Turks, Mongols and a Persian Secretarial Class in Early Delhi Sultanate

[kalu_miah]

Persian language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New Persian
The history of New Persian itself spans more than 1,000–1,200 years. The development of the language in its last period is often divided into three stages dubbed early, classical, and contemporary. Native speakers of the language can in fact understand early texts in Persian with minimal adjustment, because the morphology and, to a lesser extent, the lexicon of the language have remained relatively stable for the most part of a millennium.[42]

Early New Persian
New Persian developed from the 8th century on as an independent literary language.[43] Upon the decline of the Caliphate at Baghdad in the 9th century began the re-establishment of Persian national life and Persians laid the foundations for a renaissance in the realm of letters. New Persian was born in Bactria through the adaptation of the spoken form of Sassanian Middle Persian court language called Dari. The cradle of the Persian literary renaissance lay in the east of Greater Iran, in the Greater Khorasan and Transoxiana regions close to the river Amu Darya.[44]

The mastery of the newer speech having now been transformed from Middle- into New Persian was already complete during three princely dynasties of Iranian origin Tahirid (820–872), Saffarid (860–903) and Samanid(874–999), and could develop only in range and power of expression.[44]

Abbas of Merv is mentioned as being the earliest minstrel to chant verse in the newer Persian tongue and after him the poems of Hanzala Badghisi were among the most famous between the Persian-speakers of the time.[45]

The first poems of the Persian Language, a language historically called Dari, have emerged in Khorasan.[46][dubious – discuss] The first significant Persian poet was Rudaki. He flourished in the 10th century, when the Sāmānids were at the height of their power. His reputation as a court poet and as an accomplished musician and singer has survived, although little of his poetry has been preserved. Among his lost works is versified fables collected in Kalilah va Dimnah.[12]

The language spread geographically from the 11th century on and was the medium through which among others, Central Asian Turks became familiar with Islam and urban culture. New Persian was widely used as a transregional lingua franca, a task for which it was particularly suitable due to its relatively simple morphological structure and this situation persisted until at least 19th century.[43] In the late Middle Ages, new Islamic literary languages were created on the Persian model: Ottoman, Chaghatay and Urdu, which are regarded as "structural daughter languages" of Persian.[43]

Classic Persian
The Islamic conquest of Persia marks the beginning of the new history of Persian language and literature. This period produced world class Persian language poets and the language served, for a long span of time, as the lingua franca of the eastern parts of Islamic world and South Asia. It was also the official and cultural language of many Islamic dynasties, including Samanids, Buyids, Tahirids, Ziyarids, the Mughal Empire, Timurids,Ghaznavid, Seljuq, Khwarezmids, Safavid, Afsharids, Zand, Qajar, Ottomans and also many Mughal successor states such as the Nizams etc. For example, Persian was the only oriental language known and used byMarco Polo at the Court of Kublai Khan and in his journeys through China.[47] The heavy influence of Persian on other languages can still be witnessed across the Islamic world, especially, and it is still appreciated as a literary and prestigious language among the educated elite, especially in fields of music (for example Qawwali) and art (Persian literature). After the Arab invasion of Persia, Persian began to adopt many words fromArabic and as time went by, a few words were even taken from Turko-Mongol languages under the Mongol Empire and Turco-Persian society.

Use in South Asia
Persian has a long and extensive history in South Asia and South Asian culture. For five centuries prior to the British colonization, Persian was widely used as a second language on the Indian subcontinent.[citation needed][dubious – discuss] It took prominence as the language of culture and education in several Muslim courts on the subcontinent and became the sole "official language" under the Mughal emperors. Beginning in 1843, though, English gradually replaced Persian in importance on the subcontinent.[48] Evidence of Persian's historical influence there can be seen in the extent of its influence on the languages of the Indian subcontinent, as well as the popularity that Persian literature still enjoys in that region. Words borrowed from Persian are still commonly used in Indo-Aryan languages, especially Urdu, also historically known as Hindustani.


Indo-Persian culture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Persian was the official language of the Delhi Sultanate, the Mughal Empire, and their successor states, as well as the cultured language of poetry and literature. Many of the Sultans and nobility in the Sultanate period were Persianised Turks from Central Asia who spoke Turkic languages as their mother tongues.

 

[kalu_miah]

part1_08
Society and Culture under the Sultanate

Learning, Literature, and the Arts

After the sack of Baghdad in 1258, Delhi was perhaps the most important cultural center in the Muslim East. Heir to the traditions of Ghazni and Lahore, its importance increased when the Mongols destroyed the cultural centers of Central and Western Asia, and the poets, scholars and men of letters from these areas took refuge in Muslim India. Balban, who gave high offices of the state only to persons of good families, welcomed these distinguished refugees, and many illustrious families of Muslim India trace their origin to this period. This influx bore fruit in a large number of works, many of which are lost, but the contemporary historians attest to their worth. During the reign (1296–1316) of Ala-ud-din Khalji the general prosperity engendered by his conquests enabled the nobles, and not just the sultan, to become literary patrons. This probably explains why Barani could devote fourteen pages to an account of the scholars, poets, preachers, philosophers, physicians, astronomers, and historians who thronged Delhi in the days of Ala-ud-din Khalji. If the surviving poetry of Khusrau, the historical works of Barani, and the table talk of Hazrat Nizam-ud-din Auliya are any indication of the cultural vitality and richness of the age, one can well understand why Amir Khusrau and others felt that Delhi was the metropolis of the Muslim East.

Yet despite the cultural eminence of the capital, it cannot be claimed that the sultanate is a period marked by that solid scholarship and study of sciences which distinguished Baghdad and Cordova. The reason is obvious. Learned and gifted men had come to India, but [[113]] without their libraries. Those who were escaping with their lives could not be expected to carry heavy loads of books over long distances. We get a glimpse of this in the case of Fakhr-i-Mudabbir, who fled from Ghazni without even his family papers, and had to wait for an opportunity to go back to reclaim them. The result was that only those cultural activities gained prominence which, like poetry, belles-lettres, local history, architecture, and music, were not dependent on accumulated stores of knowledge.

Probably for the same reason—the lack of libraries—great educational institutions of the kind found in Baghdad and Cairo did not develop in India. There were, however, schools and colleges in Delhi and all the important provincial capitals.

In Muslim society, teaching and the promotion of educational enterprises are regarded as necessary marks of religious vocation, and the Muslim state is expected to facilitate this by providing teachers with ample means of subsistence. This was the procedure generally adopted during Muslim rule in India, and the official in charge of religious endowments, the sadr-i-jahan, arranged for the grant of tax-free lands to imams, qazis, and other religious groups who provided education, particularly in Islamic subjects. This education was usually on the elementary level, but the system also provided for the maintenance of scholars who had specialized in different branches of learning. We find even nobles and distinguished men of affairs teaching subjects in which they had become proficient. Hazrat Nizam-ud-din Auliya, for example, studied under Shams-ul-Mulk, who became the wazir of Balban. The children of nobles were taught at their own residences by private tutors, whose guidance was often available for other students also.

For advanced students madrasas, or colleges, were set up by pious and public-spirited rulers, and this activity received special attention during the early period. Two major madrasas called Muizziya and Nasiriya were established during the beginning of Muslim rule at Delhi. Details about these madrasas are lacking, but probably one of them was the college built by Iltutmish and repaired a century later by Firuz Tughluq. Similar steps to establish educational institutions were taken by Muslim rulers in the distant provinces, and we read [[114]] of Muhammad Bakhtiyar Khalji setting up madrasas at Devkot and other places in Bengal. Firuz Tughluq was unusual in that he looked after the institutions established by his predecessors; probably most of these establishments fell into decay when the original founders passed away, and the grants made for the madrasas were diverted to other purposes.

Historians give little information about the staff or the curriculum of madrasas, but some details are available for one founded by Firuz Tughluq near Hauz-i-Alai in Delhi. Barani has given a lengthy account of the beautiful building and gardens which provided a center around which people built their houses. Both Barani and Mutahar, a well-known poet, praise the comprehensive knowledge of Maulana Jala-ud-din Rumi, the head of the institution. The main subjects taught seem to have been religious—tafsir (interpretation of the Quran), hadith (tradition), and fiqh (jurisprudence).

The intellectual activity of the schools owed much to the refugee scholars from Central Asia, Persia, and Iraq who came to Delhi in the thirteenth century. After this influx had ceased and the Mongols had established their rule in the northwestern borderland, communication between Central Asia and northern India became difficult. It appears that in the Deccan, where contact was maintained with Iran by the sea route, intellectual activity during the later centuries encompassed a wider range than was the position in the north. In northern India, apart from religious subjects, literature, history, mysticism, and ethics were the principal subjects studied. In the Deccan, scientific subjects also received attention. The great Bahmani king, Firuz (1397–1422), for example, encouraged botany, geometry, and logic. He was interested also in astronomy, and in 1407 started work on an observatory near Daulatabad. The untimely death of Hakim Hashim Gilani, the astronomer who was to supervise the observatory, put an end to the project. When Sayyid Gisu Daraz, who has left a large number of books on mysticism and who was famous for his knowledge of religious subjects, reached the Deccan, Firuz went to meet him. The historian Firishta records that the sultan found the saint lacking in solid scholarship, and made no secret of his disappointment. The fact that Firuz was not alone in intellectual pursuits is evident from the [[115]] account of a prince who used to teach students mathematics (including Euclid), theology, and rhetoric./3/ Promotion of learning in the Deccan was largely the work of Persian statesmen and scholars whom the rulers had attracted from Iran, and an interesting monument to the age is the ruined college of the Bahmani minister, Mahmud Gawan, in Bidar. It was a magnificent building, as can be seen from its beautiful minarets and facade, but it was badly damaged during the wars of the Deccan kings with Aurangzeb.

The one scientific subject that received considerable attention in the schools was medicine. The earliest work on medicine, of which an imperfect manuscript copy has survived, was written about 1329 in the reign of Muhammad bin Tughluq. Its author, Zia Muhammad, went to the Deccan under the orders of the sultan. His book, Majmua-i-ziai, based on Arabic and Indian sources, gives local counterparts for Arabian medicines as well as the prescriptions of Hindu physicians. Following this work, other writers combined Greek and Indian works. The history of Indo-Islamic medicine has not yet been carefully studied, but it is reasonably certain that in the books written in India during the sultanate one sees the blending of the three streams of Greek, Arabic, and Hindu medical knowledge. The most famous of these works is the Tibb-i-Sikandari, written by the court physician Mian Bhuwa about 1512. It draws freely on the classical Sanskrit writers, and it long remained a standard textbook for followers of the indigenous medical systems.

Of the purely literary works of the early period, very few have survived. This is especially true of poetry, for barring the works of major poets like Amir Khusrau and Hasan, only those poems have been preserved which, because of their topical nature, were included in general histories. Examples are the poems of Sangreza on the arrival of Iltutmish's patent of sovereignty from the Abbasid caliphate and his verses on the accession of Iltutmish's son or Ruhani's poem on Iltutmish's conquest of Ranthambhor. While these poems have the usual limitations of occasional poetry, they indicate high poetic skill.

The early men of letters represented a trans-Indus tradition. Most [[116]] of them had received their education beyond the border, and although they had settled down in Islamic India, an indigenous literary tradition was slow in developing. The two most important representatives of the early tradition were Muhammad Aufi and Muhammad bin Mansur Qureshi, generally known as Fakhr-i-Mudabbir. Aufi (c.1172–1242), a native of Bukhara who lived in Lahore and Delhi, was the author of the earliest extant collection of biographies of Persian poets, Lubabul-Albab. He also completed the voluminous encyclopedia of anecdotes, Jawami-al-Hikayat, which, apart from its literary interest, is a mine of curious and interesting information relating to this and earlier periods. The major work of Fakhr-i-Mudabbir, who lived in Lahore at the beginning of the thirteenth century, was a study of statecraft; this has already been discussed in Chapter VII.

The first Persian poet of eminence who was born in India was Reza, or, as he was sometimes known, Sangreza. He was Iltutmish's secretary. The most distinguished writer of the early sultanate, however, was Amir Khusrau (c.1253–1325). His father, a junior Turkish officer under Iltutmish, had married a daughter of Rawat-i-Arz, Balban's famous minister. Khusrau showed literary promise at an early age, and, after spending some time at the provincial court of Oudh, became attached at first to Prince Bughra Khan, the governor of Samana and later of Bengal, and subsequently to Prince Muhammad, the heir-designate of Balban, who maintained a magnificent court at Multan. The prince lost his life in a skirmish with the Mongols in 1285, and the poet went to Delhi. Balban's successor, Kaiqubad, was Khusrau's first royal patron. In all, seven rulers were to be his patrons, but it is doubtful whether he was greatly concerned by the kaleidoscopic changes of royalty.

Apart from lyrics, Khusrau wrote poems relating to contemporary events. Qiran-us-Saadain, completed in 1289, gives an account of the historic meeting of Bughra Khan and Kaiqubad on the banks of the river Sarju, and contains an interesting description of the Delhi of those days. Miftah-ul-Futuh (1291) is a versified account of the exploits of Jalal-ud-din Firuz Khalji; in Ashiqa (1315) is an account of the romance of the Gujarati princess Deval Devi and Prince Khizr Khan, son of Ala-ud-din Khalji. The latter's conquests are the subject [[117]] matter of Khazain-ul-Futuh (1311), an ornate prose work, whileNuh Sipihr, completed in 1318, celebrates the reign of Qutb-ud-din Mubarik Shah. In this book Amir Khusrau challenged the poets of Iran and sang of his native land, its hoary past, its love of learning, its flowers, and its fair, intelligent people. Tughlaq Nama describes the successful expedition of Ghiyas-ud-din Tughluq against the usurper Khusrau Khan. Khusrau was also among the earliest writers of Hindi poetry, and though the origins of the Hindi poems attributed to him are doubtful, he referred to his Hindi verses in the introduction to one of his Persian diwans. He also played a major role in the development of Indian music, as noted below.

The work of Hasan (c.1252–1337), a friend of Khusrau, was praised by Jami, the great Persian poet, a rare distinction for an Indian writer. He wrote prose as well as verse, and his Fawaid-ul-Fuad, a record of the table-talk of his spiritual guide, Nizam-ud-din Auliya, is a literary classic. Equally interesting, though not so well known, was Ziya Nakhshabi (d.1350), who was a master of simple and eloquent prose. His Tuti Nama (The Book of the Parrot) was based on a Sanskrit original. It has been translated into Turkish, German, English, and many Indian languages. His other translations include the Kok Shastra, a Sanskrit text on erotics.

While there were many distinguished names in poetry, perhaps the most important literary contribution during the sultanate was in the field of history. Since classical Hindu culture produced almost no historical literature, the Muslim works are of special significance for Indian historiography. Written by contemporaries who had taken part in the events they describe, these histories are of enormous value for an understanding of the period. They are marred, however, by certain defects which their very excellence tends to conceal. One is that many of the chronicles were written specifically for certain rulers and nobles whom the historians glorified at the expense of rivals; another is the tendency to picture the conquerors as actuated by unselfish and religious motives. These peculiarities of method can generally be discounted, however, and the historians do not seem to have falsified historical facts even when they were writing panegyrics.

The number of historical works of the sultanate period which have [[118]] reached us is not large, but the works possess rich variety. The historians of the period, many of whom have already been mentioned, include Barani, Fakhr-i-Mudabbir, Hasan Nizami, Minhaj-us-Siraj, Aufi, Khusrau, Yahya, and Isami. Most of them occupied high official positions and wrote from personal knowledge. Barani is the most interesting, but he is not very particular about dates (normally the strong point of the Muslim historians), and this detracts from the value of his book, Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi. But he wrote history as an artist, selecting and carefully arranging his material so that his book, instead of being a chronicle of events, emphasized the characteristics of various rulers and different reigns. He does not confine himself to the kings, but gives details about the political philosophies of different monarchs and leading men of the times, the literary and the religious history, the prices in the market, and other matters of concern to the ordinary people. Even more interesting is the gallery of portraits which he has brought to life by a skillful analysis of personalities and by providing those significant small details which most Indian historians omit.

As already noted, the rise of regional kingdoms in the fifteenth century played an extremely important role in the dissemination of Islamic culture./4/ One significant feature of this disintegration of the central authority, with its dependence on Persian as the official language, was the rise of regional languages. Hindu kings had given their patronage to Sanskrit as the language of religion and the classics; Muslim rulers felt no such compulsion, and supported the common languages of the people. It was Muslim rulers, therefore, who were responsible for many of the first translations of the Sanskrit classics into the provincial languages. The Muslim rulers of Bengal engaged scholars to translate the Ramayana and the Mahabharata into Bengali. Maladhar Vasu translated the Bhagavata Purana into Bengali under the patronage of Sultan Husain Shah (r. 1493–1518), and Chuti Khan, governor of Chittagong, employed Srikara Nadi to translate parts of the Asvamedha Parva of the Mahabharata into Bengali. In Kashmir, Hindu literature and philosophy were studied enthusiastically at the court of Zain-ul-Abidin (1420–1470). Rajatarangini, one of [[119]] the few histories written in Sanskrit, was translated into Persian, with a supplement to bring the account up to date. Other works on music and mathematics were composed by Hindu scholars at the Kashmir court. In the south the Muslim rulers of Golkunda and Bijapur employed Hindus as ministers, and maintained the state records in the Marathi language. Cultural histories of the various provincial governments are yet to be written, but a similar process was at work at all places.

 

[kalu_miah]

DU/MAFINAL/Delhi Sultanate
DU/MAFINAL/Delhi Sultanate2

M.A. Part II
Delhi University
HSM 351, Political Processes and Socio-Cultural Formations in North India, c. 1000-1400

Prof. Sunil Kumar

This paper covers the history of north India, a long period comprising roughly four centuries, a period that most historians have associated with the reigns of Sultans who ruled over much of this area from Delhi, hence its reference in Indian history as the period of 'The Delhi Sultanate'.

Although comprising the better part of four centuries, this is not an intensively studied period. If the Delhi Sultanate has attracted some attention in general histories of India it is as a moment when Islamic institutions of statecraft and Muslim culture arrived in the subcontinent together with the establishment of a ‘Muslim’ state. For some scholars, the Delhi Sultanate was a moment of great fracture when the pasts of a Hindu civilization were swept away by invading Muslim iconoclasts. For other historians, this was a period of great technological innovation and material progress, a period when the introduction of Islam and the dynamism of a centralised state contributed to the making of a complex, variegated civilization, a complexity that is sometimes reduced rather simplistically today as ‘Indian’. But not all scholars see this period as a great fracture in Indian history; some emphasise instead social and cultural continuities from the early Medieval into the Sultanate period. Sometimes present in all these streams of scholarship is a litany of the achievements and failures of succeeding absolutist monarchs. Occasionally the ‘hero-centric’ bent in this historiography is muted by a greater concern to develop the history of class relations where the medieval state served as the agent of the ruling class. Alternatively some scholars highlight in this period the presence of a more inclusive Islam of the sufi saints, oftentimes distant from the Sultanate court, preaching a mystic ideology comparable in inspiration to that of the Bhakti saints.

In sum, there is no consensus amongst scholars on how to analyse this period, or, for that matter, how to contextualise it within a larger history of Islam or India. Should the history of the Delhi Sultans be read simply as if they were powerful, but still somewhat smaller, less capable Mughal Emperors? Should the history of this period be summarised as a moment when Islam arrived in the subcontinent, and should it be studied then from the prism of ‘Hindu-Muslim’ relations -- the process of acculturation as a ‘foreign’ religion and ‘foreigners’ settled in South Asia and gradually indigenised? Is the history of the Delhi Sultanate part of the process of Islamic thoughts and institutions moving from its centre to a[nother] geographical periphery (Mecca>Ghazni>Delhi; Delhi>Bengal)? Or is there something more to this period and if so, how can we excavate and study it?

In a very general sense, this paper intersects with the different historiographical interpretations of this period, to question afresh how the four centuries from the tenth through the fifteenth can be situated in the larger history of India. What is it about the Delhi Sultanate that led historians to evaluate it from sometimes very contrasting perspectives and, if one were to move beyond the epistemologies that framed these debates, is it possible to read these centuries in a very different way? On one level we will indulge in a very conventional detailed study of the events, peoples, ideas and conditions of the Sultanate period. At another level, this course is also organized to help students question the materials, both primary and secondary, that report on this period.

Classes: The course is organized around weekly lectures. We meet twice a week, on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Students will be given reading assignments each week to help them follow the course content. These readings will be discussed in class in detail. Attendance is not compulsory but you might want to take into account that examination results suggest a correlation between attendance, regular study, disciplined writing, superior comprehension, and high marks.

Regarding internal evaluations: 1) Students will be asked to present reports and participate in formal class discussions on themes and texts identified by the instructor. The presentations and ensuing discussion will be graded. 2) They will have to submit a paper of circa 15-20 pages (inclusive of bibliographic apparatus) on a theme given to them, or designed with the help of the instructor. The first draft is due by the 2nd of September. This will be corrected and returned without grading. The final, revised paper is due on November 1st,and this will be graded. The term paper requires you to use source material(s) in translation to research a subject of your choice. Ideally the subject you choose to write about should not be derived from one of the historians read in this course; it should follow themes that are of interest to you in your personal life. Develop these from subjects that you love or hate; it will help if you can find subjects that you are passionate about. Students are expected to set up a meeting with me to develop and finalise subjects and materials on which your paper could be based.

For a continuation of the reading list and uploaded files see alsoDU/MAFINAL/Delhi Sultanate2 and the relevant themes.

 

[Samandri]

@kalu_miah persian presence was negligible in the nobility of various delhi sultanates. Turks, Afghans and converted mongols were making the most of the composition of delhi sultanates nobility. Perhaps nobility of slave dynasty was overwhelmingly turkic while khiljis and tuqhlaqs incorporated afghans and local muslims in addition to turks into their nobility. Tuqhlaq nobility also added newly converted mongols to islam and was diverse ethnically as their central asia was no longer source of turk nobles and soldiers after mongol invasion. Sayyid dynasty was arab with pre-dominant afghan nobility who later established their own lodhi dynasty where nobility was entirely afghan except for farmulis who were tajiks.

 

[Charon 2]

@kalu_miah persian presence was negligible in the nobility of various delhi sultanates. Turks, Afghans and converted mongols were making the most of the composition of delhi sultanates nobility. Perhaps nobility of slave dynasty was overwhelmingly turkic while khiljis and tuqhlaqs incorporated afghans and local muslims in addition to turks into their nobility. Tuqhlaq nobility also added newly converted mongols to islam and was diverse ethnically as their central asia was no longer source of turk nobles and soldiers after mongol invasion. Sayyid dynasty was arab with pre-dominant afghan nobility who later established their own lodhi dynasty where nobility was entirely afghan except for farmulis who were tajiks.

Mongols are totally overrated in Indian history. When did Mongols came in contact with Indians? They raided in Kashmir and Punjab several times but were driven back by the Turko-Afghan Khiljis rulers of Delhi. That was also the end of Indo-Mongolian connections. Don't be confused by the term "Mughal". They never called themselves "Mongols" That was a term which the Portugese gave the Indian Turko-Persian rulers of Agra

Sayyids were probably of Turkic descent. Many Muslim dynasties claimed to be Sayyids so that they could have the legimate to rule over other Muslims.

Persian presence was negilible? That's why Persian became the lingua franca of all Muslim dynasties in the Indian subcontinent? The language Urdu which was created during the Muslim court of India is mainly influenced by Persian. Persians had the greatest influence in in the Muslim dynasties of South Asia.

 

[Samandri]

Mongols are totally overrated in Indian history. When did Mongols came in contact with Indians? They raided in Kashmir and Punjab several times but were driven back by the Turko-Afghan Khiljis rulers of Delhi. That was also the end of Indo-Mongolian connections. Don't be confused by the term "Mughal". They never called themselves "Mongols" That was a term which the Portugese gave the Indian Turko-Persian rulers of Agra

Sayyids were probably of Turkic descent. Many Muslim dynasties claimed to be Sayyids so that they could have the legimate to rule over other Muslims.

Persian presence was negilible? That's why Persian became the lingua franca of all Muslim dynasties in the Indian subcontinent? The language Urdu which was created during the Muslim court of India is mainly influenced by Persian. Persians had the greatest influence in in the Muslim dynasties of South Asia.

Actually many mongol began to convert to islam in 14th century and were heavily incorporated into tuqhlaq army and nobility, i am not talking about mughals of babur who entered into indian history in 1526. Interestingly Afghans and turks brought persian langauge into hindostan, not iranians. Iranians became prominent only during mughal empire, (1526-185), while during delhi sultanate (1206-1526), their presence in indian courts was negligible, except for khorasanis

 

[Charon 2]

Actually many mongol began to convert to islam in 14th century and were heavily incorporated into tuqhlaq army and nobility, i am not talking about mughals of babur who entered into indian history in 1526. Interestingly Afghans and turks brought persian langauge into hindostan, not iranians. Iranians became prominent only during mughal empire, 1526-1857, during delhi sultanate (1206-1526), their presence in indian courts was negligible, except for khorasanis

It were actually the Tajik Ghurids who started the Muslim dominance of Hindustan.

The Ghurids were great patrons of Persian culture and literature and lay the basis for a Persianized state in India.[25][26] They also transferred Iranian architecture of their native lands to India, of which several great examples have been preserved to this date (see gallery). However, most of the literature produced during the Ghurid era has been lost.

Out of the Ghurid state grew the Delhi Sultanate which established the Persian language as the lingua franca of the region – a status it retained until the fall of the Mughal Empire in the 19th century.

Ghurid dynasty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mongols are Buddhists, not Muslims. The Mongols who embraced Islam got all Turkicized or Persianized

 

[kalu_miah]

Actually many mongol began to convert to islam in 14th century and were heavily incorporated into tuqhlaq army and nobility, i am not talking about mughals of babur who entered into indian history in 1526. Interestingly Afghans and turks brought persian langauge into hindostan, not iranians. Iranians became prominent only during mughal empire, (1526-185), while during delhi sultanate (1206-1526), their presence in indian courts was negligible, except for khorasanis

This is correct. However the founder of Muslim rule in South Asia, Muizzuddin Md. of Ghor was of Tajik origin :
Ghurid dynasty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In the 19th century, some European scholars, such as Mountstuart Elphinstone, favoured the idea that the Ghurid dynasty relate to today's Pashtun people,[9][10][11] but this is generally rejected by modern scholarship, and, as explained by Morgenstierne in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, is for "various reasons very improbable".[12] Instead, the consensus in modern scholarship (incl. Morgenstierne, Bosworth, Dupree, Gibb, Ghirshman, Longworth Dames and others) holds that the dynasty was most likely of Tajik origin.[13][14][15] Bosworth further points out that the actual name of the Ghurid family, Āl-e Šansab (Persianized: Šansabānī), is the Arabic pronunciation of the originally Middle Persian name Wišnasp, hinting at a (Sasanian) Persian origin.[16]
The Ghuristan region remained primarily populated by Hindus and Buddhists till the 12th century. It was then Islamised and gave rise to the Ghurids."

But he was succeeded by mostly Turkic Mamluks:
Mu'izz al-Din Muhammad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Succession
Mu'izz had no offspring, but he treated his Turkic slaves as his sons, who were trained both as soldiers and administrators and provided with the best possible education. Many of his competent and loyal slaves rose to positions of importance in Mu'izz's army and government.
When a courtier lamented that the Sultan had no male heirs, Mu'izz retorted:
"Other monarchs may have one son, or two sons; I have thousands of sons, my Turkish slaves who will be the heirs of my dominions, and who, after me, will take care to preserve my name in the Khuṭbah (Friday sermon) throughout these territories."[this quote needs a citation]
Mu'izz's prediction proved true. After his assassination, his Empire was divided amongst his slaves. Most notably:

• Qutb-ud-din Aibak became ruler of Delhi in 1206, establishing the Sultanate of Delhi, which marked the start of the Slave dynasty.[29]
• Nasir-ud-Din Qabacha became ruler of Multan in 1210.
• Tajuddin Yildoz became ruler of Ghazni.
• Ikhtiyar Uddin Muhammad bin Bakhtiyar Khilji became ruler in parts of Bengal."

Thus started the Mamluk dynasty:
Mamluk Dynasty (Delhi) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Iltutmish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Shams ud-din installed a new nobility, which was based on a confederation of Turkic and a few Mawali (new Muslims of Hindu origin) that were acquitants of him or of Qutb ud-din. They formed a council of forty (Chilanghan) which was very powerful and became the de-facto rulers behind the majority of his heirs."

These were called Shams-i-Bandagan or Amir-i-chihilgani/chahalgani, or 40 nobles, and some of them were even from Anatolia:
“When Slaves were nobles: The Shamsi bandagan in the early Delhi Sultanate”, | Sunil Kumar - Academia.edu
http://www.nihcr.edu.pk/Latest_English_Journal/The_Dehli_Sultanate.pdf
http://library.ut.ac.ir/documents/381543/3585030/Volume 3_ Cambridge University Press (2008).pdf
http://www.amazon.com/Central-Weide...ZKW_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1410219737&sr=1-1
http://byjusclasses.com/sites/all/t...theme/images/pdf/History-Lecture-15-notes.pdf

 

[Samandri]

@Charon 2 @kalu_miah Origin of ghurids is uncertain , you guys are posting wiki/iranica stuff in which even westren sources are not sure and are speculating. Ghurids could also be Pashtuns or Turks or some other group. Persians/tajiks never accepted budhism and hinduism and arrived in afghanistan after islamic conquests while the hindu shahi dynasty had presence in kabul while budhism was strong in central afghanistan including ghor before arrival of persians/tajiks. Alberuni mentioned them as hindus just like he mentioned ko sulieman tribes of afghans as hindus. Note that ghilzai , suri and lodhi tribes claim ghor as their original homeland, that they were pushed eastward due to mongol invasion. It is believable because ferishta mention ghurids as afghans and afghan word has never been historically associated with tajiks/persians. Albernui mentions that tribes of both ghor and sulieman were converted to islam by mahmud ghaznavi (tajiks do not have tribes). Despite of all the iranica claims, no old and contemporory source suggest that ghurids/suris were persians. Most probably they were related to ghilzais/khiljis. The suri is afghan tribe and ruling family of ghor were suris, in pashtun lineages suris are considered cousins of ghilzais.

 

[Kabira]

It were actually the Tajik Ghurids who started the Muslim dominance of Hindustan.

The Ghurids were great patrons of Persian culture and literature and lay the basis for a Persianized state in India.[25][26] They also transferred Iranian architecture of their native lands to India, of which several great examples have been preserved to this date (see gallery). However, most of the literature produced during the Ghurid era has been lost.

Out of the Ghurid state grew the Delhi Sultanate which established the Persian language as the lingua franca of the region – a status it retained until the fall of the Mughal Empire in the 19th century.

Ghurid dynasty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mongols are Buddhists, not Muslims. The Mongols who embraced Islam got all Turkicized or Persianized

This wiki page is regularly edited by trolls.

 

[Charon 2]

@Charon 2 @kalu_miah Origin of ghurids is uncertain , you guys are posting wiki/iranica stuff in which even westren sources are not sure and are speculating. Ghurids could also be Pashtuns or Turks or some other group. Persians/tajiks never accepted budhism and hinduism and arrived in afghanistan after islamic conquests while the hindu shahi dynasty had presence in kabul while budhism was strong in central afghanistan including ghor before arrival of persians/tajiks. Alberuni mentioned them as hindus just like he mentioned ko sulieman tribes of afghans as hindus. Note that ghilzai , suri and lodhi tribes claim ghor as their original homeland, that they were pushed eastward due to mongol invasion. It is believable because ferishta mention ghurids as afghans and afghan word has never been historically associated with tajiks/persians. Albernui mentions that tribes of both ghor and sulieman were converted to islam by mahmud ghaznavi (tajiks do not have tribes). Despite of all the iranica claims, no old and contemporory source suggest that ghurids/suris were persians. Most probably they were related to ghilzais/khiljis. The suri is afghan tribe and ruling family of ghor were suris, in pashtun lineages suris are considered cousins of ghilzais.

Yes but new sources suggest that they were Tajiks and most scholars today seem to support a Tajik origin for Ghorids. The most important thing is that they definitely spoke Persian neither Pashto not a Turkic language. Read this sentence again and make up your mind

Instead, the consensus in modern scholarship (incl. Morgenstierne, Bosworth, Dupree, Gibb, Ghirshman,
Longworth Dames and others) holds that the dynasty was most likely of Tajik origin.[13][14][15]

Ghilzais are a different story and the most possible theory for their origin is a mixed Khalaj Turkic and Eastern Iranian origin

 

[Samandri]

Iranians are claiming every thing, take the example of syed jamaludin afghani. All the Afghan, british , indian, every contemperory source is clear that he was born in asadabad area of kunar, afghanistan into a syed family. On the other hand iranica and wiki article (which is copied from iranica) claims that he was iranian and was born in iran and used afghani surname because he was wannabe afghan. They even claim that he was actually a shia, pretending to be a sunni.

 

[Charon 2]

Iranians are claiming every thing, take the example of syed jamaludin afghani. All the Afghan, british , indian, every contemperory source is clear that he was born in asadabad area of kunar, afghanistan into a syed family. On the other hand iranica and wiki article (which is copied from iranica) claims that he was iranian and was born in iran and used afghani surname because he was wannabe afghan. They even claim that he was actually a shia, pretending to be a sunni.

I don't know about a Syed jamauldin Afghani so I pass here. The sources about Ghurids are mainly taken from the Encyclopedia of Islam not Iranica. The Problem is that most of this scholars like Morgenstierne, Gibb, Bosworth, Dupree are not of Persian origin so the sentence that Iranians are claiming everything is wrong. Western scholars claim that Ghurids were Tajiks is the correct sentence

 

[Samandri]

Yes but new sources suggest that they were Tajiks and most scholars today seem to support a Tajik origin for Ghorids. The most important thing is that they definitely spoke Persian neither Pashto not a Turkic language. Read this sentence again and make up your mind

Ghilzais are a different story and the most possible theory for their origin is a mixed Khalaj Turkic and Eastern Iranian origin

These british authors are speculating. Remember that many british authors also speculated that ghurids aka suris were pashtuns. No contemporary persian source is mentioning ghurids as fellow persians, in all of the available old sources, they are referred to as Afghans not persians. Sources of ghaznavid period suggests that they needed translators to communicate with tribal leaders of ghor , it means ghurids were not persian speakers as court langauge of ghaznavids was persian and they didnt need translators if ghurids were tajiks. Ghor itself is pashto word which means mountain.

I don't know about a Syed jamauldin Afghani so I pass here. The sources about Ghurids are mainly taken from the Encyclopedia of Islam not Iranica. The Problem is that most of this scholars like Morgenstierne, Gibb, Bosworth, Dupree are not of Persian origin so the sentence that Iranians are claiming everything is wrong. Western scholars claim that Ghurids were Tajiks is the correct sentence

Iranica should also quote those westren historians who claim that ghurids were afghans. Modren westren historians, who themeselves are in doubt, uncertainity and are speculating, can not be more reliable than persian historian ferishta who mentions ghurids as suri afghans. Alberuni also mentions them as suri afghans.

 

[Charon 2]

These british authors are speculating. Remember that many british authors also speculated that ghurids aka suris were pashtuns. No contemporary persian source is mentioning ghurids as fellow persians, in all of the available old sources, they are referred to as Afghans not persians. Sources of ghaznavid period suggests that they needed translators to communicate with tribal leaders of ghor , it means ghurids were not persian speakers as court langauge of ghaznavids was persian and they didnt need translators if ghurids were tajiks. Ghor itself is pashto word which means mountain.

Okay and any sources for your claims?

The language of the Ghurids is subject to some controversy. What is known with certainty is that it was considerably different from the Persian used as literary language at the Ghaznavid court. Nevertheless, like the Samanids and Ghaznavids, the Ghurids were great patrons of Persian literature, poetry, and culture, and promoted these in their courts as their own. There is nothing to confirm the recent surmise (as claimed in the Paṭa Khazāna) that the Ghurids were Pashto-speaking,[18] and there is no evidence that the inhabitants of Ghor were originally Pashto-speaking.[13] Contemporary book writers refer to them as the "Persianized Ghurids".[19]

These british authors are speculating. Remember that many british authors also speculated that ghurids aka suris were pashtuns. No contemporary persian source is mentioning ghurids as fellow persians, in all of the available old sources, they are referred to as Afghans not persians. Sources of ghaznavid period suggests that they needed translators to communicate with tribal leaders of ghor , it means ghurids were not persian speakers as court langauge of ghaznavids was persian and they didnt need translators if ghurids were tajiks. Ghor itself is pashto word which means mountain.


Iranica should also quote those westren historians who claim that ghurids were afghans. Modren westren historians, who themeselves are in doubt, uncertainity and are speculating, can not be more reliable than persian historian ferishta who mentions ghurids as suri afghans. Alberuni also mentions them as suri afghans.

I think there is a great possibility that Ghurids were originally Pamiri "Tajiks" who adopted to Persian