M in d o\J£K H a t - t e i ^ wO £ s ($L ■ • { ^ J ^ A x QJLa ACOj Vfl/vU<vva; I u d d ttu j J\I<Uo fkX l\L, j 2 -0 0 ^ J _y ( Two Indian Theorists of the State Barani and Abu'l Fazl Irfan Habib The pre-modern Indian state has been the subject of discussion in much recent writing, the various theories ranging from the concept of Oriental Despotism to that of Segmentary State. The state’s taxation capacities, the extent of centralized control, and the degree of systematic administration tend to be assessed and re­ assessed. While these concerns were generally not present in medieval writings on the state (except for the role of despotic authority), there were at least two writers, who, some two and a half centuries apart, provided reflections sufficient in scope and consistency to be given the designation of ‘theories’. I propose to deal with them separately, since their premises and conclusions appear in sharp contrast to each other. At the end, I would try to sum up what these contrasts tell us about both the circumstances of the times and the intellectual traditions which produced them. I . Barani has been much studied and commented upon as a historian, and since the work of Mohammad Habib and Afsar Khan in the 1950’s,1 his position as a political theorist has also been recognized. The following pages thus partly represent the re-visiting of explored ground; such verification may perhaps perform some service, even where it confirms what was previously known; and, therefore, one may proceed to one’s task without a long apology. I begin with a brief recon­ struction of Baranl’s life, and then go on to analyse his political ideas. Ziya Barani,2 was born in 1285, presumably at Baran (mod. Bulandshahr, 1 Mohammad Habib and and Afsar Umar Salim Khan (eds), The Political Theory of the Delhi Sultanate, Allahabad, n.d. 2 I write Ziya Barani because he uniformly styles himself thus. But Ziya’uddln Barani would be equally legitimate; this is how he would have been called by others. Amir Khwurd accordingly styles him Ziya’u’l Millat wu’ddin; cf. Siyaru’l Auliya’, Delhi, ah 1302, pp. 312-13. Apparently, the custom of the time inhibited one from using the full name, which would sound pretentious from one’s own lips (Ziya’u’ddln meaning 'Light of the Faith’). BaranT’s own precursor in the narration of the history of the Delhi Sultanate, the author of the Tabaqat-i Nasin, ed. ‘Abdu’l Hal Habibi, Vol. 1, Kabul, 1963. pp. 6, 64, 127, etc. calls himself Minhaj(-i) Siraj, but Barani, Tarikh-iFTroz-shahi, ed. Saiyid Ahmad Khan, W. Nassau Lees and Kabir al-Din, Bib. Ind., Calcutta, 1860-62, pp. 20-21, calls him Minhaju’ddTn Siraj, as did, much earlier ( ad 1320), Shaikh IB MIND OVER MATTER south-east of Delhi), in a family of scholars and officials. Until his father’s time he could claim for his father Mu’aiyadu’l Mulk no more than a respectable status (sharlf),3 But Mu’aiyadu’l Mulk married the daughter of an official of some imp­ ortance, Sipahsalar Husamu’d-DIn, who rose to be the wakTl-i cfar(‘chamberlain’) of Malik Bektars, the burbak (‘court master’) of Sultan Balban (1266-86), and was made the police chief (shahnah) of Lakhnauti during Balban’s expedition to Bengal.4 Mu’aiyadu’l Mulk himself became n u’ib (deputy) to Prince ArkalT Khan, son of Sultan Jalal'u’d-Dln Khaljl (1290-96),5 and, under A la’u’d-DIn Khalil (1296-1316), the officer-in-charge (nu ’lb-o-kh waiati) of Baran.6 BaranT’s uncle, Ala’ul Mulk occupied a high position in the counsels of Sultan Ala’ud-DIn, having taken part in his plot to assassinate Jalalu’d-Dln and seize the throne. Upon the success of the plot A la’u’l Mulk was rewarded with the governorship of Kara and Awadh, and then with the office of police chief (kotwal) of Delhi; but he died early in the new Sultan’s reign.7 BaranI himself, as we can see from his writings, received a very extensive education in Arabic and Persian; he was well trained in Muslim theology and deeply read in history. He had begun writing ‘out-of-the-comjnon’ (gharib) tracts which he used to show to Khwaia Karlmu’d-Dln at Ghiyaspur in Delhi, in Shaikh Nizamu’d-DIn’s life-time (i.e. before 1325).8 BaranI in his (later?) work Hasrat- nama claimed that he had obtained such proximity to Shaikh Nizamu’d-DIn, the most influential mystic of the time at Delhi, that he was one of the three to be summoned by the ShaiWi after his humiliation at a debate (mahzar) organized by Sultan Ghiyasu’d-DTn Tughluq (1320-24), the other two being MuhyT’u’d-DTn KashanI and the famous poet Amir Khusrau.9 BaranI also asserts in his Tarikh that Nizamu’ddln in his conversations recorded by Amir Hasan Sijzl, Fawa’idu’l Fu’ad, ed. Muhammad Latif Malik, Lahore, 1966, p. 396. My insistence on Ziya BaranI being the only correct form (see ‘Baranl’s Theory of the Delhi Sultanate’, The Indian Historical Review, Vol. 7 (1-2), 1980-81, p. 99, fn.l) was therefore a piece of misplaced pedantry. 3 Baranl’s date of birth is established by his statements in the Tarikh: 573. On p. 350, BaranI says his ‘father was sharif, being a daughter’s son of Saiyid Jalalu’ddln, one of 'the leading and eminent Saiyids of Kaithal’. 4 Ibid., pp. 42, 60-61, 87, 119, for Baranl’s ‘maternal grandfather’, Husamu’ddln’s position as 1 vakTI-i dar, p. 87, also for his appointment at Lakhnauti. 5 ibid., p. 209; at that time, BaranI, still in his boyhood, used to visit the mystic Saiyid Mauia, later executed, on the suspicion of having engaged in a consphacy against the Sultan (pp. 20Stl2)< 6 Ibid., p. 248, where BaranI also comes round to giving the name (or title?) of his father (Mu’aiyadu’l Mulk). 7 Ibid., pp. 222, 236-37, 248, 250. ‘Ala’u’l Mulk is represented by BaranI as an important and honest counsellor of ‘Ala’uddln Khalil (especially pp. 264-71). He was among those officers of the Sultan who died within the first three or four years of the reign (p. 336), 8 Amir Khwurd, Siyaru’l AuliyS', p. 315. The author’s father knew BaranI and is given the credit of introducing him to Shaikh Nizamu’ddln (pp. 312-13). 9 Baranl’s Hasrat-nama, which js not extant, is cited for the information here given in the Siyaru’l AuliyS', pp. 313, 531-32. A passage from the Hasrat-nama, narrating a conversation with Shaikh Nizamu’ddln is quoted in exienso in ‘ Abdu’l Haqq, Akhhgru ’/ Akhyar, ed. ‘Abdu’l A had, Delhi, a h 1332; pp. 103-5; it is professedly derived from the Siyaru’l Auliya, where, however, at least in the printed edition, it is not to be found. Two Indian Theorists o f the State 17 he had such close relations ‘for years’ with the two leading poets of ‘Alau’d-DIn Khalil’s time, Amir Khusrau and Amir Hasan that the three were inseparable, he himself being the instrument in drawing the two ‘masters’ together.10 All this indicates that by the time of Muhammad Tughluq’s accession (1324), Barani had acquired a certain position in the scholarly and theological circles of Delhi. But despite such status, and his own family’s links with the bureaucracy, a government appointment yet eluded him. This delay in achieving a suitable office could be one of the reasons for Baranl’s deep bitterness against lowborn upstarts competing for office with men from established families. At last in 1334—35, when he must have been nearly fifty, he caught the eye of Sultan Muhammad Tughluq (1324-51), so that he now became ‘a servant of the court’ (mulazim-i dargati),serving the Sultan as an aide or companion (muqarrab) continuously till the end of the reign.11 Seventeen years as a courtier gave Baran! an unrivalled proximity to that brilliant and self-willed sovereign, and an opportunity to learn how monarchy in reality functioned, though he was to mourn later that, as one of a set of scholar-courtiers, he remained a pliant yes-man.12 Muhammad Tughluq’s death, and the enthronement of his cousin FIroz brought about an irredeemable fall in Baranl’s fortunes. He was dismissed and ‘fell among a host of perils’, barely escaping execution.13 He was imprisoned in the fort of Bhatnair for five months.14 Upon his release he was left penniless, and fell into abject poverty, a condition which engendered in him not spiritual content­ ment, as alleged in the Siyaru’l Auliya, but a sentiment of deep inner disappointment and resentment.15 He had failed in the realm of religion, as also the world: nothing but regret (hasrat) remained.16 10 Barani, Tarlkh. p. 360. 11 Ibid., pp. 466-67, 497, 504, 516-17. According to Amir Khwurd. he became the nadlm (companion, confidant) of the Sultan (Siyaru’l AuliyS, p. 313). It was apparently in this capacity that he was deputed by the Sultan, along with Prince FIroz, to deliver 100,000 tankas to Shaikh Qutbu’ddln Munawwar (ibid., pp. 251-55). 12 Being one of those ‘who had learnt to distinguish black and white, had a share of learning from which respectability (sharaf) comes, (but) had committed hypocrisy out of worldly greed and ambition, and had become a close companion (muqarrab) to the Sultan’.