impatient of the yoke of Delhi. A spirit A spirit of CHAPTER III. revolt was abroad which none could understand. It broke out at Delhi, the centre of the empire; it was put down by the army of the Punjab. It ́ broke out in the Dekhan, the outlying province on the south; in the end the Dekhan was lost to the empire.

two revolts.

The rise of the Mussulman kingdom of the The Story of Dekhan involves a grave political lesson. The current of Islam had run southward into a sea of Hinduism. It formed a Mussulman delta; it grew into a promontory; it was torn away by rebellion. Ample warning was given. The Delhi revolt of

1320 told the fatal tale of disaffection in the Dekhan army. The warning was unheeded. The innovations and oppressions of Muhammad Tughlak stirred up a second rebellion; it ended in the dismemberment of the empire.

revolt of 1320.

It will be necessary to go back a few years; to Review of the review the events of 1320 in association with those of 1347. In 1320 the Hindú rebels at Delhi were in secret understanding with the Rajas of the Dekhan and Peninsula. When the Pariahs rebelled at Delhi, the Rajas rebelled in the Dekhan and Peninsula. When Ghiás-ud-dín recovered Delhi, he sent his son, the crown prince, to put down the revolt in the

2 These phenomena were not perhaps peculiar to the Mussulmans of the Dekhan. Possibly they may be traced out in Bengal. The Mussulmans of Bengal were quite as isolated as those of the Dekhan; quite as ready to revolt against Delhi. But the Hindús of Bengal do not seem to have made so much impression on their Mussulman invaders; they did not help the Mussulmans to revolt. They were enervated by the heat and moisture of the Bengal climate. They had long been slaves of the Brahmans; they were nearly as ready to become slaves of the Mussulmans. Many became Mussulmans. Many Hindús were Mussulmans at heart of the sect of Shíahs, although retaining all the outward appearance of being strict Hindús. See special instances quoted in the Siyar-ulMutakherin by Mir Gholam Husain Khan.

CHAPTER III. South. The prince restored order in Deoghur; he suffered a terrible disaster at Warangal. The fortress was on the point of surrendering; suddenly his army deserted him; he was forced to fly with a handful of followers to Deoghur.

Treachery in the
Mussulman

camp.

The revenge.

Revolt of
Hindús and
Mussulmans,
1347.

The tale of Asiatic treachery is generally a mystery. Asiatic troops are rarely insubordinate; if their pay is regular they are true to their salt; but they are easily frightened. The army at Warangal had been scared away. No courier had arrived from Delhi for an entire month. Traitors whispered that the Sultan was dead; that officers who had served under Alá-ud-dín were to be put to death; that the "New Mussulmans" were to be again massacred. The army of the Dekhan broke up in a panic of terror. There was no leader amongst them; no common object to bind them together; nothing but a common fear which scattered them. Meantime the traitors in the Mussulman camp were in league with the Hindús of Warangal. The Hindús sallied out of Warangal, and slaughtered the fugitives. The crown prince must have escaped by a miracle.

Another Mussulman army was raised for service in the Dekhan. The new levies were doubtless furious against the Hindús. Warangal was captured. The Raja of Telinga and all his chief men were sent prisoners to Delhi; order was finally restored.

In 1347 twenty-six years had passed away; an interval equal to a generation. Such an interval

3 This was the prince who ultimately succeeded his father under the name of Muhammad Tughlak. The suppression of the revolt has been barely stated in the previous chapter. See ante, page 70.

is of profound significance in politics. If a revolt CHAPTER III. has been suppressed; if the causes which led to it have not been removed; it is a moral certainty that it will break out afresh. The new generation forgets the punishment that befell their fathers 15 they are ready to risk another rising. Such was the case in the Dekhan. A generation elapsed after the revolt of 1320. Treachery and disaffection were again at work. It is difficult to trace out the intrigue; but it is obvious that the same panic prevailed in 1347 which prevailed in 1320. The Rajas were frightened at the proceedings of Muhammad Tughlak; they again threw off the yoke of Delhi. The Mussulman soldiers in the Dekhan were equally frightened; they broke out into mutiny, and were helped by the Rajas. The same game was played in 1347 that was played in 1857. Officials were murdered; treasuries were broken open; public money was distributed amongst the rebel soldiery. Muhammad Tughlak was utterly unable to cope with the rebellion. The Dekhan was lost to the

4 The relations between Hindús and Shíahs are not strongly marked in the revolt of the Dekhan; they grew closer in the later history. Strictly speaking there were two revolts; one in 1344 and the other in 1347; the first was set on foot by the Hindús, and the second by the Shíahs. The details, as recorded by Ferishta, may serve to bring out more clearly the actual state of affairs.

In 1344, a son of the Raja of Telinga, named Krishna Naik, was dwelling near Warangal. He sent privately to Bilál Deva, the Raja of Karnata (on the Mysore table land, in the western half of Peninsular India), and told him that the Mussulmans in the Dekhan were combining to extirpate the Hindús. Accordingly Bilál Deva built the famous capital at Vijayanagar, on the south bank of the Tumbadra. Bilál Deva and Krishna Naik then united their forces with those of the other Hindú Rajas of the Peninsula, and expelled the Mussulmans from every quarter excepting Deoghur. Ferishta, translated by Briggs, vol. i., page 427, In 1347, the Shíah revolt under Hasan Gangu came to a head in Deoghur, and Hindús joined in it. The language of Ferishta is as follows: - "The Rajas of the Dekhan, also, suffering under the tyranny of the Sultan of Delhi, rejoiced at this revolt (under Hasan Gangu); in which some joined, while others, more circumspect, only privately encouraged it, and assisted the rebels with money and supplies." Ferishta, vol. ii., pages 286, 287.

CHAPTER III. empire; it was formed into an independent kingdom. Hasan Gangu was the first Sultan of the Dekhan ; he founded the dynasty of the Brahmani Sultans.5

Character of
Hasan Gangu.

The character of Hasan Gangu is obscure. Outwardly he was a Mussulman and a Shíah. In reality he was perhaps half a Mussulman and half a Hindú. Possibly he belonged to the same type as Malik Káfúr and Khuzru Khan. Possibly, like them, he had made his religion a stepping-stone to his ambition. He had been brought up by a Brahman; when he became Sultan he made this Bráhman his revenue minister. His dynasty is consequently known as that of the Brahmani or Bahmani Sultans. Probably by some religious intrigues he gained the support of the Hindú Rajas. To all appearance he was a Mussulman and a Shíah

;

5 Indian statesmen of the present day will do well to consider the practical question which history suggests. Have the causes which led to the mutiny of Fifty-seven been eradicated?

6 According to Ferishta, Hasan was originally a labourer in the employ of a Brahman of Delhi, named Gangu. One day he found a treasure in his master's field, and duly carried it to Gangu. The Brahman was so delighted with this act of honesty that he cast the nativity of his servant, and found that Hasan was destined to become a king. Accordingly Hasan promised that if ever he obtained a kingdom he would make Gangu his minister; henceforth he adopted the name of Hasan Gangu.

The story told by Ferishta respecting the Bráhman astrologer is open to suspicion. It may possibly have been a current legend; it is equally possible that it was intended to cover the real connection between Hasan Gangu and the Brahman, and the real cause of the dynasty being known as the Brahmani or Bahmani dynasty. The opening words of Ferishta confirm this idea; they are thus translated by Colonel Briggs: :-"Authors differ regarding the birth and the early life of Hasan Bahmani. It would be tedious and useless to relate all that has been said upon this subject, so that I shall merely state that which is most generally believed in the Dekhan." Upon this passage it may be remarked that Ferishta was a Shíah. Instead, therefore, of relating anything respecting the Brahmanical proclivities of Hasan Gangu, he preferred to tell an idle story about an astrologer.

Ferishta adds that Hasan Gangu was an Afghan by birth. The story of his life and reign prove that he was more of a Persian than an Afghan.

he adopted the black canopy and curtain of the CHAPTER III. Abbasides."

between Shiahs

Few points are more inexplicable in the history Antagonism of Mussulman India than the workings of the Shíah and Sunnis. element. The origin of the antagonism between the Shíahs and Sunnís lies in a nutshell. It was an old quarrel about the succession to the Khalifat; it dates as far back as the death of Muhammad. It is familiar to this day to every man, woman, and child within the Mussulman pale. The question is whether the kinsmen of Muhammad, or the "four friends" elected at Medina, were the rightful successors to the prophet. The Shíahs urge the claims of the kinsmen; the Sunnís accept the four friends. The disputants are still cursing and reviling each other; occasionally they resort to fisticuffs, cudgels, and swords, in the vague hope of settling the controversy."

7 The Abbaside Khalifs sat under a black canopy, and behind a black curtain, as symbols of mourning for the family of the prophet; to this day black is the distinguishing colour of the Shíahs.

8 As a matter of fact Muhammad was succeeded in turn by the "four friends," who were elected one after the other by the congregation at Medina, namely, Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman, and Ali. The Sunnís maintained that these four were the rightful successors of Muhammad. The Shíahs maintained that the three first were usurpers, and that Ali, and his two sons Hasan and Husain, were the only rightful successors. Ali, it will be remembered, had married Fátima, the daughter of the prophet, by whom he became father of Hasan and Husain.

From an early period in the history of the Khalifat there had been a split in the Shíah camp; it is of little moment now. Some Shiahs supported the claims of Abbas, an uncle of Muhammad, to the exclusion of Ali. It was a descendant of Abbas who ousted the Omeyad Khalifs at Damascus, and established the Abbaside Khalifs at Bagdad. But the Abbasides were more Arab than Persian. In the present day the Persian Shíahs are the devoted adherents of Ali. 9 The antagonism between the Shíah and the Sunní is kept alive by a yearly festival known as the Muharram. Ali and his two sons are regarded by the Shiahs as the three Imams, or exemplars, who became martyrs to Islam. Husain, the last of the three, was martyred on the tenth day of the month known as Muharram; consequently that day is kept by the Shíahs as an anniversary of the martyrdom. The first fortnight of the Muharram had been a festival time for ages before the advent of Muhammad; as such it is still celebrated as a feast by all Sunnís; but the tenth day of the month is a day of mourning amongst all Shiahs. In every Shíah household the story of the martyrdom of Husain is read