Origin of Nasir-ud-din Khusrau Shah of Delhi
Summary
This article examines the origin of Nasir-ud-din Khusrau Shah, the only Indian Muslim to rule the Delhi Sultanate, succeeding Qutub-ud-din Mubarak Khalji on April 27, 1320. The main argument is that Khusrau Shah was originally a Hindu from Gujarat, captured during Ain-ul-mulk Multani’s campaign in Malwa in 1305, and converted to Islam under the name Hasan. The author disputes various historical theories regarding his specific caste, arguing that he was a Bharvad, or shepherd, from Gujarat. Contemporary writers such as Amir Khusrau, Isami, and Zia-ud-din Barani identified him as belonging to a low-caste group of dauntless fighters, using terms like Barado, Barao, or Barwar. The article critiques European historians like Briggs, Molesworth, Edward Thomas, and Wolseley Haig, who mistakenly equated Barwar with the Parwari, a despised scavenger caste. It also refutes the theory that Khusrau Shah was a Parmar Rajput, as proposed by James Bird, Bayley, and Talboys Wheeler, noting that medieval writers were familiar with Rajput nomenclature and would not have labeled him low-caste otherwise. Furthermore, the author rejects the Bhangi origin theory, emphasizing that Bharvads were known as brave, well-to-do warriors and not scavengers. The article also dismisses Professor Sri Ram Sharma’s theory that Khusrau Shah repudiated Islam upon accession, citing Nizam-ud-din Ahmad’s account that while Hindu rites were encouraged by his Hindu relatives, Khusrau Shah remained a Muslim. The evidence relies on medieval Persian chronicles such as the Tughlugnama, Tarikh-i-Firozshahi, Futuh-us-Salatin, Tarikh-i-Mubarakshahi, Tabqat-i-Akbari, Muntakhab-ut-tawarikh, and Ferishta.
AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.
Conclusion
This article resolves the baffling question of Nasir-ud-din Khusrau Shah’s origin by identifying him as a Bharvad (shepherd) from Gujarat, effectively refuting the theories that he belonged to a low-caste scavenger group or a high-ranking Rajput dynasty. The author demonstrates that the various spellings of his caste name in medieval Persian texts are merely variants of 'Barwar' or 'Bharvad', which translates to a shepherd. This identity aligns with historical descriptions of his caste as brave, martial, and employed in royal service, rather than as a despised scavenger. Consequently, the study corrects a long-standing misinterpretation propagated by European historians like Briggs and Wolseley Haig, who mistakenly equated 'Barwar' with 'Parwar'. Furthermore, it dismisses the unsubstantiated theory that Khusrau Shah attempted to re-establish Hindu rule upon his accession. The findings underscore the importance of critical textual analysis in medieval Indian historiography, restoring Khusrau Shah’s heritage to its proper social and cultural context.