Salar Masud 1014-1034 AD, a Military General was Mahmud Ghazni’s sister’s son.
Known Ghaznavid historians of 11th century AD are quiet about him.
Well obviously, if he died in a devastating defeat after which no Ghaznavid dared to venture in India. Who would speak of it.
But the tradition and memory around Salar Masud has evolved over the centuries.
Pilgrimage to his tomb in Bahraich started in late 12th century during Ghurid rule at Delhi.
With subsequent centuries seeing complex constructions, repairs etc sanctioned by islamic rulers of the day.
Tomb of Salar Masud and his identity is consistenly corroborated through centuries in Amir Khusro’s Ejazi-i-Khusrowi 13th century AD, Ziauddin Barani’s Tarik-i-Firuz Shahi 14th century AD and many later works including Abu Fazl.
In 14th century AD Ibn Batuta accompanied Muhammed bin Tughlaq to India went to an islamic shrine at Bahraich. This was followed by Firoz Shah Tughlaq’s visits. Some claim these to have been at Masud’s shrine. While others give a different account.
Khulasat-ut-Tawarikh written by Sujan Singh Bhandari in late 17th century AD outside any court patronage states that at Bahraich lie the shrines of Salar Masud as well as Salar Rajab the brother of Giasuddin Tughlaq.
Over the centuries, Masud has been metamorphed into a warrior saint (Ghazi) by muslims, with islamic rulers and historians noticing the growing popularity of the cult.
Numerous shrines of supposed warriors popped up in the region. Some place the total figure at 40 tombs/shrine in and around Bahraich in upper gangetic plains.
In 16th century AD Goswami Tulsidas refers critically to the practice to people visiting Masud’s tomb at Bahraich. He writes in Dohavali:
लही आँखि कब आँधरे बाँझ पूत कब ल्याइ ।
कब कोढ़ी काया लही जग बहराइच जाइ ॥
Trnslation: When did a blind person regain his eye sight?, when did a barren woman get son? And when a leper was cured for his leprosy and got his beautiful body back?. But even then people visit Baharaich. (for no particular reason out of misplaced superstition)
via @Kal_Chiron (http://kalchiron.blogspot.com/2008/08/battle-of-baharaich-14th-june-1033-ad.html)
There may be more such stray references on Bahraich and its events in apabhramsa, centuries preceding the evolution of Hindi (a matter of research).
Due to lack of contemporary primary sources on either sides quoting the battle. It has been binned into the legend/myth cateogry by most of the historians.
True that the battle of Bahraich hasn’t been established as an undisputable fact.
But also true is that can’t be handwaved as pure fiction.
Arguments :-
1. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Besides, two 17th century Islamic sources refer to the incident independently.
2. Records on both sides fall conspicuously silent of any raids in entire north India, let alone invasion attempts, for almost half a century after Mahmud Ghazni.
Quite uncharacterstic of our islamic zealots isn’t it?
Possible reasons?
-First, muslims were cut down to the last man at Bahraich in 1043 AD.
-Second, is that Bahraich battle was fought by federation including Pasi and Tharu tribes which were mostly forest dwelling in Himalayan foothills and not of traditionally ruling stock of gangetic plains to maintain court histories or inscriptions.
-Thirdly, one cannot expect upper caste rulers of gangetic plains to happily mention later that Pasi/Tharu tribes achieved what they couldn’t.
3. It can’t be that islamic centres in northwest had pussies in lead for 50 years after Mahmud or that Indian kings were always too powerful to be challenged. Ghori didn’t hesitate anyway, even when powerful Kings were ruling India.
So an utter absence of any attempts for half century in the otherwise consistently zealot thrusts of islam on India, tells us there is more than what meets the eye.
Similar gap occured after Arabs were thoroughly beaten in mainland India at multiple places in 8th century AD.
It took up to Mahmud Ghazni for a major invasion in Indian mainland to recur.
When you beat an enemy and kill his soldiers so resoundingly. It takes him time to regroup, re-org and renew the attacks properly.
4. Mythical folklores that our “uber modern” historians love to trash, are known to have a kernel of truth interwoven with layers of poetic rhetoric, exaggerations, interpolation etc. It creates a mesh of blurring confusion but doesn’t negate the core facts, if one is careful enough to glean them. Traditions around Masud, Sukhdev and Bahraich have similar trajectory.
5. Native powers based in Himalayan hills have handed some of the most humiliating defeats to plains based Islamic armies time and again. There are well known examples. Thus Bahraich is not an odd case in that perspective.
6. Historical facts have been many times transmitted by evolving literary traditions over the centuries where our first verifiable evidence comes hundreds of years later. PrithviRaj Raso is one such case where factual data (interwoven with layers of fiction) was preserved for centuries and we have its earliest known manuscript in late 16th / early 17th century.
7. Abdur Rahman Chishti the author of Mirat-i-Masudi knew he was talking of an event 6 centuries away.
He thus says he consulted two independent sources to reach at this history:
a) A brahmin (named Acharya Mali Bahadur) of a Raja of Himalayan hills who was well versed in Hindu history of the region. He shared the details of Bahraich battle with the author.
b) Tawarikh-i-Mahmudi by Mulla Muhammad Ghaznavi (unknown and unavailable) which author claims to be a contemporary work of 11th century AD.
Ferista & Mirat-e Masudi (both 17th cent AD) are two main sources feeding data around Bahraich battle of Hindu kings alliance against Salar Masud.
20 years old Masud had been on a campaign in India for few yrs -> Indus ->Multan ->Delhi -> Meerut ->Satrikh.
While fighting multiple battles in upper gangetic plains, he reached at Bahraich near Himalayan foothill in 1034 AD.
It was to reinforce a commander in his or his father’s command.
A group of local chieftains that the text identifies as ‘Rais’ send letter to Masud, asking him to leave the land.
After initial negotiations broke down, there were multiple skirmishes and battles with combined forces of one or few Rais at a time.
Masud is said to have won these encounters.
After a calm of 2 months, the Rais regroup, this time under leadership of SuhalDev aka SaharDev aka Sukhdev.
Sukhdev change battle tactics with special preparations against cavalry and fireworks etc.
Soon another letter was sent to Masud, warning him to vacate and return. Masud rejects the proposal again. Fighting resumes.
Masud repluses one charge but second time a chieftain SuhelDev thrusts with his reserve forces.
This time Masud’s remnant army is gradually cut down and he is seriously injured by an arrow shot in the arm and dies.
This is how Masud and his large army were surrounded and completely destroyed by forces of a grand coalition of 17 Hindu chieftains supposedly led by King Sukhdev aka Suheldev of Shravasti.
SukhDev’s (aka SuhalDev) identification is dicey though, with claims ranging from being Rajput to Himalayan foothill based Tharu or Pasi tribe.
But Sukhdev’s exact ancestry is immaterial in context of Bahraich. What matters is that he was a son of the soil, a chieftain who led a federated army to complete victory in Bahraich.
British officers who scrutinized Mirat-i-Masudi state that its major events and flow corroborate in general with other sources of history.
Thus the work cannot be handwaved as complete fiction.
I won’t say that I’m 100% convinced Bahraich took place.
But there are plenty of arguments in favour of it and thus it is a theory whose likeliness I subscribe to.
Jury is still out.
agrippedsoul 