The Soomras of Sindh: their origin, main characteristics and rule
. – an overview (general survey) (1025 – 1351 AD)
Dr.
Habibullah Siddiqui
1.
Introduction:
Soomra is a prominent historical race, but the
available historical studies on Sindh are bereft of its history in full detail
and continuum. The history of Sindh has many a vacuum, which have to be
bridged. Historically, Soomras are the first to wrest Sindh from the Arab rule
(712 – 1025 AD). They substituted the Arab Habari government of al-Mansurah
(875 – 1025 AD) after the episode of Sultan Mahmud Ghaznavi’s sack of al-Mansurah
and unsuccessful hold over Sindh. Following the historical method, Soomras
should be studied along with the rest of the races and tribes that inhabited
Sindh and the events that occurred in the eleventh century AD: They were the
Sama, Sehta, Abra, Sodha, Channa, Panhwar, Pahore, Gujar, Bhatti, Jarija (Sama)
Thahim, Gaha, Taunr, Baran, Juneja (Sama), Rajar, Rajpar, Kachhela and the
rest, who supported Soomras in their historical struggle to establish a local
rule in Sindh. They were settled on their farmlands from Mirpur Mathelo to
Wagah Kot and further into the Kutch-Bhuj. Internally independent, they paid
the tribute and supplied levies to the Soomra government. Besides the Soomra
hold, the Jat and Malah tribesmen were also strong enough to challenge the
Ghaznavid boats on the Indus in 1027-28 AD). The Soomras led the national
resistance against foreign occupation and rule.
2.
The origin of Soomra race:
Writers differ on the origin of the Soomra
race: Whether they are ethnic indigenous Sindhis, a Rajput racial stock, or an
Arab race? Historians draw conclusion from socio-cultural as well as the
historical and archaeological evidence. The way in which the history of Sindh
has been recorded in the past, does not admit of the historical method. However,
according to the available printed material, Mir Tahir Muhammad Nisyani, in his
Tarikh Tahiri (1621 AD) asserts that Soomras were originally Hindus. 1 They
converted to Islam but remained Hindu in their customs, dress and even in their
names. Tarikh Waqa`i Rajisthan corroborates this viewpoint and confirms that
Soomras were originally “Parmar Rajputs”. They are mentioned as Qarmati, by
Hamdani Abbas in his article published in Darul Ma`arif, Cairo. However,
according to a local researcher, Maulai Shedai, Soomras were Parmar Rajputs,
and amongst them, Amrah Soomro was the first to accept Islam. Again, however,
from Bashari Maqdisi, Al Beruni, and the Cambridge History of India (Vol. II),
we note that it was during the Soomra rule (1025 – 1351 AD) that the “Rajput”
migrated from India to Sindh. 2 Dr. N. A. Baloch, the eminent modern scholar of
Sindh has written as exhaustive book on the Soomra Period, in which the
conflicting versions about the origin of the Soomra race are reconciled: a
hybrid race of Sindhi-Arab blood, that emerged after the Ummayad caliph
Sulaiman bin Abdul Malik (715-17 AD)’s decree asking Arab officers posted in
Sindh to settle in the land permanently. Consequently they took Sindhi wives
and subsequently married their daughters in Sindhi families. Hence, Dr. Baloch
writes that “Soomras were descendents of these hybrid princes, whose ancestors,
according to common legend, were either Arabs or their grand-sons on the
mothers’ side”. 3 The evidence, if a common legend can provide one, is nonetheless
tilted towards the Arab origin. It is also suggested that the name Soomra is a
corrupt form of the Arabic name Samarrai i.e. the inhabitants of Samarra, a
town built by the Abbasid Caliph Al-Mu`tasim (r. 833 – 842 AD) in 836 AD and
named سرا من الرا
Sarrah man ra`a, i.e. pleased in he who sees it. 4 It remained the
capital for 56 years (836 – 892 AD). It is argued that after the decline of
Samarra, some of its Arab inhabitants migrated to Sindh and settled there for
good. Habaris were then ruling in Sindh. By all norms of historical
identification, the Soomra race appears to be an ancient indigenous race of
Sindh. The Sumerians of Babylonian civilisation could be their ancestors. A
modern writer laments that archaeological findings are discussed, but “none of
the scholars has tried to link the living traditions of the living Sumras
(Soomras) with the dead history of the dead Sumerians”. 5 Te history of Sindh
will fold in to bridge its gaps if research is conducted by a realistic
approach. Literary Conference on Soomra Period in Sindh Literary Conference on
Soomra Period in Sindh
3.
The Soomra rule:
In
the year 1025 AD, “Soomras assembled at Tharee in taluka Matli of the present
Badin district, and raised their Chief (Sardar) Soomro by name to be ruler of
Sindh”. 6 Mir Ma`sum mentions nine rulers, Armel Soomro being the last one.
But, Hamir son of Dodo-V is considered by consensus to be the last ruler of
Soomro Dynasty, on the authority of letters of Ainul Mulk Mahru, the then
governor of Multan (1352 – 1365 AD). 7
3.
(b). Succession – list:
1).
Sardar Soomar, ruled at Tharee (1025 – 1030 AD).
2).
Ibn Soomar Rajpal, Dodo-I ruled up to Uch (1030 – 1054 AD), died issueless.
3).
Bhoongar-I, son of Khafif (the last ruler of Mansurah, 1011 – 1026) ruled for
14 years (1054 1068 AD).
4).
Dodo-II, abdicated after 20 years’ rule (1068 – 1089 AD) and his minor son,
Sanghar was raised to the throne under the regency of his elder sister Tari.
5).
Tari ruled for 3 years (1089 – 1092 AD), till Sanghar came of age.
6).
Sanghar ruled independently for 15 years (1092 – 1107 AD). He is mentioned in
the Antiquities of Kutch & Kathiawar as having “directed his efforts
against…..Kutch and extended his sway… (to) Manik Bai”. 8 He died issueless,
and his Gujar wife Hamoon occupied the throne with the help of her brother
Phatoo, but the Soomra nobles crushed the conspiracy and raised a son of
Dodo-II to the throne.
7).
Khafif-II, son of Dodo-II ruled for 36 years (1107 – 1142 AD), and annexed a
part of Kutch territory with Sindh.
8).
Umar-I (1142 – 1181 AD): After his rule Ghorid invasion of Sindh occurred; and
during his rule, Phatoo Soomro, the ruler of Nagarparkar, occupied the entire
Kutch territory (1178 AD), for some time, which was retrieved by Samas.
9).
Dodo-III (1181 – 1195 AD). He contended with the Ghorid occupation of Debal and
also attacked the Samas of Kutch. The Ghorid rule was made impossible, and Jam
Lakho Samo submitted and was pardoned for his designs on Thatta.
10).
Bhoongar-II (1195 – 1226 AD): During his rule Sultan Jalaluddin Khwarizm Shah
wrought destruction in Sindh and occupied Debal, where Chanesar Soomro was
ruling. He fled and returned to re-occupy Debal. 9
11).
Ganhwar (1226 – 1242 AD)
12).
Muhammad Toor (1242 – 1251 AD)
13).
Amrah Soomro (1251 – 1256 AD) No historical record is available for these
rulers except that Amrah Soomro is mentioned as the builder of a new capital,
Muhammad (Mahatam) Toor and the one who established a regular Soomra rule all
over Sindh.10 The subsequent history is blank on the rule of the rest of the
identified Soomra rulers, as under:-
14).
Ganhwar-II (1256 – 1259 AD)
15).
Dodo-IV (1259 – 1273 AD)
16).
Tai (1273 – 1296 AD)
17).
Chanesar (1296 – 1300 AD)
18).
Bhoongar-III (1301 – 1315 AD)
19).
Khafif-III (1315 – 1333 AD)
20).
Dodo-V, Umar-II, Bhoongar-IV and Hamir, son of DodoV (1333 – 1351 AD)
21).
Hamir in exile (1351 – 1355 AD)
The Kingdom of Umarkot:
Hamir
Soomro continued Soomra rule in Thar. His son Umar ruled at Umarkot (1355 –
1390 AD). Bhoongar-V succeeded him (1390 – 1400 AD); and Hamir-II ruled for 40
years more (1400 1440 AD).
4. The Soomra traditions and the main
tharacteristics of their rule:
a)
The Rajput tradition of killing womenfolk before being killed on the
battlefield is also visible in the existent history of the Soomras as evinced
in Dastan DodoChanesar.
b) The ancient Sindhi tradition of Saam (protection) was in vogue. The following contemporary evidence exists. Abro, the protector of Soomra womenfolk in Dastan Dodo-Chanesar, says: Literary Conference on Soomra Period in Sindh Literary Conference on Soomra Period in Sindh
. i.e. The Soomra womenfolk
are with me till I live. If I deliver these kite like women (to the enemy), The
Sun will not rise straight, The earth will not give yield.
c).
The most prominent historical tradition of Soomras is their power of resistance
against an alien rule; and their ability to unite Sindhi tribes in the face of
such instance: The Ghaznavid occupation and rule was thwarted by the continued
warriors of Soomra, Jat and Med (Mohana) tribes. Soomras secured independence
of Sindh for over 125 years (1051 – 1176 AD) by their military prowess and
ability to maintain national unity. The Ghorid invasion and occupation of Debal
in 1176 was made short lived. Another 75 years of Sindh history (1176 – 1251
AD) shows Soomras maintaining national leadership and ultimate establishment of
their rule over Sindh on firm footing.
d). Religious, educational, cultural and literary development: For sure the Soomra government facilitated public preaching of Islam; and also maintained religious harmony. The evidence of Ismaili dais cordial relations with Sunni Sufis is well established. The Soomra rule is also credited with promotion and development of Sindhi language and culture. It was made the medium of instruction (education) and poetry. A superb piece of poetry pertaining to Soomra period has survived: A poetess, who called herself Salkah Majzoobah composed the following couplet:
”
i.e. If you like to rain, let you, people believe your promise, Do not wait
now, The seasons have returned.
Apart
from the poetic excellence, the quoted couplet reflects developed Sindhi
linguistic status. It was the product of wellestablished madressahs having
Sindhi medium of instruction. The Soomra madressahs at Agham Kot, Mahatam Toor
and village Jinhan Soomro were veritable seats of learning. On Bakhar island in
the Indus, Shaikh Nooh Bakhri (1144 – 1235 AD) managed a Suhrwardi Sufi Khanqah
and madressah.14 Sehwan Madressah Fuq`hai Islam had Makhdoom Usman Marwandi
(1162 – 1274 AD) on its faculty. He authored five books for the madressah
curriculum, which remained in use centuries afterwards till the British
occupation of Sindh in 1843 AD. The titles only are now left with us, which are
(i) Mizan-i- Sarf, (ii) Ajnas, (iii) Qism-i-Doyam, (iv) Aqd, and (v) Zubdat.
The survived the demise of Makhdoom Usman Marwandi, alias Hazrat Qalandar Lal
Shahbaz (d. 1274 AD). It was managed by Muslin philanthropists and educators
named Makhdoom Noorullah, Shah Abdullah and Abdur Rahman. Egyptian students
were reportedly on the rolls of Madressah Fuqhai Islam Sehwan Sharif. Ibn
Batuta stayed at this madressah during his sojourn in Sehwan (Sept. 1333 AD).
Pir Patho (d. 1248 AD) and Shah Jameeal Dataar Girnari (1185 – 1244 AD)
preached Islam in Thatta region. The missionaries of Islam abounded in Sindh.
Only some names have come down in history e.g. Pir Haji Ismail Panhwar of Pat
(d. 1196 AD) and his assistant Pir Bhirkyo (d. 1200 AD), the four sons of Shah
Dataar viz. Shah Hassan, Shah Goriya, Shah Aari and Shah Lal Chhato, and other
missionaries like Shah Wajihuddin son of Syed Fateh Shah, Shaikh Zakarya (who
is buried at Dando (Badin district), Karim Qitaal Girya etc. There were many
devoted Islamic missionaries in Sindh during the Soomra rule, who were
patronised and provided security. Thus Islam spread by leaps and bounds, during
this period, to make Sindh a Muslim majority land for good.15
5.
Notes, references and bibliography:
1.
Nisyani, Tahir Muhammad, Mir: Tarikh Tahri, Sindhi translation by Niaz
Hamayuni, Sindhi Adabi Board, Jamshoro, 1998, Pp. 32-33.
2.
Siddiqui Habibullah, Dr.: Education in Sindh, Past & Present, Institute of
Sindhology, University of Sindh, Jamshoro, II ed. 2006, P-89.
3.
Baloch, N. A. Dr.: Soomran-jo-Daur, Sindhi Adabi Board, 1980, Pp. 239-40.
4.
Hitti, Philip, K: History of the Arabs, Macmillan & Co. New York, Pp.
466-68.
5.
Sumra, Abdul Haq, Dr.: The Soomras, Beacon Books Multan, 1992, Pp. 80-81.
6.
Ma`sum, Mir: Tarikh-i-Sindh (Persian), Urdu translation by Dr. N. A. Baloch,
Pp. 84-85.
7.
Baloch, N. A. Dr.: Soomran-jo-Daur, Op. Lit. Pp. 120, 126.
8.
Burgess, James: Antiquities of Kutch & Kathiawar, Sindhi Adabi Board,
Jamshoro, 1991, Pp. 197-98.
9.
Baloch, N. A. Dr.: Sindh: Studies in History, Vol. I. 1996, P-118.
10.
Siddiqui, Education…Op. Lit. P986.
11.
Ibid, P-93.
12.
Junejo, Abdul Jabbar, Dr.: Sindhi Adab-ji-Tarikh, Vol. I, Sindhi Language
Authority, Hyderabad, 2004, P-29.
13.
Ibid.
14.
Siddiqui, Op. cit. Tarikh Babul-Islam Sindh, Vol. I, Habib Siddiqui Academy,
Jamshoro, II edition, 2007, Pp. 29, 31.
15.
Ibid: Edu….Op. cit. Pp. 91, 149 (for details).
CAN BANBHORE EXCAVATION, PUT SOME LIGHT ON SOOMRA PERIOD POTTERY
TRADE?
Dr. Kaleemullah Lashari
Banbhore is located some 40 miles east of Karachi,
Pakistan and is an easily accessible site by National Highway.
The site was examined early in 20th century by
Henry Cousens and N.G. Majumdar of Indian Archaeological Survey; later Mr.
Leslie Alcock did some earlier excavations in 1951, for the newly created
Department of Archaeology of Pakistan. Substantive excavations began in 1958
and continued till 1966, revealing a plan of a well fortified harbor town.
Three distinctive periods were reported: the
ScythoPathian, Hindu-Buddhists, and Islamic; dateable from 1st century BC to
13th century AC [Pak. Archaeology #1, p50]. According to the excavators main
portion of the site showed a long period of occupation from the eighth to the
thirteenth century CE. The earliest phase was assigned to the Umayyad period.
The second phase to the Abbasid period (ninth to tenth centuries), associated
with a variety of slip painted glazed wares, and also imported celadon, and
stone-paste ware. The following third phase continued ‘to the beginning of the
13th century. The last phase brings us towards the middle of thirteenth
century, that was marked up with some great upheaval, half of the town looked
abandoned [Ibid.p 50-1]
The brief progress reports out of the long drawn
excavations were revised three times. These simply tried to low the line,
historical records have created. No plausible evidence came about the
identification of the place, but excavators presumed as if they were dealing
with the historical town of Daibal, that was stormed by invading Arab armies in
the year 711 CE.
The Excavators did not publish the details of
excavations, nor the notes; site excavation diaries and other such related
material is also not available for studies.
The problem gets compounded as the other
contemporary sites which though have been excavated, such as Mansura, Lahore
and Sehwan but no studies, of the material have been published, nor the
relevant material available for reference/studies.
It is also a fact that many contemporary sites,
promising interesting and relevant information are yet to be excavated, such as
Arror, Nirun, Mahfuza, Multan, Nasirpur, Aghamkot, etc. etc.
However limited scope of the material, and brief
accounts available to us offer at least something to start the probe. In the
Islamic period four distinct phases were reported, corresponding with four
building periods of the defence wall. The earliest phase was assigned on the
bases of the ceramics, i.e the Umayyed period. The citadel according to the
reports, owes its origin to this period. The second phase corresponded with the
major repairs to the defense walls, that is assigned to Abbasids’, covering the
ninth-tenth centuries CE. It is associated with ‘the various slip painted
glazed wares, along with the imported Chinese celadon, porcelain, and stone
wares’. Third phase continued to the beginning of the thirteenth century CE, it
corresponds with the rebuilding of the defense wall of the citadel on the
reduced scale. “This period is distinguished by the introduction of sgraffiato
glazed wares, which almost totally replaced other types of pottery”.
The excavators reported the turquoise/blue glazed
thick jars coming from the Islamic levels. Though such heavy glazed
Parthian/Sasanian jars have been common occurrence, in many pre-Islamic
contexts, all around the region.
The molded pottery and their moulds have been
assigned the pre-Islamic time frame, by the excavators, thought these type of
moulds have been found in the relative sites and are also found in exclusive
Muslim periods, such as at Nishapur.
The scientific analysis has given some good points
of focus, but the data is so small that it can hardly help the students of the
Islamic pottery in finding the answers to most crucial questions. The advances
in the polychrome glazed wares were studied by exposing the shards to the
investigation by examination through ‘analytical scanning electron microscope’,
the results suggested that the technique of true under glaze decoration’
without the slip was first developed in Syria. Whereas the short lived over
glazed painting originated in Iran [Mason etal(2001)pp.191- 209]. In another
study it was enquired through the physicochemical analyses of the Kairouan
luster tiles and the luster pottery of Iraq the possible place of production,
the results suggest that most probably both the types came from either Baghdad,
Samarra or Basra [bobbin, et at (2003) pp.569-577] In another study through the
Instrumental neutron activation analyses (INAA), and Laser-ablation
inductively-coupled-plasma mass spectroscopy (LA-ICP-MS), pot shards from
various sites in the Deh Luran (Iran) were examined in association with the
shards of known provenance of Parthian and Islamic periods. The results
suggested that the alkaline based glazes and the alkaline-low-lead, and lead
based glazes were applied on the body paste which were different from each
other [Hill, et al (2004)pp.585-605]. Yet another study was carried out by
analyzing the Lead Isotope of the glazes of Islamic pottery from Fustat. The
results tell that the source of the lead used for the glazing purpose was very
well away from home [Wlf et al (2003)pp.405-420]. In forth coming study the
dates were obtained from glazed rim shards, by optically stimulated
luminescence (OSL) [Hill, in preparation].
The time frame involved in our enquiry is the most
volatile as for as the political upheavals are concerned, the week Caliphate
was just ceremonial; the provinces were assuming their own roles, and were busy
in fighting with each other, in order to expand their area of influence,
through military conquests, the economy was affected due to perpetual movement
of troops, prolonged sieges. The utilization of sectarian feelings against the
political opponents was the call of the day. In such circumstances one can not
clearly see whether the crafts of particular area were affected, and if it did,
then to what extent? Was the effect forcefull enough to cause the
discontinuation of any of the particular form or type of the elite ceramics?
The Caliphate when went weak it really affected the capital Baghdad to lose its
leading role as the cultural leader. The focus then moved eastwards.
The political boundaries certainly over-lapped the
cultural boundaries, obviously with the inception of Arab armies the onslaught
of alien culture was expected, but that did not actually happen. It was to
happen subsequently that the larger areas were just divided and provinces/regions
started claiming sovereignties, the political boundaries were over lapping
larger cultural entities. This paved way for coming into being of a
cosmopolitan cultural value, which every body loved to adhere, princes vied
with each other to bring the best of intellectuals and master craftsmen to
their courts. The capital cities produced a sort of common styles, and share
values. The outskirts were left to the practices of their regional craftsmen,
and at times their styles, if they were not producing the copies.
In this scenario it really becomes difficult to
tell which of the major types were restricted to one spot, or were being
produced at more than one spot The proceeds of excavations revealed an
extensive trade that was carried out from this port town. It indicated at a
rich consumer urban culture where the luxury items were much in circulation.
No doubt that the period well co-incides with the
huge Indian Ocean trade, that flourished due to suitable monsoon winds, that
facilitated seasonal ‘to and fro’ seafaring easy to this port.
The range of the trade as revealed through the
archaeological investigations, carried out at many stations in this vast
region, testify that the farther limits of Mediterranean and the reaches of
China were being covered, by the crafty seafarers who caused establishment of
rich trade network.
The ports most known during this time are from the
northern tip of Africa, such as Berinike, linked with the versatile port of
Kana of Yeman, Suher in Oman, Siraf in Iran, Banbhore in the western India,
Barygaza further towards east, Mantai in Sri Lanka and Arikamedu, just to name
few major centers, where the investigations have given concrete indications of
the huge maritime activity.
The wide
variety of pottery un-earthed from the site of Banbhore is an interesting
indicater.
The question of the pottery imports during the
late period at Banbhore is curiously interesting, as it brings up many new
questions rather then giving any clear clue to what actually happened there.
The types generally associated with the 12th
century, and also the 13th centuries are conspicuously missing from the
material un-earthed from Banbhore. There is hardly any explanation available to
us in the written sources,, as for as the south Asian destinations are
concerned. With regard to the Daibal there too is not much help forth-coming,
the only explanation that may be offered is that these were the centuries when
the port town was facing difficult days.
Is it related to some geographical circumstances, which
were responsible for the decline in trade or it had something to do with the
economic defficullities?
The regional disturbances however were really
great, and there is no doubt that this may possibly be assigned some real
importance while considering these issues.
However it
is very surprising that the town of Banbhore does not show any typology that is
related to the pottery produced during the later half of the 12th century,
either in Iran or in Syria/Iraq.
This fact may either denote that the town of
Banbhore either had ceased to exist, or it had no trade link with these areas,
from where it previously imported huge amounts of luxury pottery.
In this back drop we revert back to our initial
question whether the evidence provided to us through excavated pottery from
Banbhore can lead us to conclude something about the Soomra period trade links?
The wide variety of glazed pottery un-earthed at
Banbhore can be generally listed as under :
The heavy green/blue glazed large jars
The opaque ware
celadon and stone paste
Lustre ware
slip painted ware
splashed pottery
Sgraffiato
splashed Sgraffiato
It is true that the heavy green blue large jars
have been previously considered to be of Sasanid origin, but Burkley tests of
Siraf shards have shown these to belong to 8th – 9th centuries. Similar
material too is related to Samarra context. Opaque ware is from 9th – as well
as from 10th century. We have with us many Chinese celadon and stone paste
pottery. It is from 9th & 10th centuries. Much of luster ware is from 9th
century.
The later period Persian Lustre is quite
interestingly missing from Banbhore. Slip painted variety from Central Asia of
10th century is in abundance, some is true about Nishapuri Slip painted ware of
10th and 11th century.
The Sgraffiato, though wrongly ascribed to 13th
century by the excavators, is in abundance.
There is no doubt that this type of pottery
available in Samarra context, came into production quite earlier contrary to
the contentions of excavators of Banbhore. The 10th century Nishapuri
Sgraffiato is hugely available at Banbhore; similarly the 11th century material
too has also been excavated.
The pottery which was produced in 12th century, such
as over-glaze painted pottery, in Persia is totally missing from Banbhore.
No such piece was reported by the excavators, nor
was it found during the research studies of the excavated material, in the
stores at site.
Similarly the later day Iranian luster is missing.
There is one curious fact that needs explanation. Most of the Sgraffiato, and
opaque ware, and also some of the slip painted ware vessels have shown signs of
repairs. Strange indeed it is, but it is not rare. In the Indian Ocean trade
region we have some such instances.
How we can explain this ?
The pottery evidence suggest that till the 11th
century Banbhore flourished in trade. In the 12th century some unknown
restrictions on the trade seems to have been applied. Whether it had got some
thing to do with the economic variations, or to the considerable fall in
maritime trade, or still further had got something to do with the political
scene, which handicapped the society, and de-capiciated it, resulting end in
foreign trade in 12th century.
Further explanations may be found in the political
changes which occurred. This was the time when Khuwarzam Shah and later
Shahabuddin Ghouri had come down, upto the coast to sub due the Soomra
Chieftains, they established their writ over the area that might had
overshadowed the economic capacity of the place.
On the evidence presented by the pottery from
Banbhore, it can be said with certainty that during 12th century Banbhore’s
economy took a nasty downward plunge, and the population was compelled to
repair even their pottery