Turkish Rule In Northern India: During 13Th Century to 20Th Century

Another important aspect of 20th century British and Indian historiography on the Early Turkish Rule brings to fore a crucial feature that highlights the weakness of both studies of historians as they failed to evolve a terminology best fitting to the history and culture of the 13th century Northern India. British and some of the Indian historians trained under British Scholars applied European terminology, and the Indian historians either toed their vocal chords or followed their ideological terminology that best suited their study of history [1]. Muhammad Habib justified that the Muslim conquest of India was a result of an urban revolution. In his perception of 13th century, Marxist ideology is quiet vibrant [2]. British historians and Translators of the well and lesser-known Indo-Islamic Tawarikh, substituted European words like fief for Iqta, nobles for Amir, Malik and Khan etc. No longer desiring to evolve terminology of their own historiography, the Indian historians of independent India are eager to harvest other fruits from this Indo-Persian historiography as translated by the British [3]. A deep study of the early Turkish period with proper recourse to the Persian sources which have a bearing on the Subject. The Foundation of Muslim Rule in India [5] written by the author covers nearly eighty years from the accession of Aibak to the death of Kayumur, which is really a foundation period of the Turkish Rule in India. The only difference we can figure out is that of language, the former was in Persian and the latter in English. It was useful in the 1940,s and 1950,s but subsequent appearance of new literature and new questions raised by scholars out shun its worth [4]. There is no denial of the fact that Muhammad Aziz Ahmad’s monograph is a straight political history of the early Turkish Rule which remained within the parameters of Sultanate Tawarikh [6]. One of the important characteristics of the period is that in the beginning, it continued to be political history or biographical writing. The English historians of the early 20th century like Stanley Lane Pool [Medieval India under Muhammad an Rule, 1903] V.A. Smith [Oxford History of India, 1919] and W. Haig[ed] [The Cambridge History of India, 1926] based their accounts of the Early Turkish Rule upon the English translations of Indo- Persian Tawarikh by Elliot and Dowson, ALEXANDER Dow, John Briggs and H.G. Raverty. These writers do not appear to have made any remarkable advance upon the form and technique of historiography as adopted by the medieval chroniclers. Since the source materials were almost the same, their treatment of political foreign usurpers of India [7]. They based their writings on the superiority of British rule in India over the medieval Muslim rule.

The Modern writings of Indian history began with colonial perceptions of the Indian past that were to be seminal to its subsequent interpretations. It took shape with the beginning of colonial rule in various parts of the subcontinent from the 13th century onward. British scholars searched for histories of India but could find none that conformed to the familiar European view of what a history should be, a view influenced in part by the thinking of the EUROPEAN Enlightenment. The initial hostility to Islam was doubtlessly aggravated by European antagonism due to historical reasons, beginning with the Crusades [8]. If the role of Islam was conceded at all, it was said to be negative, and judgments were based on little or no evidence, since the history of Islam in India could not been investigated at this point. As assessment of historical writings on, India during the 20th century would clearly indicate several significant developments and perceptible shifts in Indian historiography [9]. A careful and deeper study lays bare the fact; how Indian historiography has been greatly influenced by such developments in the West as formulation of new theories, construction of new conceptual and analytical frameworks, pressing into service of new and sophisticated research tools, and utilization of fresh source materials. In his introduction to the Study of Indian History [1956], D. D. Kosambi fitted the medieval politics traded by Muslim rulers in his interpretation of Indian Feudalism, by special reference to the process that he designated Feudalism from above. To the cultural consequences of the Islamic intrusion, he added the technological aspect, crediting; Islamic raiders’ with ‘breaking hide-bound custom in the adoption and transmission of new techniques.

The Administration of the Sultanate of Delhi [10] the legal sovereign, the actual sovereign, the Royal households, the ministers, finance, the army, justice and police ,religious affairs, education, public works, provincial and local government, and the spirit of government. The Foundation of the Muslim Rule in India observes that the mamluk administration was mainly a series of experiments and tendencies which did not crystallize into comprehensive system until a new dynasty came to power. K.S. Lal’s Muslim State in India, K.P. Dutta’s Administrative Aspect of Medieval Institutions in India [Calcutta, 1972] and U.N. Day’s The Government of the Sultanate [New Deldi, 1972] are the books which says Islam is the rule of God, for the perfection of humanity and by the agents of God is placed on a divine pedestal. K.A. Nizami while discussing Balban’s theory of kingship of the Sultanate of Delhi as a whole. Kingship is the vice regency of God on earth, and in its dignity, it is next only to prophet hood. In the 1960’s and decades after that, Peter Hardy devoted his attention to the dominant assumption of Muslims about the nature and ends of political activity. His account is aimed at the ‘Study of theory, not of practice, of the ideas and Pre-suppositions of academicians rather than of the working assumptions of practicing rulers and administrators. In Hardy’s account of the theory of medieval Indo-Muslim government was concerned primarily with how the pious Muslim might recognize that the government of the community is in the right hands and be assured that it is being exercised for the right purposes [11]. ‘Administrative Division in the Inscriptions of Early Medieval India, does not concern this investigation directly. But it is important as probably administrative divisions of the Sultanate might have built on the pattern of earlier units.

MILITARY SYSTEM OF DELHI SULTANATE:

Military historiography in India was initiated with the start of studies on medieval Indian history during the 1860’s. It appears that the British Military historiography in India was initiated with the start of studies on medieval Indian history during the 1860's. It appears that the British administrative objectives and political developments after 1857 shaped the nature of military historical writings. The foundation of Turkish rule was described as Muslim rule and as a linear process of foreign domination in Indian history [12]. But the true nature of Turkish rule eluded discussion, and ideological frays started generating historical debates among scholars. The history of the early Turkish rule in the northern India has been written primarily, in political and military terms projecting dauntless This approach of writing military history of the Indian subcontinent was countered by Indian historians during the middle of 20th century The Indian Muslim historians who started writing explanation of medieval military setup began to feel uneasy with the martial tone of their material. As a reaction to this, some of them tended to highlight the non-military background of medieval Muslim successes. This was most vigorously advocated by Mohammad Habib who, following his Marxist proclivities claimed that the Muslim conquest of India was the result of an Urban Revolution‘. Obviously, among Muslim scholars, Habib‘s perspective, which was influential, did not particularly stimulate further military research of the old variety. Nevertheless, the thorough studies of Abdul Aziz and Athar Ali on the organization and social and ethical composition of the Mughal army are two examples of the indirect ways his attention for the

writing military history of the Indian subcontinent was countered by Indian historians during the middle of 20th century. The Indian Muslim historians who started writing explanation of medieval military setup began to feel uneasy with the martial tone of their material. As a reaction to this, some of them tended to highlight the non-military background of medieval Muslim successes. This was most vigorously advocated by Mohammad Habib who, following his Marxist proclivities claimed that the Muslim conquest of India was the result of an urban Revolution„. Obviously, among Muslim scholars, Habib‘s perspective, which was influential, did not particularly stimulate further military research of the old variety. Nevertheless, the thorough studies of Abdul Aziz and Athar Ali on the organization and social and ethical composition of the Mughal army are two examples of the indirect ways his attention for the social aspects of the Muslim conquest bore fruit for the military field as well. I.H. Qureshi in The Administration of the Sultanate of Delhi discusses military organization under the Chapter VII entitled "The Army". He says that the internal and external armed struggle of the early Turkish Sultans forced the need of organizing the army of e Sultanate. There was a ministry for war called diwan-i-ard with its head known as the ard-i-mumalik, who was responsible for its efficiency and entire administration. The ard-i-mumalik was responsible for the recruitment of troops, inspection of troops, promotion and degradation of the soldiers, recommendation of assignments, payments of troops, and preparations of war campaigns, and he would accompany the army in all important wars and saw the commiserate of supply and transport. I.H. Qureshi further illustrates the methods of Dagh and Huliyah adopted by Alauddin Khalji. The army was distributed and posted according to the need and strategic importance of the area concerned. He divides the troops under two heads: (i) hashm-iqalb which consisted of Khasah Khail (household brigade), jandars (royal slaves & guards) and afwaj-i-qalb (troops directly under the royal command); (ii) hashm-i-atraf (Garrisons in the provinces). He further discusses the cavalry, elephants, infantry, firearm, siege engines, forts, provisions, engineers, battle array, scouts, ambulances and qurkhanah (repository of royal standards) and zarradkhanah (arms storehouse). The army personnel were so well balanced malong tribal lines that no race or group could be predominant to pose threat to the ruler. The army was organized on decimal basis from on individual soldier to Khan; between them were Sar-i-khail, Sipah-salar, Amir, and

The main purpose of this paper is to explicate and underline various facets of northern India-Turkish rules since India’s independence. During the détente both the countries tried to establish relations particularly in economic field. However, since 13th century, more specifically, since early this 20th century both Turkish rule in northern India looking forward to a strong and cordial relation, and it is observed from the above discussion that in the future the relations between India and Turkish will be more extensive based on pragmatism. It is becoming further clear from the fact that during the first phase of Turkish rule. But during the second phase which spans the past two decades almost Indian country and several visits of other dignitaries have taken place. Particularly, during the recent years Turkey is showing significant interest towards India. The economic and business opportunities in both the countries, since both of which are among the fastest growing economies in the world, the desire to harness the rich socio-cultural ties in a fast globalizing world, and variety of other factors will lead to Northern India: During 13th Century To 20th Century.

1. Chittabrata Palit, "W.H. Moreland" in S.P. Sen (Ed.), Historians and Historiography in Modern India, Calcutta, 1973, pp. 455-464. 2. J. Harrison, "W.H. Moreland" in C. Philips (Ed.), Historians of India, Pakistan and Ceylon, London, 1961, pp. 310-318. 3. Margaret H. Case, "The Historical Craf tsmanship of W.H. Moreland (1868-1938)‖, I.E.S.H.R., Vol. II, NO. 3, June-Oct., New Delhi, 1965, pp. 21-25. 4. A.C. Roy, "Trends in Modern Historiography on Medieval India," T.Q.R.O.H.S., Vol. III, No. 1-2, Calcutta, 1963-64, pp. 29-35. 5. Romila Thapar, Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300, New Delhi, 2002, pp. 1- 36. 6. Ronald B. Inden, Imagining India, London, 1990, pp. 51-192. 7. S. Manickam, "Indian Historiography : Some changing Perspectives‖, I.H.S., Vol. 3, No. I, October 2006, pp. 11-22. 9. R.K. Mukerji, A.C. Das, K.P. Jayaswal, B.G. Tilak etc. 10. U.N. Day, The Government of the Sultanate, New Delhi, 1972, p. 34. 11. R.P. Tripathi, Some Aspects of Muslim Administration, 2nd rev. Ed., Allahabad, 1956, pp. 105-124. 12. K.A. Nizami, op. cit., p. 89. 13. K.S. Lal, Historical Essays: Vol. I, History and Historiography, New Delhi, 2001, pp. 150-154.

14. A.L. Srivastva, Medieval Indian Culture, 1964, pp. 11-19.