and Methiah Pillar, or Lat, Inscriptions which agree therewith," Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal vol. VI (1837), pp. 566-609. 262

Quraishi, S. Y. Haryana Rediscovered: A Bibliogrcphic Area Study. Vol. 1. Gurgaon: Indian Documentation Service, 1985.

Rajan, K. V. Soundhara. Islam Builds in India (Cultural Study of Islamic Architecture). Delhi: Agam Kala Prakashan, 1983.

Ray, N. B. "Interesting side-light on Firuz Shah Tughlaq’s expedition to Tatta," Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, Letters IV (1938), pp. 285-292.

Raychauchuri, Tapan, and Habib, Irfan (Editors). The Cambridge Economic History of India, Volume I: c. 1200 - c.1750. Cambridge: University Press, 1982.

Richards, J. F. (Editor). Kingship and Authority in South Asia. Madison, Wisconsin, 1978.

Roberts, Emma. Scenes and Characteristics ofHindostan, with Sketches of Anglo-Indian Society. Vol. IE, Chapter VI: Delhi, 167-199. London, 1853.

Rodgers, J. Revised List of Objects of Archaeological Interest in the Punjab. Lahore, 1904.

Rosenthal, Erwin I. J. Political Thought in Medieval Islam. 3rd Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968.

Schimmel, A. "The Celestial Garden in Islam," The . Edited by E. MacDougall and R. Ettinghausen. Washington D C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 1976, pp. 11-39.

Sharma, Y. D. Delhi and Its Neighborhood. 2nd Edition. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India, 1974.

Sharp, Henry. Delhi, Its Story and Buildings. London, 1921.

_. "The Buildings of the Tughluqs," Indian Historical Records Commission Proceedings IV (Calcutta 1922), pp. 34-41. 263

Siddiqui, Iqtidar Husain. "Waterworks and Irrigation System in India During Pre- Mughal Times," Islamic Culture LVm, No.l (January 1984),pp. 1-21.

Spear, T. G. Percival. Delhi: Its Monuments and History. London, 1943.

Stephen, Carr. The Archaeology and Monumental Remains of Delhi. Ludhiana, 1876; Reprint, New Delhi: Aslush Publishing House, 1967.

Thomas, Edward. The Chronicles of the Pathan Kings of Delhi, illustrated by coins, inscriptions, and other Antiquarian Remains. London, 1871; Reprint, Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1967.

Tremblett, T. D. "Notes on old Delhi," Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal XXXIX (1870), pp. 70-89.

Tsukinowa, Tokifusa. "The Influence of Seljuq Architecture on the Earliest Mosques of the Delhi Sultanate Period in India," Acta Asiatica 43 (1982), pp. 37-60.

Watt, W. Montgomery. Islamic Political Thought. Edinburgh: University Press, 1968.

Welch, Anthony. "Islamic Architecture and Epigraphs in Sultanate India," in Studies in South Asian Art and Archaeology. Edited by A. K. Narain. Forthcoming.

______. "CJur’an and Tomb: The Religious Epigraphs of Two Early Sultanate Tombs in Delhi," Indian Epigraphy: Its Bearing on the History of Art. Edited by Frederick M. Asher and G. S. Gai. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH, American Institute of Indian Studies, 1985.

. "Epigraphs as Icons: The Role of the Written Word in Islamic Art," The Image and the Word. Edited by Joseph Gutmann. Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1977, pp. 63-74.

_, and Crane, Howard. "The Tughluqs: Master Builders of the Delhi Sultanate," Muqarnas 1 (1983), New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 123-166.

Wetzel, Friedrich. Islamische Grabbauten in Indien aus der Zeit der Soldaten Kaiser 1320-1540. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1918. 264

Wright, H. Nelson. The Coins and Metrolo^ of the Sultans of Delhi. Delhi: Government of India, Manager of Publications, 1936.

Yadav, K. C , and Phogat, S. R. History and Culture of Haryana: A Classified and Annotated Bibliography. New Delhi: Usha, 1985.

Yamamoto, Tatsuro; Ara, Matsuo; and Tsukinowa, Tokifiisa. Deri: Deri shoocho-jidai no kenzobutsu no kenyu (Delhi: Architectural Remains of the Delhi Sultanate Period). In Japanese. 3 vols. Tokyo: University of Tokyo, Institute of Oriental Culture, 1967,1968,1970.

Zaki, M. "Organization of Islamic Learning Under the Saiyids and Lodis," Medieval India: A Miscellany IV (1977), pp. 1-9. 265

S rin ag ar

4Muten^cN' Tcpra,

'— F a th aa a d , ( // Hissar •• ) • ) M eerut H ansi , 4 Delhi

RAJASTHAN

^Ajmer

<* P a n c u a T hatta

lo n arg a o n

GUJARAT Chota Par.dua

• Daulatabad ORISSA Puri DECCAN

• Gulbarga

B ijapur

FIGURE 266

Slt.'ilnil.ihànâh.'wt K.til.iiii II B V \ Di. Kil'.i

/ inîïïôii;, / ^ v ) /* y / f~\'. •iIuO/ÂiiAi) /

lûlf'khii

S i rl / j f IJJ^iill.lJul ^ lij.i liân p:i iiili, Khirl I # I —

MIIIK WVI.l

KM.

FIGURE 2 267

pEI^Zy/HAH : Delhi. Pe^ bctive view of Rjver ^ F r^ n t .

«I

■^Ë7iI’£^!:,wço5k1^ycTro ON th i { t\A in a INTERNAL " ______- ON ANAloaO^ CONTUAPO#^R^f^W^C7Uj^

FIG URE 3 268

f : ! / F \ ' \ i f -,

1 •> •■■■ _ C- I*: i m

FIGURE 4 269

%

'm m m m m

FIGURE 5 270

e 0 5 10 20 30 FEET N FIGURE 6 271

CROSS SECTION

FIGURE 7 272

IBHJ

EAST ELEVATION

FIGURE 8 273

K

20 30 FEET N

FIGURE 9 274

0 5 10 20 30 FEETe N

FIGURE 10 275

e Legend:

A Madrasa B Convocation Hall C Mosque D Tomb of Firuz Shah E Chhatri F Ba'oli G Cemetery H Tomb of Sayyid Yusuf h

0

FIGURE 11 276

1

FIGURE 12 Ill

311

FIGURE 13 278

%n_

lX

FIGURE 14 279

PLATE I 280

PLATE II

I I' 1 ü U 4 281 PLATE III

r;

1 ^ ^ P-/T3

-v-«rllrgTH|-||-:. -.j| -t|.<

m n m

•-• ^IMI -^--T s^ W #.

* * Jçt » I.______' rrTi#i t y =

f e i f * ü V ~ ' : t ■ -T i i ^ 3 ^ ü M Æ l ! K J ^ # # w a w$ llr#l

^-H?TTS^^5;:^H5zi::5rxrr==zrtrr=:^

AI H l V l d Z8Z PLATE V 283

[ü />- |. - v

g:

n■.T-, > ■ ■.._ »•

m m w a r n i i m . . ’l^ r----::- % Y ï M 284

PLATE VI IIA H l V l d

S8Z 286

PLATE VIII 287

PLATE IX 288

PLATE X 289

PLATE XI 290

PLATE XII 291

p l a t e XIII 292

PLATE XIV

« I 293

PLATE XV 294

PLATE XVI

i iiAX a iv id

Ç6Z 296

PLATE XVni 297

PLATE XIX

i 298

PLATE XX 299

PLATE XXI 300

PLA TE XXII 301

PLATE XXIII

M m 302

PLA TE X X IV 303

PLA TE X X V

"S 304

PLATE X X V I 305

PLATE XXVII 306

PLATE XXVm 307

PLATE X X IX '-.AS

X X X H i V l d

8oe 309

PLATE X X X I iixxx aivid

Ol£ iiixxx aivid

lie 312

PLATE XXXIV 313

PLA TE X X X V 314

PLATE XXXVI 315

PLATE XXXVII 316

PLATE XXXVIII

«■ 317

PLATE XXXIX 318

PLA TE X L

— 5- ' w 319

PLA TE XLI

• •• 320

PLATE XLII

I 321

PLATE XLIII r 322

PLATE XLIV

A

g - f'.'iïv -3S3^,t-'- ■ m&m C:a . -A

&-•' r -> ■ ' • - ■•- ' ' 323

PLATE XLV

I 324

PLATE XLVI t 325

PLATE XLVII 326

PLATE XLVIII 327

PLATE XLIX 328

PLATE L 329

PLATE LI 330

PLA TE LU 331

PLA TE LUI 332

PLATE LIV 333

PLATE LV 334

PLATE LVI 335

PLA TE LVII 336

PLATE LVIII 337

PLATE LK 338

PLATE LX

' J 339

PLATE LXI 340

PLA TE LXII 341

PLATE LXIII

m m f 342

PLATE LXIV

s

• -t**: '• ‘î

mniTT 343

PLATE L X V 344

PLATE L X V I 345

PLATE LXVII

m « 346

PLATE LXVIII 347

PLA TE LXDC 348

PLATE LXX 349

PLATE L X X I 350

PLATE LXXII

m

a s

à

L ^ 351

PLATE LXXIII

% ■ *

AIXXl H lVld

ZSE 353

PLA TE L X X V

I 354

PLATE LXXVI 355

PLATE LXXVII IIIAXXl H lV ld 357

PLATE LXXIX 358

PLA T E L X X X

\3mà 359

PLATE LXXXI 360

PLATE LXXXII

m 361

PLATE LXXXIII

1 362

PLATE LXXXrV 363

PLATE LXXXV 364

PLATE LXXXVI 365

PLATE LXXXVII Wèsli-

IIIAXXXl H lV ld

99£ XIXXXl H lVld

L9£ 368

PLATE XC

:3-r.y

I I 369

PLATE X C I 370

PLATE XCII 371

PLATE XCIII 372

PLATE X C IV 373

PLATE XCV 374

PLATE X C V I 375

PLATE XCVII

a

I 376

PLATE XCVIII

a m # 377

PLATE X C IX

% 378

PLATE C 379

PLATE CI 380

PLATE e n

iS i 381

PLATE c m 382

PLATE CIV 383

PLATE CV 384

PLATE CVI