Jona Raja
by Professor K. N. Dhar
Jona Raja at the very
commencement of his Raja Tarangini acknowledges
the debt he owes to Kalhana - the doyen of
chroniclers of Kashmir. He treats him as hig ideal
and his reputed dictum in respect of history
writing as his guide-line for supplementing
suitably the course of events, where Kalhana had
left it. Kalhana has very aptly remarked:
"That noble-minded
(poet) is alone worthy of praise whose word like
that of a judge, keeps free from love or hatred
in relating the facts of the past."
Jona Raja has faithfully
striven to live upto this maxim. There are some
omissions and commissions here and there, still
this most illustrious, Sanskrit historian of the
Muslim period, being the first in the line, is
also the best, by any standard whatsoever.
In those insecure times
the safety of the chronicles was the prime
concern. The fear of interpolations can also not
be ruled out. Before we proceed to examine
critically the narrative of Jona Raja, it will
again be useful to allude to erroneous inferences
of modern scholars on this subject. Dr. Parmu has
remarked that "His (Jona Raja's) besetting
defect is that he generally puts the poet above
the chronicler". Herein the learned scholar
has innocently betrayed his ignorance regarding
Sanskrit language and literature. Actually the
reverse of it is true which is a compliment to
Jona Raja. Kalhana's Raja Tarangini is classed
under historical poetry in Sanskrit literature. No
such honour has been bestowed upon Jona Rnja's
Raja Tarangini. It is at places versified prose,
to borrow the epithet from Dr. Buhler. In this
respect Dr. R. N. Singh has to say "Jona Raja
after I recording an event proceeds further; he
even skips over the chain of events at the
slightest possible hint. He does not stay behind
to explain it, but transfers this burden to the
reader." Further on, the learned scholar has
remarked, "The Raja Tarangini of Jona Raja is
history. It is neither a biography nor an
eulogy."
Without mincing words,
Jona Raja admits that his chronicle is merely an
"Outline history of King". He does not
make tall claims for elaborating the events or
sitting on judgement on these. Moreover, he very
candidly owns that he was commissioned to write
his chronicle by King Zain-ul-abdin, through the
good offices of Shirya Bhatta, the Head of
Judiciary. Therefore, it may be contended that he
being a professional chronicler and also in the
pay of the sultan, his account might have tilted
in favour of his benefactor. Dr. Mohibul Hassan
does refer to this seemingly believable handicap
by saying, "Being a courtier of Zain-ul-abdin,
Jona Raja is inclined to exaggerate the virtues of
his master and gloss over his failings." On
careful scrutiny of the account given by Jona Raja
about Budshah (Zain-ul-abdin) and his father (Sikandar)
it seems that he has safely steered clear of
personal inclinations.
While describing thc
vandalism of Sikandar in razing temples and places
of pilgrimage of Hindus to the ground, which would
have alienated Jona Raja's sympathy for reasons
obvious, he like a faithful reporter does pay
tribute to the king's administrative acumen. He
does not spare his Sultan from chastisement when
it is due. He vehemently chides his
co-religionists, the earlier Hindu Kings, for
their lack of political foresight and also for
being the slaves of lust.
All told, Jona Raja has
given an account of twenty three rulers of
Kashmir, out of which thirteen are Hindus, one a
Bhautia and nine Muslims. This account covers a
span of 459 years, He has been the contemporary of
Sikandar and Zain-ul-abdin, by virtue of which his
description about these two kings is not only
lucid but also authentic. The general impression
gleaned from the account of Hindu kings is that
their hold on the reins of their kingdom was
tottering under the irresistable weight of court
intrigues, corruption, avarice, lust and sex.
These failings were all the more be meared with
physical and moral cowardice. Therefore, the
occupation of Kashmir by Muslims was a natural
culmination of this choas and confusion.
Degeneration of the highest order had already
permeated the soul of Hindu society and the astute
Muslim struck when the iron was hot. Hindu rulers
had to blame only themselves far this catastrophe.
Their levity did not even allow them to lick their
wounds. Cultural conquest of Hindus had already
commenced when Islam entered the valley a century
or more before Muslim rule was installed here.
Jona Raja treats the reign of these last Hindu
kinds in a very cursory and brief manner. He has
disposed of some Hindu kings in four or five
verses. The brevity he has employed can be
assessed by the fact that the description of
thirteen Hindu Kings is dispensed within 174
verses out of a total of 976 verses comprising his
chronicle. Jona Raja has himself adduced the
reason for his lack of sympathy for these kings,
as alluded to earlier. The chief cause for this
unconcern was that Jona Raja wanted to pick up the
thread from where Kalhana had left it, only to
induct continuity into his chronicle. His main
forte was Muslim Rule, for which alone he was
responsible to King Zain-ul-abdin.
Jona Raja has described
the Muslim Rule at length and a span of 140 years
is covered by him. He could not complete the
assignment of the King as he was probably cut
short in life before he could do the last eleven
years of Budshah's reign have however been
commented upon by Shrivara - a professional heir
to Jona Raja.
Jona Raja treats Shahmeer
as the first Sultan of Kashmir. He ascended the
throne of Kashmir under the name of Shamsud-Din
and ruled for 3 years from 1339 to 1342 A.D. Prior
to his snatching the throne by deceit and guile
from Kota Rani, he was her chief adviser and also
a paramour. After sharing the same bed for one
night with Kota Rani, he got her murdered
alongwith her sons. Thus the last symbol of Hindu
Raj in Kashmir ended. Shahmeer was not an
indigenous sultan, but came perhaps from Persia as
a refugee. Dr. Mohibul Hassan takes him to be a
Turkish adventurer. Even though Jona Raja prefixes
the epithet Sultan with Renchan, the Buddist also
and the implication from it may be that he has
taken Renchan as the first non-Hindu ruler, yet it
was a very brief interlude which was followed by
the restoration of Hindu monarchy. The Muslim rule
entrenched itself in Kashmir, without any break
whatsoever, with the reign of Shahmeer. Hence he
earns the right to be called the first Muslim
ruler of Kashmir.
Jona Raja has not
referred to the episode of "BULBUL
SHAH", who according to Persian chroniclers
converted Renchan to Islam. He only alludes to one
Deva Swami who refused to admit Renchan into Hindu
fold. Furthermore, Jona Raja asserts that it was
the manouering of Shahmeer which got Renchan
initiated into Islam.
Jona Raja has given us a
graphic description of three invasions on Kashmir
prior to the establishment of Islamic rule here :
one by Dulcha, the other by Renchan and the third
by Achala. Dulcha, a Turk with a retinue of sixty
thousand strong cavalary swooped on Kashmir
"like a lion forcing its way into a deer
den."
King Kurushah, whom Jona
Raja has taken as the grandfather of Shahmeer,
tried to buy Dulcha off with a very good amount of
money. Dulcha, whose sole intent was loot and
carnage, did accept the money, but stayed back to
unleash his cruelty over Kashmiris. Jona Raja has
given a heart -rending description of the invasion
of Dulcha :-
"Those Kashmiri
people who had eluded destruction, after the
Dulcha-cat took to heels, came out of their
holes like the mice. When the scourge let loose
by Dulcha did abate (when he was sent away) no
son could find his father, nor father his son,
and brother his brother."
The second invasion was that
of Renchan Buddhist, who came down from northern
mountains to loot and plunder Kashmir. Jona Raja
has said in this connection:
"As a kite swoops on
the birdling having dropped from its perch, in
the same manner the invincible army of Renchan
dispossessed of all belongings Kashmiris."
Afterwards Renchan also
occupied the throne of Kashmir in collaboration
with Kota Rani.
The third invader, Achala
was prevailed upon by Kota Rani not to unleash his
sword on the innocent people. He was invited to
adorn the throne which was lying vacant, as the
king had fled to Ladakh. Achala was taken in and
he disbanded his army. Once he did this, it was
very easy to see him off. Consequently, when
Shahmeer came to the throne, he had a stupendous
task of rehabilitation awaiting him. He acquitted
himself very well in this field and proved to be a
very competent administrator. In the words of Jona
Raja "He changed the face of Kashmir."
The salient facts come to surface while describing
the ascendency to power by Shahmeer. Jona Raja
alludes to the oracle of the great Goddess wherein
She predicted to him (Shahmeer), in a dream, that
his progeny would rule Kashmir henceforth. By
putting this anecdote to pen Jona Raja seems to
have reconciled mentally to the change of power in
Kashmir and also adduced Divine sanction for it.
He has also called Shahmeer as "Kula Natha",
the chief of the Muslim population in Kashmir,
which could put its counter-weight against the
machinations of landed aristocrats, such as
Damaras (Dhars), professional fighters like
Lavyanyas (Lones) and also Bhatta (the entire
Brahmin faction). Perhaps that was the reason why
Kota Rani took him into her service and
confidence. This very influence with his
co-religionists facilitated him to grab power
without a single leaf fluttering in the valley.
His seige of Anderkot (near Sumbal) proved as the
last nail in the coffin of Hindu authority over
Kashmir.
Shahmeer did not live
long to consolidate tbe ravaged Kasbmir. He
breathed his last on the full-moon day in Ashadha
in 1342 A. D., after a brief reign of three years
and five days.
Jona Raja, for reasons
obvious, has cursorily treated the reign of Sultan
Jamsheed (1342-44) and that of Sultan Alla-ud-din
(1344-56) sons and successors of Shahmeer. As he (Shahmeer)
was an astute politician, he transferred the
burden of the kingdom on those two sons jointly,
so that they did not feel foul of each other
afterwards. But the two brothers could not carry
on witll each other and the reign of Jamsheed, for
two ycars, was only a tragic interlude of
conspiracies and brotherly feuds. He was such a
weakling that Jona Raja has aptly used the words
"Being a king in name only, he actually
suffered incessantly till he was relieved by
death." Herein we shall have to refer to the
observation made by Dr. Sufi; he has come to the
conclusion that, as soon as Jamsheed was crowned
king, he was deposed by his brother Ali Sher (Alla-ud-din)
and spent the two years before his death rather in
exile and penury. Dr. Parmu has written that
Jamsheed was killed in 1344 and Dr. Mohibul Hassan
has suggested that "Jamsheed finding himself
not strong enough to fight (against his brother)
fled and after aimlessly wandering about in the
valley for a year and two months died in
1345."
In this context the
account given by Jona Raja does not confirm the
views given by these learned authors. He
unambiguously records that Jamsheed put to sword
so may followers of his conspiring brother Ali
Sher at Avantipur, that "the current of the
Jhelum began to flow upwards due to the heaps of
corpses thrown into the river." He records
further that Sultan Jamsheed made "Sathya
Raja" (Shiraz) responsible for the safety of
the city of Srinagar and himself went for a trip
to Handwara. It has nowhere been suggested by him
(Jona Raja) that the Sultan was forcibly deposed
and also killed. In the words of Jona Raja he died
a natural death after being a Sultan for two years
less by two months.
Jona Raja does allude to
Jamsheed's holding the charge of 'Commissioner of
Guards' stationed at one of the mountain passes,
leading to Kashmir Valley. Perhaps this very
reference of his becoming the 'Commissioner of
Guards' has led these learned authors to do a bit
of unfounded kite-flying. Jona Raja explicitly
lays down that Sultan Jamsheed got fed up with
wars, when Ali Sher inflicted a decisive defeat on
his son. Morever, Ali Sher broke the truce of two
months cease-fire, offered initially by him. All
these factors prompted him to relinquish the royal
authority voluntarily, and during the closing
months of his life he did accept an assignment
much below his status. Therefore, it is
sufficiently clear that he was neither deposed nor
killed.
Ali Sher, assuming the
name of Alla-ud-din ( 1344-1356 A.D.) ascended the
throne of Kashmir by guile, deceit and statecraft.
Despite these defects he was a master-mind in
politics and a dauntless warrior. Two great events
of his reign have been narrated by Jona Raja. The
first being a direct reference to a bevy of
Yoginis (females possessing magical powers), whose
leader has been identified as 'Lalleshwari'. In
Kashmiri tradition, Lalla is not credited with
having found any order of 'Yoginis' at all. She
lived by herself and also in her own thoughts.
Therefore the use of the word 'Chakra' does not
confirm the views by Persian scholars. It might
also cannote the host of eight Yoginis -
attendants of Durga, Shiva's consort. Again,
Kashmiri tradition makes Lalla-Arifa contemporary
with Syed Ali Hamdani (Shah Hamdan), about whom
Jona Raja is surprisingly reticent. It may be
inferred here that Jona Raja did not mention the
name of Shah Hamdan, as he was the sole instrument
for transplanting Muslim faith in place of
Hinduism in Kashmir. The crusade for mass
conversion in Kashmir was initiated by him. Even
if he (Jona Raja) would have liked to refer to
Lalla, Shah Hamdan's mention would have been a
natural corollary to it, as far as Kashmiri
tradition goes. Therefore, he chose to skip over
both these personalities in Kashmir history. The
chief of 'Yoginis' (Nayika), narrated earlier, may
be construed to be a female Tantric worshipper,
otherwise she would not have offered a 'goblet of
wine' to Alla-ud-din. Subsequent Persian sholars
have tried to replace 'wine' by 'milk'- as former
is forbidden by Islam. But Jona Raja has no such
aberrations. Here again, 'Lalla' is never
associated with wine etc in Kashmiri tradition
like the left-band ritualists. Therefore, to infer
from 'Yogini' the existence of 'Lalla', in that
period at least, according to testimony of Jona
Raja, is not only far-fetched but also
preposterous.
However, the silence of
Jona Raja about Lalleshwari and Shah Hamdan should
not erroneously lead us to believe that these two
personages never existed in Kashmir and are only
the figment of imagination. Kalhana has not at all
referred to Abhinavagupta, the reputed Shaiva
Scholar, though other such erudite scholars like
Udbhatta, Rudratta, Vaman and Anandavardhan have
been mentioned profusely by him. Yet Abhinavagupta
did live in Kashmir on the basis of the testimony
of the colophons of his works, in which he has
indicated the year of composition of a particular
treatise. Ho has bequeathed to us his own
genealogy also. The force of tradition is always
irresistible and cannot be dispensed with cheaply.
What is actually meant to be conveyed here is that
although Jona Raja's chronicle, as it is available
to us, does not contain the names of Shah Hamdan
and Lalleshwari, yet their having breathed the air
of Kashmir cannot be doubted.
The second event of
Alla-ud-din's reign is the terrible famine which
shatterd the economy of the country; but Jona Raja
does not write that remedial measures were taken
by the Sultan to offset its unsalutary effect on
the people. Some scholars have wrongly quoted Jona
Raja and ascribed this compliment to Sultan by him
- "But he did all he could to alleviate the
sufferings of his subjects". Actually, Jona
Raja dismisses this calamity in one verse. He
says, "In the nineteenth year of the local
calendar (i.e. 1343 A.D.) a ghastly famine,
tormented the people as a reproof for their bad
deeds". Just after it he gives the date on
which the Sultan breathed his last.
Again, another scholar
has indicated that Sultan Alla-ud-Din transferred
his capital from Anderkot to Alla-ud-din Pora, a
new city founded by the Sultan. The description
given in this behalf by Jona Raja reveals that the
Sultan re-established his capital at Jayapida Pur
- another name of Andrakot. Alla-ud-din shifted
his capital back to Andrakot from Srinagar.
Shahmeer, his father had made Andrakot as the
first capital of Muslim kingdom in Kashmir. He had
sentimetal attachment with it for being associated
with Kota Rani. His elder son Jamshed transferred
the capital to Srinagar, but All-ud-din, from the
view point of safety, shifted it back to Andrakot.
One redeeming feature
during the reign of the first four Sultans comes
to full view. Even though the pace of
proselytisation was gathering momentum every day,
during this period of only three decades or more,
yet the influence of Hindus at the royal court did
not wane. The Hindus occupied the position of
counsellors, advisers or ministers. Sultan
Jamsheed confided in his counsellor Lakshman Bhatt.
Udayashri was probably the prime minister of
Sultan Alla-ud-din and Chandra Damar his
commander-in-ehief. In the company of both these,
the Sultan had caught the glimpse of the Yogini,
as referred to earlier. Similarly Sultan
Shahab-ud-din, when away on military campaigns,
depended upon Kota Bhatt for internal
administration of his kingdom.
Jona Raja is all praise
for Sultan Shahabud-Din and compares him with
Lalita Ditya - the famous warrior-king of ancient
Kashmir.
In the wake of his
illustrious predecessor, Shahab-ud-din also
undertook many military expeditions and even went
as far as Peshawar and Ghazni. His appetite for
extending the borders of his country was
unquenchable. It was also necessitated by the fact
that the kingdom of his predecessors was shrinking
by their incompetence. Several scholars have
doubted the veracity of these campaigns and termed
these as highly exaggerated. Their scepticism is
perhaps based on the misnomer that Kashmiris only
knew how to defend and could never venture to
indulge in offensive. On the testimony of Jona
Raja this assumption is not only unjust but also
unfounded. He (Jona Raja) has narrated that the
Kashmiri Sultan Sikandar was offered a gift of two
elephants by Timur the Lame. Timur, who looted
Delhi without compunction and called himself
invincible, could not have parted with his two
elephants for the King of Kashmir, for nothing in
return. It was definitely the scare of Kashmiri
army, which the Mongol scourage tried to pamper,
so that it did not attack his forces while
returning.
Where diplomacy could not
work, Kashmiris were behind none to defend their
Motherland by a call to steel. Law and order in
the country was firmly established; no
conspiracies or schism polluted the placid
atmosphere; hence the need for moving out for
annexations was keenly felt by the Sultan. The
political geography of Kashmir was now turning a
new leaf. Therefore, the testimony of Jona Raja
regarding the military conquests of Shahab-ud-din
need not be taken with a grain of salt. Kashmiri
armies have penetrated deep into Kishtwar, Bhotia
Pradesh, Lorin and Poonch. The military prowess of
Kashmiris also did show itself off admirably well
later, when Mughals were repulsed not only once
but twice. Jona Raja like an awake artist does
presage that "posterity might take this
account of the superhuman exploits of the Sultan
as mere flattery". This leaves nothing for us
to guess otherwise.
Shahab-ud-din was not a
religious zealot. He was catholic to the marrow of
his bones, not by expediency but by conviction.
When it was suggested to him that the huge idols
of copper and bronze be smolten and converted into
coins, as the imperial mint was running short of
these, he promptly declined to order this
vandalism and said: "How paradoxical it will
seem that I would like to amass fame by breaking
these immortal idols which have been installed and
worshipped by certain people who have earned
approbation (by doing this)".
An unprecedented flood
engulfed Srinagar in his reign, when the surging
waters even mounted the surrounding hills. The
Sultan, therefore, founded an alternate city at
the foot of "SHARIKA SHAIL" (HARI PARVAT)
and named it after his consort Lakshmi, as
Lakshmipur and not Sharikapur. This city extended
from modern 'Hawal' to Lal Bazar. He also founded
one more city, at the confluence of the Vitasta
and the Sindh after his own name, as Shahab-ud-din
pur (modern (Shadipur).
Unfortunately some
Persian historians have painted Shahab-ud-din as
an inconoclast in their misguided enthusiasm for
the propagation of Islam. Jona Raja has
prophetically smelt this and has consequently
warned the future generations: " The king
Shahab-ud-din had broken, the idols of gods; this
preposterous and unfounded assertion should not in
any way unnerve the posterity." Jona Raja was
born in 1389 and died in 1459 A. D.
Shahab-ud-din's span of reign ranges from 1354 to
1373 A. D.; so it is abundantly clear that Jona
Raja's account of Shahab-ud-din's rule is only 16
years anterior to him. In the face of such a brief
interval between the death of Shahab-ud-din and
the birth of Jona Raja his testimony can never be
dismissed cheaply, while the Persian chronicles.
e. g. Baharistan Shahi (1586-1614 A. D.) Haidar
Malik's Tariki Kashmir (1618 A. D. ) and, to crown
all, Peer Hassan's Tarikhi Kashmir ( 1885 A. D. )
depended upon for what they have recorded about
Sultan Shahab-ud din. Theirs is only a hearsay or
wishful thinking while Jona Raja, from the point
of historicity, is more reliable.
To sum up, Jona Raja has
every sort of admiration for this benevolent
Sultan of Kashmir; only Zainulab-din (Badshah)
possesses a slight edge over him according to this
Hindu historian. Kutub-ud-din (Kuda-din) succeeded
his father Shahab-ud-din as the Sultan of Kashmir
from 1373 A. D. The Sultan had to undertake
military compaigns against Raja of Lohara (Lorin)
and the Khashas (Khokhi), inhabiting the south
western belt of Pir Panchal range (Rajori) and
also in Kishtwar. He brought these erring vassals
to book under the generalship of Lolak the Damar.
The Sultan also started a free 'langer' for the
people in view of recurring famines in the valley,
every, year at very huge cost. Through the
blessing of one Yogi Brahma Natha he got the
desired progeny; he had been without any son or
daughter earlier.
He also founded a
township within the city, after his name, as
Qutab-ud-din-pora. Modern scholars have identified
it as the tract of land now known as Mohalla Haji
Peer Mohmad Sahib, (also called as 'Langar Hatta'
bazar near Islamia College to-day). There is a
mohalla in Srinagar bearing this name even now. It
is situated on the left bank of the Jhelum between
Zainakadal and Ali Kadal, some distance below
Gurgari Mohalla. I am led to believe that the
Sultan was in some way the founder of this
locality/habitation. Future research may unfold
some relevant information regarding this.
Sultan Qutub-ud-din
breathed his last in 1381 A.D. At time his son
Sikandar was only eight years old. Being minor,
mother Subhatta acted as his regent and appointed
two advisers, Uddak and Sabak, for efficient
governance of the land. Shri P. N. Bazaz gives her
name as Bibi Hora but does not indicate any
source. The mother had such an immense love for
her elder son Sikandar, that she did not hesitate
to put to sword her own daughter and son-in-law
Mohammed, when it was suspected that they were
conspiring against the reigning sovereign. The
younger son Haibat was also similarly done away
with by poisoning. In such a callous yet judicious
manner the fondling mother paved the way for her
gon to ascend the throne without any impediments,
whatsoever. On assumption of regal power Sikandar
started a compaign of exterminating his foes; his
own brother-in-law (brother of his first wife Shri
Shobha) was not even spared. The two advisers
during the regency of his mother were done away
with. Here-in we shall have to refer to a
controvercy regarding the status of Shri Shobha in
the harem of Sultan Sikandar. Persian chroniclers
have termed her as the second wife of the King ;
but according to Jona Raja this seems to be a wild
guess. He clearly indicates her position as "Mahadevi",
the senior - most queen. When Sikandar married
Mera, the daughter of King of Ohind, Udbhandpur
near 'Attak' in west Panjab, Shri Shobha suffered
in her rank. Mera, being a Muslim by birth, got
precedence over her. Till then the Sultan was not
much biased against Hindus. Again, Jona Raja pays
a compliment to him in as much as the queen Shri
Shobha got the Shiva-temples rennovated,
presumably with the consent of the Sultan. The
valour and terror of the Sultan made him quite
safe and secure on the throne. Perhaps the most
note-worthy event of his reign is his diplomacy
with which he bought peace from Timur the Lame,
who had earlier sacked Delhi. The scanning eye of
the Sultan could not under-rate the invincibility
of this barbarous Turk; hence smelling his
invasion on his land, he sent an emissary to him
when he was camping at the Indus and conveyed his
unflinching loyalty to him. The whimsical Turk
felt flattered by this gesture of servility and
sent a word back to the Sultan to meet him along
with his army at Dipalpur. The Sultan had hardly
reached Baramulla with his retinue when he was
given to understand that Timur had already left
for his homeland Samarkand. This good tidings gave
great relief to the Sultan. The Turk-invader had
been touched by the loyalty of the Kashmiri Sultan
and sent him two royal elephants as a present.
Jona Raja does not give
all these details. He only refers to the gift of
two elephants sent by the "Malchha" King
(Timur), while returning from Delhi, to the
Sultan. But in this very verse he has also
unfolded in one word the cause for this
unbelievable kind gesture from this cruel and
callous invader. He uses the word "the
suspicious Malechha King". Herein this
Sanskrit historian would make us believe that
Timur feared an attack from the Sultan when his
army was returning to Samarkand with invaluable
booty. In order to keep him in good humour the
Turk sent two royal elephants to him. Jona Raja
further extols the towering stature of these
beasts which were definitely a rarity in Kashmir.
Jona Raja acknowledges the superiority of his
Sultan over Timur and in a subdued tone does hint
that the latter wanted to buy neutrality of
Sikandar, for which end in view he sent the gift
of two elephants to him. Like an astute general,
Timur could anticipate Sikandar's sending
reinforcements to Sultan Mohd Tughlak of Delhi. In
order to forestall these designs he overwhelmed
Sikandar with this unique but, all the same, very
respectful gift. During the sack of Delhi it was
free for all, but Sikandar's intervention would
have made a veritable difference. Persian
chroniclers, Hindus as well as Muslims, are
unequivocal in asserting that it was Sikandar who
was actually scared of vandalism of Timur, which
seems more probable. Jona Raja has tried to be
over-patriotic in delineating this incident. At
the same time, he deserves credit also for not
skipping over this great event in Indian History,
when he refers to the sack of Delhi by Timur.
During the initial years
of his rule the Sultan was very forbearing and
charitable. Jona Raja has most graphically
described this trait of the King. He has recorded
"Nobody can describe his charitable
disposition; the lotus-hands (of the Hindu
subjects) would always feel drenched with
water." It is a convention with the Hindus to
receive alms or 'dakshina' (fee etc) with hands
wet with water so that in return they spray the
benefactor with this very water, showering
blessings on him. It is therefore clear that
Sikandar treated the Hindu subjects also kindly
along with the Muslims. Unfortunately the Sultan
could not maintain this policy for long. The visit
of Syed Mohammad Hamdani, the illustrious son of
Amir Kabir, changed his Catholic out-look on life
to a large extent. Jona Raja very diplomatically
ascribes the reason of this great change in the
Sultan to the vices rampant in his (Hindu)
subjects. But at the same time be acknowledges the
over-all superiority of this missionary from
Hamdan. He tells us that "He was a shining
moon among the stars; though very junior in age,
he was adored as the senior-most in
scholarship." The Sultan was in his grip and
under his spell and through his exhortations an
era of unprecedented proselytisation was
inaugurated in Kashmir. Shariat was for the first
time proclaimed as the state religion. He
appointed the ministers, all of them neo-converts:
Ladda Raja, Vaidya Shankar and Suha Bhatta,
perhaps with this unfailing belief that the
converts are more rabid than the originals, hence
will not hesitate to perpetrate every kind of
tyranny on their erstwhile co-religionists.
At the instance of Syed
Mohammed Hamdani the Sultan married Mera, the
daughter of the King of Ohind, who was a born
Muslim. Naturally Shri Sbobha, his first queen,
had to get degraded in status. Her sons were
killed. Mera, gave three sons to the Sultan: Mer
Khan, Shahi Khan and Mohammed Khan. Dr. Mohibul
Hassan has somehow or other inferred that Shri
Shobha had adopted sons. While, quoting Jona Raja
on this subject, incorrectly, he has mentioned no
other source for this inference. Jona Raja has
actually used the epithet "artificial"
with the sons of Shri Shobha. According to Hindu
Dharmashastras adoption is of two kinds - one
"Dattak", the offered and taken, the
other "Kratrim", only for completion of
certain rites of a sonless father, after his
death. In the first the consent of the adopted is
not necessary, while it is imperative in the case
of second, who acts as a waterson. Even though
adoption is banned in Islam, yet this custom of
adoption is not wholly extinct among the Muslims
of Kashmir, even today. Therefore, we can safely
assert that the sons of Shri Shobha were actually
the water-sons. The word used
"artificial" can have other intonation
also. It may mean "unreal". Since the
sons were the progeny of a Hindu queen, hence they
were not real Muslims though given Muslim names.
So they were banished from the state. The sole
motive for their being shunted out of Kashmir
seems to be to keep the throne safe for the (real)
Muslim sons of Mera.
The Sultan founded a new
city at the foot of the Sharika Parbat. Muslim
historians have called it as "Nowhatta"
- the name which has survived to date. They refer
also to his building of the imposing Jama Masjid,
adjacent to the new city.
Actually the
arch-intriguer against the Hindus was Suha Bhatta.
He came under the influence of Syed Mohammad
Hamdani, and was converted to Islam with the name
of Saifud-Din - "the sword of faith." He
may not have proved as much a defender of his
adopted faith, but he did definitely unleash his
sword on Hindus. Herein his name proved prophetic.
Jona Raja equates Suha Bhatta with the ancient
King Harsha - the Turk, the epithet given to him
contemptuously by Kalhana, for the wholesale
destruction of temples and idols. The massive
temples at Martand, Bijbehara, Ishabar (near
Nishat Garden), Triphar (at the foot of Mahadeva
mountain) and in Baramulla district were razed to
the ground.
After demolishing the
temples, the relentless crusader against Hindu
faith, Suha Bhatta turned his attention towards
the persecution of Hindus. He enforced Jazia and
compelled thousands of Hindus to embrace Islam.
Those who resisted were put to sword; some fled
the country for fear of reprisal. But there were
also dauntless believers in Hindu faith who did
raise a banner of revolt against this mass
conversion. Jona Raja gives their names as Sinah
Bhatta and Kastuta - the grocers and Nirmalacharya.
The last mentioned spurned the royal patronage and
preferred penury to change of faith. The excesses
Committed by the subordinate officers cannot
absolve the reigning king from the infamy thus
earned and sins committed; hence the tyranny let
loose by Suha Bbatta paid its toll back in the
shape of the Sultan's incurable malady. Seeing his
end near, he annoinated his eldest son Mir Khan
(Ali Shah) as his successor and breathed his last
on the eighth day of the dark fortnight or Jeth in
4489, the year of the local calendar. It comes to
1413 A.D. according to the English calendar.
Before the account of
Sikandar, as given by Jona Raja, is concluded it
will be pertinent to refer to the meticulous
caution with which the historian has tried to
cover up the mis-deeds of the Sultan by keeping
Suha Bhatta only in the dock. Perhaps Jona Raja
did not like to malign the parent of his
benefactor (Budshah) for reasons obvious and
consequently shifted all the odium to Suha Bhatta
and to Hindus. But at the same time he does say
that the Sultan could not wash his bands off these
atrocities. His tacit consent must have been
obtained by Suha Bbatta tbrough the good-offices
of Syed Mohammad Hamdani, who was actually the big
boss in those dark days. The Sultan was always at
his beck and call and could not go against his
wishes. Persian historians have advanced many
reasons for Suha Bhatta to wreck vengeance on his
erstwhile co-religionists, but Jona Raja has
simply written that he came under the magnetic
spell of Syed Muhammad Hamdani and at his bidding
took to heaping inhumanities on Hindus and their
religion.
In discharging his
mission of persecuting Hindus he had to prove that
he was more loyal than the king. His
over-enthusiasm in this respect can be squarely
explained by the fact that being a convert his
go-slow policy could have been misunderstood, and
also misinterpreted; hence he had to look like the
most devout Muslim and the most zealous partner in
this "Jehad" against the Hindus. The
fanciful inferenccs of Persian historians in this
regard have no credence as the contemporary record
of Jona Raja is silent on these.
Mir Khan assumed the name
Ali Shah on ascending the throne. He, after
fruitless flirtation with regal splendour, decided
to undertake pilgrimage to Mecca and nominated his
brother Shahi Khan (Zainulabdin) as his successor.
But being prevailed upon by his father-in-law, the
Hindu Raja of Jammu, he changed his mind and
returned to Kashmir. Shahi Khan did not resist his
taking up the mantle of Sultan once again. Later
he was killed in a battle with Khokhars, thus
paving the unobstructed way for Shahi Khan to
ascend the throne. These two incidents are perhaps
sufficient to prove that the inherent tenets of
Muslim faith had not made any substantial headway
in the Valley, though the population was being
admitted into its fold by hook or by crook. This
was only a political expediency. The King Ali Shah
had married two daughters of Hindu Raja of Jammu,
which is un-Islamic, since a Muslim has been
ordained to marry a non-Muslim only when he or she
is converted to Islam. It is also enjoined in
Islam that two real sisters cannot be wives to the
same spouse concurrently. Moreover, once a 'Kasad'
(resolution) is made to undertake Haj, it should
not be revoked in any case. This very background
facilitated Budshah to rehabilitate Hindus, as the
loyalty of the people to their new faith was not
even skin-deep as yet. It may well be called just
a change of label from Hindu to Muslim, the
neo-converts were still finding their feet, their
only hobby was to pay off old scores under the
garb of religious crusades. Shahi Khan (Budshah)
as a prince already had a foretaste of this, when
the adjoining Hindu tribes and neo-convert tribes
of Thakurs and Khokhars had helped him to regain
the throne from his brother. Therefore on
assumption of power he elected to own benevolence
instead of violence. Sultan Sikandar and his
evil-genius Suha Bhatta failed to cash on this
policy of conciliation instead of confrontation,
thereby mutilating their image in Kashmir history.
Jona Raja has very
rightly referred to this change of heart in
Budshah. The Sultan effected far-reaching and
sweeping adjustments to make the Hindus
comfortable and thereby he made amends for the
sins of his predecessors.
So much ink has been
spent in delineating the golden reign of Budshah,
that it would seem redundant to repeat all this.
However, some light needs to be thrown on two or
three points which have been more or less glossed
over by the authors.
The first point which
deserves emphasis is that Zain-ul-abdin was never
under the influence of Hindus. He was a devout
Muslim and would consult the Shaikul-Islam on
every measure he would like to introduce. Perhaps
this is also the reason that "Shariat"
as the state-religion could not be replaced. In
accordance with its dictates, Jazia also was not
revoked entirely, but fixed at a lower rate.
Zain-ul-abdin could not dare to go totally against
the current of public opinion, built brick by
brick by his forefathers, so far as treatment
towards Hindus was concerencd. Fanatics did raise
their eye-brows on his attitude towards the Hindus
and for this very purpose Syed Sad Ullah came from
Mecca with a huge load of books. He tried to
cajole the Sultan into reversing this tolerant
policy, but the latter did not oblige. Budshah
seems to have been more awake than those zealots
who would try to foist their faith on others not
by persuasion but through coercion. He therefore
first of all called upon his own kinsmen to set
their house in order. Muslims had multiplied
themselves into different sects; Shias, Sunnis,
Sayeds, Sufis and were vying with each other to
show the other sects down. The Sultan could very
well anticipate that once the object of their
combined hatred - the Hindu was gone, they would
fall out among themselves. Once such a nihilistic
propensity is nurtured, it can express itself in
any shape whatsoever. Therefore like a true
follower of the Prophet be tried to consolidate
the Muslim Brotherhood and exhorted them to sink
their differences and close their ranks. It would
have done more harm than good to the spread of
Islam. How prophetically Budshah hinted towards
this, can be easily corroborated by the subsequent
Chak rule over Kashmir. Therefore, reinstallation
of the irritant - the Hindu- did not only do good
to him but also made the Muslim society cohesive
and viable.
The second point which
needs explanation here is the appointment of the
Hindus to very responsible posts. The
neo-converts, thinking themselves dandies, could
not be expected to handle the intricate problems
of statecraft. Moreover, they were actually the
scum of the Hindu population; hence their
credentials for running the government could not
be depended upon, and the proverbial Eleven had
survived the tyranny of the earlier Sultans. The
state was in the doldrums owing to lack of
foresight on the art of the predecessors of
Budshah. Draught and flood in his reign trade the
state poorer all the more. In this predicament a
hunt for Brahmin talent was made, so that the
state be entrusted to it to set things in order.
Moreover, the Hindu, unbelievably elevated to such
position after an interval of condemnation, had
perforce to appear more loyal than the king and
would apply his heart and soul together to prove
his capability. Thus the state was again put on
the rails and attained the speed which it had
squandered earlier. Tilakacharya, Shriya Bhatta,
Sinhabhatta, Ruyya Bhatta, Karpura Bhatta,
Ramananda, Gaurak Bhatta, Jaya Bhatta and a host
of such luminaries administered tho land of their
birth with unparalelled devotion and to the best
of their capacity. In the bargain Budshah made
double gain. He became the champion of the
uaderdog - the Hindu - and also gave his state a
very good government.
Tbe third point regarding
the renovation of the temples aod grant of lands
to the Hindus can also be explained in this
manner. During the reign of earlier Sultans,
more-so when Sikandar through Suha Batta unleashed
an era of unprecedented tyranny over the Hindus,
the temples were annihilated and the Hindus wsre
fleeing the country, leaving bebind the jagirs
attached to these temples fallow and desolate. The
neo-converts only relished in bringing death,
destruction and loot, but never cared to attend to
these jagirs for getting produce out of tbem. At
best they could think ooly of converting temples
into mosques but that sentiment alone could in no
way act as the substitute for sustenance.
Budshah's scaaning eye
could very well locate tbe disease; so he not only
pledged safety to the biding Hindus, but also
coaxed those, who had left, to return to their
homeland. Rennovation of temples was executed
under the supervision of Shriya Bhatta, which
restored confidence into Hindu folk. Once again
the lands attached to these temples were brought
under plough and the food prospects of the country
improved substantially.
Moreover in the wake of
building a network of canals and water feeders, he
rehabilitated the Hindus also on the land thus
reclaimed. It served the purpose of replenishing
the government treasury with tbe revenue these
lands yielded. Whatever the inherent motive of
Budshah regarding these steps, it is laudable on
his part to usher in liberalism, despite the
resentment of his Muslim subjects. He stood his
ground firmly well and that is perhaps the
indisputable reason which makes him the tallest of
all the sultans in Kashmir. He possessed an
unbending sinew and could never be swayed by
passion. His reason thoroughly groomed was not
only precise but also perfect. When the
neo-converts under instructions from Syed Sad
Ullah, who harboured a grudge against the king, as
alluded to earlier, got arrowed to death a Yogi
who had blessed the Sultan with male issues, he at
first sought the counsel of the Shaikhul Islam,
who decreed tbat "eye for eye" treatment
be meted out to him. But the king did not like to
act in haste and also alienate the sympathies of
the Muslims. He introduced a novel method of
punishing Sad Ullah by making him ride a donkey
with his face towards its tail and his beard
singed off. Tbe people werc asked to spit at him
wherever he was conducted in this plight, but the
King spared him his life. In other words he
extended immunity from death to Syeds also, as was
tbe practice regarding tbe Brahmins in earlier
Hindu period. Undoubtedly the Sultan resurrected
the dying human values, nursed these with his
sharp intellectual prowess and tried to sell these
out to his co-religionists. Nature willed
otherwise. When his reign, like the flicker of a
glow-worm in engulfing darkness, came to an end,
his successors could not appreciate the exact
import of his emancipated outlook, but reverted to
wbolesale repression on Hindus, that also with
vengeance.
Jona Raja has given us an
eye-witness account of the first thirty-nine years
of the reign of this gracious Sultan. He concludes
tbe account abruptly at verse 976, without
adducing any reason for it. The account of
penultimate eleven years of his rule has been
narrated by Shrivara in his Zaina Tarangini, as
already indicated.
This benevolent Sultan,
by commissioning Jona Raja to pen down his
history, has been instrumental in doing permanent
good to the annals of Kashmir. No contemporary
Persian chronicle has come down to us in this
respect. The earliest Persian reference to Kashmir
is contained in 'Tarikhi-Feroz Shahi' (1285-1286
A. D.) by Zia-ud-Din Barni. Obviously this is a
historical record about Fetoz Shah Tughlak of
Delhi. Montion of Kashmir hao come there-in in a
casual manner. Mulla Ahmad's 'Tarikhi Kashmir',
was composed after the reign of Budshah. It can
conveniently be treated as the first Persian
chronicle of the Sultans af Kashmir. In view of
this, by getting the events recorded by
contemporary Hindus, the king not only provided an
authentic base to these, but also bequeathed to
the future scholars enough material to build up
his personality, after exchanging the notes of
Sanskrit and Persian histories. It will not be an
exaggeration to say here that his period alone can
take rightful pride in being authentic in Kashmir
History. Jona Raja has performed his mission with
honesty of purpose and dedication to his
profession. His account of Budshah, though
incomplete, is not wanting in any thing. It is
neither magnified nor played down. The subsequent
Persian chroniclers, without any exception, have
profusely drawn from him and then only built,
their respective theses. Kashmiris owe a debt to
Jona Raja for erecting the contours of a
light-house of accurate historicity which reduces
to nullity thankless pastime of groping in the
dark.
Source: Glimpses
of Kashmiri Culture
|