Early Use of Cannon and Musket in India: A.D.

1442-1526
Author(s): Iqtidar Alam Khan
Source: Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol. 24, No. 2 (May, 1981), pp
. 146-164
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3631993
Accessed: 23-08-2015 09:16 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the Economic and Social History of
the Orient.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:16:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Journalof the EconomicandSocialHistoryof the Orient,Vol. XXIV, Part II

EARLY USE OF CANNON AND MUSKET

IN INDIA:
A.D. I442-1526
BY

IQTIDAR ALAM KHAN

(Aligarh)

The surviving evidence on the development of gunpowder tech-

nology in India prior to A.D. 15 z6 comprises stray statements in
the sources which can be subjected to divergent, sometimes even
contradictory,interpretations.A majorpart of this evidence, contained
in Tirikh-i Firishta (completed in A.D. 1607) and a few other later
sources like Tabaqdt-iAkbarJ (completed in A.D. I594), Burhdn-i
Ma'dsir (completed in A.D. I 594) and Mir'dt-i Sikandari(completed
in A.D. i6 I or I613), is problematicin nature.It can be relied upon
only to the extent that it is corroboratedby contemporaryrecords.
On the basis of a critical study of this evidence, it is, however,
possible to make out a plausible case that gunpowder was introduced
in the Delhi Sultanatethrough contact with the Mongols during the
13th century. The Mongols in turn had, apparently,learnedthe use of
gunpowder from the Chinese. Gunpowder was definitely being used
for display of pyrotechny at Delhi during Firiz Shah Tughlaq's reign
(A.D. 1351-88), and for militarypurposes in the form of tir-i bawd'ior
bdnin Milwa during the I5th century.But the history of the introduc-
tion into India of firearmsproper, viz., cannon and musket, before
these were employed by Bdbur (A.D. 1526-30), is yet to be worked
out properly 1).
P. K. Gode has tried to establishthat in the second half of the 15th
century, cannons and muskets were being already used in Gujarat,
Mdlwa and Kashmir. But since much of the evidence about the use

I) Cf. my article, 'Origin and Development of Gunpowder Technology in India:

A.D. I2z0-I 15oo', The Indian Historical Review, Vol. IV, No. I, July 1977.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:16:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 EARLY USE OF CANNON AND MUSKET IN INDIA I47

of cannons and musketsin this period is confinedto Persianchronicles

it could not have been directly accessible to Gode, who was not pro-
ficient in the Persian language. In his study, he had to depend on
English translationsor on the information reproduced in secondary
works. Moreover, he has taken into account mainly the information
furnished by later histories like Tabaqdt-iAkbar7and Tdrikh-iFirishta.
This made it difficultfor him to sift and criticallyexaminethe available
evidence in its totality. He was thus neither able to work out the
chronology of the introduction of cannon and musket in different
regions nor able to identify the stages through which the tactical use
of firearmswas evolved in Indiadown to A.D. 1526 2).
In addition to Gode, the problem of the introduction and use of
cannon and musket before A.D. 1526 has also been studied by M.
Akram Makhdoomeeand Abai Zafar Nadvi. Both these authors have
tried to prove that artillerywas present in the Delhi Sultanatefrom
the very beginning. By implication they suggest its introduction in
North India by the Turks. These two have sought to substantiate
this view by citing evidence derived from contemporaryas well as
later Persian texts. M. Akram Makhdoomeehas also used two of the
Persian dictionariescompiled in India during the 15th century. How-
ever, the interpretationsof both these authors often suffer from one
basic flaw. To some of the terms used for missile-throwinginstruments
in the 13th and i4th century texts, they have attributed meanings
which were attached to them in the I 5th century. In other words,
while interpreting the evidence derived from I3th and I4th century
sources, they have often tended to ignore the process of gradual
transfer of many of the terms denoting missile-throwinginstruments
like the crossbow (tufak or tufang)and the mangonel (maghribi)to
differentkinds of firearmsthat came to be used in India during the
15th century. This serious weaknessin the methodology of M. Akram

2) P. K. Gode, "Use of Guns and Gunpowderin India from A.D. 1400 Onwards",
"The Manufactureand Use of Firearmsin India Between A.D. 145o and I85o",
and "History of Fireworks in India Between A.D. I400 and I900oo, Studiesin Indian
CulturalHistory,Vol. II, Poona, I960.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:16:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
148 IQTIDAR ALAM KHAN

Makhdoomeeand Abfi Nadavi has renderedtheir studies highly

Z.afar
misleading3).
In this paper an attemptis made to re-examinethe availableevidence
in order to work out a more plausible chronology of the introduction
of cannon and musket in differentregions of the Indian subcontinent.
In this context, the interpretationsgiven by M. Akram Makhdoomee
and Abfi Zafar Nadavi to some of the terms used in Addb ul-Harb
wa'sh-Shujd'at,Khazd'in and Tdrikh-iFiruz Shdhiare examined
ul-Futk.h
with particular care. This discussion is arranged in three parts. In
the first two parts the notions that artillerywas alreadyknown in the
Delhi Sultanateat the beginning of i3th centuryand that it came to be
used on a regular basis in the Bahmani kingdom in A.D. 1368-69
are examined in depth. The third part comprises a discussion of evi-
dence suggesting the introduction of cannon and musket in India
some time duringthe I 5th century.

II
M. Akram Makhdoomee has identified kashkdanjir, a weapon men-
tioned in Addb ul-Harbwa'shShuja'at(compiled by Fakhr-iMudabbir
during Iltutmish's reign, A.D. I210-36), as 'nothing but the modern
cannon'. On this basis, he has asserted that the cannon was known
and used as early as Iltutmish's reign. According to him, at that early
stage cannon was generally not employed in warfare, 'because it still
required much improvement to be used with greater effect than the
mechanical engines'. In identifying kashkanjiras cannon, M. Akram
Makhdoomee has relied upon two pieces of evidence: (a) One of
the 15th century dictionaries, Sharafndma-i describes
the A.hmadAmunairt,
extensive force of combus-
kashkdrjiras 'a stone ball projected by
tible substances (ddrfihd-idtishin)';and (b) Bahar-i 'cjam (compiled

3) M. Akram Makhdoomee, "Gunpowder Artillery in the Reign of Sultan

Eltumish of Delhi", Journal of Indian History, Vol. XV, Part 2, August 1936, and
"The Art of War in Medieval India", IslamicCulture,Vol. XI, No. 4, October 1937;
Islamic Culture, Vol. XII,
Abe Zafar Nadvi, "The Use of Cannon in Muslim India",
No. 4. October 1938.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:16:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 EARLY USE OF CANNON AND MUSKET IN INDIA 149

by Munshi Tek ChandBahdr in A.D. 1739-40) explains the same term

as denoting 'an instrumentof war worked with gunpowder'.
This view, however, does not appearvery convincing for a number
of reasons. Firstly, as already pointed out, in attributing to the term
kashkdnjirmentioned in Addb ul-HIarbwa'sh-Shujd'at (compiled during
A.D. I210-36) a meaning given to it in the 15th and I8th century
dictionaries, Makhdoomee has adopted a questionable methodology
which may lead to serious error. It can be shown by citing examples
of a number of terms relating to mangonel, crossbow and naphta
devices that, in India as well as elsewhere, many such terms were
transferredwith the introduction of gunpowder to the processes and
weapons associatedwith the new technique. For examplethe meaning
of the term naft itself underwent a significant change with the intro-
duction of gunpowder. In Arabic as well as Persian, at least for some
time during the i4th and I5th centuries,it came to denote both naphta
and gunpowder. The term bdrid/ bdrfit, denoting gunpowder as
distinct from naphta, came into vogue only during the 16th century.
For examplein Addt ul-Fuziald'(compiledby Qzi KhdnBadr Muham-
mad DharwMlat Jaunpur in A.D. 1419-20) and Sharafndma-i Ahmad
in
Munairi (compiled by Ibrahim-i Qawdm Faruiqi Bengal during
the period A.D. 1457-64),the meaningsof the term shfira(saltpetre)
are explainedas follows:
(a) Addt ul-Fuzald'4):
"Salt derived from earth which is at times used for throwing
anddiz)."
naft.(naft. AhmadMunair75):
(b) Sharafndma-i
"Saline earth from which salt is separated.Fire-workers(naffdtdn)
are known to use it and it is also used in pyrotechny (dtishbdzi)."
4) Maulna Azad Library, A.M.U, MS, Univ. Farhang-Lughit,No. 5.
5) Sharafndma-iAhmad Munairi preserved in Mauland Azdd Library, A.M.U.,
under the title Farhang-iIbrahimi,manuscript transcribed presumably during the
i7th century, Habibganj Collection 53/22. I have also consulted the critical edition
of this farhangup to letter '"" preparedby Syed MohammadTdriq HIasan,Sharaf-
nama-i Aemad-i MunyariAnd Its Author Ibrdhim-iQawam Fdrzqi, Ph.D. Thesis,
Department of Persian, Aligarh Muslim University (unpublished).

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:16:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
15O IQTIDAR ALAM KHAN

It is obvious that in these statementsthe terms and

naftanddzi naffdtdn
do not denote "throwing of naphta"and "naphtaworkers"respective-
ly. They in fact allude to throwing of fire (or fiery missiles?) with
the help of gunpowder and to fire-workersdealing with gunpowder,
of which saltpetrewas an essential ingredient. It is a clear indication
that, as late as A.D. 1457-64, gunpowder, although in common use,
had not yet come to be termed bdrfdd/bdrft. The term bdrfdd/bdrizt
is altogether absent from these two dictionaries. Apparently during
the period these dictionarieswere compiled, gunpowder was referred
to in Indian Persian by the term naft, originally denoting any kind
of combustiblematerial.The statementin Addt ul-Fuzgald' even leaves
scope for a guess that, as was the case with Arabic in
spoken Morroco
down to the i6th century6), the term naft in Indian Persianwas also
applied to cannon. This example makes it more than clear that in
interpretingthe term naft or any of its derivativesone should always
take care to ascertainthe meaning that attachedto it at the time of the
compiling of the text in which it occurs. A similar scrutiny is equally
necessary for a correct understanding of the nature of kashkdnjir
as used in Delhi Sultanateduring the first quarterof the I3th century.
Unfortunately, Makhdoomee has not taken this precaution, and this
rendershis thesis regardingthe nature of this weapon under Iltutmish
rathersuspect.
Moreover, it should also be noted that, in Addt ul-Fuzald, the term
kashka-nfir(which is incorrectlyspelt kabkdtTir)is explainedsimply as:
dnchibadin sangfiristand("That with which they discharge stone").
Although in this statement, the description of kashkdnjfir as a missile-
throwing weapon is clearly implied, but at the same time the absence
of any reference to the use of any kind of "combustible substance"
for generating propelling energy is significant. It suggests that till
A.D. 1419-20, the term kashkdnjfir had not yet come to be associated
with any weapon worked with gunpowder. But it seems that such an
association came to be establishedsome time before A.D. 1464 which

of Islam,new edition, Vol. I, p. o158, under bdrfid.

6) Cf. G. S. Colin, Encyclopedia

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:16:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 EARLY USE OF CANNON AND MUSKET IN INDIA I I

seemingly induced the author of Sharafndma-i Ahmad Munairi(com-

piled during the period A.D. to in
I457-64) give, addition to the older
meaning given in Addt ul-Fuzald', the following explanation: "That
stone which they propel with the energy (created) by combustible
substances,(andis) known in Indiaasgola.It is also writtenas kashkdnjir
It functionallydenotesa perforator."
(.r.S-).
From the above analysis of the evidence relating to the term kash-
kdnjfr,one may conclude that the weapon mentioned in Adddb ul-Harb
wa'sh-Shuid'at (A.D. 1210-36) cannot possibly be identifiedas a firearm.
At that point of time the term kashkdnjir,apparently,denoted some
kind of mechanicaldevice for throwing missiles.
The presence of artilleryin the Delhi Sultanatetowards the close
of the I3th century is sought to be establishedby Abfi Zafar Nadvi.
He identifiesas a cannon a missile-throwingdevice used by the Rdjpfit
garrison of Ranthambhorin A.D. 1299-1300 7). Ziya'u'd-Din Barani
has referredto this device as maghribi8), while in Tdrikh-iFirishta, the
term used for it is manjaniqwhich should identify the weapon as a
mangonel 9). Rejecting Firishta's identification, Nadvi argues that if
it was reallya manjaniq, with which Baraniwas quite familiar,he would
not have used for it a differentand an altogethernew term. According
to Nadvi, cannon "was already introduced in the 6th century A.H.,
and by the end of the 7th and beginning of 8th centuriesA.H. it was
widely used in Spain,Africa, Egypt and Arabia."As it was borrowed,
he further contends, in other countries including India from Spain
and North Africa, known in Arabia as Maghrib, the weapon came to
be called maghribi10).This view is further sought to be bolstered by
citing a passage from zl-WdlihBi MuZaffarwa Alih, an Arabic
history of Gujarat compiled
.Z.afar by 'Abdu'llah Muhlammadbin 'Umar
Makki around A.D. I6o0-6. It deals with 'Ala'u'd-Din's expedition

7) Abfi Zafar Nadvi, "The Uses of Cannon in Muslim India", IslamicCulture,

Vol. XII, October 1938,pp. 405-6.
8) Cf. Ziyd'u'd-Din Barani,TJrik•-iFirZi Shhbi,edited by Shaikh'Abdu'r-Rashid,
Vol. II, Aligarh, pp. 41, 107.
9) Tjrikh-iFirishta,Vol. I, Nawal Kishore, A.H. 1321, p. io6.
i o) IslamicCulture,Vol. XII, October 1938, p. 405.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:16:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
I 2 IQTIDAR ALAM KHAN

against Ranthambhor. Muhammad bin 'Umar Makki refers to a

weapon used by the besiegers as midfawhich, according to Nadvi,
was yet another term for cannon "). Ydr Muhammad Khan too in
his note on birifdin TheEncyclopedia of Islam(new edition), has noticed
Amir Khusrai'smention of maghribisused by 'Ald'u'd-Din Khalji's
forces in the Deccan. He does not agree with the identification of
maghribias a gun, but, according to him, "this much is certain that
stone balls were discharged by the force generated by gunpowder".
A closer scrutiny of the underlying assumptionson which Nadvi's
argumentsrest and of the evidencecited by him and by YdrMuhammad
Khan shows that the views of these two authorsabout the natureof the
maghribiare quite untenable. For example it is far from certain that
artilleryhad become common in the Maghribduring the "7th and 8th
centuries A.H. (i.e. A.D. I203-1397)." According to G. S. Colin,
it is only in the context of the siege of Moclin in A.D. 1486by Christians
that an unambiguous description of the use of cannon in any part
of Maghrib occurs12). Moreover, as regards the passage cited from
17th centurysourceZafarul-WdlihBi Wa Alih by 'Abdu'lldh
Muhammadbin 'Umar Makki, it canMu.affar be relied upon for the evidence
relating to the end of I3th century only if it is establishedthat, like
Firishta's testimony about the use of gunpowder by Timfir in A.D.
1398, it is based on contemporarysources. But this discussion can
be cut short by citing two passages from Khazd'inu'lFutz'hwherein
(a) the terms maghribiand manjaniqare used interchangeably13), and
(b) a mention is made "of warriors placing heavy stones in the arm
(palla) of a maghribi" 14).These passagesclearlyshow that the maghribis
used by 'Ali'u'd-Din's forces in the Deccan were mechanicaldevices,
some kind of mangonel rather than cannon. Such an impression is
confirmedby the use of the terms manjaniq and maghribi
interchangeably
in Ma'dsir-i Shdhi(completedin A.D. 1467-68). While giving
Ma.hmid
I1) Op. cit., p. 406.
of Islam, new edition, Vol. I, p. io 57, under birfd.
1z) G. S. Colin, Encyclopedia
13) Cf. The Kha.zi'inulFuutfh,edited by Syed Moinul Aligarh, 1927, pp. 76, 97.
14) Cf. TheCampaigns .HaqAmir Khusraz7's
of 'Ald'u'd-Din Khili BeingIIagrat Khazainul
Futfi, translatedwith notes by MuhammadHabib, Madras, 1936, p. 48.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:16:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 EARLY USE OF CANNON AND MUSKET IN INDIA 153

an account of the siege of Mandalgarhby Mahmfid Khaliji in A.H.

861/A.D. 1456, Shihab IHakimrecords: "A firmdnwas issued to the
effect that they should resort to the use of royal manjaniqand raze the
rampartto the ground. In pursuanceof the firmdn,the engineers got
busy in setting up eight maghribison all the eight sides." Incidentally,
ShihdbHakim'sevidence also indicatesthat the term maghribi continued
to be used for some kind of mangonel down to the second half of the
15th century15).
III

Again, the widely shared view about the "authentic information

of the use of artilleryin the 14th century A.D." also lacks substance.
As a matter of fact, most of the evidence relied upon by Ab-o Zafar
Nadvi, Ydr Muhammad Khhn, and G. N. Pant, who subscribe to
this view, is of a very doubtful nature16). In this connection Ydr
MuhammadKhdn'sascriptionto Baraniof the descriptionof Zaimbirak
as "a small fieldgun of the size of the double musket" is absolutely
misleading. This description actually occurs in Archibald Constable's
translationof Bernier'sTravelsin the MuZthal Empire,A.D. i6 6-i668
and applies, therefore, only to the situation obtaining in the 17th
century17). It does not at all represent Ziyv'u'd-Din Barani'sunder-
standingof the term and cannot,moreover,be reliedupon for ascertain-
ing the nature of the weapon to which it applied during the 14th
century. Possibly, Ydr MuhammadKhdnhas been misled into ascribing
this statement to Barani on account of some confusion in his notes.
The meaning of the term zaTmbifrak given in Sharafndma-i
A.mad
15) Ma'dsir-iMahmfdShabi,edited by Niru'l Ansari, Delhi, 1968, pp. 38,
87. .Hasan
16) Compare, Islamic Culture,Vol. XII, No. 4, October 1938; Encyclopediaof
Islam, new edition, Vol. I, p. io69; G. N. Pant, Studiesin IndianWeapons andWarfare,
I970, p. 5.
17) Cf. William Irvine, TheArmy of theIndianMughals,reprint,New Delhi, p. 136.
This statementis cited by Irvine from Archibald Constable'stranslationof Bernier's
Travelspublished in A.D. 1891. See also second edition revised and edited by Vincent
Smith, published in A.D. 1916, p. 47 wherein the term Zatmbzrak has been eliminated
from the main body of the text but is mentioned in a footnote.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:16:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
154 IQTIDAR ALAM KHAN

Munairl (compiled during A.D. i457-64) is simply 'a sharp-pointed

weapon'. The compiler of this dictionaryalso quotes a couplet from
Iqbdl-ndma(the same as Nizdmi's Iskandar-ndma composed in A.D.
200zoo-20) which hints at the additional meaning of the term-"a
particularkind of arrowhead"--given in Farhang-iRashdi (completed
in A.D. 1653-54) and Farhang-iAnand Raj (completed in A.D. 1888).
But the referencesin Farhang-iRashidiandFarhang-iAnandRaj suggest-
ing the zavmbfrak's association with a particularkind of firearm are
totally absent from Sharafndma-i Ahmad Munair. One may, therefore,
infer that till the middle of the I5th century, when this dictionary
was compiled, the term Paynmbfrak had not become associated with
any kind of firearm.
The testimony of the Chinese traveller, Ma Huan, suggesting
manufactureof guns in Bengal in large enough numbers to facilitate
their export to other regions as one of the items of trade,is yet another
piece of evidence that deserves special notice in the context of this
discussion. Ma Huan's testimony, if accepted in its face value, would
naturallylead one to imagine that towards the end of the 14th century
guns must have alreadybecome fairly common in Bengal. But from
Bdbur's description of missiles fired by the Bengalis in the Battle of
Ghaghra (A.D. 1529) it seems that bin was the only kind of firearm
possessed by them. As has been suggested by the present author else-
where, the use of the word "guns" in the English version of Ma Huan's
travels is either a slip of translationor it has resultedfrom the Chinese
traveller's inability to find a suitable term for describing bdn. Thus
it can be safely asserted that Ma Huan's testimony cannot be treated
as conclusive evidence proving the presenceof artilleryand muskets in
any partof the Indiansubcontinentduringthe i4th century18).
However, the most significant piece of evidence purportedly in-
dicating the presence of artillery in India during the I4th century,
is a passage in Tdrikh-iFirishta,wherein it is stated on the authority

I8) Cf. "Origin and Development of Gunpowder Technology in India: A.D.

I250-I5oo", TheIndianHistoricalReview,Vol. IV, No. i, July 1977, pp. z6, 28-29.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:16:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 EARLY USE OF CANNON AND MUSKET IN INDIA 155

of an earlierhistory that in A.D. 1368-69 "kdrkhina-idtishbdzi,which

before this was not known among Muslims in Deccan, was made
the backbone (of the army)". The authority to which Firishta refers
as his source in this context is Mullh D'Nid Bedari who wrote his
book Tu.hfatu's-Saldtinduring A.D. 1397-1422 19). This book would
naturallybe regardedas a contemporarysource for the early history
of the Bahmani kingdom. Any information furnished by this source
about the developments taking place in the Bahmani kingdom in
A.D. 1368-69should be treatedas of decisivesignificance.
is not extant and it is not possible
Unfortunately, Tu.hfatu's-Sala~in
to check the veracity of the statementsattributedby Firishtato Mullh
Dd'uid Bedari. Nevertheless, if Firishta'sfrequent referencesto extant
sources are any guide, one may safely assume that his paraphrasing
of information from other books generally remains faithful to the
original version in its broad outlines as well as specific details. There
is discernible a tendency on his part to occasionallymeddle with the
original version only in two respects. Firstly, sometimes he replaces
old technical, military and administrative terms by those current
during his own time. Secondly,he at times adds his own interpretation
of the information furnished by an earlier source. While examining
the passagementionedabove one should keep in mind thesepeculiarities
of Firishta's treatment of information borrowed from other works.
Only then would it be possible to fully appreciatethe real import
of the information reproduced by him from Mulli Di'id Bedari's
account 20).
The information relating to the procurement of some kind of
gunpowder devices by SultanMuhammadShahBahmaniin A.D. 1368-
69, which Firishtaclaimsto have borrowedfrom MullhDiid Bedari's
account, comprises five distinct statements. These statementes are
arrangedbelow in the sequencethatthey occurin the text:

19) Tdrikh-i Firishta, Vol. I, Nawal Kishore, pp. 290-91, 308.

20o) Fora scrutiny of information borrowed by Firishtafrom earlier sources on
the mining of the forts of Bhatnairand Meerut by Timir cf. TheIndianHistorical
Review, Vol. IV, No. i, July 1977, pp. 21, 26.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:16:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
I 56 IQTIDAR ALAM KHAN

(a) After defeating an invading army of the Vijayanagarempire,

the Sultan captured three thousand ardba-i top wa Zarbuzan.
(b) While subsequentlymobilising his forces for an invasion of the
Vijayanagar territory, the Sultan "sent firmins to the forts
(located) in the imperial territories requisitioning many tops
andzarbuzans(bisydrtopwa talbkard)."
.arbuzan
(c) "The kdrkhdna-idtishbdzi,which before this was not known
(shd'ina bid) among Muslimsin Deccan, was made the backbone
of the army(mu.hul-i
i'timddsdkhta)."
(d) MuqarrabKhan was put in charge of the kdrkhdna-idtishbdi.
(e) Many Firingis and Raimiswho were in the service of the state
were put underMuqarrabKhdn'scommand.
(f) "A large arsenal came into existence (topkhdna-ibuzurgtartib
yafta)."
In this break-up, the statement 'c' is of crucial importance and its
meaning can be fully comprehendedonly if one is able to correctly
interpret the expression 'kdrkhdna-idtishbdzi'. The question that
needs to be answeredis as to how far the renderingof this expression
by Nadvi as "a factory of firearms"is acceptable?In this connection,
it is worth rememberingthat in the I6th centuryadministrativeparlance
the term kdrkhdnahad a multidimensional connotation. It applied
to a workshop, "a departmentalestablishmentsuch as a commissariate
or the artillery park in the fields", a store, or even a stable21). To
render this term "a factory", though linguisticallypermissible,would
mean importing into this expression a modern connotation lacking
the subtlety of the original meaning. Moreover, the translationof the
term dtishbdzias "firearms"is patently wrong. The word "firearm"
applies mainly to a weapon from which "a shot is discharged by

21) For the use of the term Karkhbna to denote administrative establishment in
a 15th century chronicle, see Ma 'dsir-i MahmfidShJhi, p. 50o. Shihdb Hakim mentions
'ahdawardn-i karkhina-i daulat ("the officials of the royal establishment") making
arrangements, in A.D. 1472-73, for festivities on the occasion of the marriage of
one of Sultan Mahmfld Khalji's sons. See also Henry Yule and A. C. Burnell, Hobson-
Jobson,new edition by William Crooke, reprint, Delhi, 1968, pp. 163, 475.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:16:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 EARLY USE OF CANNON AND MUSKET IN INDIA I 7

gunpowder" and is commonly used only for small arms. On the other
hand, the term dtishb.ziexclusively denotes pyrotechny. In all propa-
bility, it came into vogue in India after the introductionof gunpowder
during the 14th century.
In the light of this discussion, it may be suggested that a more
accurate rendering of the expression kirkhdna-idtishbdJzi should be
"departmental establishment of pyrotechny" meaning apparentlythe
wing of the armythat specialisedin the use of some kind of gunpowder
devices. The statement"c" above could thus be interpretedto convey
that before A.D. 1368-69 gunpowder was not used by the Bahmanis
for military purposes. It was only during the years A.D. 1368-69
that a separateestablishmentspecialisingin the manufactureand use
of gunpowderdevices for militarypurposes,was createdin the Bahmani
kingdom. One might also guess that one of the gunpowder devices
acquiredby the Bahmanisat this time could have been the tir-i hawd'i
or bdn,a weapondevelopedand used in India at a very earlydate.
This statementalso tends to imply that the new militarytechnique
acquired by the Bahmanis in A.D. 1368-69 was already known to
Muslims in North India (i.e. the Delhi Sultanate)as well as to non-
Muslims in the Deccan (i.e. the Vijayanagarempire). The presence
of gunpowderand its use for makinga pyrotechnicdevice, hawrid
(whichon being firedemittedsparksin picturesquepatterns),in the
Delhi Sultanate during A.D. 1357-88 is confirmed by contemporary
evidence 22). It is a possibility that this device came to the Bahmani
kingdom from the Delhi Sultanate.
The above interpretationof the statement 'c' suggests the use of
term topkhdna in statement"f" above in a more generalsense of arsenal
ratherthan a park of artillery.This term, which came into vogue only
in the I6th century,seemsto be Firishta'ssubstitutefor some archaic
expressionof MullaDd'3idBedari.
The expression top-waZarbutanwhich figures twice in the passage
underdiscussionposes a problem.The use of this expressionin state-
edited by MaulaviVilyat, Husain, Calcutta,
22) 'Afif, Tarikh-iFirfzi Shabhi,
A.D. 1890, pp. 365-7.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:16:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
158 IQTIDAR ALAM KHAN

ment "b" suggests the presence of a large number of cannons in the

forts controlled by Muhammad Shdh Bahmani even before A.D. 1368-
69. Such an interpretation, however, cannot be regarded as valid, for it
would render this statement totally inconsistent with what is conveyed
by the statement "c". If the Bahmanislacked the capabilityof using
gunpowder for military purposes down to A.D. 1368-69, then how
could it have been possible for SultanMuhlmmad Bahmanito requisi-
tion in the same year a large number of artillery pieces from the forts
controlled by him? It might be suggested that in the text under dis-
cussion the original terms used by Mulla DiP'id Bedari for different
kinds of missile-throwing engines have been replaced by Firishta
with those in vogue during his own time for similarweapons worked
with gunpowder. Conversely, it is also possible that the terms top
and Zarbuzanwere there in the original text but carriedthe meanings
that were attached to them prior to the introduction of firearms.
But in the absence of contemporaryevidence, one cannot be certain
of these terms being used, during the I4th century, for any kind of
weapons of war. Zfzfdn-iGfzyd(compiled during the first half of the
15th century) is perhaps the earliest Persian dictionary compiled in
India that notices the word top but it gives only one meaning, viz.,
dida (Steingass: an eye; any thing like the eye; a mesh; a ring). Sig-
nificantly enough, Zz7fdn-iGzyd does not hint at the identificationof
top as firearm.It might be taken as an indicationthat until the middle
of the th centurythis word did not denote a cannon.
1•
From the above discussion it clearly emerges that the available
evidence does not support the presence of artillery in India during
the 14th century. Firishta's evidence about the creation of kdrkhdna-i
dtishbdziin the Bahmanikingdom in A.D. 1368-69cannot be construed
as suggesting the introductionof cannon.It is, apparently,a referenceto
the acquiringof bdnsand otherpyrotechnicdevicesfor militarypurposes.

IV
There are frequent referencesto the use of firearms(top-wa tufang)
and also to the presence of artillerymen(piyddatopchi-wa-tir-andtdin)

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:16:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 EARLY USE OF CANNON AND MUSKET IN INDIA I 59

in differentparts of the Indian subcontinentduring the I5th centuryin

Tabaqdt-i Akbari (completed in A.D. I594), Burhdn-i Ma'asir (com-
pleted in A.D. I594), Tdrikh-i Firisbta (completed in A.D. 1607) and
Mir'dt-i Sikandarz(completed in A.D. I6Ii or 1613). For the first
half of the I 5th centurysuch referencesare confinedto Tdrikh-iFirishta
and Mir'dt-i Sikandari.Mir'adt-iSikandari'sreference to the presence
of firearmsduring the first half of the I5th centurydates back to A.D.
1411-12 and it pertains to Gujardt 23). The references in Tdrikh-i
Firishta for this early period date from A.D. 1423 and A.D. 1429-30
and relate to the Bahmani kingdom and the Delhi Sultanaterespec-
tively 24). For the second half of the 15th century such references are
found in all the four chronicles and relate to the Deccan, Gujardt,
Mdlwaand Kashmirand, what is of greatersignificance,they occasion-
ally corroborateeach other.
This evidence, although furnished by later chronicles, cannot be
ignored altogether, especially in view of contemporary evidence
which testifies to the existence and use, mainly as siege weapons, of
firearmsin the Deccan and Gujardtduring the twenty years preceding
Bdbur'sinvasions 25). In this connection, it is also worth noting that, in
the L6di empire,cannonwas familiarenough to have been depictedin a
painting prepared during Sikandar L6di's reign (A.D. 1489-1517) by
an artist living in the vicinity of Agra 26). The last mentioned evidence

23) Mir')t-i Sikandari,Bombay, A.H. 1308, p. 28.

24) Tdrikh-iFirishla, Vol. I, Nawal Kishore, pp. I66, 320-21.
25) Ludovico Di Varthema, who visited Gujardtin A.D. 15o6, testifies to the
presence of much artilleryat Diu. (The Travelsof LudovicoDi Varthema,p. 92). The
Portuguese chronicler, Fariay Souza maintains that several kings of the Deccan,
had "much better stored artillerythan we that attackedthem in A.D. 15o6". (Cited
from R. C. Majumdar'snote, "The Use of Guns in Medieval India" in The Delhi
Sultanate,BharatiyaVidya Bhavan, Bombay, A.D. i960, p. 461). The impression
given by the above two sources is confirmedby Durat Barbosa,who visited western
coast of India in A.D. 1515. (The Book of Duarte Barbosa,The Hakluyt Society,
Vol. 44, PP. 131-32).
26) Cf. Karl Khandalavalaand Moti Chandra, An IllustratedAranyakaParvan
in the Asiatic Societyof Bombay,Bombay, 1976, pp. 36, 49 and Figure o0: TheSiege
of Dvdraka"The fort is representedby a simple rectangularstructurewith a wide
battlemented arch which probably represents the main bastion; on either side of
the arch a cannon is mounted." (I am grateful to my friend Mr Simon Digby, who
drew my attention to this valuable source.)

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:16:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
16o IQTIDAR ALAM KHAN

particularlypoints to the presence of cannon in North India at quite

an early date during the 15th century. But the question as to when it
was introducedhere as also in the other regions of the Indian subcon-
tinent can only be answered after the evidence available in the later
sources mentioned above has been sifted and analysed properly.
Of the three referencesin the later chronicles to the use of firearms
in India during the first half of the 15th century, it is possible to cross
check with a contemporarysource only in the case of one that pertains
to an expedition sent against the rebellious commandantof Tabarhind
(modern Bhatinda) by the Saiyid ruler of Delhi in A.D. 1429-30.
Yahya writing during A.D. 1428-34, vaguely confirms the availability
of siege appliances(asbdb-ihisargiri),but there is no suggestion any-
where in the text of their identificationwith firearms27). As regards
the other two references too, in the absence of any corroborative
evidence, it is difficult to judge whether they are genuine references
to firearmsor merely substitute words used by Firishta and Sikandar
bin M. Manjhi for terms used in earlier sources to denote different
kinds of missile-throwing appliances. Thus, in view of vague and
uncertain nature of the available evidence, it is not possible to con-
fidently assume the existence of cannon, or for that matter any other
kind of firearms,duringthe firsthalf of the I 5th century.
M. Akram Makhdoomee is, however, inclined to believe that the
musket was alreadyin use in India during the first quarterof the 15th
century. He has based his argument on a notice in Adit ul Fuzald'
(completed in A.D. 1419-20) on "tufung".He has renderedthis notice
into English in the following words:
"a tube (nl) from which the bullets (ghalila) are discharged"
This descriptionof tufungas some kind of 'barrel'used for discharging
a ball or pellet (the translationof ghalila as 'bullet'is rathertendentious)
might superficiallysuggest that it was a firearm, a kind of musket.
A closer scrutiny of the same manuscriptof Addt ul-Fuzald',to which

27) Yahyd ibn-i Ahmad, Tdrikh-i MubdrakShabi, edited by Hiddyat JIusain,

Calcutta,A.D. 1931, p. z x5.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:16:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 EARLY USE OF CANNON AND MUSKET IN INDIA IGI

this statement is attributed by M. Akram Makhdoomee, however,

shows that his reading of the text is deficient in several respects.
Firstly, the word under which the above notice occurs is spelled
tufak and not tufung.Secondly, it is revealed that the tube or barrel
used in a tufakconsisted of a hollow trunk of a tree or a culm of some
kind of reed. This in turn indicates that it is most probably not a
description of a firearm. But one can justify such an understanding
of the real import of Adt zul-Fuzald'snotice on tufak only if it is read
with the notice in the same lughaton the word ghdyfik(Steingass: a
play-ball;a cannon ball). The texts of these two notices are as follows:
tufak
"nay-itir / nay-inarrakhdl1
kardaki biddnghalila andd7and,
mdnind-itfr rawand."
"They empty the tube of a tree trunk (or a culm of a reed?) and with that
(device) throw ball. It proceeds like an arrow".

Ghaidyfk
"Gumdnkardaay
ghaldla-igilin
mdsikinki ghalia-andd.zdnba kamdn-i
nay-inarraanddZand."
"They regard it a hard ball made of mud which the shooters of ball throw with
a bow consisting of a tube of tree trunk (or of a culm of reed?)."

In the reading of Adit ul FzuZald's notice on tufak suggested above,

the crucial expression, which goes to show that the tube used in this
weapon consisted of a hollow trunk of a tree or culm of reed, is,
nay-inarrakhdlikarda(ofJ . )j J). In the manuscript,it is written as
nay-itir khdl karda("they empty the tube of an arrow")which sounds
odd. The alternative and ostensibly more accurate reading of this
expression as nay-i narrakhd1ikardais indicated by the reference to
kamdn-inaynarra(bow consisting of a tube of tree trunk or of a culm
which appearsto be the same weapon
of reed), in the notice on ghdyvik,
as is calledelsewherein the sametext tufak.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:16:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
I62 IQTIDAR ALAM KHAN

As alreadypointed out, the evidence furnishedby Firishtaand other

later sources on the existence of firearmsin India during the second
half of the 5th century appears more significant than that relating
to the first half. For this period, specificinstancesmentionedby Firishta
of the use or acquiring of firearm are corroborated by other later
sources. The earliest reference of Firishta to firearms receiving this
kind of corroborationpertains to the siege of Mandalgarhby Sultan
Mahmaid Khalji in A.D. 1456. Nizamu'd-Din supports Firishta's
accountof the use of cannonby the Mdlwaforces to blow up a reservoir
inside the fort. Similarly,Nizamu'd Din also corroboratesFirishta's
testimony about the introduction of firearmsin Kashmir during the
reign of Sultan Zainu'l 'Abidin (A.D. 1422-72). Both of them credit
a certainJHabibAtishbdzfor introducingtufangin Kashmir.Nizdmu'd-
Din furnishesthe additionalinformationregardinga book (presumably
relating to pyrotechny) compiled by Zainu'l 'Abidin with IHabib's
assistance. Absence of this informationfrom Firishta'saccount might
indicate that the source relied upon by him for this development was
not the same as that of Nizamu'd-Din 28). Other such instances of
corroborationof information relate to (a) Sultan Mahmdd Baighdra's
expedition, in A.D. 1472-73, against pirates in the Gulf of Cambay;
(b) Sultan Muhammad Shdh Bahmani's military campaigns, in A.D.
1472-73, against the ruler of Vijayanagarand the chiefs allied with
him, including the chief of Belgam; and (c) the siege of Champanir
by Sultan MahmaidBaighdrain A.D. 1484-85. Of these cases, the use
of firearms during Sultan Mahm-id Baighara's expedition against
pirates in the Gulf of Cambay is corroboratedby three authorities,
namely Ahmad, Firishta and Sikandarbin Manjhti.
Regarding Sultan Muhammad Shah Bahmani's campaign in A.D.
Niz.mu'd-Din
1472-73, Firishta's evidence is confirmed by Burhdn-iMa'asir (A.D.
1594), which is one of the earliest histories of the Muslim rule in the
Deccan.
The above array of significant testimonies of the later chronicles
28) Cf. Ahmad, Tabaqdt-iAkbari, edited by B. De, Vol. III, pp.
and Vol. II, p. 25 I.
339-40 Tdrikh-iFirishta,
Niz.amu'd-Din

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:16:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 EARLY USE OF CANNON AND MUSKET IN INDIA 163

pointing to the presence of firearmsin India during the second half

of the 15th century is indirectlysupportedby contemporaryevidence.
At one place in Ma'dsir-iMahmidShabhi (completed in A.D. I467-68),
the use of missile-throwingdevices at Mandalgarhis describedin the
following words 29):
"By the impact of the balls of the ra 'd (gola-i rcad) and stones of the manjaniq
(sang-i manjaniq), the rampart of the fort was demolished"

The use of the term gola for the projectile thrown by the appliance
identifiedas ra'd, in order to distinguishit from sang(stone) used in a
manjaniq, is very significant.It tendsto suggest that, towardsthe middle
of I 5thcentury,the termra'dappliedto a weapon qualitativelydifferent
from an ordinary mangonel. The impression that the ra'd would be
only used for throwing a gola goes to indicate that it was an appliance
in which the projectile had to pass through a barrel, a description
that fits well with that of a cannon. Such an impression is further
strengthenedby the mannerin which MahmiidGdwana contemporary
writer, refers to the effective use of the ra'd by the Bahmanisduring
the siege of Machalin A.D. 1470. MahmaidGdwdn,who was present
in that expedition, records 30):
"The flood of the blood-shedding arrowheads and the lustre (ejb)of the sword
and roaring ra' d, having the effect of a thunderbolt, were showered (on the fort)
in such a manner that the battlements, niches, windows and porticos of that
lofty fort were razed to the ground"

In any case, if the ra'd's identificationwith cannon, which seems so

plausible, is accepted, then it would not be wrong to assume that
cannon was already in use in India as early as A.D. 1442-43. According
to Shhdb Hakim, in A.D. 1442-43 the Sisodias used kamdn-i ra'd at
Chitor against the invading army of Mdlwa31). The references in

29) Ma 'sir-i Mahmz7d Shdhi, p. 87.

30) Malhmid Gdwdn, edited by ShaikhChand, Hyderabad,1948,
Riyd.Zu'l-Insha',
p. 72.
31) MahmfdShahi, p. 56. Here it is of interest to note Sharfu'd-Din
cAll Yazdi's testimony to the presence of ra'ad-andjaanin the army of the Delhi
Ma'.sir-i
Sultanate in A.D. 1398 compiled in A.H. 828/A.D. 1424-25, edited
(.Zafar-ndma,

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:16:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
I64 IQTIDAR ALAM KHAN

Riydzu'l-Inshad'to the use of this weapon in Sultan MuhammadShah

Bahmani's campaigns in A.D. 1470 further suggest that during the
seventies it was availableto the Bahmanirulers32).

V
The foregoing discussion suggests the following stages of develop-
ment.
(a) There does not seem to be much substance in Makhdoomee's
view that firearms were present in the Delhi Sultanate as far
back as Iltutmish'sreign.
(b) Neither is it possible to prove the use of cannon by 'Ala'u'd-
Din Khalji'sforces on any occasion.
(c) Apparently hawd'i or bdn was the earliest kind of gunpowder
device used in Indiafor militarypurposes.
(d) In all probability,the much debated passage in Tdrikh-iFirishta
mentioning the establishment of kdrkhdna-idtishbbti in the
Bahmani kingdom in A.D. 1368-69 actually refers to the ac-
quisition by them, for militarypurposes, of pyrotechnicdevices
like the bdn.
(e) The presence of cannon and musket in different parts of the
Indian subcontinent during the second half of the 15th century
cannot be seriously doubted.
(f) It is likely that the missile-throwing weapon known during
the second half of the I5th century as ra'd or kamdn-ira'd was
actuallya cannon.
by Maulavi Muhlammad Ilihdad, Calcutta, 1887, p. ioo). There is, however, no
way of ascertaining whether in A.D. 1398 the term ra'd had the same connotation
that it appears to have acquired seventy years later.
32) RiyJzu'l-Insha, pp. 72-74.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:16:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions