daniela bredi History Writing in Urdu: Hashmatu’l-Lah Khan, Kacho Sikandar Khan Sikandar, and the History of the Kargil District In the field of historiography, Urduís contribution does not appear as valuable as in literature, even though it is the first indigenous language, in the modern era, to undertake the production of historical writings. The reasons are manifold: the circumstances of the beginning of modern history writing in this language; its suitability, which some ques- tion, as a medium for history writing; its sharing of the Indo-Muslim tradi- tion of historiography, which up to the first half of the twentieth century did not draw from historyís raw materials (official papers, archeological remains, inscriptions, coins) but only from the works of preceding historians (Hardy 1960, 1–4). Urdu emerged as a language able to produce works of history at the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth centuries, when English historiography was introduced in India. Urdu historiogra- phy, therefore, developed at the time of the decline of Indo-Persian and the emergence of Western historiography. As early as the period preced- ing the founding of Fort St. George College in Madras, Fort William College in Calcutta, and the Delhi College, a few works of an historical nature can be found written in Urdu. From these specimensówhether speaking about original works or translations or abridged translations of histories in Persianóone finds that this type of work was usually under- taken on commission, often from English officials, and the topics dealt with were always related to India, understood both in its totality and in its regional particularities. The language, variously called by the authors Hindi-Urdu, Urdu or Dakẖni, is in general quite simple but is often inter- spersed with Persian or local language words and expressions. Only on rare occasions are sources mentioned, even when it comes to well-known 5 6 • The Annual of Urdu Studies, No. 26 authors, such as Munʿim Khān Aurañgābādī,1 who certainly had access to state documents. Apart from this last historian, it does not seem that the authors of historical works had a particular specialization in writing his- tory, rather, they were simply concerned with gathering a certain amount of information requested by their clients (who, very often, having only a vague notion of historiography, were not much concerned with it). Urdu historiography, born in a moment of transition, is, in a certain sense, squashed between Persian and English history writing and unable to glean the best of either tradition. And this brings us to the use of the Urdu language as a means for writing history. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, and particularly as a con- sequence of the encounter with Western culture and British works, there was an effort to get rid of old stereotypes and to renew the language, making it suitable for the exposition of any topic. And though this effort was carried on, so that eventually Urdu was able to respond positively to all the stages of national historical developments, opinions are divided. There are those who hold that Urdu succeeded in stripping itself of courtly traditions, highfalutin words, artificial diction and stale images, and became a language able to reflect the psychological considerations, the emotional experiences, and even the whispering of the populace. And in doing so, it made room for the foundation of new and vigorous schools born in response to Western-style education and modern lifestyles, such that one can speak of an Urdu revival, of which Muḥammad Ḥusain Āzād (1830– 1910) and Khvāja Alāf Ḥusain Ḥālī (1837–1914) were the precursors (see, for example, Faruqi 1959, 298–316). But others are not of the same opinion. Despite the conspicuous presence of a number of authors of material definable as scientific and historical, considered models of clarity, erudition, flexibility, and research (ibid., 314–15), the eminent Pakistani historian K. K. Aziz, for example, puts forward serious and justifiable doubts that, as far as history is concerned, Urdu can be a suitable language (1994, Ch. 4). He admits, however, Urduís usefulness as far as local histories are concerned. As for its lack of originality, if we take as examples of local histories in Urdu Ḥashmatuíl-Lāh Khānís Mukhtaṣar Tārīkh-e Jammūñ va Kashmīr (1939) and Kačō Sikandar Khān Sikandarís Qadīm Ladākh (1987)ópracti- cally the only works reconstructing the historical events of very sensitive areas like the northern areas of Pakistan and Indiaís Ladakh regionówe see that they differ quite a bit from the usual Indo-Muslim histories. In fact, they could not be said to rely mainly on previous written histories. Ḥashmatuíl-Lāh Khān and Kačō Sikandar Khān Sikandar are not ìhistorians 1He wrote at the time of the Niām of Hyderabad ʿAlī Khān Āṣaf Jāh. Daniela Bredi • 7 of historians,î to use Hardyís expression (1960, 1). Wishing to know more about the Kargil areaówhich was brought to the worldís attention by the so-called Kargil war, an armed conflict between India and Pakistan which took place between May and July 1999 in the Kargil district (Purig) of Ladakh that lies in the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmiróone must refer essentially to these two Urdu works.2 Up to Ḥashmatuíl-Lāh Khanís time, local people went on calling the Kargil district by its ancient name of Purig. By Purig they meant a complex of valleys (the principal ones being Suru, Dras, Shakar-Chiktan, Wākẖā and Lower Indus) inhabited mostly by Muslims, entertaining close rela- tions with Baltistan. In fact, Islam spread into Baltistan and Purig nearly at the same time. In a way, these two areas could be taken as configuring a Muslim ìfrontierî on the fringe of the Buddhist Ladakh. The circumstances of Purigís Islamization, together with the vicissitudes of its Muslim kings and lords, then, would seem quite useful for a better comprehension of recent events. Ḥashmatuíl-Lāh Khān, who was not a historian by profession, but a former British Indian Civil Service official in the service of the Dogras of Kashmir, vassals of the Sikh kingdom of the Punjab, was posted to run the areas now constituting Pakistanís shumālī ʿilāqē (northern territories) plus the Kargil district, now a part of the Ladakh region (India). During his stay, he seized the opportunity to collect a large amount of information, and made use of it later, after his retirement, when he set himself to write about his work. He, who had access to official papers and previous histories, integrated them with epic poems in Persian (the Shīgharnāma by Sayyid Taḥsīn, for example), chansons des gestes in local languages, oral tradi- tions, ruins of old buildings, somewhat after the fashion of the British compilers of the gazetteers of the various parts of India during colonial times. His history contains two sections regarding Purig: Part V, History of Purig and Zanskar (pp. 676–752), consisting of a foreword and four chap- ters (History of the First Settlements in Purig, i.e., Suru, Kartse, Phūkar, Mulbeh and Wākẖā; History of Sut, Chiktan and Pashkyum; History of Shighar Shingo and Daras; History of Zanskar) and the eighth chapter of Part IV, entitled ìSpread of Islam in Baltistan, Purig, Gilgit and Ladakhî 2Other sources for Purigís history are Mughal histories in Persian and the Ladakh Chronicle, as studied in Petech (1977). Mughal sources are Dughlat (1895), Abuíl-Faẓl (1977–1978), and Khan (1990). To these may be added Bernier (1891), who stayed in India from 1656 to 1668, during the time of Emperor Aurañgzēb. Both Khān (1939) and Sikandar (1987) quote them in their own works. Other useful works are Francke (1907), Drew (1875), and Vigne (1844). 8 • The Annual of Urdu Studies, No. 26 (pp. 663–73). Letís begin by considering this last one. He starts by stating that the first Muslim missionary in these areas was Mīr Kabīr Sayyid ʿAlī Hamadānī (1314–1385), a famous Sufi of the Kubravīya order who left an indelible mark on Kashmir. Quoting Muḥammaduíd-Dīn Ẕauqís Tārīkh-e Kashmīr, he goes on to say that Sayyid Hamadānī was in Kashmir three times: first during the reign of Sulān Shihābuíd-Dīn (1360– 1375); a second time while Shihābuíd-Dīn was in the Punjab, engaged in a war against the Delhi sultan Fīrūz Shāh Tughluq (1373); and a third time in 1379 during the reign of Sulān Qubuíd-Dīn, whom he had converted to Islam earlier. Ḥashmatuíl-Lāh Khān admits the lack of evidence about Shāh Hamadānís (as the saint is popularly known in Kashmir) arrival in Baltistan, and writes that it is quite likely that Islam was introduced in this area through the preaching of his disciples and followers. About Purig in particular, Ḥashmatuíl-Lāh Khān affirms that the presence of Nūrbakhshī communities in this area may be taken as an indication that Islam was introduced here by Sayyid Muḥammad Nūr Bakhsh (1392/3–1464/5), who probably went from Kashmir to Skardo passing through Purig, or via Hun- dul. In his opinion, Purig and Baltistan adopted the Shīʿī version of Islam thanks to the work of Mīr Shamsuíd-Dīn ʿIrāqī at the beginning of the sixteenth century. He adds: It is possible that Ghōtā-čō Singe or Bahram [maqpon = lord of Skardo] ended up accepting Islam thanks to the endeavors of Sayyid Muḥammad Nūr Bakhsh, but they say that Bōkhāís son, who took the name Shēr Shāh,3 chose the doctrine of Mīr Shamsuíd-Dīn ʿIrāqī. Probably, in Shighar and Kẖaplu as well, this same situation occurred, but in Purig the doctrine of Sayyid Muḥammad Nūr Bakhsh remained current. (In Bredi 1996, 156–57)4 About the two principalities of Suru and Kartse, he says: In Suru and Kartse, the Islamic religion started spreading with Argyāl Būm-alde, who accepted Islam in Kashmir in 725 ah., corresponding to 1373 ce.