Author: nadeemrezavi

Today it is generally considered that the Muslims have three ‘major’ festivals: Eid, Baqrid and Muharram. However the fact is that amongst them ‘Baqrid’ is the only real occasion which can be labelled as a traditional festival. The first, to be exact, is only a thanksgiving day, the Eid al-Fitr, when after a month long fasting, the devout are required to give charity in the name of God and offer special prayers. The Muharram, on the other hand, is not a “festival” but a commemoration of a tragedy: its a mourning of a martyrdom- that of Prophet’s grandson by a tyrant.

Baqrid or Eid-i Azhā, on the other hand is a commemorative festival: it celebrates the victory of Divinity over self. It is the festival of sacrifice and total submission to the will of God: a feast through which we remember the pure confidence of Abraham in God! It is the day when the great Biblical Prophet through a series of dreams was asked by God to sacrifice his son. He readily agreed, albeit that he tied his eyes with a piece of cloth (in Islamic traditions) so that he may not see his son die. As he attempted to make the sacrifice, as per the Biblical tradition, God replaced his son with a ram! The Holy Quran only says that God proclaimed that He has replaced this sacrifice of Abraham with “The Zibhin Azeem“: the Supreme Sacrifice, which the Shi’i believe is the Sacrifice of Imam Husain of his entire family and friends at Karbala! The Quran, unlike the Bible, makes no mention of the ram. It asks us to remember the Great Sacrifice by offering a sacrifice ourselves.

Following the established Biblical traditions the Muslims started commemorating the event with animal sacrifice: thus the popular name in the Indian subcontinent, ‘Baqr Eid’.

Today the festival has been reduced to a ritual and an occasion of showing off power and wealth, a total negation of its original spirit. Today most do not sacrifice self for God, but celebrate it as an occasion of pelf and show off: whose sacrificial animal is costlier! It has been turned into a festival of self-projection and brutality rather than piety and self negation! In fact the spirit has been totally subverted and the festival is directly reverse of what it was intended to be: occasion of sacrifice and submission to the will of God!

Baqr Eid or Eid-i Azhā is, as pointed out, a commemorative festival which celebrates the victory of Divinity over self. Let us see what does the Qura actually says:

وَفَدَيْنَاهُ بِذِبْحٍ عَظِيمٍ

‘And We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice’

[Quran, 37:107]

The next verse more revealing:

وَتَرَكْنَا عَلَيْهِ فِي الْآخِرِينَ

‘And We left (this test) for him to the last generations’

In fact there is a very well known saying of Imām Raza, as quoted by Shaikh Sudūq, that the “momentous sacrifice” which replaced the sacrifice of Abraham was that which was offered at Karbala in 61 AH

Biblical Tradition:

One day when Isaac was a boy, God came to Abraham and told him to sacrifice Isaac on Mt. Moriah. Though he loved his son dearly, he did not hesitate to obey the Lord. The very next day, Abraham saddled his donkey and began the journey, with Isaac, two servants, and wood for the sacrifice. As they neared the mountain, Abraham instructed the servants to stay behind, while he and Isaac ascended. Genesis 22:7-8 describes the conversation between father and son as they climbed the mountain:

Isaac spoke to his father Abraham. “Father!” he said. “Here I am,” he replied. Isaac continued, “Here are the fire and the wood, but where is the sheep for the burnt offering?” 

“My son,” Abraham answered, “God will provide the sheep for the burnt offering.” Then the two walked on together.

Genesis 22:7-8

They came to the place where God had told him to go and built an altar. Abraham bound Isaac, arranged the wood on the altar, and drew his knife. But at that moment, an angel stopped him. Genesis 22:11-12 describes:

But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven, “Abraham, Abraham!” “Here I am,” he answered. “Do not lay your hand on the boy,” said the angel. “Do not do the least thing to him. For now I know that you fear God, since you did not withhold from me your son, your only one.”

Genesis 22:11-12

Abraham noticed a ram caught by his horns in the thicket nearby and offered it to the Lord instead. He called the place “Yahweh-yireh” meaning “the Lord will provide.” After the sacrifice, the angel spoke again to him, saying that he would be blessed for being willing to give all that he had to the Lord, as Genesis 22:16-18 relates:

“I swear by my very self—oracle of the Lord—that because you acted as you did in not withholding from me your son, your only one, I will bless you and make your descendants as countless as the stars of the sky and the sands of the seashore; your descendants will take possession of the gates of their enemies, and in your descendants all the nations of the earth will find blessing, because you obeyed my command.”

Genesis 22:16-18

Quranic Injunction:

The Quran, unlike the Bible, makes no mention of the ram. It asks us to remember the Great Sacrifice by offering a sacrifice of our Self. It was the sacrifice of his personal “self”, in lieu of which God granted him His Will: those who sacrifice and set aside their own ‘nafs’, for the wish of God, are in fact the chosen!

It is however surprising that the Muslims, believe what is not directly said in the Quran and hold dear what had been mentioned in the Bible. Surprisingly, though mentioned in the Biblical text and tradition, the sacrificing of a ram/ lamb on this occasion is neither practiced by the Jews nor the Christians.

Following the established Biblical traditions however, the Muslims started commemorating the event with animal sacrifice, a tradition which was quite popular since remote past all over the world. Being considered as an occasion of sacrifice, in the Indian subcontinent it became popular as ‘Baqr Eid’. As this day is the one when the believers perform Hajj, the circumambulation of the “House of God”, Kaaba, said to have been built by Prophet Abraham, and the pelting of stones at the three Satans and offering sacrifice to Allah, a tradition continued from pre-Islamic days, those who are unable to visit Kaaba also take part in the ritual of sacrifice. Directly the Quran makes no mention of a ram or a lamb, or any quadruped, including cows or camels, the name Baqr Eid stuck. Remember that it is only while performing the ritual of Hajj that sacrificing an animal is compulsory.

Baqr Eid is known by different names. Its actual name is Eid al-Adha (also pronounced as Eid uz Zuha): the Celebration of Sacrifice. It is also called as Eid-i Kabir, the Great Celebration. The popular name, however, in the sub-continent remains Baqrid, derived either from Arabic word “Baqar” (Cow) or “Bakr” (a youthful camel), two animals (and ram/sheep) which were traditionally sacrificed in Arabia. In India, the usual sacrifice is of goats (bakri) or sometimes, buffaloes. Thus many in India call it “Bakri-eid“, mistaking it to be a festival of sacrificing goats!

Today the festival has been reduced to a mere ritual and an occasion of showing off power and wealth, a total negation of its original spirit. Today most do not sacrifice self for God, but celebrate it as an occasion of pelf and show off: whose sacrificial animal is costlier! It has been turned into a festival of self-projection and brutality rather than piety and self negation! In fact the spirit has been totally subverted and the festival is directly reverse of what it was intended to be: occasion of sacrifice and submission to the will of God!

• Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi

Aurangzeb stopped the tradition of commissioning the official history writing at the end of the 10^th RY of his reign. The reason appears to be that perhaps he wanted to suppress his political failures. Another reason which has been forwarded is the financial strain. Others hold his orthodoxy as the main reason for the order to stop writing the official history.

In spite of this, if the entire source material available for Aurangzeb’s reign in different archives of India and abroad is put together, collectively the reign of Aurangzeb is found to be rich in historical records as compared to all Mughal Emperors preceding him put together. From this point of view his reign is important both quantitatively and qualitatively.

The only official history written during this reign is the ‘Alamgirnama of Muhammad Kazim Shirazi. It is the history of the first 10 regnal years: i.e. from the period Aurangzeb started from the Deccan to contest the throne up to 1688. It is in 2 volumes. As with all official histories, Alamgirnama is very rich in details, its chronology is reliable. It provides all appointments and promotions of the mansabdars. Kazim Shirazi takes care to note the original rank as well as the promotion. All this is natural as being an official historian, the state archives were at his disposal. All the official records were available to him. He himself was associated with the court and experienced most of the events he describes. He records almost all the important events of the period which he covers

However it suppresses many facts as well. For example, it doesn’t mention that Surat was sacked by Shivaji in 1664. Thus there is a suppression of events not complementary to the ruler. Similarly there is no direct reference to the scarcity of food grains. Kazim suppresses it. He gives an interesting version of the causes of the War of Succession, placing the entire blame on Shahjahan and Dara Shukoh. He gives all the details of the moves of Dara, Shuja, Murad and Aurangzeb. In spite of all this he provides very useful and independent information which throws a flood of light on the causes of the WoS : Aurangzeb invoked the shariat law to justify the execution of Dara and not to take up arms against his father. Thus the bogey of Shari’ at was raised only when he had ascended the throne. Kazim Shirazi is not consistently objective: he gives the official version of almost all the controversial events and developments. The treatment meted out by Aurangzeb to Dara, Murad and other supporters of Dara has been justified in Alamgirnama on religious grounds; although we know from other sources that this slogan of religion was raised by Aurangzeb to justify his acts. Such subjectivity of the author of this work can be multiplied. However this shortcoming in no way undermines the importance of this source.

For the history of the first ten years, the Alamgirnama is reliable except at the places where he deliberately suppresses information. There can be no doubt about the value of Alamgirnama, even later historian tend to follow what Kazim Shirazi had written for the first 10 years. As much details as are contained in the Alamgirnama, are unfortunately not found in any of the other histories which were written in the next 40 years of Aurangzeb’s reign.

 The information contained in it regarding the WoS is corroborated by Aqil Khan Razi in Waqi’at –i ‘Alamgiri. It is an account of the WoS : Aqil Khan was not only a contemporary but a participant in the struggle on behalf of Aurangzeb. Thus his account is extremely rich in details and accurate in dates. It is very objective in the sense that it omitted the preamble of the ahadnama entered into between Aurangzeb and Murad Bakhsh in which it was stated that they were going to fight against the rais-i mulahida (chief of the heretics) i.e. Dara Shukoh. Aqil Khan Razi was a partisan of Aurangzeb and has effectively put forward the view of Aurangzeb regarding the WoS, yet even he avoids that it had religious overtones. He gives the impression that it was fought on political and personal considerations: Religion was not involved.

Another source for the period is the Nuskha-i Dilkusha of Bhimsen. He was born at Burhanpur in 1648-49 and served under Rao Dalpat Bundela at a time when Rao Dalpat was deputed to the Deccan. He took part in many wars in the Deccan during Aurangzeb’s reign. For a time he had been the commander of the fort of Naldurg. After the death of Prince Kambakhsh ^s/_o Aurangzeb, in 1709, he left imperial service and settled down at Burhanpur where he compiled his work.

His work is an account of of Aurangzeb’s reign from his march from the Deccan in 1658 to contest the throne up to the defeat of prince Kambakhsh in 1709. His account is based on personal observations and recollections and is mainly a description of the military transactions in the Deccan. Bhimsen had close contacts with a number of officers, generals and nobles. He himself had taken an active part from 1670 onwards. He had also widely travelled in the empire and was an actual witness to the state of affairs. There can be no doubt about some of the information he provides, like the appointments, promotions, postings and transfers of many of the favourite officers and mansabdars. He has recorded the events with dates and accuracy. Nushkha-i Dilkusha is thus a work in the nature of a gazetteer of the reign of Aurangzeb. All this information is valuable for us as after Alamgirnama details are not found in any source of Aurangzeb’s reign. 

Another important source for the period is the Ma’asir-i Alamgiri of Saqi Musta’id Khan. It is also a gazetteer for the reign of Aurangzeb providing us the list of mansabdars, their promotions, appointments and transfers. It gives us inkling into the working of the administrative system. The author’s candid remarks on the character and working of the officers and nobles are of great value. Saqi Musta’id Khan was an objective writer. His observations give us an insight into the actual working of the official administrative machinery under Aurangzeb. At the end of his work he also appended a brief account of Aurangzeb’s reign and an account of his sons and daughters. As there is no comprehensive and complete account of Aurangzeb’s reign, Ma’asir-i Alamgiri is a very important source. It was compiled soon after the death of Aurangzeb, and though was not technically a contemporary account; it may be treated as a contemporary account: the author was a contemporary of Aurangzeb who had served as an officer under him; he had been close to the person of the emperor. Further this work is based on contemporary state archives and documents.

Saqi Musta’id Khan does not appear to be a great scholar of high calibre or a man who had any understanding of history as a science, his approach. In compiling his work, his approach appears to be that of an ordinary court official who recorded the dry and bare facts in strict chronological order with days and dates. There is no analysis of facts. He wrote as a true servant of His Majesty, the Emperor. He was an admirer of his master and extremely loyal to him. He presents Aurangzeb in his account as a devout Muslim: a king who set himself upon to establish the rule of Sharia and humiliate the infidels (viz. the Rajputs and the Marathas) and their supporters (Rathors, Sisodias, Bijapuris, Qutbshahis). Unlike Bhimsen and Khafi Khan, he found no fault in Aurangzeb’s policies and administration. Nor does he reflect or explain neither events nor their effects on the government or the people or the country. There is very little information in Ma’asir-i Alamgiri about the society and economic condition of the people of the period as may be found in the Nuskha-i Dilkusha of Bhimsen of Muntakhab ul Lubab of Khafi Khan.

In spite these short comings Ma’asir-i Alamgiri is an invaluable source of History for Aurangzeb’s period because we do not have any other such account for the last 40 years of his reign by a contemporary or semi-contemporary source. It is due to this that subsequent writers had depended upon it.

Muntakhab ul Lubab is written by Muhammad Hashim whose title was Khafi Khan. It is a very important source of Aurangzeb’s period and covers aspects not found in other works easily. It can be compared to Barani and Abul Fazl.

He was an eye witness to many events which he recorded and he claims that he based his narration on the privately maintained account of the events of Aurangzeb’s reign, as well as on personal observations and verbal account of men who had been witness to these events.

Muntakhabul Lubab is a complete, connected and a very detailed account of Aurangzeb’s period. Unlike Ma’asir-i Alamgiri or Nuskha-i Dilkusha, which mention just the grant of mansabs, promotions, appointments, transfers or despatch of nobles on expeditions and their military operation, Khafi Khan gives us a total and complete picture of the entire reign, providing us a sequence of events, interaction of political and economic developments, thereby giving us a correct and comprehensive understanding of this crucial period of Indian history. He gives very valuable details in much greater measure than Ma’asir or Dilkusha about the imperial policy towards the Marathas and the Deccani rulers. About the military operations there, actual condition of the two fighting parties (the Deccan & Imperialists) and their camps during prolonged campaigns of Aurangzeb is also discussed by him. He is perhaps the only historian who describes the influx of the Deccani nobles and its effects on the Mughal nobility, the mansabdari and jagirdari system which in time seriously affected the position and strength of the Mughal rule in India.

Muntakhab ul Lubab is an extremely valuable account for the history of Aurangzeb and in view of its importance we have separately dealt with it in another blog.

Another important source for the study of Aurangzeb’s period are the letters written by Aurangzeb, entitled Kalimat-i Taiyebat and Raqaim al Karaim. The letters contained in these collections are the letters written by Aurangzeb as emperor. These letters reveal the crisis with which the Mughal Empire was faced towards the close of Aurangzeb’s reign. But at the same time they depict the determination of the emperor to face the crisis. The letters also throw light on the relation of Aurangzeb with his sons and nobles.

The Factory Records are the reports sent by the factors to the Home government. They are a mine of raw material for the study of the economic condition of the Empire, especially the trade and commerce. The corrupt practises adopted by the Mughal officials, the functioning of the mint-houses, the rate of interest and the role of banias, as well as the hundis (the indigenous bills of exchange). For the study of the 17^th Century trade and commerce and the commercial activity within the Mughal Empire, these Factory records are extremely useful and full of information.

Manucci was an Italian traveller and he has written the history and his experiences in the Mughal Empire. His work is entitled as Storia do Mogor which has been translated by William Irvine in four volumes. Sir Jadunath Sarkar describes Manucci as ‘gossipy Manucci’ but a careful study of the four volumes reveals that the observation of Sarkar cannot be sustained. Manucci has given the salary of different mansabdars which tallies with the dastur-ul amals. He has given the list of titles which were given to Hindu and Muslim nobles. He also mentions the titles given to the persons belonging to different professions, eg. Scribes, khushnavis, musicians, dancing girls, singers, elephants, elepant-drivers and so on.

He also mentions certain facts which provide important clue for an understanding of the functioning of the empire. His account is useful for the understanding the administrative apparatus and the functioning of the empire. Of course he has given certain scandals regarding the Imperial household, but they may be easily discarded and whatever is left is useful for the study of the second half of the 17^th Century, especially for the reign of Aurangzeb. It is unfair to dispose his account as mere gossip.

Another important European traveller to India, who left behind an account of Aurangzeb’s reign, as well as the last years of Shahjahan’s reign is Francois Bernier. He came at the close of Shahjahan’s reign in 1656 and joined th service of Dara Shukoh. He was one of members of the French landed gentry. His account is basically in the form of letters to his overlords back home. One of the most detailed account is provided in his letter addressed to Lord Colbert. He elaborates on his views about the Mughal Empire, the causes of its decline, and the agrarian crisis which he witnessed. According to him this ‘decline’ was as result of the transfer system inherent in the mansabdari and jagirdari system. He looked at everything through tinted European glasses. He dedicates his account to the French emperor. He calls the war of succession as ‘The Tragedy’

• Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi

Babur’s grandfather, Abu Sa’id Mirza was a great politician. He held Samarqand and had subdued Mawra-un Nahr. His rule extended up till Khurasan & Afghanistan. On his death his dominions were divided amongst his four sons & some others. His eldest son, Sultan Ahmad Mirza, secured the largest share viz. Samarqand & Bukhara. Mahmud Mirza got Badakhshan & the surrounding regions of Hindukush, Tirmiz & Hisar in the Amu Darya basin. The 3^rd son Umar Shaikh Mirza, the father of Babur continued to rule the small kingdom of Farghana or Andijan, lying on both sides of the upper courses of Sair Darya. The last son, Ulugh Beg, got Kabul & Ghaznin. The fertile lands of Khurasan were taken up by Sultan Husain Mirza, another great grand-son of Taimur.

Babur says, his father’s nature was poetic & was a just ruler. Babur’s mother, Qutlugh Nizar Khanum was also a pious lady. Her father, Yunus Khan, the ruler of Tashkent was a descendant of Chingiz Khan. To these two, Babur was born in 1483. Zahiruddin Muhammad was named Babur (the Tiger) by his grandfather, Yunus Khan.

Till Yunus Khan was alive, Umar Shaikh Mirza would invoke his help in every expedition. After his death, Sultan Ahmad, the eldest brother of Umar Shaikh, and his brother-in-law, Sultan Mahmud of Tashkent, entered into an alliance to divide Farghana amongst themselves. In 1494 the two marched to Farghana, but an accident thwarted the attempt. Umar Shaikh Mirza died in an accident and at an age of 12 yrs Babur became the King of Farghana. News of this was sent to Sultan Ahmad with the message on behalf of Babur that Babur regarded himself as ‘his son & servant’ who would be glad to govern the country as Sultan Ahmad’s regent. However Sultan Ahmad continued his march. He was stopped by another accident: A bridge over a river collapsed killing many of his army & horses. Then an epidemic of distemper broke out among the animals & thus Sultan Ahmad was compelled to abandon his plans of attack over Farghana. While returning back, he himself fell ill & died.

With his death, the affairs of Samarqand fell into disorder.

In 1497, a 14yr old Babur led an army towards Samarqand and captured many towns & forts. The siege of Samarqand lasted for 7 months after which Baisunghar, the son of Sultan Ahmad fled from the city. Babur was welcomed by the Begs & chief townsmen of Samarqand.

However, after some time, when Babur could not bestow much on his officers & soldiers, he soon faced desertion from the Mongol soldiery. His own troops returned to Farghana & proclaimed his younger brother Jahangir as the ruler of Farghana.

On being apprised of the situation, Babur left Samarqand [‘Hundred days Rule’] with his small army. Now he was a homeless exile having lost both Samarqand & Farghana. Meanwhile Farghana came in the control of Syed Ali Mirza.

After sometime, with some help from his relatives (esp. Sultan Mahmud of Tashkent), he regained Andijan, the capital of Farghana.

In May 1497 Babur again decided to march towards Samarqand. In 1500 a siege of Samarqand was laid. But due to the intervention of Shaibani Khan, the leader of the Uzbeks, Babur had to make a retreat. After a short retreat, Babur again decided to attack the town which was now being held by the Uzbek chief. Babur’s party consisting of 240 men entered Samarqand and the Uzbeks in confusion fled to Bukhara. This second conquest of Samarqand was one of the most daring exploits of Babur which earned him much fame.

Shaibani Khan, after some time returned from Bukhara. Babur, aware of his preparations, tried to warn other Timurid princes of Central Asia, but none came to his side. Shaibani Khan’s army turning flank attacked Babur’s troops from rear & routed them.

The author of Tarikh-i Rashidi, Mirza Haider Dughlat, informs us that after 5 months siege of Samarqand, Shaibani agreed to accept Babur’s capitulation. He says that Babur’s eldest sister Khanzada Begum was married to Shaibani Khan as part of the treaty. Later Shaibani divorced her & married her to one of his chiefs.

In 1502 Babur went to Tashkent to the court of his maternal uncle Mahmud Khan. From here a confederate of Mahmud Khan, Ahmad Khan & Babur once gain attempted to take on Farghana. Andijan was to be captured but Mahmud Khan now intended to give Farghana to his younger brother Ahmad Khan.

Sultan Ahmad Tanbol of Farghana on seeing the army of Mahmud & others solicited the help of Shaibani Khan who marched to his aid & defeated the Timurid princes. The two Khans, Mahmud & his brother were however set free.

Babur somehow escaped the capture & for about a year went on wandering as fugitive along with his family. His band of followers also kept on diminishing day after day. The territories which he had once occupied – Samarqand, Bukhara & the Kingdom of Farghana was with the Uzbeks.

His sole hope now was Sultan Husain Baiqara, the Timurid ruler of Herat. He was also the most powerful Timurid ruler at that time. But he also reacted unfavourably to Babur. Babur now resolved to go towards Kabul which was separated from the other Timurid kingdoms by the Hindukush. The ruler of Kabul, Abdul Razzaq, a cousin of Babur also appealed to come to his aid. Babur soon captured Ghazni after Kabul.

After consolidating his rule at Kabul, Babur soon realized that his new kingdom was too poor to provide for his numerous relatives & followers. In the meanwhile, he received a message for help from Sultan Husain Baiqara of Herat who was now being threatened by Shaibani Khan. Babur positively responded to his appeal, & decided to go towards Herat. This was in 1506. Leaving Kabul & Ghazni in the charge of some of his untrustworthy officers he set forward. But while on his way, news came of the death of Sultan Husain. After his uncle’s death, Babur now considered himself as the senior-most Timurid prince.

After some times’ stay at Herat, Babur having heard of some disturbing news of Kabul, started for Kabul in December & attacked the rebels, most of whom were his own relatives.

In the meanwhile, the Uzbek ruler Shaibani suffered a debacle at the hands of Shah Ismail of Iran. This happened in 1510. In the battle of Merv, between the Uzbeks & the Persians, Babur’s sister, Khanazada Begum fell into the hands of Shah Ismail, who very honourably was sent to Babur.

Babur in return entreated Shah Ismail for assistance & support. In the meanwhile the territory of Farghana had also been cleared of the Uzbeks by Shah Ismail.

Babur was at Hisar when the Persian army reached to assist him. Thus along with 60,000 Persian troops Babur marched to Bukhara & then to Samarqand, which he entered in October 1511. According to Fazlullah Ruzbihan Khunji (Tarikh i Alam Ara, & Suluk ul Muluk) and Mirza Haider Dughlat (Tarikh i Rashidi), Babur this time was constrained to read the khutba & strike coins in the name of Qizilbashs which was not liked by the people of Samarqand.the coins, some of which survive till date [BM], gave Babur’s title merely as Sultan Babur Bahadur. His name was followed by the shi’i shahadat, ‘Ali Wali Allah’ and the names of the 12 Imams inscribed on the edges. Iskandar Beg Munshi in his Tarikh-i Alam Ara-i Abbasi gives a brief but matter of fact account of the re-occupation of Samarqand and the Shii khutba recited in Shah Ismail’s name. Dughlat claims this act of Babur as an ‘expediency’, which however led to betrayed.When an Uzbek army marched their in 1512, the lack of local support made Babur once again loose the area of Samarqand. Although another Persian army was sent to help Babur but to no avail.

By now Babur had realized the futility to try to hold any position of the Timurid Empire. He had occupied Samarqand thrice, but had failed to retain it each time. Yet he had full control of Kabul – but the resources of this country were not enough to sustain him. In order to augment his material resources, he had to turn towards India.

With this objective, he over-awed & in some cases reconciled the tribal belt between the mountainous country & Indus. During his stay in the region of Trans Oxiana, Babur had also come to the knowledge of gunpowder, which he now put to good use. It was in 1519, at the siege of Bajaur that he used the fire-arms for the first time. His gunner, Ustad Ali Quli used the matchlock with much effect. Babur mentions him in his memoirs as a Turkish gunner who used the farangi canon.

Babur appears to have obtained the European firearms from Turkey which included matchlocks & canons. Secondly Babur now no longer depended on the Mongol troops who had abandoned him time & again. He now depended on the Afghans whom he now freely recruited in this army. He followed a policy of reconciliation towards the Yusufzais & Afridis. He also tactically married Bibi Mubarika (later known as Haji Begum & Bega Begum) the daughter of Shah Mansur, the Yusufzai Malik. He thus became a son-in-law of that tribe and gained social acceptability to rule the Afghan tribesmen. He thus cleared his way to India.

After consolidating his position in Kabul, Babur undertook 5 expeditions to India: In 1504 he marched through Khyber Pass to Kohat. In Sept.1507 he came as far as Adinapur (Jalalabad). In 1519 after Bajaur Babur decided to cross the Indus and attack Bhera, a frontier district of the Lodi empire in the Punjab. Why did he decide to cross over to this side? There are 3 probable reasons: (1) After the conquest of Bajaur, he was in need of supplies; (2) in fact he had intended to do so since 1505, but got an opportunity now; (3) He was instigated to do so by Langar Khan Niazi, whose maternal uncles ruled the hill country near Bhera. As far as the attack at Bajaur was concerned, Babur had called it a chapqun (raid) and yurush (expedition). But now at Bhera he claimed sovereignty and stated having imperial ambitions (mulkgirliq) and calls this expedition as almaq – that is taking or seizing. He also wrote that he had a claim over this territory as it had ‘long been held by the Turks’!

His intentions further become clear from the fact that now in 1519 at Bhera he decided to tax rather than pillage. He ordered that no sacking or plundering should take place. This was in contrast to his treatment given to the people of Kabul region: towers of human skulls had been constructed there. Thus this may be considered as the first phase of the foundation of the Timurid-Mughal Empire in India.

Babur writes that it was after taking the fort of Bajaur and Bhera, he ‘devoted’ himself ‘particularly to the affairs of Hindustan’. The fact that he named his son Hindal [the taking of Hind] shows very much that Hindustan was on his mind. Abul Fazl too mentions Babur’s plans on India after his rule over Kabul.

Why did he decide so at this juncture? Was it the relative ease with which he subjugated the peasants and merchants on the flat alluvial Punjab plain? Or was it that the geography and population of this area resembled Ferghana, his home town?

Whatever the reason, he demanded 400,000 shahrukhis as māl-i amān (protection money). Bhera was a frontier town of the Lodis. It was from here that Babur sent a message to the newly enthroned Ibrahim Lodi through Daulat Khan Lodi, the governor of Lahore. He demanded all territories earlier held by Turks (read Timur) to be handed over. Ibrahim, Babur tells us, neither mobilized to oppose him nor attempted to establish friendly relations. In 1522-24 it was the same Daulat Khan who was to turn to Babur for an alliance against Ibrahim.

Bhera however could not be retained for long as in 26 April he got news from Hindu Beg, his governor, that Bhera was lost. In May he reports that Sultan Begim, Mirza Husain Baiqara’s eldest daughter arrived at Kabul: a sign that by now Babur and his rule at Kabul was beoming a haven for the Timurid Refugees. In July he mentions seeing pushkāl, the monsoon clouds – an allusion / evocative reference to the transition he was now making in 1519 from a Central Asian to a South Asian ruler.

Next year  he advanced to Sialkot. As the town submitted, it was not plundered. At Saiyyidpur resistance was offered & thus bloodshed occurred after which Babur returned back to Kabul. In 1522 he once again came to India. This time he came on the invitation of Daulat Khan Lodi of Lahore. It was a time when civil war had broken in India. Daulat khan Lodi wanted to overthrow Ibrahim in favour of his uncle Alauddin. Daulat Khan expected that Lahore would be bestowed upon him. However he was given some minor districts of Jullandar & Sulatanpur. Dipalpur was given to Alauddin. Daulat Khan thus fled to the hills only to return once Babur left for Kabul. He kept on pestering his uncle who now left for Kabul to seek Babur’s assistance.

  Finally the last expedition was launched in Nov.1525. Daulat Khan surrendered. In April 1526 he came face to face with the army of Ibrahim Lodi at Panipat. Ultimately the battle of Khanwa was fought between him and Rana Sanga on 16March 1527.

This victory was more significant than the victory at Panipat: the Rajput soldiers were demoralised & dispersed. Rana escaped but was badly wounded. Hasan Khan Mewati was slain & Sultan Mahmud Lodi took to flight. The result was the establishment of the Mughal Empire in Hindustan.

The fleeing Rajputs now assembled under Medni Rai of Chanderi. The fort of Chanderi was also taken. And with this the back of the Rajput resistance was broken.

Now Babur turned towards Awadh. Shamsabad & Kannauj were invested. Next to fall was Bihar. In May 1529 was fought the Battle of Ghagra in which Mahmud Lodi was defeated. The whole of Hindustan was now under Babur.

Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi

Cultural renaissance of early nineteenth century witnessed enactment of the first ever antiquarian legislation in India known as Bengal Regulation XIX of 1810. This was soon followed by another legislation called as Madras Regulation VII of 1817. Both these regulations vested the Government with a power to intervene whenever the public buildings were under threat of misuse. However, both the Acts were silent on the buildings under the private ownership. The Act XX of 1863, was therefore enacted to empower the Government to prevent injury to and preserve buildings remarkable for their antiquity or for their historical or architectural value.  

The Indian Treasure Trove Act, 1878 (Act No. VI of 1878) was promulgated to protect and preserve treasure found accidentally but had the archaeological and historical value. This Act was enacted to protect and preserve such treasures and their lawful disposal.  In a landmark development in 1886, James Burgess, the then Director General succeeded in prevailing upon the Government for issuing directions: forbidding any person or agency to undertake excavation without prior consent of the Archaeological Survey and debarring officers from disposing of antiquities found or acquired without the permission of the Government.  

Ancient Monuments Act, 1904:

A new era was ushered in when The Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904 (Act No. VII of 1904) was promulgated. This Act of 1904 was passed on 18 March 1904 by British India during the times of Lord Curzon. 

  It was a major step in the preservation of monuments in India. This Act provided effective preservation and authority over the monument particularly those, which were under the custody of individual or private ownership. As this Act has not been repealed, it is deemed to be still in force. 

However the provisions of this act applied only to those monuments which were brought under government control by proper notification.

In the case of privately owned buildings, the government could enter into an agreement with their owners for the proper maintenance of these buildings.

And if the owner refused to enter into such agreements, the district collectors could, if necessary, take suitable measures including their acquisition by government for their upkeep.

However the greatest lacuna of this act was that the buildings used for religious purposes were specifically left out of the provisions of this clause.

The act also prohibited the traffic in antiquities which were moveable, both from & to British India.

This applied also on princely states outside the British administration.

There was also a provision to keep the moveable antiquities in situ for preserving them in local museums. Compulsory purchase from their owners was also ordained if they had no objection on religious grounds.

The act of 1904 also empowered the government to regulate or prohibit the ancient sites by irresponsible persons.

Next Act was The Antiquities Export Control Act, 1947 (Act No. XXXI of 1947) and Rules thereto, which provided a regulation over the export of antiquities under a licence issued by the Director General and empowering him to decide whether any article, object or thing is or is not an antiquity for the purpose of the act and his decision was final. 

Act of 1951:

In 1951, The Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Declaration of National Importance) Act, 1951 (No LXXI of 1951) was enacted.  Consequently, all the ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites and remains protected earlier under ‘The Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904’ (Act No. VII of 1904) were re-declared as monuments and archaeological sites of national importance under this Act. Another four hundred and fifty monuments and sites of Part ‘B’ States were also added. Some more monuments and archaeological sites were also declared as of national importance under Section 126 of the States Reorganization Act, 1956.

Ancient Monuments Act of 1958:

In order to bring the Act on par with constitutional provisions and  provide  better and effective preservation to the archaeological wealth of the country, The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act 1958 ( No 24 of 1958) was enacted on 28^th August 1958. This Act provides for the preservation of ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites and remains of national importance, for the regulation of archaeological excavations and for the protection of sculptures, carvings and other like objects. This Act was first amended in 2010,  Subsequently the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment) Bill, 2017 was introduced in Lok Sabha on July 18, 2017 by the Minister of Tourism and Culture, Dr. Mahesh Sharma which further amended the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. 

This was an Act which provided for the preservation of ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites and remains of national importance, for the regulation of archaeological excavations and for the protection of sculptures, carvings and other like objects.

This Act ensures that no person or agency could conduct archaeological excavations without the permission of the Government. This measure saved wilful destruction of archaeological sites by untrained persons or clandestine digging. As a result of these measures it has been possible to protect and preserve ancientmonuments and archaeological sites which have been declared to be of national importance.

Preservation of heritage, however, does not end, by declaring a particular monument or archaeological site as protected. These have to be preserved in a manner so that these do not get damaged any further. Another important point to be borne in mind is that conservation of a monument is not one time affair. Since building is old and is in a state of decay, its condition has to be regularly monitored and remedial measures taken.

While taking up conservation of a monument, the uppermost fact that is to be kept in mind is that the building is repaired in a manner so that it retains its original look and condition. The central and the state governments carry out the work of conservation of monuments and sites.

In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—

 (a) “ancient monument” meant any structure, erection or monument, or any tumulus or place of interment, or any cave, rock-sculpture, inscription or monolith, which is of historical, archaeological or artistic interest and which has been in existence for not less than one hundred years.

The term included  (i) the remains of an ancient monument,  (ii) the site of an ancient monument, (iii) such portion of land adjoining the site of an ancient monument as may be required for fencing or covering in or otherwise preserving such monument, and  (iv) the means of access to, and convenient inspection of, and ancient monument.

 (b) The term “antiquity” used in this act includes  (i) any coin, sculpture, manuscript, epigraph, or other work of art or craftsmanship’; (ii) any article, object or thing detached from a building or cave;  (iii) any article, object or thing illustrative of science, art, crafts, literature, religion, customs, morals or politics in bygone ages; (iv) any article, object or thing of historical interest, and  (v) any article, object or thing declared by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to be an antiquity for the purposes of this Act,  which has been in existence for not less than one hundred years.

Similarly the term“Archaeological site and remains” means any area which contains or is reasonably believed to contain ruins or relics of historical or archaeological importance which have been in existence for not less than one hundred years, and includes  (i) such portion of land adjoining the area as may be required for fencing or covering in or other wise preserving it, and  (ii) the means of access to, and convenient inspection of, the area.

According to this act ancient monuments, etc., deemed to be of national importance included  all ancient and historical monuments and all archaeological Sites and remains which have been declared by the Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Declaration of National Importance) Act, 1951 (71 of 1951), or by Section 126 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (37 of 1956), to be national importance shall be deemed to be ancient and historical monuments or archaeological sites and remains declared to be of national importance for the purposes of this Act.

As per this act, if the Director-General apprehends that the owner or occupier of a protected monument intends to destroy, remove, alter, deface, imperil or misuse the monument or to build on or near the site thereof in contravention of the terms of an agreement under Section 6, the Director-General may, after giving the owner or occupier an opportunity of making a representation in writing, make an order prohibiting any such contravention of the agreement:

 Provided that no such opportunity may be given in any case where the Director-General, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that it is not expedient or practicable to do so.

 Secondly, any person aggrieved by an order under this section may appeal to the Central Government which such time and in such manner as may be prescribed and the decision of the Central Government shall be final.

Unlike the Act of 1904, the monuments of religious character were also covered by this act.

Thus this act provides for Protection of place of worship from misuse, pollution or desecration.

 A protected monument maintained by the Central Government under this Act which is a place of workship or shrine according to it, ‘shall not be used for any purpose inconsistent with its character’.

  Where the Central Government had acquired a protected monument under Section 13, or where the Director-General had purchased, or taken lease or accepted a gift or bequest or assumed guardianship of, a protected monument under Section 5, and such monument or any part thereof was used for religious worship or observances by any community, the Collector ‘shall make due provision for the protection of such monument or part thereof, from pollution or desecration—

 (a) by prohibiting the entry therein, except in accordance with the conditions prescribed with the concurrence of the persons, if any, in religious charge of the said monument or part thereof, of any person not entitled so to enter by the religious usages of the community by which the monument or part thereof is used, or

 (b) by taking such other action as he may think necessary in this behalf.’

The act also provided rules for Archaeological excavations.

Thus according to a clause  [Excavations in protected areas.] An archaeological officer or an officer authorized by him in this behalf or any person holding a licence granted in this behalf under this Act (hereinafter referred to as the licensee) may, after giving notice in writing to the Collector and the owner, enter, upon and make excavations in any protected area.

For Excavations in areas other than protected areas there were other provisions. Where an archaeological officer had reason to believe that any area not being a protected area contains ruins or relics of historical or archaeological importance, he or an officer authorized by him in this behalf may, after giving notice in writing to the Collector and the owner, enter upon and make excavations in the area.

The act also provided for compulsory purchase of antiquities, etc., discovered during excavation operations.— (1) Where, as a result of any excavations made in any area under Section 21 or Section 22, any antiquities are discovered, the archaeological officer or the licensee, as the case may be, shall,—

 (a) as soon as practicable, examine such antiquities and submit a report to the Central Government in such manner and containing such particulars as may be prescribed;

 (b) at the conclusion of the excavations, give notice in writing to the owner of the land from which such antiquities have been discovered, of the nature of such antiquities.

 (2) Until an order for the[compulsory acquisition] of any such antiquities is made under sub-section (3), the archaeological officer or the licensee, as the case may be, shall keep them in such safe custody as he may deem fit.

 (3) On receipt of a report under sub-section (1), the Central Government may make an order for the[compulsory acquisition of any such antiquities].

 (4) When an order for the [compulsory acquisition] of any antiquities is made under sub-section (3), such antiquities shall rest in the Central Government with effect from the date of the order.

Further, no State Government was to undertake or authorise any person to undertake any excavation or other like operation for archaeological purposes in any area which was not a protected area except with the previous approval of the Central Government and in accordance with the such rules, or directions, if any, as the Central Government may make or give in this behalf.

 PROTECTION OF ANTIQUITIES

Power of Central Government to control moving of antiquities.— (1) If the Central Government considers that any antiquities or class of antiquities ought not to be moved from the place where they are without  the sanction of the Central Government, the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that any such antiquity or any class of such antiquities shall not be moved except with the written permission of the Director-General.

 (2) Every application for permission under sub-section (1) shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed.

 (3) Any person aggrieved by an order refusing permission may appeal to the Central Government whose decision shall be final.

Purchase of antiquities by Central Government.— (1) If the Central Government apprehends that any antiquity mentioned in a notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 25 is in danger of being destroyed, removed, inured, misused or allowed to fall into decay or is of opinion that, by reason of its historical or archaeological importance, it is desirable to preserve such antiquity in a public place, the Central Government may make an order for the  [compulsory acquisition of such antiquity] and the Collector shall thereupon give notice to the owner of the antiquity  [to be acquired].

 (2) Where a notice of[compulsory acquisition] is issued under sub-section (1) in respect of any antiquity, such antiquity shall vest in the Central Government with effect from the date of the notice.

 (3) The power[compulsory acquisition] given by this section shall not extend to any image or symbol actually used for bona fide religious observances.

Compensation for loss or damage.— Any owner or occupier of land who has sustained any loss or damage or any diminution of profits from the land by reason of any entry on, or excavations in, such land or the exercise of any other power conferred by this Act shall be paid compensation by the Central Government for such loss, damage or diminution of profits.

  Assessment of market value or compensation.— (1) The market value of any property which the Central Government is empowered to purchase at such value under this Act or the compensation to be paid by the Central Government in respect of anything done under this Act shall, where any dispute arises in respect of such market value or compensation, be ascertained in the manner provided in Section 3, 5, 8 to 34, 45 to 47, 51 and 52 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of1894), so far as they can be made applicable:

 Provided that when making an enquiry under the said Land Acquisition Act, the Collector shall be assisted by two assessor, one of whom shall be a competent person nominated by the Central Government and one person nominated by the owner, or in case the owner fails to nominate an assessor within such reasonable time as may be fixed by the Collector in this behalf, by the Collector.

For every antiquity in respect of which an order for compulsory acquisition has been made under sub-section (3) of Section 23 or under sub-section (1) of Section 26, there shall be paid compensation and the provisions of Section 20 and 22 of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 (52 of 1972) shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the determination and payment of compensation for any antiquity or art treasure compulsorily acquired under Section 19 of that Act.]

Delegation of powers.— The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that any powers conferred on it by or under this Act shall, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the direction, be exercisable also by—

 (a) such officer or authority subordinate to the Central Government, or

 (b) such State Government or such officer or authority subordinate to the State Government,

as may be specified in the direction.

Penalties.— (1) Whoever—

 (i) destroys, removes, injures, alters, defaces, imperils or misuse a protected monument, or

 (ii) being the owner or occupier of a protected monument, contravenes an order made under sub-section (1) of Section 9 or under sub-section (1) of Section 10, or

 (iii) removes from a protected monument any sculpture, carving, image, bas relief, inscription, or other like object, or

 (iv) does any act in contravention of sub-section (1) of Section 19

shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three month, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.

 (2) Any person who moves any antiquity in contravention of a notification issued under sub-section (1) if Section 25 shall be punishable with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees; and the court convicting a person any such contravention may by order direct such person to restore the antiquity to the place from which it was moved.

  Jurisdiction to try offences.— No court inferior to that of a presidency magistrate or a magistrate of the first class shall try any offence under this Act.

 Certain offences to be cognizable.— Notwithstanding anything contained in[the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898)] an offence under clause (i) or clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of Section 30, shall be deemed to be a cognizable offence within the meaning of that Code.

Special provision regarding fine.— Notwithstanding anything contained in[Section 32 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898)]  it shall be lawful for any magistrate of the first class specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf and for any presidency magistrate to pass a sentence of fine exceeding two thousand rupees on any person convicted of an offence which under this Act is punishable with fine exceeding two thousand rupees.

  Recovery of amounts due to the Government.— Any amount due to the Government from any person under this Act may, on a Certificate issued by the Director-General or an archaeological officer authorized by him in this behalf be recovered in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.

Ancient monuments, etc., which have ceased to be of national importance.— If the Central Government is of opinion that any ancient and historical monument or archaeological site and remains declared to be of national importance by or under this Act has ceased to be of national importance, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare that the ancient and historical monument or archaeological site and remains, as the case may be, has ceased to be of national importance for the purposes of this Act.

Power to correct mistakes, etc.— Any clerical mistake, patent error or error arising from accidental slip or omission in the description of any ancient monument or archaeological site and remains declared to be of national importance by or under this Act may, at any time, be corrected by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette.

Protection of action taken under the act.— No suit for compensation and no criminal proceeding shall lie against any public servant in respect of any act done or in good faith intended to be done in the exercise of any power conferred by this Act.

Power to make rules.— (1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette and subject to the condition of previous publication, make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act.

 (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the forgoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:

 (a) the prohibition or regulation by licensing or otherwise of mining, quarrying, excavating, blasting or any operation of a like nature near a protected monument or the construction of buildings on land adjoining such monument and the removal of unauthorized buildings;

 (b) the grant of licences and permissions to make excavations for archaeological purposes in protected areas, the authorities by whom, and the restrictions and conditions subject to which, such licences may be granted, the taking of securities from licensees and the fees that may be charged for such licences;

 (c) The right of access of the public to a protected monument and the fee, if any, to be charged therefore;

 (d) The form and contents of the report of an archaeological officer or a licensee under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 23;

 (e) The form in which applications for permission under Section 19 or Section 25 may be made and the particulars which they should contain;

 (f) The form and manner of preferring appeals under this Act and the time within which they may be preferred;

 (g) The manner of service of any order or notice under this Act;

 (h) The manner in which excavations and other like operations for archaeological purposes may be carried on;

 (i) Any other matter which is to be or may be prescribed.

 (3) Any rule made under this section may provide that a breach thereof shall be punishable,—

 (i) In the case of a rule made with reference to clause (a) of sub-section (2), with imprisonment which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both;

 (ii) In the case of a rule made with reference to clause (b) of sub-section (2), with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees;

 (iii) In the case of a rule made with reference to clause (c) of sub-section (2), with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees.

 (4) All rules made under this section shall be laid for not less than thirty days before each House of Parliament as soon as possible after they are made, and shall be subject to such modifications as Parliament may make during the session in which they are so laid or the session immediately following.

The Act defines a ‘prohibited area’ as an area of 100 meters around a protected monument or area.  The central government can extend the prohibited area beyond 100 meters.  The Act does not permit construction in such prohibited areas, except under certain conditions.  The Act also prohibits construction in ‘prohibited areas’ even if it is for public purposes.

 

The Bill introduced in 2017, referred above, amends this provision to permit construction of public works in ‘prohibited areas’ for public purposes.

Definition of ‘public works’: The Bill introduces a definition for ‘public works’, which includes the construction of any infrastructure that is financed and carried out by the central government for public purposes.  This infrastructure must be necessary for public safety and security and must be based on a specific instance of danger to public safety.  Also, there should be no reasonable alternative to carrying out construction in the prohibited area.

Procedure for seeking permission for public works: As per the Bill, the relevant central government department, that seeks to carry out construction for public purposes in a prohibited area, should make an application to the competent authority.

If there is any question related to whether a construction project qualifies as ‘public works’, it will be referred to the National Monuments Authority.  This Authority, will make its recommendations, with written reasons, to the central government.  The decision of the central government will be final.

If the decision of the central government differs from that of the Authority, it should record its reasons in writing.

This decision should be communicated by the competent authority, to the applicant, within 10 days of receiving it

Impact assessment of proposed public works: The Bill empowers the National Monuments Authority to consider an impact assessment of the proposed public works in a prohibited area, including its (i) archaeological impact; (ii) visual impact; and (iii) heritage impact.

The Authority will make a recommendation, for construction of public works to the central government, only if it is satisfied that there is no reasonable possibility of moving the construction outside the prohibited area.

Subsequent Legislations:

Subsequently, The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules 1959were framed. The Act along with Rules came into force with effect from 15 October 1959. This Act repealed The Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Declaration of National Importance) Act, 1951.

The Antiquities and Art Treasures Act 1972 (No. 52 of 1972) is the latest Act enacted on 9^th September 1972 for effective control over the moveable cultural property consisting of antiquities and art treasures. The Act is to regulate the export trade in antiquities and art treasures, to provide for the prevention of smuggling of, and fraudulent dealings in, antiquities, to provide for the compulsory acquisition of antiquities and art treasures for preservation in public places and to provide for certain other matters connected therewith or incidental or ancillary thereto. This Act was also supplemented with The Antiquities and Art Treasure Rules 1973. The Act and Rules have been in force with effect from 5^th April 1976. This legislation repealed The Antiquities Export Control Act, 1947 (Act No. XXXI of 1947).

Now once again the government is trying to tweak the AMASR Act of 1958, especially its provisions as amended in 2010 according to which 100 metre radius of an ASI protected monument is a “prohibited area” where no construction is allowed and next 300 metre area is regulated area where permissions are required before executing any structural change. This rule is something which the government wants to dilute. Henceforth, expert committees will decide on the extent of the prohibited and regulated areas around each monument and activities permitted herein.

Concerns which are thus raised due to these attempts:

• Archaeological Sites across India have become commons for human and animal communities.
• Altering land around ASI-protected monuments into industrial, commercial, or even residential plots will thus deprive human and animal communities of much-needed commons. 
• Permitting construction work risks weakening the foundations of centuries-old edifices.
• Also construction machines may disturb the art facets near the site, thus making the task of undertaking new research more difficult 
• Domestic waste and greywater regularly seep into ancient sites any changes in protection status now will aggravate this problems.
• In recent years, the Government has built new highways, metro-rail systems, and industrial parks without methodical archaeological impact assessments.
• These projects have led to the shattering of an untold number of historical artefacts and the casual collection of many others. We cannot afford to lose more of our tangible heritage.

 

That Taxila was very famous can be deduced from the fact that it is mentioned in several languages: in Sanskrit, the city was called Takshaçila, which may be interpreted as ‘prince of the serpent tribe’; in Pâli it was known as Takkasilâ; the Greeks knew the town as Taxila, which the Romans rendered as Taxilla; the Chinese called it Chu-ch’a-shi-lo. The ruins are some 30 kilometres northwest of modern Islamabad. 

The town commanded the Indian ‘royal road’ (Uttarâpatha; more or less the modern Grand Trunk Road), which connected Gandhara (the valley of the river Cophen, modern Kabul) in the west to the kingdom of Magadha in the Ganges valley in the east. Another important route was the Indus River from Kashmir in the north to the Indian Ocean in the south. To fully understand the importance of Taxila, it must be noted that the Khunjerab pass between Kashmir and Xinjiang -the current Karakorum highroad- could already be crossed in Antiquity; therefore, Taxila was connected with the Silk road between Babylonia in the far west and China in the far east. 

Taxila was founded in the seventh or sixth century BC – according to legend by a son of the brother of the Rama. The first town was situated on a hill that commanded the river Tamra Nala, a tributary of the Indus. It was an important cultural centre and it is said that the Mahabharata was first recited at Taxila. This site is currently called the Bhir mound. The residential area was in the east; the western part of the town seems to have had a ceremonial function. If the ‘Pillared hall’ was indeed a sanctuary, as is maintained by several archaeologists, it is the oldest known Hindu shrine.

Taxila was the capital of a kingdom that was added to the Achaemenid empire under king Darius I , but the Persian occupation did not last long. There are no archaeological traces of the presence of western armies in the Punjab, although a claim that the Persians built something at Taxila was made in 2002.

When the Macedonian conqueror Alexander the Great occupied Gandara and the Punjab in 326, the Indian kingdoms had already regained their independence. King Ambhi of Taxila, who is called Taxiles (‘the man from Taxila’) and Omphis in the Greek sources, had invited Alexander in 329, because he needed support against king Porus (Indian: Puru) of Pauravas, a state that was situated in the eastern Punjab. 

Alexander did what he had been asked to do, defeating Porus on the banks of the river Hydaspes (modern Jhelum), and then unexpectedly allied himself with Porus. He forced Ambhi and Porus to reconcile and left behind an occupation force of Macedonian and Greek veterans under a satrap named Philip. Thus for sometime Taxila became a part of the Greek empire.

In 316, king Chandragupta of Magadha (321-297) could conquer the Indus valley. Taxila lost its independence and became a provincial capital. 

Chandragupta was succeeded by Bindusara. His son Ashoka was for some time governor of Taxila until 269, when he succeeded his father. Ashoka became famous for his religious policy: he stimulated Buddhism wherever possible. At Taxila, the existing monastery, which was situated on the other bank of the river, was abandoned. Two new monasteries were built to the east. The Dharmarajika monastery, where Ashoka buried several relics of Buddha, is still famous for its stupa.

In 184, the Greeks, who had maintained a kingdom in Bactria, invaded Gandara and the Punjab again. From now on, there was a Greek king living in Taxila. His name was Demetrius. The town was rebuilt on the plains on the other bank. This second Taxila, called the Sirkap (‘severed head’), was built according to the Hippodamaean plan, that is: according to Greek fashion, like a gridiron. The largest sanctuary, called ‘apsidal temple’, measured 70×40 meters. The Sun temple and a sanctuary known as ‘shrine of the double-headed eagles’ are near the apsidal temple.

In ca. 80 CE, the Yuezhi nomads or Kushans took over the area. Again, Taxila was re-founded, this time even further to the north. This third town is known as the Sirsukh. It must have looked like a large military base. The wall is 5 kilometres long and no less than 6 meters thick. From now on, Taxila was visited by Buddhist pilgrims from countries as far afield as Central Asia and China. There were many sanctuaries and monasteries in the neighborhood.

Another visitor was a Greek philosopher named Apollonius of Tyana. A description of Taxila can be found in the Life of Apollonius of Tyana by the Greek author Philostratus. In section 2.20 he writes that the town is as big as Nineveh and was fortified like the Greek cities.

“While Apollonius was engaged in this conversation, messengers and an interpreter presented themselves from the king, to say that the king would make him his guest for three days, because the laws did not allow of strangers residing in the city for a longer time; and accordingly they conducted him into the palace. I have already described the way in which the city is walled, but they say that it was divided up into narrow streets in the same irregular manner as in Athens, and that the houses were built in such a way that if you look at them from outside they had only one storey, while if you went into one of them, you at once found subterranean chambers extending as far below the level of the earth as did the chambers above.”

[Philostratus, Life of Apollonius, 2.23;tr.F.C. Conybeare]

The city was badly damaged when the Huns invaded the Punjab in the fifth century, and never recovered.

The main ruins of Taxila include four major cities, each belonging to a distinct time period, at three different sites. The earliest settlement at Taxila is found in the Hathial section, which yielded pottery shards that date from as early as the late 2nd millennium BCE to the 6th century BCE. The Bhir Mound ruins at the site date from the 6th century BCE, and are adjacent to Hathial. The ruins of Sirkap date to the 2nd century BCE, and were built by the region’s Greco-Bactrian kings who ruled in the region following Alexander the Great’s invasion of the region in 326 BCE. The third and most recent settlement is that of Sirsukh, which was built by rulers of the Kushan empire, who ruled from nearby Purushapura (modern Peshawar)

The main sites at Taxila today are:

• Bhir mound, the oldest part, probably belonging to the Achaemenid period; 

• Sirkap, a Buddhist city, founded by Greeks from Bactria; together with the Zoroastrian shrine at Jandial; 

• Sirsukh, a large square fortress founded by the Yuezhi nomads or Kushans, to which the Buddhists added monasteries like 

• Jaulian and Mohra Moradu

Bhir Mound:

The oldest part is Bhir, which consists of several building phases:  

1. The oldest stratum, usually dated to the sixth and fifth centuries BCE; 

2. The fourth century, in which raja Ambhi entertained Alexander the Great in 326; 

3. The stratum of the Mauryan empire, third century 

4. And the uppermost stratum, which is everything after the Mauryan period. 

The division between the first and second strata is a bit artificial. Even worse, the common identification of the oldest part of the city with the presence of the Achaemenid king Darius the Great in India in ca. 518 BCE is not based on archaeological finds. In his own texts, Darius claims to have conquered the Indus country, but until now, there is no archaeological confirmation. It would help if we found a Persian coin or cuneiform tablet.

In 316, king Chandragupta of Magadha (321-297) conquered the Punjab. Taxila lost its independence and became a provincial capital. Yet, the city remained important as center of administration, education and trade. During the reign of Chandragupta’s grandson Ashoka, Buddhism became important and the first monks settled in Taxila. They built the stupa called Dharmarajika, ‘the tomb of the real law lord’, i.e., the Buddha, because Ashoka had sent relics to several places in his empire. At the same time, Taxila was rebuilt.

There is some continuity from the oldest to the youngest levels. The main street has been found on the same place in every stratum. The rest of the town changed considerably in the course of the centuries. It consisted of irregular, zig-zag, small streets and housing blocks made of bricks, stones and timber. There was a temple (‘the pillared hall’) and it is said that in the palace, the Mahabharata was recited for the very first time.

About 3 acres of mostly Mauryan remains have been unearthed in the middle of the Bhir mound: it is an irregular plan with four streets, 5 lanes and associated house blocks.

One street was 6.6m wide and the rest 2.7 – 5m in width. The houses are in the chatuhśala plan: open courtyards surrounded by rooms. Most of the houses appear to have been multi-storeyed: in one case the ground floor had 15 to 20 rooms.

Sirkāp:

The second city at Taxila is called Sirkap, which means ‘severed head’ and is the name of a mythological demon that is said to have lived on this site. It devoured human flesh and was killed by the hero Rasalu. Sirkap was founded by the Bactrian king Demetrius, who conquered this region in the 180’s BCE, and rebuild by king Menander.

Demetrius considered himself a Greek and built the city on the Hippodamaean plan, that is: like a gridiron [a structure consisting of parallel bars]. The ruins are younger than, but similar to, those of Olynthus in Macedonia and Halos in Thessaly. Taxila’s sanctuaries reflect the multicultural nature of the kingdom, which consisted not only of the Punjab, but also of Gandhara, (i.e., the valley of the Kabul and Swat), Arachosia, and a part of the Ganges valley. Greek religious practices, Zoroastrian cults, Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism are all known from second-century Taxila. (For example, there was a Zoroastrian sanctuary at Jandial, north of Sirkap, which looks just like a Greek temple.)

Archaeologists have identified seven strata: 

1. A suburb of Bhir mound; sixth-third century BC; 

2. The first, Demetrian phase of the Greek city, early second century; 

3. The second, Menandrian phase of the Greek city, late second century; 

4. The first phase of the Saka period, beginning ca. 90 BCE; 

5. The second phase of the Saka period 

6. The last phase of the Saka period, until an earthquake in ca. 30 AD (picture, center); 

7. The Parthian period. 

The modern visitor essentially sees the sixth phase and its reconstruction by the Parthian king Gondophares. The excavated area is large: about 1200 meters long and 400 wide. The wall that surrounded the city, built in phase 5, had a height of 6-10 meters, was 5-7 meters wide, and almost 4,800 meters long. This picture shows the northern gate.

The enclosing stone walls of Sirkap (to the north-east of the Bhir mound) are made from coursed rubble masonry, which is characteristic for the Greek and Saca periods and are 5 Km long, 4.5 to 6.5 metres wide and 6 to 9 metres high. It wass strengthened by berms and rectangular bastions. The only gateway which has been excavated is the northern gateway. Immediately behind the gate was, as one could have expected, a guard room.

For a length of about 600 metres, the Indo-Parthian level of the city has been excavated revealing a grid-plan with house blocks interspersed by Stupas and temples. 

The main road of Sirkap also has a number of shops along it. 

The private houses were constructed of rubble masonry covered with lime or mud plaster. Usually, they had a small court, a second floor and a flat roof. One house covered 2160 sq.metres. After the earthquake, in the Parthian period, many were rebuilt with stronger walls and deeper foundations. The palace has been inferred in the South east extremity of the excavated remains.

A Greek visitor, whose description of Taxila was included in the Life of Apollonius by Philostratus, says that the houses gave the impression of having one story, but had in fact basement rooms. This visitor may indeed have been the neo-pythagorean philosopher Apollonius of Tyana; at least Philostratus believed that the subject of his vie romancée had visited the Punjab, and much information appears to be correct. That the palace of Taxila was small, that there was a Sun temple, that there was a temple in front of the walls (Jandial), and that the streets were as small as those of Athens – it has all shown to be correct.

Sirsukh:

After 80 AD, the Punjab, which had been conquered by Macedonians, Greeks, Sacae, and Parthians, was taken over by theYuezhi nomads or Kushans, a tribe that had once lived in northern China. Their king Kanishka abandoned the part of Taxila known as Sirkap, and founded the third city -in a green and lush valley- Sirsukh. It was to become famous for its fortifications, which is a masonry rampart wall with bastions.

It is almost 5 kilometres long and is nowhere less than 6 metres thick. It circumvenes an irregular square of 1350 x 990 meters. The walls are made of rough rubble and faced with the heavy diaper masonry masonry that is characteristic for this period. The semi-circular bastions, which probably had second and third stories, had loopholes inside the wall, at floor level.

The inner part of this citadel was not really investigated by archaeologists. It is low-lying and abundantly irrigated land, where ruins are buried inaccessibly deep.

There were several contemporary Buddhist monasteries (e.g., Jaulian and Mohra Moradu) in the neighborhood.

Sirsukh was left when the White Huns invaded the Punjab at the end of the fifth century.

Since 1980 Taxila and it’s various settlements have been declared a World Heritage Site by the UNESCO. The site was initially identified by Sir Alexander Cunningham and was excavated by Sir John Marshall.

• Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi

Tughluqabad is conventionally the (Indarpath? Qila Rai Pithora, Siri) fourth city of Delhi. Built between 1320 and 1325 AD by Ghiyasuddin Tughluq, it was abandoned within a generation. According to Zia Barani, its construction started soon after Ghiyasuddin Tughluq’s accession. According to Ibn Battuta, its site was in the mind of the Sultan even when he was a minister in the court of Mubarak Shah. The architect was Ahmad bin Ayaz, an Anatolian (Rumi) malikzada.

It was built over a period of around 2 years and it was declared the dar us sultanate in 1322-23. In 1352 Ghiyasuddin died and was succeeded by Muhammad Tughluq who soon after ordered the construction of Adilabad, which was a new citadel. Tughluqabad and Adilabad are connected with each other by a causeway, which was also a dam to hold the lake water. Soon after was founded the new city of Jahanpanah. Thus Tughluqabad ceased to be the capital. A severe draught in North India and the transfer of capital to Daulatabad appears to have caused a total collapse. Firuzshah (1351-88) during his reign shifted to his new city of Firuzabad, far north of Tughluqabad. This led to a total desertion of the Tughluqabad site.

Thus like Fathpur Sikri, Tughluqabad is a fossilized town having buildings dating back to a brief period and a single reign.
For the brief period that it did exist, it was a splendid city, the magnificence of which is attested to by Ibn Battuta:

“Tughluq’s treasury and palaces are located there, and in it is the greatest palace, covered with golden brick, which, when the sun shines, reflects dazzling light, preventing the eyes from looking at it for long…”

This probably was a reference to the lustre painted ceramic tiles, which were extensively used in Iran during the 13th and 14th Century.
The site of this town, spread over some 300 acres, is located on a hill surrounded by a low lying area ( a basin) where water collected during the rainy season. This seasonal lake was regulated by the construction of a number of dams. The result was that a lake was created to the south of the city which supplied water to the town as well as irrigated the fields all around.

The plan of the city of Tughluqabad appears to have been inspired from Khurasanian (or Iranian) models represented by such towns as Bust, Nishapur and Tus: It comprises of three distinct areas – (a) the lower town (pā‘īn shahr); (b) the upper town (bālā hisār); and (c) the citadel (arg). Generally the Iranian towns conspired of two enclaves, the main town (shahristān) and the citadel.

The main town of Tughluqabad appears to have been larger than Siri: its ramparts enclose an area of around 6 Km. The main streets were almost 2 Km long. These ramparts do not appear to follow any geometrical pattern or form, but follow the natural contours of the hill on which the city is located. The general layout of the city is in the form of a trapezium, i.e., a quadrilateral with only one pair of sides parallel. Its massive walls are made of rubble and sand mortar and cased with dressed stones quarried locally. The casing stones are large blocks of stones measuring generally 0.5 × 0.5 × 2 m. Some are bigger and some even as large as 3m.
The thickness of these walls differs: the maximum is 10m. The height reaches up till 30m, but on an average, it varies between 10 to 15m. These walls are pierced with round towers at regular intervals and 12 gates on the outside, while 2 gates are situated between the fort and the town. A single gate connects the fort with the citadel.

Typical of the period, the ramparts, the bastions and the gates are all tapering (i.e. cyclopean / battered) in form.
The citadel is situated to the south of the town, on the highest point of the hill. It comprised private imperial structures, and thus it is here that we find a three-tiered defence system: (a) a sharply battered first tier with a 2m wide ledge protected with battlements (parapet with indentations), loopholes (slits in walls for firing guns), and merlons (crenellations, or solid wall between two openings); (b) a second wall 5 – 10 m high with a barrel-vaulted gallery; and then (c) on top of this arch-shaped battlements with loopholes.

The most prominent structure in the citadel appears to be a pavilion (no.5), the Jahan numa, which possibly was Ibn Battuta’s ‘great palace of golden brick’.

Most of the buildings and palaces in the citadel have disappeared and what remains is only the under ground cells which made up the plinth / platform on which these structures were situated. The only surviving building in the area is a small mosque (no.8).

The fort is situated to the south-west of the town. On its south is the lake. The other exposed sides are defended by a moat.
This fort consists of four main gates and two postern gates. A gate from the north leads from this fort to a straight street known as Khās Bazar ending at the Dhoban Dhobani Gate. The East Gate opened on a short processional street leading to the Jami’ Masjid.
Behind the East Gate was the Royal Square (maidan) [no.9] measuring 180 × 120 m to the south and west of which are the ruins of various buildings, probably public buildings including audience halls, stables etc.

The Street Layout:

Inside the town, most of the street layout is still preserved. There appears to be a well defined grid-plan for the roads which run from gate to gate. The main streets are fairly straight and some of them are aligned with north-south or east-west coordinates.
Three of these streets, which end at the gates, may be called the main streets: two of these commence at the north-east corner of the fort, one leading north and the other east.
The road between the East Gate of the fort and the gate in the centre of the Eastern side (Rawul Gate) although short, appears to be the main ceremonial and bureaucratic passage. Probably just outside the East Gate of the fort, there was a chauk (square) as the Iranian tradition also followed in many Sultanate towns like Nagaur, Bidar and Ahmadabad. And probably as in those places, it was surrounded with buildings and shops, but nothing survives. Probably it was a square for common people and a place for civic and commercial activity. According to Mehrdad and Natalie Shokoohi, an old aerial photograph hints of traces of buildings surrounding this area.

Another road from the north of this square led to the end of the town. This street was parallel to the one of Khas Bazar, and it was along this that two market squares are located in the middle of the town.

These two principal roads are linked with at least 3 streets. A street also ran along the fortifications and was probably meant for access to the walls and their defence.

Residential & Commercial Areas:

The house structures and other buildings were generally oriented along the streets. Probably the residential areas of the town were towards the north and the houses were planned around one or several courtyards. The residential areas were compactly built with narrow side-streets giving access to the main streets. Some residential structures also probably comprised private gardens. The residential areas also contained a number of small mosques for each quarter. There were some grander mosques as well.

As far as the commercial areas were concerned, we have noted at least two in the centre of the town. These are rectangular areas which probably were the whole sale grain markets (mandi). Shops and bazaars were also located along the main streets. The Khas Bazar appears to have been the main market street of the town with shops on either side. The ruins of shops have been found in the middle portion of this street. Such shops ran alongside the entire length of the road.
This street is about 20 m wide and at each side of it is situated a platform about 0.65 m high over which the shops were constructed in a row of equal sized units. Each of this shop was 3 m wide and 5 m deep. The platform fronting these shops was around 1 m wide. Although at Khas Bazar, only the lower parts of the shops survive, but it is enough to give the earliest example of how they were constructed.

An east-west street from the Khas Bazar area ran between Nimwala Gate in the north west and passed on to the Bazar squares in the centre of the town and the continued up to the Rawul Gate.

The Granaries:

Another remarkable feature encountered at Tughluqabad are the silos – the grain storage chambers – which have been found in large numbers built next to the walls both in the town and the fort. Ibn Battuta mentions anbārs of grain (granaries) in the cities of Delhi ‘some having edible grains from the time of Balban’.

These are massive but simple structures. One such set of silos is found near the Northern Gate: They are in the form of a large platform about 10m high having 10 circular domed chambers which are 6.50 m wide and 9 m deep. They are set 1 m apart from each other. The walls are solidly constructed with rubble stone and mortar. On one side of the flat domed roofs is a sloping chute by means of which the chamber could be filled and the filling would be monitored through a central hole in the dome. Once filled, both the chute and the hole could be closed and sealed.

Similar silos are found near other gates as well, for example the Hathi Gate, Rawal Gate, Bandoli Gate, and other places in the town and the fort.

A number of wells and reservoirs have also been located in and around Tughluqabad. There are two big baolis or step-wells, one in the Palace area and the other in the citadel. The main hydraulic works however are the sluice gates which regulated the lake. They have been initially surveyed by Tatsuro Yamamoto and his team.

Note:

The above writing is based on Mehrdad Shokoohy and Natalie H. Shokoohy, which they published in the form of three interim reports in the Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies; Shokoohy and Natalie H. Shokoohy, Tughluqabad: A Paradigm for
Indo-Islamic Urban Planning and Its Architectural Components, London, 2007; and my paper on Bazārs and Markets in Medieval India published in Studies in Peoples History in 2015

• Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi