I do not want to rob the cradle!

lots of cougars on this website.

If only I was still young I could enjoy the company of cougars. I’m 38 years old so a cougar for me would be kinda old….like weirdly old.

The regulars are incapable of staying on topic regardless of what the subject matter is.

Contemporary Indian writers are unanimous in praising Firuz Tughluq. Their view is that since the time of Nasir-ud-Din Mahmud, no king had been “so just and kind, so courteous and God-fearing, or such a builder” as Firuz was. The latter was adored by the people.

He reformed abuses. He checked extortion. He increased irrigation. He was a father to his people. He took care of the needy and unemployed. He refused to dismiss aged officials and allowed their sons to act for them. He helped the marriages of the poor Muslims.

He provided state hospitals for all classes. He was a devout Muslim. He kept fasts and said public prayer. When an old man, he went on a pilgrimage to the shrine of Salar Masud at Bahraich and humbly got himself shaved as an act of piety. He never did anything without consulting the Koran.

He even selected a Governor in accordance with a lucky omen in the sacred book. He was always worried about the welfare of his subjects. The people enjoyed prosperity during his reign.

However, there are certain aspects of his life which take away from his greatness. He was not a general and consequently he did not make any effort to reconquer the territories which had been lost in the Deccan during the reign of his predecessor. He was not strict in administration. Many examples of his misplaced generosity can be quoted. It has already been pointed out how he gives a Tanka to a trooper so that the latter could bribe his inspector. The Sultan made a mistake in organising his army on a feudal basis.

He should not have revived the Jagir system which had been abolished by Ala-ud-Din Khalji. The granting of big Jagirs was bound to create trouble and ultimately was partly responsible for the disintegration of the Tughluq Empire. The Sultan also made a mistake in creating a large number of slaves. These slaves interfered with the fall of the Tughluq Empire.

The religious policy of the Sultan was also partly responsible for the downfall of the Tughluq dynasty. The Hindus and non-Sunni Muslims became the enemies of the Tughluq dynasty.

The Sultan made a mistake in making the Ulemas the masters of the show. According to Dr. R. P. Tripathi, “The irony of history reflects itself in the unfortunate fact that the very qualities that had contributed to the popularity of Firuz were also largely responsible for the weakness of the Sultan of Delhi.

According to S. R. Sharma, “Firuz was neither an Ashoka nor and Akbar, both of whom have been noted for their religious toleration.

Firuz was fanatic like Aurangzeb, though unlike him a wine-bibber. But in spite of this, he had more of constructive wisdom in him than his dilettante predecessor possessed. Lack of martial vigor and the Unisom of feudalizing the kingdom are the only other charges that have been leveled against him.'” An attempt has been made to compare Firuz with Jalal-ud-Din Khalji. However, it is pointed out that it is better to comapare Firuz with Nasir-ud-Din Muhammad than with any other ruler.

Nasir-ud-Din, he was too much inclined towards religion and like him again he found his Balban in Khan-i-Jahan Maqbul. Both sovereigns were of a mild and forbearing disposition although Firuz was a more capable administrater. According to Sir Wolseley Haig, “Both were weak rulers, but Firuz was far less weak and vacillating than Mahmud and both were benevolent, but the benevolence of Firuz was more active than that of Mahmud.

Firuz possessed far more ability than Mahmud and his weakness consisted largely in an indolent man’s distaste for the details of business and in unwillingness to cause pain. His benevolence was indiscriminate, for he showed as much indulgence to the corrupt official as to the indigent husbandman and his passion for constructing works of public utility was due probably as much to vanity as to benevolence.'”

Henry Elliot has tried to compare Firuz with Akbar. However, Dr. Ishwari Prasad points out that the comparison is unnecessary and unjust. According to him, “Firuz had not even a hundredth part of genius of that great-hearted and broad-minded monarch who preached from the high platform of public interest the gospel of peace, goodwill and toleration towards all sects and creeds.

The reforms of Firuz lacked permanence; they failed to strengthen the Muslim polity and to gain the confidence of the Hindus whose feelings were embittered by his religious intolerance. Altogether they produced a reaction which proved fatal to the interests of the dynasty of which he was by no means an unworthy representative.”

Dr. R. C. Majumdar says: “Although the reign of Firuz was marked by mildness and beneficent activities, in striking contrast to that of his predecessor, it also undermined to a large extent, the foundation of the Sultanate.

The active interest and influence of the ‘Ulema’ and Mushaikhs in affairs of State which Firuz permitted, partly as policy and partly as an article of faith, was a retrograde step.

His connivance at the inefficiency of public servants, misplaced leniency in dealing with civil and military officials and undue favors shown to the nobility weakened the entire administrative machinery. His aversion to war against the Muslims, even when it was imperative-in striking contrast to the brutal severity with which he treated the Hindus of Katehar-and particularly his unwillingness (on the specious ground of saving Muslim women from disgrace) or inability to carry the fights to a finish, destroyed the stability of the empire.

The organisation of the slaves, though promoted by humane consideration, was no doubt partly due also to a desire to create a personal bodyguard on which the Sultan could trust for his own safety.

But as could be easily foreseen, it developed into something like a Praetorian Guard and proved to be a great disturbing factor in the State.

On the whole, in spite of peace, prosperity and contentment that prevailed during the long reign of Firuz Shah, no one can possibly doubt that his policy and administrative measures contributed to a large extent of the downfall of the Delhi Sultanate and accelerated the process of the decline that had already set in during his predecessor’s reign.”

According to Sir Wolseley Haig, “The reign of Firuz closes the most brilliant epoch of Muslim rule in India before the reign of Akbar.” In spite of his defects of character, Firuz “succeeded in improving the administration and in alleviating the lot and winning the affection of his subjects.

Military capacity and diligence in matters of detail are qualities indispensable to an oriental despot and Firuz lacked both. After two unsuccessful expeditions into Bengal he was fair to recognise the independence of that country and his rashness twice imperilled the existence of his army.

His easy tolerance of abuses would have completely destroyed the efficiency of that mainstay of absolute power, had it not been counteracted by the vigilance and energy of his officers, who were carefully selected and entirely trusted by him.

His judgment of character was indeed, the principal counterpoise to his impatience of the disagreeable details of government and the personal popularity which he enjoyed as the kindly and genial successor of a capricious tyrant secured fidelity of his trusted officers, but his extensive delegation of authority to them undermined the power of the crown.

No policy, however, well-devised could have sustained this power under the feeble rule of his successors and the terrible blow dealt at the kingdom within ten years of his death, but his system of decentralisation would have embarrassed the ablest successors and undoubtedly accelerated the downfall of his dynasty.'”

(Source:http://www.preservearticles.com/2012032929371/short-essay-on-firuz-tughluq.html)