Reviewed by Mohammed Qasim Mehdi

DEEP within Anarkali Bazaar in Lahore, hidden from sight, amongst the tall shops on one side and peaking residential quarters on the other three, stands something peculiar, something that doesn’t fit in the local milieu, something ancient: the mausoleum of Sultan Qutb-ud-Din Aibak (1150-1210 CE).

Apart from some vague resemblances of architecture inspired from Quwat-ul-Islam Mosque and Qutb Minar in Delhi and a small restaurant named Aibak Nehari right in front of the tomb, there is little memorable about the place. But if you have read Abraham Eraly’s Age of Wrath: A History of the Delhi Sultanate, and you stand next to the tomb of the sultan who established the Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526), with a little imagination you might feel a rush of euphoria mixed with pure dread.

These paradoxical emotions are a result of Eraly taking full advantage of the broadest range of individuals who made up the court of the Delhi sultans: the rulers themselves, of course, but also eunuchs, slaves, assassins, patrons of culture, builders, poets, conservatives, noble benefactors, and warriors of all stripes.

Drawing on this diverse cast and delving into captivating primary historical accounts, Eraly narrates the lives of historical figures in such an eloquent manner that even the rapid movement of the historical narrative does not leave the reader weary. Instead, the book reads like a delightful novel.

Nearly two-thirds of the book is dedicated to the five Turko-Afghan dynasties of the Delhi Sultanate: the Slave, Khilji, Tughlaq, Sayyid and Lodi dynasties. The history of each dynasty is wave-like; as one dynasty declined, another rose to take its place. Abraham Eraly also recounts the history of the two successor off-shoots of the Delhi Sultanate: the Shiite Bahamanid Sultanate (1347-1527) in Deccan, and the Hindu Vijaynagar Empire (1366-1646) in South India. The remainder of the book is dedicated to discussing the polity, socio-economic, and cultural environment during the middle ages in India.

Eraly begins with a provocative question: why has India been prone to invasion from the Hindu Kush Mountains and the Arabian Sea? Eraly’s simple yet thought-provoking assessment is that seasonal rainfall and a network of rivers fertilised the Indian plains, leading to an abundance of food. Although the majority of Indians during the middle ages lived in no extravagance their basic necessities were met; consequently, they had no need to migrate out of India. Instead, it were the outsiders who repeatedly came to India seeking glory, plunder, and to colonise.

Eraly also provides an overview of the origins of Islam in India. He notes that since the 7th century, the primary interest of Arab Muslims in India was not proselytising but trade in Indian spices and Chinese silk. To ensure the safety of sea-routes from pirates, the Arabs established a bridgehead in Sindh under Mohammad bin Qasim (695-715), but never ventured deep within the Indian mainland. The next major Muslim incursion in India was under Mahmud Ghaznavi (971-1030), with Eraly concluding that “his Indian campaigns were like bandit raids — he […] fought several quick battles, slaughtered enemy soldiers and people in multitudes, destroyed temples and smashed idols […] and sped back to Ghazni.” A century later, Muhammad Ghori (1149-1206) crossed the Hindu Kush to carry out a military campaign against Hindu rajas and Khusrau Malik, the last Ghaznavid sultan then residing in Lahore. Eraly writes, “Muhammad’s campaign, rather like those of Mahmud, were primarily plundering raids […] In every sense Aibak was the real founder of the Delhi Sultanate.” Soon after Aibak’s death, Eraly argues that Transoxiana and Afghanistan came under siege by the Mongol horde led by Changez Khan. This severed all contacts between the declining Ghorids in Afghanistan and their Turkic slaves in India. With no home to return to, the slaves had little choice but to make India their new abode. After Aibak, his slave and successor Iltutmish shifted the capital from Lahore to Delhi.

Of the five dynasties of the Delhi Sultanate, The Slave Dynasty (1206-1290) is the most unusual. All the sultans were either once slaves themselves, or were descendants from slaves. Perhaps none is more intriguing then the famous daughter of Iltutmish, Razia Sultana (1205-1240). Eraly cites the mighty 13th century historian Minhaj al-Siraj Juzjani: “She was wise, just, and generous, a benefactor to her kingdom ... She was endowed with all the qualities befitting a king. But she was not of the right sex, and so in the estimation of men all her virtues were worthless.” This, combined with issues of power-sharing, led the nobles to rebellion and her murder.

It was under the Khilji Dynasty (1290-1320), more specifically under the reign of the illiterate but sagacious Sultan Ala-ud-Din Khilji, that the Delhi Sultanate reached its peak. Ala-ud-Khilji came to the throne after assassinating his uncle Jalal-ud-Din Khilji. Eraly concludes that savagery and infighting amongst the royal family members was frequent in the Delhi Sultanate. Tens of thousands were slaughtered at the slightest hint of betrayal; sons and brothers were shown no mercy. Ala-ud-Din was succeeded by his six-year-old son, but he was a mere puppet in the hands of Ala-ud-Din’s trusted eunuch and general, Malik Kafur, who had converted to Islam. Kafur’s rule lasted only 35 days. He too was assassinated and another son, Mubarak, came to the throne. After four years, Mubarak was assassinated by his eunuch lover Khusrav Khan.

Eraly gruesomely depicts the ultimate test of the Delhi Sultanate as being under the invasion of Timur the Lame (1336-1405). Eraly cites Timur to illustrate the violence unleashed by the sanguinary monarch: “I commanded my troops … to kill all men, to make prisoners of women and children, and to plunder and lay waste their property … I directed towers to be built of the (severed) heads of those obstinate unbelievers … The sword of Islam was washed with the blood of infidels.” According to Eraly, Timur’s six months in India were the most devastating in its history. So much so, that every town and village that his army passed through was littered with putrefying corpses.

For me, a high point in this book was when the author dramatically described the ending saga of the Delhi Sultanate by recounting the death of the last sultan, Ibrahim Lodi, on the battlefield of Panipat (1526). When the battle turned for the sultan, one of his lieutenants advised the monarch to flee towards Delhi and organise a new army. But the valiant sultan replied, “It is better that I should be like my friends, (lying) in the dust in blood.” Eraly eloquently articulates, “Ibrahim fell … the first and only sultan of Delhi to die in battle … Ibrahim’s valour in battle elicited the admiration of Babur, and he had the sultan’s body shrouded richly, and buried honorably at the very spot where he had fallen ... And with that ended the over three centuries’ long history of the Delhi Sultanate.”

The Turko-Afghan sultans and the Muslim population were a minority in India. To enforce their rule, they relied on ruthless tactics. Eraly argues that the fatalistic attitude of Hindus, present within their very caste system, helped in creating a way for Muslim forces to emerge successful in India.

Ultimately, Muslim rulers were not dissimilar to Hindu rajas; they were all warlords, who continuously fought against each other. In Eraly’s assessment these wars were not based on religion but were economic and political in nature. Hindu rajas often allied with Muslim rulers to fight against common enemies.

Eraly believes that for the majority of Indians, life under the Delhi sultans was similar to life under the Hindu rajas. India was a land of many creeds, existing side-by-side. Hindus saw Islam as just another new faith entering India. But at the same time, Eraly notes that “there was hardly any creative interaction between them ... They were like water and oil in the same pot” and thus each retained their individual characteristics. Still, I wish that Eraly had discussed in greater detail the life of commoners in rural India and their interaction with the sultans.

The Age of Wrath is a captivating work of history that opens new vistas for the non-specialist. Experts on medieval South Asia may have two issues with the book. First, the author frequently rests his arguments on primary sources, but the absence of footnotes makes it difficult for an academic reader to find the references. Second, Eraly is prone to repetition that may become cumbersome for a critical reader. Here I am not criticising the author for the book which he has not written, but the fact is that this book is meant for readers who want a swift and creative overview of the topic.

Abraham Eraly has fittingly titled the book The Age of Wrath. The 17th century philosopher Thomas Hobbes said that life in the state of nature is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” Such was the life of a common Indian during the middle ages. Abraham Eraly has written the book in such a captivating style that one could finish reading it in a single sitting. But that is not the proper way to read The Age of Wrath. It should be read in short bursts. After reading the history of one dynasty, you must pause, and try to contemplate the past. The destruction and slaughter unleashed on the commoners of India by numerous invaders, local rajas and sultans is incomprehensible. These trifling pauses of sombre silence are meant to be acts of remembrance for those untold millions who were born in misery, lived in misery and died in misery.

The Age of Wrath: A History of the Delhi Sultanate

(HISTORY)

By Abraham Eraly

Penguin Books, India

ISBN 0670087181

464pp.