Thread by @quizzicalguy

And just to add to Bahu's point: Delhi is an Islamic city that became the jewel of the Muslim world towards the end of the 14th century. It was built by Muslims and it became the most important city in India because of Muslim rule. There is no pre-Islamic Delhi. We must know this

https://twitter.com/Mughal_imperial/status/1347851435959066625

*13th century.

Since my tweet from a few days ago has massively triggered Godse worshippers, let us take this conversation forward and try and elaborate on some of the points made. And relax people, you don’t have to appeal to any “ishvara” inside me as the devil is on my side.

The Godse gang has been telling me about Pandavas and the Mahabharata and the mythical Indraprastha, the Tomars, the Chauhans and many other things to show that Delhi was “Hindu”. I've also been informed that Delhi was already a magnificent city, which is why the Muslims took it.

I have also been advised to consult Wikipedia first before commenting on history. Very kind advice! I am much obliged. Then there is also the cute suggestion that my full name is Manimugdha 'Zayed' Sharma as my "real father" is a Muslim. Very interesting and amusing stuff!

@edmundmichael77 sahib had asked me when I had posted that tweet what I thought about the Delhi that existed before the Muslims came. People are offended that I chose to call it “insignificant”, and the Tomars a “small clan”. But why did I say so? It's important to understand it.

Delhi, before the coming of the Muslims, wasn’t any seat of “Hindu power”. Nor was it any great pilgrimage/religious centre. The Chauhans, under whose sway Delhi supposedly was, had their capital in Ajmer.

And no, there were no “twin capitals” of Ajmer and Delhi, as one Godsewala tried to educate me. This was manufactured by the Prithviraja Raso, which is a late-16th century-early 17th century text. This is historically inaccurate, but we shall return to this in a bit.

Prithviraj Chauhan was the king of Ajmer according to all contemporary accounts, including the Prithviraja Vijaya that was either produced at his court or during his rule, but certainly before his disastrous defeat at Tarain to the army of Sultan Muizuddin Muhammad bin Sam.

The Indo-Persian works Tabakat-i Nasiri and Taj ul-Maasir say the same. In fact, these texts say that after smashing the Chauhan king at Tarain, the Ghurid forces went to take over his capital city of Ajmer. They didn’t go to Delhi!

Historians say that there is no ground or evidence whatsoever to assume that Prithviraj Chauhan ever visited Delhi or took up residence in the city. His association with Delhi — that is the story of it — started to happen slowly in the 15th century with the Hammira Mahakavya.

But it happened more strongly with the Prithviraja Raso in the 16th century. While Hammira Mahakavya places the Battle of Tarain to just outside Delhi without specifying if that was Chauhan’s capital, the Raso firmly places Prithviraj in Delhi. Why? That’s important to ask.

In Prithviraj’s own lifetime, Ajmer was the dominant city. Delhi was either under a vassal king or a governor, if we go by the ‘Muslim’ sources. The Tabakat-i Nasiri says the king of Delhi was one Gobind Rai whose jaw had been broken by Sultan Muizuddin bin Sam in 1191.

But Gobind Rai had supposedly injured the Sultan with his lance, resulting in his withdrawal and defeat in the first Battle of Tarain. This king may have been a local king or one from the Tomar clan. But unlikely a Chauhan.

The 15th-century (mind you, 15th century) Tarikh-i Mubarakshahi narrates the version with a difference — Gobind Rai becomes Prithviraj’s brother. Delhi also becomes a far more important city in this account. Why?

Because we are already over two centuries ahead of Prithviraj’s time and Delhi by now is the thriving capital city of the most powerful empire in India. The author’s present was influencing his understanding of the past.

This retelling continued to happen even in the 16th century when the Mughals under Emperor Akbar were building a powerful empire. Akbar’s court chroniclers Nizamuddin Ahmed and Abdul Qadir Badaoni rewrote the tale of Gobind Rai, but as Khand Rai/Chand Rai.

By now, Gobind Rai or Khand Rai was as powerful as Prithviraj Chauhan himself and an equal participant in battles against the Ghurid armies. But then we see Abu’l Fazl’s Akbarnama and we see a spectacular change in the story in line with the Prithviraja Raso narrative.

Abu’l Fazl identified Prithviraj Chauhan as the king of Delhi whose citadel in Delhi he identified as Qila Rai Pithora. So far, Abu’l Fazl is the earliest known author to use this term for Prithviraj’s lost city in Delhi.

Sanghis, please take note. It’s a Mughal author that coined the name Qila Rai Pithora (or at least put it in print for history to know about it), which is what many of you have been throwing at me to prove the city’s “Hindu” antecedents. This is the name we all use today.

Why does Abu’l Fazl do it? We don’t know. But this was in sync with the increasing use of Indic thought in the Mughal court, with Emperor Akbar commissioning the grand translation projects of Indic texts. The Mughals even believed that the Mahabharata was a true story.

Now, let’s return to the Raso. The Raso manuscripts were prepared by the various houses in Rajputana that were allied to the Mughals. The Kachwahas of Amber made them, the Hadas of Bundi made them as did the Bika Rathores of Bikaner. They were all in the Mughal court.

So, what happens in the Raso? It’s the story all of us in India today are familiar with. Prithviraj Chauhan, the king of Delhi, abducts Samyukta, the daughter of Jaichand Rai, which angers the old Gahadval king. He then gangs up with the Sultan and defeats and captures Prithviraj

The king is blinded and taken to Ghur where he manages to, with the help of Chand Bardai, kill the Sultan with a shabd-bhedi baan. The brave and glorious Chauhan king avenges his own defeat and bondage thus.

But in the medieval Jain text Prithviraja Prabandha, which is of 14th-15th century vintage, the Sultan gets wind of Prithviraj’s plot and installs a glass image of himself and stays away. The Chauhan king hits the glass target with this arrow and is thereafter put to death.

In another instance in the Prabandha, Prithviraj Chauhan fires at his traitorous minister but misses. So, before the Raso, Chauhan was pretty much a bad shot even with his both eyes open. All that changes by the 16th century. Chauhan is now a crack shot and a valiant king.

Why did the Raso make the Chauhan king the ruler of Delhi and not Ajmer? For two simple reasons: 1) Delhi in the 16th century was the symbol of political power in India, which was acknowledged far down the south of the country.

The Sultans of Delhi articulated their power so well that they started appearing in Tamil and Telugu stories too, while their kingly titles, customs, clothes, and other symbols of authority were picked up by non-Muslim courts in the Deccan.

The Vijayanagar kings started calling themselves suratalu (Sultan) and hindu raya suratrana (Sultan among Hindus). To legitimise their rule, they even created a foundational myth of Harihara and Bukka Raya being sent by the Delhi Sultan with the mission to rule.

There is also a Tamil folktale from Thanjavur where Delhi is the ultimate political centre of India. This was also the view of Emperor Babur who wrote in the Tuzuk-i Baburi: “The capital of all Hindustan is Delhi.”

Indeed, even though Emperor Akbar and Emperor Jahangir ruled from Agra, Fathpur Sikri and Lahore, they were still referred to as ‘Dillishwar’ (Lord of Delhi) in ‘Hindu’ accounts and Delhi was referred to as dar ul-mulk or capital of the country.

2) Ajmer, by the 16th century, was no longer a capital city. Besides, it had also become a sacred space of Islam because of the dargah of Sufi saint Muinuddin Chishti. So, to place Prithviraj in that place would have made no sense. But placing him in Delhi made total sense.

Now, why did the Turks decide to base themselves in Delhi? That was not because it was some previous site of great political power, but because the extent of their empires almost always extended up to Afghanistan. It was easier to control this empire from Delhi than anywhere else

Lahore was already a powerful Ghaznavid centre, which had been taken over by the Ghurids. Sultan Muizuddin returned to Afghanistan but gave away his newly acquired territories as appanages to his bandagan or “slave generals”. Qutbuddin Aybeg was just one of them.

When the Sultan died, his chosen commanders warred among themselves for greater control of their master’s empire. That explains why Qutbuddin Aybeg had to leave Delhi and base himself in Lahore where he died.

It was only during the long reign of Sultan Iltutmish did Delhi started to emerge as the capital of a new state, which we today know as the Delhi Sultanate. It was concurrent with the Mongol irruption in the central lands of Islam, which resulted in people fleeing to Delhi.

A quarter century after Sultan Iltutmish's death, Delhi had become the refuge of Islam in the east (qubba-i Islam mashriq-i giti) and the keeper of the Muslim faith (hauz-i din-i Muhammadi). This is how Delhi was described in the contemporary Indo-Persian chronicles.

This was the context of my tweet. Delhi became the symbol of power because of Muslims. It was shaped fundamentally as a centre of Islamic power. And that is why I say there was no pre-Islamic Delhi. Myths and legends aren’t history.