Did Muhammad bin Tughluq launch his career as a ruler of the Tughlaq dynasty by arranging the murder of his own father, Ghiyas-ud-din Tughlaq, the founder of the dynasty?
Ghiyas-ud-din Tughlaq, the founder of the Tughlaq dynasty of Delhi Sultanate, died in 1325 AD from the collapse of a wooden pavilion which his son Jauna, better known as Muhammad bin Tughluq, had got built by the royal architect (Mir ‘Imard) Ahmad, son of Ayaz. The wooden structure was built at Afghanpur to welcome Sultan after his successful military campaign in Bengal. Afghanpur was located some six miles from Tughluqabad (located on Mehrauli Badarapur Road in Delhi), the fortress-city founded by Ghiyas-ud-din.
However, the account of Ibn Batutah seems to be right. His informant, Shaikh Rukn-ud-din, was in the pavilion when it crashed. There is no reason to believe Batutah’s intentional denigration of Muhammad bin Tughlaq because the African traveler was well received by the latter during whose rule he came to India in 1333 AD. Later historians like Abul Fazl, Nizam –ud din Ahmad and Badauni also concur with the views of Ibn Batutah.
Barni’s account seems to be biased. This is obvious because he authored his work 'Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi' during the reign of Firuz Tughlaq who had a great regard for his predecessor Muhammad bin Tughlaq and as such Barni didn't want to displease Firuz.
 |
| Ghiyas-ud-din Tughlaq's Tomb |
Ghiyas-ud-din Tughlaq was buried in the tomb which he had built for himself at Tughlaqabad. There are two schools of thought about the Sulltan’s death. While one has accused Muhammad bin Tughlaq of patricide, other has attributed the death to divine intervention. While African traveler Ibn Batutah holds Jauna responsible for pre-planning the accident to kill the Sultan, Ziauddin Barni attributes the crash of the pavilion to lightning striking it. According to Yayiha bin Ahmad Sarhindi, author of Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi, ‘divine preordination’ was responsible for the collapse of the structure.
However, the account of Ibn Batutah seems to be right. His informant, Shaikh Rukn-ud-din, was in the pavilion when it crashed. There is no reason to believe Batutah’s intentional denigration of Muhammad bin Tughlaq because the African traveler was well received by the latter during whose rule he came to India in 1333 AD. Later historians like Abul Fazl, Nizam –ud din Ahmad and Badauni also concur with the views of Ibn Batutah.
Barni’s account seems to be biased. This is obvious because he authored his work 'Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi' during the reign of Firuz Tughlaq who had a great regard for his predecessor Muhammad bin Tughlaq and as such Barni didn't want to displease Firuz.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteVery interesting.
ReplyDelete🐱😄🎡🏠👩👩👦👦 OK!!!.
But what kind of mentality did muhammad bin tughlaq had that he had to go as far as to kill his own father??
ReplyDelete