DID LAL DED AND MIR SAYYID ALI HAMADANI MEET ?

                                                       

( Mir Sayyid Ali Hamadani on Tajikistan  currency note  known as Somoni )
                      

    (The mausoleum of Mir Syed Ali Hamadani, located in Kulob, Tajikistan)

On the Impossibility of a Meeting between Lal Ded and Sayyid  Ali Hamadani

The persistent claim that Lal Ded (Lalla, Lalleshvari) met Sayyid ʿAli Hamadani (Shah-i Hamadan) has circulated widely in later Kashmiri devotional literature. Yet when the question is examined through chronology, primary testimony and textual transmission, the conclusion is unequivocal: no such meeting can be historically sustained. The narrative belongs to retrospective syncretic memory rather than to verifiable fourteenth-century history.

Chronological Demonstration

Except for the statement of Azam Dedmari, most chroniclers rely upon approximations or conjectural reconstructions when dating Lal Ded’s life. Dedmari alone provides a categorical assertion: that Lal Ded passed away during the reign of Sultan Shihab-ud-Din (r. 1355–1373 CE). This reign, therefore, furnishes the only firm chronological bracket for her death. Even if one adopts the final year of the Sultan’s rule—1373 CE—as the year of Lal Ded’s demise, the chronology itself eliminates the possibility of any substantive encounter with Hamadānī. Around 1372–1373 CE, Hamadānī was not an established spiritual authority residing in Kashmir. Rather, he was in a migratory phase with his companions amidst the political upheavals of Central Asia. At precisely the moment when Hamadani had not yet consolidated a presence in the Valley, Lal Ded, according to Dedmari’s definitive statement, had already departed this world. Thus, even under the most generous chronological assumption, the overlap between the two figures is negligible to the point of impossibility. The dates indicate succession rather than coexistence.

The argument is further strengthened by the research of the late Professor Jaya Lal Kaul, who documents Hamadānī’s substantive stay in Kashmir as extending approximately from 1380 to 1386 CE. This chronology places his effective missionary and institutional activity at least seven years after 1373—the outermost plausible date of Lal Ded’s death. Professor Kaul’s dating decisively widens the temporal gap, rendering any meeting historically untenable. Chronology here is not merely suggestive; it is decisive.

 Silence of Early and Near-Contemporary Sources

The chronological case is reinforced by the complete absence of corroboration in early materials. The continuations of Rajatarangini—particularly those of Jonaraja and Srivara, who document the political and religious developments of fourteenth-century Kashmir record no encounter between Lal Ded and Hamadani. Given the chroniclers’ attentiveness to prominent religious figures, this silence carries evidential weight.

Persian sources associated with Hamadani’s circle emphasise his scholarship, missionary work and relations with rulers. They contain no reference to a dialogue with an established Shaiva mystic. Considering the symbolic value such an encounter would have held within Kubrawi historiography, its absence strongly suggests that no such meeting was known to early transmitters.

 The poetic corpus attributed to Lal Ded, transmitted orally for generations before compilation, contains no reference to Hamadani or to Kubrawi Sufi doctrinal vocabulary. Its metaphysical structure remains firmly rooted in Trika Śaivism and indigenous yogic praxis, without any demonstrable textual interface with Hamadānī’s theological framework. In historiographical method, the absence of evidence does not automatically constitute evidence of absence. However, when the purported event would have united two of the most influential spiritual figures of the century—figures whose lesser interactions were otherwise recorded—the silence becomes probative.

Retrospective Syncretic Construction

The narrative of a meeting emerges only in later devotional and syncretic traditions, where it serves a reconciliatory purpose. As Kashmiri collective memory increasingly articulated a vision of spiritual continuity between Śhaiva mysticism and Sufi Islam, Lal Ded was retrospectively cast as a precursor figure, while Hamadānī was portrayed as the institutional consolidator of Islam in the Valley. Such harmonisation reflects an evolving communal imagination rather than fourteenth-century historical fact. The motif of saintly encounter, common across Islamic and Indic hagiographies, functions symbolically and didactically, not historiographically.

So, when Dedmari’s categorical dating (death before or in 1373 CE) is read alongside Hamadānī’s migratory status in 1372–1373 CE, and further alongside Professor Kaul’s documentation of his effective residence in Kashmir from 1380 to 1386 CE, the chronological separation becomes decisive. This separation is reinforced by the silence of Sanskrit chronicles, early Persian Sufi materials and the internal theological coherence of Lal Ded’s Vaakhs. On strictly historical grounds: chronology, documentary silence and textual analysis—the conclusion is unavoidable: Lal Ded and Sayyid Ali Hamadani did not meet. The endurance of the narrative reflects not contemporaneous evidence but a later cultural aspiration to symbolise concord between Kashmir’s Shaiva and Sufi traditions.

Dr Shashi Shekhar Toshakhani also confirms it in his research based  write-ups and scholarly interpretations of syntax, grammar and  language of Kashmiri poetry written around the  13th and the 14th century in the Kashmir Valley. I remain beholden to him for many clarifications that I got after reading his write-ups . I also searched the subject in various Sanskrit and Persian texts and history books on the relevant period apart from reading almost all available compilations of Lal-Vaakhs.

(Avtar Mota )

CHINAR SHADE by Autarmota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.
Based on a work at http:\\autarmota.blogspot.com\.