The history of India : as told by its own historians. Volume II/VII. Nizamu-t Tawarikh of Baizawi

Back to Index of the Book

The full text of this book has been converted into Wiki format by Laxman Burdak.

The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians

Sir H. M. Elliot Edited by John Dowson, 1867

Volume II: To the Year A.D. 1260

VII. Nizamu-t Tawarikh of Baizawi

Introduction

[p.252]: This " Arrangement or String of Histories " is a small work devoted to general history, well known in Europe, but in too compendious a form to be of any great use, for in some of the dynasties treated of we have little beyond the names of the kings and the dates of their decease. Its value is chiefly attributable to the early period at which it was written.

The author was Abu Sa'id 'Abdu-llah bin Abu-l Hasan 'Ali Baizáwi.¹ His father was, as well as himself, a " Káziu-l kuzzát," or chief kazi, and his grandfather exercised the functions of Imam. He was born at Baiza, a town at a short distance from Shiraz, and was kazi, first at Shiraz and afterwards at Tabriz, where he died in the year 685 H., 1286, A.D.). Haji Khalfa says he died either in that year or 692 H.² This author has obtained great celebrity from his commentary upon the Kuran, entitled Anwáru-t Tanzil wa asrára-t Táwil — " the lights of revelation and mysteries of allegorical interpretation," which has itself been commented on by many succeeding authors, of which a bit is given by Haji Khalfa, in his Lexicon, Vol. I.

1 This is what he calls himself in the Preface to the Nizamu-t Tawarikh, but Haji Khalfa styles him Nasiru-d din Abu Sa'id 'Abdu-llah bin 'Umar Baizawi. S. de Sacy also calls him Abu-l Kasim, 'Umar his father, and Abu-l Hasan 'Ali his grandfather. In one biography in my possession, he is named Kazi Nasiru-d din Abu-1 Khair' Abdu-llah bin 'Umar bin Muhammad bin 'Ali Shirazl Baizawi. The Hft Iklim calls him Kazi Nasiru-d din bin Kazi Imam Badru-d din 'Umar bin Fakhru-d din bin 'Ali.

2 The two first dates are given by most of the European authorities who follow Haji Khalfa. Rampoldi gives his death in 1286 A.D. or 685 A.H. The Fakhru-l Wasilin has a chronogram which gives 691. Abu-1 Muhasin and the MS. quoted by Casiri gives 685, and Yafi'i mentions his death under the annals of 692.

[p. 253]: pp, 469-81. This is considered generally the best commentary, and has been largely used by Sale and others. There are several copies of it in Europe, enumerated by De Rossi. It has lately been printed at Leipsig by Professor Fleischer. Baizawi was the author of other works on law, theology, logic, and grammar, all written in Arabic, but the Nizamu-t Tawarikh is in Persian, in order, as he says, " that it might be of more general use."

A full account of the Nizámu-t Tawárikh has been given by Silvestre de Sacy, in the Notices des Manuscripts, Tom. Iv. pp. 672-696, from the Appendix of which article it appears that there is another work of the same name, composed by Kazi Jalalu-d din, wazir of Mahmud the Ghaznivide, in which I am disposed to apprehend some error of name or designation. Amongst other extracts given by him he has translated the brief histories of the Assassins and Atabaks.

There is some doubt about the exact date of the composition of this work. It is generally supposed that it was written about 674 h., but there are dates mentioned in it subsequent to that period. For instance, in the history of the Atabaks, there is one of 686, and towards the close of the Moghal history, there are 684 and 690 ; and 694 is repeated four times. There appears nothing like interpolation in these passages, and there would therefore appear some reason to suppose that 694 was the real date of composition, or at least of final revision, and that the latest date mentioned by Haji Khalfa, namely, 699 (A.D. 1299-1300), is the most probable one of the author's death. Still this is opposed to all other authorities. M. Silvestre de Sacy examined two copies of the work in the Bibliotheque Nationale, in one of which he found dates later than 674. He mentions particularly the date of 689 (in my copy 686) in the history of the Atabaks, and he observes, what is very true, that at the beginning of that history their power is said to have commenced in 543, and to have lasted up to the time of composition, 130 years (131 in mine), which fixes the date in 674. It is easy, however, to read 650 for 630. M. de

[p.254]: Sacy does not notice the additions to the Moghal history in either of the copies in the Bibliotheque Nationale. My own copy, which is taken from a very excellent one written in 1108 H., has distinctly in the preface, as well as the conclusion, the year of 694 H. It is to be observed, that in Arabic 90 and 70 are written almost in the same form, when without diacritical marks. I have seen one copy in which the Perso- Moghal history is carried down to 739 H., but that evidently contained additions by the copyist. Altogether, if so many authorities were not arrayed against me, I should prefer fixing the date at 694, instead of 674. The question, however, is not of the least consequence. The work is divided into four books.

1 Compare Biographie Vniverselle, Tom. iv. p. 67 ; De Rossi, Dizionarw degli Autori Arabs, p. 49 ; Ahmad Eazi's Haft Iklim, p. 120 ; DaHerbelot's Bibllotheque Orientale, Tom. v. p. 721 ; M. Fraehn's Indications Bibliographiqms, No. 161 ; Ram- poldi's Annali Mmsulmani, Tom. i. p. 339, Tom. ix. p. 446 ; T. W. Beale's Mif- tdhu-t tawdrihh, p. 104; Ouseley's Jehdndrd, p. xvi. ; Casiri's Bibliotheca Arab., Tom. i. p. 491 ; S. de Sacy's Anthol,, p. 37.

Extracts.

The Kings of Ghazni

[p. 255]: Their number amounts to twelve, and their rule endured for one hundred and sixty-one years. The origin of this family dates from the middle of the days of the Dailamites, but as its members were great men under the Samanis, I am desirous that my accounts of these two dynasties should not be separated. The following are the names of these kings, viz. : —

1. Sultan Yaminu-d daula Abu-l kasim Mahmud, son of Nasiru-d din Subuktigin ;

2. Mas'ud, son of Mahmud ;

3. Muhammad Makhul (the blind), son of Mahmud ;

4. Maudud, son of Mas'ud ;

5. Mas'ud, son of Maudud ;

6. 'Ali, son of Mas'ud ;

7. 'Ab-du-r Rashid, son of Mahmud ;

8. Ibrahim, son of Mas'ud ;

9. Mas'ud, son of Ibrahim ;

10. Arslan Shah, son of Mas'ud ;

11. Bahram Shah, son of Mas'ud ;

12. Khusru Shah, son of Bahram Shah.

Nasiru-d din died in the year 387 H. (997 A.D.) and the command of his troops descended to Mahmud by inheritance, and by confirmation of Nuh, son of Mansur. His victory over 'Abdu-l Malik, when that chieftain was put to flight, added much to his power, and he was confirmed in the government of Khurdsan and Sijistan, and he received a robe of honour with the title of Sultan from the Khalif, who also made a treaty with him. In consequence of the complaints of the oppression practised by the descendants of Fakhru-d din Dailami, he marched towards Jurjan and 'Irak, and took the country from them. Afterwards he turned his arms towards Hind, and conquered many of its cities and forts. He demolished the Hindu temples¹ and gave prevalence to the Muhammadan faith. He ruled with great justice, and he stands unparalleled among all the Muhammadan kings. He summoned Israil son of Sulaiman, the Saljuk, from Mawardu-n Nahr, and apprehending danger from the immense number of that tribe, he sent him to the fort of Kalinjar in Hind, where he remained till he died. The capture of this Saljuk chief

1 [The two following lines are not in Sir H. Elliott's MS.]

[p. 256]: was the cause of the weakness of his descendants. Mahmud Subuktigin died in A.H. 420 (1029 A.D.).

Sultan Mas'ud: According to the will of Mahmud, his son Mas'ud was to have the government of Khurasan, 'Irak, and Persia, and his second son, Muhammad, the kingdom of Ghazni and the country of Hind. Mas'ud requested his brother to have his name read along with his own in the Khutba, but this was not complied with, therefore Mas'ud marched to invade Ghazni. Before he reached there, Muhammad was taken prisoner by Tusuf, son of Subuktigin, and sent to the fort of Bulbad.¹ Mas'ud, after his arrival at Ghazni, sent Tusuf to prison, and became master of all the dominions of his father. In his time the Saljuks crossed the Jihun and invaded Khurasan. He fought with them and made peace with them several times, but being defeated in a.h. 432 (1040 A.D.) he returned to Ghazni where his brother Muhammad had regained power in his absence. On his arrival he was consigned to a fort, and Ahmad, son of Muhammad went direct from his father to the fort and there slew him, A.H. 433 (1041 A.D.)

Sultan Muhammad, Makhul.

Sultan Muhammad Makhul bin Mahmud ruled for nearly four years over the dominions of Ghazni, after the death of his father. When his brother was slain, Maudud, son of the deceased, armed against him, and proving victorious, put him and his sons to death.

Sultan Maudud.

Maudud, having taken revenge for his father's death, sat on the throne for nearly seven years, and brought the country of his uncle under his dominion. He died in a.h. 441 (1049 A.D.).

Sultan Mas'ud II.

Mas'ud, son of Maudud, was quite a boy at the death of his

1 Another copy reads " Mangsál,"

[p. 257]: father. The Government was carried on for a few days in his name, but the ministers and nobles then conspired to place the royal crown on the head of his uncle.

Sultan 'Ali.

When Sultan 'Ali, son of Mlas'ud, obtained the throne, 'Abdu-r Rashid. son of Mahmud, who for many years had been in prison, contrived to escape, and having collected an army, 'Ali fled before him, and was discomfited.

Sultan 'Abdu-r Rashid.

He reigned nearly seven years, and died a.h. 445 (1053 A.D.).

Sultan Ibrahim¹

Sultan Ibrahim, son of Mas'ud, ruled for a period extending from A.H. 450 to 492 (1058 to 1098). He raised no palaces for himself, but only mosques and colleges for the great and glorious God.

Sultan Mas'ud III.

Mas'ud, son of Ibrahim, occupied the throne for sixteen years, and expired in a.h. 508 (1114 A.D.)

Sultan Arslan Shah.

Sultan Arslan Shah, by his wisdom and prudence, obtained the succession to his father Mas'ud. His brother Bahram then fled in alarm, and sought refuge with his maternal uncle. Sultan Sanjar, the Saljuk, whom he brought against Ghazni. A battle ensued, in which Arslan Shah was defeated, and Sanjar having placed Bahram on the throne, returned to Khurasan. Soon after his departure, Arslan Shah attacked Bahram, who was again obUged to fly, but being once more assisted by Sanjar, with a large army, he went up against Ghazni, gained a victory, and put Arslan Shah to death, in A.H. 512 (1118 A.D.).

1 [The author passes unnoticed the interval of fire years which he has left between the reigns of 'Ahdu-r Rashid and Ibrahim, and makes no mention of the reign of Farrukh-zad.]

[p.258]:

Sultan Bahram Shah.

Bahram Shah, son of Mas'ud, had reigned some days, when he was attacked in Ghazni by 'Aldu-d din Husain, son of Hasan, the first of the kings of Ghor. Bahram Shah fled before him from Ghazni, in which place 'Alau-d din established his own brother, Saifu-d din, and then returned. Afterwards Bahram Shah came back to Ghazni, and ordered Saifd-d din to be seated on a cow, and paraded round the city. When 'Alau-d din heard of this he became greatly infuriated, and marched with a large army towards Ghazni, but Bahram died before his arrival. He was succeeded by his son, Khusru Shah.

Sultan Khusru Shah.

A few days after his accession 'A1au-d din arrived, and Khusru fled to the country of Hind. 'Aldu-d din then plundered Ghazni, and massacred a great number of its inhabitants. He left there his nephews, Ghiydsu -d din Abu'l Fath Muhammad, and Shahabu-d din Abu-1 Muzaffar, sons of Sam, son of Hasan. They having succeeded in the capture of Khusru Shah, by various expedients through which he was lulled into security, kept him prisoner in a fort. They subjugated all the countries which had been under the rule of the kings of Ghazni, and and chose Dehli for their residence. Khusru Shah died in A.H. 555 (1160 A.D.), and with him ended the Ghaznivide dynasty.

After some time Ghiyasu-d din died, and the country remained in the sole and absolute possession of Shahabu-d din to the time of Sultan Muhammad Takash, when he was assassinated by the Malahida (Isma'ileans) in Hirat. He was succeeded in the kingdom of Hind by Sultan Shamsu-d din Altamsh, one of his slaves (mawali), with whose descendants it remains to this day.

The only names which the compiler knows of the Ghorian dynasty who ruled in Hind are these three : —

End of Ch. VII. Nizamu-t Tawarikh of Baizawi

Back to Index of the Book

The history of India : as told by its own historians. Volume II/VII. Nizamu-t Tawarikh of Baizawi

Introduction

Contents

The Kings of Ghazni

Navigation menu

Search