The Muhammadan Powers
of Northern India

 p230  Chapter 2

The Sultanate of Delhi continued; A.D. 1290 to 1340; the Khiljī and Tughlak dynasties.

Sultan Jalālu‑d dīn Khiljī. Kaikobād having been brutally killed, a high official named Firōz Shāh, of the Khalj or Khiljī tribe, who was placed on the throne by a section of the nobles, assumed the title of Jalālu‑d dīn. Although the Khalj or Khiljī tribe is reckoned by Raverty among the Turks, the contemporary author Ziau‑d dīn Barani, who must have known the facts, states that Jalālu‑d dīn 'came of a race different from the Turks', and that by the death of Sultan Kaikobād 'the Turks lost the empire'. Jalālu‑d dīn was an aged man of about seventy when elected. His election was so unpopular that he did not venture to reside in Delhi, and was obliged to build himself a palace at the village of Kilūghari or Kilūkheri, a short distance outside, which became known as Naushahr or 'Newtown'. The year after his accession a famine occurred so severe that many Hindus drowned themselves in the Jumna. The administration of the Sultan is criticized as having been too lenient, and it seems probable that he was too old for his work. On one occasion he is recorded to have lost his temper and to have cruelly executed an unorthodox holy man named Sīdī Maulā. That irregular execution or murder was believed to have been the cause of the Sultan's evil fate. Mongol invasion made in strong force in the year 1292 was stopped by negotiation, and probably by the payment of heavy  p231 blackmail. The historian's account seems to lack candour. Many of the Mongols elected to stay in India, becoming nominally Musalmāns. They were spoken of as New Muslims, and settled down at Kilūghari and other villages near Delhi.

Murder of Jalālu‑d dīn. In 1294 Alāu‑d dīn, son of the Sultan's brother, and also son-in‑law of Jalālu‑d dīn, obtained permission for an expedition into Mālwā. But he went much farther, plunging into the heart of the Deccan, and keeping his movements concealed from the court. He marched through Berar and Khandēsh, and compelled Rāmachandra, the Yādava king of Dēogiri and the western Deccan, to surrender Ellichpur (Ilichpur). Alāu‑d dīn collected treasure to an amount unheard of, and showed no disposition to share it with his sovereign. In fact, his treasonable intentions were patent to everybody except his doting old uncle and his father-in‑law, who closed his ears against all warnings and behaved like a person infatuated. Ultimately, Jalālu‑d dīn was persuaded to place himself in his nephew's power at Karā in the Allahabad districtDistrict. When the Sultan grasped the traitor's hand the signal was given. He was thrown down and decapitated. His head was stuck on a spear and carried round the camp. Lavish distribution of gold secured the adhesion of the army to the usurper, and Alāu‑d dīn became Sultan (July 1296).

Thuggee. Jalālu‑d dīn, although he did not deserve his cruel fate, was wholly unfit to rule. We are told that often hieve brought before him would be released on taking oath to sin no more. One of his actions was particularly silly. At some time during his reign about a at this juncture thugs (thags) were arrested in Delhi. The Sultan would not allow one of them to be executed. He adopted the imbecile plan of putting them into boats and transporting them to Lakhnauti (Gaur), the capital of Bengal. That piece of folly probably is the origin of the river thuggee in Bengal, a serious form of crime still prevalent in modern times, and possibly not extinct even now. The story, told by Ziāu‑d dīn Baranī, is of special interest as being the earliest known historical notice of thuggee. It is evident that the crime must have been well established in the time of Jalālu‑d dīn. The organization broken up by Sleeman presumably dated from remote antiquity.1

Sultan Alāu‑d dīn Khiljī. The African traveller Ibn Batuta in the fourteenth century expressed the opinion that Alāu‑d dīn deserved to be considered 'one of the best sultans'.​2 That somewhat  p232 surprising verdict is not justified either by the manner in which Alāu‑d dīn attained power or by the history of his acts as Sultan. Ziāu‑d dīn Baranī, the excellent historian who gives the fullest account of his reign, justly dwells on his 'crafty cruelty', and on his addiction to disgusting vice. 'He shed', we are told, 'more innocent blood than ever Pharaoh was guilty of', and he 'did not escape retribution for the blood of his patron'. He ruthlessly killed off everybody who could be supposed to endanger his ill‑gotten throne, cutting up root and branch all the nobles who had served under his uncle, save three only. Even innocent women and children were not spared, a new horror. 'Up to this time no hand had ever been laid upon wives and children on account of men's misdeeds'. The evil precedent set by 'one of the best sultans' was often followed in later times. Elphinstone's judgement of Alāu‑d dīn is too lenient. The facts do not warrant the assertions that he exhibited a 'just exercise of his power', and that his reign was 'glorious'. In reality he was a particularly savage tyrant, with very little regard for justice, and his reign, although marked by the conquest of Gujarāt, many successful predatory raids, and the storming of two great fortresses, was exceedingly disgraceful in many respects.3

Political events. The political events of Alāu‑d dīn's reign comprised numerous plots and revolts, savagely suppressed; five or six invasions of the Mongols; the conquest of Gujarāt; repeated raids on the Deccan, and the capture of two strong Rājpūt fortresses, Ranthambhōr and Chitōr, the former of which is now in the Jaipur, and the latter in the Udaipur State. The Mongol invasions seem to have begun in A.D. 1297 and to have continued until about 1305, but the exact corruptly of the reign has not been settled. The conspiracies and revolts may be passed over without further notice. The most serious Mongol invasion is assigned to 1303, when a vast host of the fierce foreigners invested Delhi for two months and then retired. The histories suggest a supernatural reason for their unexpected withdrawal, but it may be suspected that they were simply bought off by a huge ransom. Their final attack on Multān is dated in 1305. It is certain that during the remaining years of Alāu‑d dīn's reign Hindostan enjoyed a respite from their ravages.

 p233  Massacre of Mongols. Early in the reign, apparently in 129 or 1298, an attempted rising of the recently converted Mongols settled in the villages near Delhi induced Alāu‑d dīn to perpetrate a fearful massacre, in the course of which all the male settlers, estimated to number from 15,000 to 30,000, were slaughtered in one day.

Expeditions to the south. The expeditions into the Deccan conducted by the eunuch Malik Kāfūr, the infamous favour of the Sultan, were ended in 1311, when the victorious general returned to Delhi with an almost incredible amount of spoil collected from the accumulated treasures of the south. The Hindu kingdoms of the Yādava dynasty of Dēogiri (Daulatābād), the Hoysala dynasty of Mysore, with its capital at Dōra Samudra; and of the Ma'abar or Coromandel coast were overrun, plundered, and to a certain extent subjugated. Musalmān governors were established even at Madura, the action capital of the Pāndyas. The invaders practised dreadful cruelties.

Ranthambhōr and Chitōr. The first attack on Ranthambhōr in the year 1300 failed, but in the year following the fortress fell after a long siege.

The much legends recorded by the Rājpūt bards concerning the sack of Chitōr in 1303 may be read in Tod's pages. They cannot be regarded as sober history and are far too lengthy to be repeated here. But there can be no doubt that the defenders sacrificed their lives in a desperate final fight after the traditional Rājpūt manner, and that their death was preceded by

Tod inspected the closed entrance, but did not attempt to penetrate the sacred recesses.

Follies of the Sultan. Alāu‑d dīn was intoxicated by the successes of his arms. 'In his exaltation, ignorance, and folly he quite lost his head, forming the most impossible schemes, and nourishing the most extravagant desires.' He caused himself to be dubbed don't 'second Alexander' in the khutba or 'bidding prayer' and in the legends of his extensive coinage, dreaming dreams of universal conquest. He persuaded himself that he had the power to establish 'a new religion and creed', with himself as prophet, but had sense enough to listen patiently to the bold remonstrances of the historian's uncle, the kotwāl or magistrate of Delhi, and to recognize the fact that 'the prophetic office has never appertained to kings, and never will, so long as the world lasts, though some prophets have discharged the functions of royalty'. In that matter Alāu‑d dīn showed himself wiser than  p234 Akbar, who persisted in a similar project and so made himself ridiculous.

Policy towards Hindus. Alāu‑d dīn's policy in relation to the Hindus, the bulk of his subjects, was not peculiar to himself, being practised by many of the earlier Muslim rulers. But it was defined by him with unusual precision, without any regard to the rules laid down by ecclesiastical lawyers. Ziāu‑d dīn states the Sultan's principles in the clearest possible language.

He required his advisers to draw up 'rules and regulations for grinding down the Hindus, and for depriving them of that wealth and property which fosters disaffection and rebellion'. The cultivated land was directed to be all measured, and the Government took half of the gross produce instead of one‑sixth as provided by immemorial rule. Akbar ventured to claim one‑third, which was exorbitant, but Alāu‑d dīn's demand of one‑half was monstrous.

Replying to a learned lawyer whom he had consulted, the Sultan said:

Tyranny. His tyranny was enforced by an organized system of espionage and ferocious punishments. Prices were regulated by order, and state granaries on a large scale were constructed. His measures succeeded in preserving artificial cheapness in the markets of the capital even during years of drought, but at the cost of infinite oppression. All his fantastic regulations died with him.

Buildings and literature. Alāu‑d dīn loved building and executed many magnificent works. He built a new Delhi called Sīrī on the site now marked by the village of Shāhpur, but his edifices there were pulled down by Shēr Shāh and have wholly disappeared. He made extensive additions to the 'Kutb' group of sacred structures, and began a gigantic mīnār which was intended to far surpass the noble Kutb Mīnār. The unfinished stump still stands. When building Sīrī he remembered that 'it is a condition that in a new building blood should be sprinkled; he therefore sacrificed some thousands of goat-bearded Mughals for the purpose'.

In early life he was illiterate, but after his accession acquired the art of reading Persian to some extent. In spite of his personal  p235 indifference to learning several eminent literary men attended his court, of whom the most famous is Amīr Khusrū, a voluminous and much admired author in both verse and prose.

Death of Alāu‑d dīn. The tyrant suffered justly from many troubles in his latter days, and 'success no longer attended him'. His naturally violent temper became uncontrollable, and he allowed his guilty infatuation for Malik Kāfūr to influence all his actions. His health failed, dropsy developed, and in January 1316 he died. 'Some say that the infamous Malik Kāfūr helped his disease to a fatal termination.'

Malik Kāfūr placed an infant son of the Sultan on the throne, reserving all power to himself. He imprisoned, blinded, or killed most of the other members of the royal family, but his criminal rule lasted only thirty-five days. After the lapse of that time he and his companions were beheaded by their slave guards.

Sultan Kutbu‑d dīn Mubārak. Kutbu‑d dīn or Mubārak Khān, a son of Alāu‑d dīn, who had escaped destruction, was taken out of confinement and enthroned. The young sovereign was wholly evil, the slave of filthy vice, and no good for anything. He was infatuated with a youth named Hasan, originally an outcast parwārī, the lowest of the low, whom he ennobled under the style of Khusrū Khān. 'During his reign of four years and four months, the Sultan attended to nothing but drinking, listening to music, debauchery, and pleasure, scattering gifts, and gratifying his lusts.' By good luck the Mongols did not attack. If they had done so there was no one to oppose them. Kutbu‑d dīn Mubārak attained two military successes. His officers tightened the hold of his government on Gujarāt, and he in person led an army into the Deccan against Dēogiri, where the Rājā, Harpāl Dēo, had revolted. The Hindu prince failed to offer substantial resistance and was barbarously flayed alive (1318). After his triumphant return from the Deccan the Sultan became still worse than before.

and did many other evil deeds.

Ultimately the degraded creature was killed by his minion, Khusrū Khān, aided by his outcast brethren, 'and the basis of the dynasty of Alāu‑d dīn was utterly razed'.

The vile wretches who thus attained momentary power abused it to the utmost. Khusrū even ventured to marry his late sovereign's chief consort, who had been a Hindu princess. The usurper favoured Hindus as again the Muslims, and it was said that 'Delhi had once more come under Hindu rule'. The orgy of low‑born triumph did not last long. After a few months the usurper was defeated and beheaded by Ghāzī Malik, a Karaunia Turk noble,  p236 governor of Debālpur in the Panjāb. Everything was in confusion and no male scion of the royal stock had been left in existence.

Ghiyāsu dedication Tughlak Shāh. The nobles having thus a free hand, and recognizing the fact that the disordered State required a master, elected Ghāzī Malik to fill the vacant throne. He assumed the style of Ghiyāsu‑d dīn Tughlak, and is often called Tughlak Shāh (A.D. 1321). His father, a Turk, had been a slave of Balban; his mother, a Jat woman, was Indian born. His conduct justified the confidence bestowed on him by his colleagues. He restored a reasonable amount of order to the internal administration and took measures to guard against the ever pressing danger from Mongol inroads.

He sent his son Jūnā Khān into the Deccan, where the countries conquered by Alāu‑d dīn had refused obedience. The prince reached Warangal or Orangal, now in the eastern part of the Nizām's dominions, and undertook the siege of the fort. The strong walls of mud resisted his efforts, pestilence broke out, his men deserted, and he was forced to return to Delhi with only 3,000 horse, a mere remnant of his force. But a second expedition was more successful, resulting in the capture of both Bīdar and Warangal. At that time Warangal had recovered its independence, and was under the rule of a Hindu rājā. The Sultan meantime, having been invited to intervene in a disputed succession, had marched across Bengal as far as Sunārgāon near Dacca, and on his way home had annexed Tirhūt. He left Bengal practically independent, although he brought to Delhi as a prisoner one of the claimants to the provincial throne.

Murder of Tughlak Shāh. His son Jūnā, or Muhammad, who had returned from the south, was then in charge of the capital. His proceedings had given his father reason to suspect his loyalty. The Sultan desired his son to build for him a temporary reception pavilion or pleasure-house on the bank of the Jumna. Jūnā Khān entrusted the work to Ahmad, afterwards known as Khwāja Jahān, who was head of the public works department and in his confidence. The prince asked and obtained permission to parade the elephants fully accoutred before his father, who took up his station in the new building for afternoon prayers. The confederates arranged that the elephants when passing should collide with the timber structure, which accordingly fell on the Sultan and his favourite younger son, Mahmūd, who accompanied him. Jūnā Khān made a pretence of sending for picks and shovels to dig out his father and brother, but purposely hindered action being taken until it was too late. The Sultan was found bending over the boy's body, and if he still breathed, as some people assert that he did, he was finished off (A.D. 1325). After nightfall his body was removed and interred in the massive sepulcher which  p237 he had prepared for himself in Tughlakābād, the mighty fortress which he had built near Delhi.4

Accession of Muhammad bin Tughlak, February 1325. The parricide gathered the fruits of his crime, as Alāu‑d dīn Khiljī had done, and seated himself on the throne without opposition.​5 He occupied it for twenty‑six years of tyranny as atrocious as any on record in the sad annals of human devilry and then died in his bed. Like Alāu‑d dīn he secured favour by lavish largess, scattering without stint the golden treasure stored by his father within the grim walls of Tughlakābād. It was reported that Tughlak Shāh had constructed a reservoir filled with molten gold in a solid mass.

Ibn Batuta; character of the Sultan. Our knowledge of the second sovereign of the Tughlak dynasty, who appears in history as Muhammad bin (son of) Tughlak, is extraordinarily detailed and accurate, because, in addition to the narrative of an unusually  p238 good Indian historian (Ziāu‑d dīn Baranī), we possess the observations of the African traveller, Ibn Batuta, who spent several years at the court and in the service of the Sultan until April 1347, when he succeeded in retiring from his dangerous employment. He was then sent away honourably as ambassador to the emperor of China. But the ships on which the members of the embassy embarked were wrecked off Calicut and the mission was broken up. Ibn Batuta escaped with his life, and ultimately made his way safely to Fez in northern Africa, in November 1349, after twenty-five years of travel and astounding adventures. He experienced the usual fate of men who come home with strange traveller's tales, and was deemed to be a daring liar. But he was no liar, so far as his book deals with India. His account of his Indian experiences, with which alone we are concerned, bears the stamp of truth on every page. Most of his statements concerning Muhammad bin Tughlak are based on direct personal knowledge.​6 Ziāu‑d dīn of Baran (Bulandshahr) also was a contemporary official and wrote in the reign of Muhammad bin Tughlak's cousin and successor, Fīrōz Shāh. Although he natural does not exhibit the impartial detachment of the foreign observer, his narrative is full of vivid detail. If space permitted the materials would suffice for a long story, but in a short history room can be found only for a brief selection of the doings of one of the most astonishing kings mentioned in the records of the world.

Notwithstanding that Muhammad bin Tughlak was guilty of acts which the pen shrinks from recording, and that he wrought untold misery in the course of his long reign, he was not wholly evil. He was 'a mixture of opposites', as Jahāngīr was in a later age.

He established hospitals and almshouses, and his generosity to learned Muslims was unprecedented. It was even possible to describe him with truth both as 'the humblest of men' and also as an intense egotist. Elphinstone's just summary of his enigmatic character deserves quotation:

To that discriminating passage the remark may be added that the Sultan, like Jāhangīr afterwards, believed himself to be a juman, and was persuaded that all his atrocities were in accordance with the principles of justice and Muslim law. There is no reason to suppose that his conscience troubled him. On the contrary, he deliberately defended his conduct against criticism and avowed his resolve to continue his course to the end.

Thus, he went on, unmoved from his fell purpose, although sometimes permitting himself to be influenced by mere rage and the lust of vengeance. His inhuman tyranny was the direct cause of the break up of the empire of Delhi.

Premising that the authorities are discrepant concerning the order of events, and that the chronology of the reign is consequently uncertain to some extent, the leading events of the Sultan's rule will be now narrated.7

Evacuation of Delhi. In the year A.D. 1326‑7 (A.H. 727) the Sultan, having taken offence at the inhabitants of Delhi because they threw into his audience-hall abusive papers criticizing his policy, decided to destroy their city. He marched to Dēogiri in the Deccan, where he constructed the strong fort to which he gave the name of Daulatābād, and resolved to make his capital there, in a situation more central than Delhi.​8 Ibn Batuta, who was in the Sultan's service from about 1341 or 1342 to 1347, gives the following account:

Ziāu‑d dīn confirms the traveller's account, saying:

According to Firishta the population of Delhi was removed to Daulatābād for the second time in 1340 (A.H. 741).

The Mongols bought off. The numerous reservoirs which characterized the reign began as early as 1327, when the governor of Multān rebelled. About the same time Tarmashirīn, Khān of the Jagatāi or Chagatāi section (ulūs) of the Mongols, advanced with a large force to the gates of Delhi, and had to be bought off by a heavy payment of blackmail. The Sultan was then obliged to remain for three years at Delhi in order to guard against a repetition of the invasion.9

Attack on Persia. Early in the reign an abortive attempt to conquer the Persian province of Khurāsān with a gigantic cavalry force ended in the dispersal of the army and widespread ruin.

Forced currency. The Sultan's extravagances naturally disordered his finances. Casting about for relief he bethought himself of the paper currently of China, and argued that if the Chinese emperor could use paper money with success he could pass copper or brass as if it were silver in virtue of his royal command. Accordingly he issued orders to that effect and struck vast quantities of copper money, inscribed with legends denoting their value as if the pieces were silver. The official issues were supplemented by an immense unauthorized coinage.

 p241  But the smash soon came, and the Sultan was obliged to repeal his edict, 'till at last copper became copper, and silver, silver'. The discarded coins were piled up in mountainous heaps at Tughlakābād, and 'had no more value than stones'.10

Attack on China. Another disastrous project was that of the conquest of China, to be effected through Nepāl, and by crossing the Himalayan ranges. A force of 100,000 cavalry under the command of Khusrū Malik, son of the Sultan's sister, was dispatched on that crazy enterprise in 1137‑8 (A.H. 738). Naturally, the horsemen came to grief among the mountains, and when they encountered the Chinese were defeated.

The few men, about ten, who survived to return to Delhi were massacred by their bloodthirsty master.

Fate of Bahaū‑d dīn. Another sister's son of the Sultan named Bahaū‑d dīn rebelled at a date not specified. He failed and was betrayed. His appalling fate is thus related by the Ibn Batuta:

When Kishlū Khān, governor of Sind, received the loathsome objects he ordered them to be buried. His action infuriated the Sultan, who pursued the governor to death, and flayed alive a Kāzī who had supported him.

Even after the lapse of so many centuries it is painful to copy the accounts of such hors, but it is necessary to tell the truth about a man like Muhammad bin Tughlak, and not to permit him to escape condemnation because he was attentive to the ritual of his religion, decent in private life, and extravagantly liberal to persons who attracted his capricious favour.

Many pages might be filled with stories of the crimes committed by the murderous tyrant, but I forebear.

Ruin of the country. The internal administration of the country went to ruin. The taxes were enhanced to a degree unbearable, and collected so rigorously that the peasantry were reduced to beggary, and people who possessed anything felt that they had no resource but rebellion. The Sultan came to hate his subjects and to take pleasure in their wholesale destruction. At one time he

The victims, of course, were all or nearly all Hindus, a fact which added to the pleasure of the chase.

The short-lived empire. Muhammad bin Tughlak, in the early part of his reign, controlled more or less fully an empire far larger than that under the rule of any of his Muhammadan predecessors. It was divided into twenty-four provinces, comprising, in modern terms, the Panjāb, the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, Bihār, Tirhūt, Bengal, Sind, Mālwā, Gujarāt, and a large portion of the Deccan, including part of Mysore and the Coromandel coast or Malabar.​12 The degree of subjection of the various provinces varied much, but in a large part of the enormous area indicated the Sultan's authority, when he chose to assert it, was absolute.

The earlier revolts, which were many, were suppressed in the ruthless manner of which some examples have been cited. Later, the Sultan's tyranny became so intolerable, and the resources of his command so much reduced, that he was unable to resist rebellion with success or to prevent the break up of his empire.

The turning-point was reached in 1338‑9 = A.H. 739, when both Bengal and Ma'abar or Coromandel revolted and escaped from the Delhi tyranny.

The decline and fall of the Sultanate, which may be D. & D. from that year, or from 1340 in round numbers, will form the subject of the next chapter.13

---

The Author's Notes:

1 By an unlucky slip, when editing Sleeman, I attributed Jalālu‑d dīn's folly to Firōz Shāh Tughlak (1351‑88), a more sensible monarch. My eye was caught by the page-heading (E. & D., III.141), 'Tārīkh‑i Firōz-Shāhī' (Rambles and Recollections, ed. 1915, p652).

2 wa kama min khaiyār alsalātin, 'il fut au nombre des meilleurs sultans' (Defrémery, III.184). The obvious rashness of Ibn Batuta's expression of opinion may serve as a warning when similar praise of other bloodthirsty monarchs is found in the pages of divers authors, and contradiction is not so easy as it is in the case of Alāu‑d dīn.

3 The reign of Alāu‑d dīn requires critical study in a separate monograph. Many points are obscure, and the chronology is far from settled. Inaction the attempt to clear up the difficulties in this work. Badāonī, writing in the sixteenth century, was equally puzzled, and plaintively remarks: 'Historians have paid little attention to the due order of events, but God knows the truth.'

4 The facts as recorded by Ibn Batuta (vol. III, p213) are certain, having been related to the traveller by Shaikh Ruknu‑d dīn, the saint, who was present when the carefully arranged 'accident' occurred. No reason whatever exists for giving Jūnā Khān the 'benefit of the doubt'.

5 'Lorsque le sultan Toghlok fut mort, son filks Mohammed s'empara du royaume, sans rencontrer d'adversaire ni de rebelle.'

6 'Quant aux aventures de ce roi‑ci, la plupart sont au nombre de ce que j'ai vu durant mon séjour dans ses États' (vol. III, p216).

7 My narrative is based on the table constructed by Defrémery and Sanguinetti, chiefly on the authority of Khondamīr (Voyages d'Ibn Batuta (1858), vol. III, pp. xx‑xxiv), as checked by the coin dates. But the subject requires special investigation in a separate essay. Obscurities in detail remain.

8 A gold coin was struck at Dēogiri in A.H. 727 (Thomas, No. 174, p209).

9 Ziāu‑d dīn accuses the Sultan of 'patronizing and favouring the Mughals' (E. & D., III.251). He used the savages as instruments of his cruelty.

10 The forced currency bears the d77 A.H. 730, 731, and 732 = A.D. 1329‑32.

11 A relative of Balban and claimant to the viceregal throne of Bengal.

12 The list (from Sirāju‑d dīn) is in Thomas, Chronicles, p203. By a slip the text mentions 23 provinces, while the list specifies 24. The name Ma'abar, given correctly in Arabic characters (zzz), is misprinted Malabar in the English transliteration. No Sultan of Delhi had any concern with Malabar on the western coast. Briggs, the translator of Firishta, confounded Ma'abar with Malabar, and other people have made the same mistake.

13 The chronology and authorities will be given at the end of chapter 3.

◂ previous						next ▸
Images with borders lead to more information. The thicker the border, the more information. (Details here.)
UP TO:		Oxford History of India	History of India	Home
A page or image on this site is in the public domain ONLY if its URL has a total of one *asterisk. If the URL has two **asterisks, the item is copyright someone else, and used by permission or fair use. If the URL has none the item is © Bill Thayer. See my copyright page for details and contact information.

Accessibility