[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Dark Ages](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages) › [Kashmir](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.kashmir) › [Tārīkh-i Rashīdī](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.kashmir.tarikh-i-rashidi) › [The Tarikh-i-Rashidi (Elias, Ross)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.kashmir.tarikh-i-rashidi~en-ross) › 9.2 # The Rashīdī History 9.2 The Tarikh-i-Rashidi (Elias, Ross) 9.2 - **Language:** English ### [9.2.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.kashmir.tarikh-i-rashidi~en-ross.9.2.1) These events occurred during the best days of the Moghul power, when raiding and general lawlessness flourished, and it is to be inferred from what little we know of the history of those times, that even if Kamar-ud-Din sometimes held sway in Uighuristan, he was not necessarily the recognised chief of the State. But, whoever was the chief, he seems to have been subdued by the Ming army, for we read of Turfan, in 1406, sending a mission of homage to Peking, while two years after that date another is recorded to have been despatched by the ruling Khan, this time under the leadership of a Buddhist priest. In 1422 a chief of Turfan, whose name is given as In-ghi-rh-cha, is reported to have been expelled from his government by Vais Khan of Bishbalik (i.e., Moghulistan), and to have personally carried his appeal for redress before the Emperor, who caused Vais Khan to restore In-ghi-rh-cha to his possessions. What means the Chinese Emperor took to compel the Moghul to perform this act of restitution is not stated, but the Ming-Shi goes on to relate that in 1425 and 1426 In-ghi-rh-cha appeared a second and third time at Peking, "at the head of his tribe," to present tribute. In 1428, shortly after his return home, he died. ### [9.2.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.kashmir.tarikh-i-rashidi~en-ross.9.2.2) The next reigning chief mentioned is one Ba-la-ma-rh, on whom the Ming Emperor bestowed presents in 1441, on the occasion of the Egyptian envoy passing through Turfan on his way homeward from Peking. It was about this time—the middle of the fifteenth century—that the Turfan chief, one Ye-mi-li Khoja (Imil Khwaja?) took possession of Kara-Khoja and Lu-kotsin and assumed the title of Wang, or 'Prince.' Previous to this, says the Ming historian, Turfan was of little account, but it now became powerful, and appears to have extended its territory, for he incidentally mentions that it was bordered on one side by Moghulistan, and on another by Khotan. The rise in power of the Turfan chiefs did not prevent them from continuing to send tribute to China, and it was shortly afterwards (in 1465) settled that a mission should be despatched regularly once every five years. The particulars of these missions, the demands they made at the Ming court, and the concessions granted from time to time by the Emperor, need not be followed here. One of them which appeared at Peking in 1469 reported that the Turfan chief had taken the title of 'Sultan,' and the name of this personage is recorded to have been Ali. In the Tarikh-i-Rashidi no mention is made of the name of Ali, in connection with Uighuristan. The date points to Kabak Sultan, as well as the title; ### [9.2.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.kashmir.tarikh-i-rashidi~en-ross.9.2.3) but as Ali is represented farther on in the Chinese history to have been the father of Ahmad, we can hardly assume Kabak to be the Sultan indicated. The father of Ahmad was Yunus, who nowhere appears under the name of Ali, while Kabak was grand-nephew of Yunus. That Sultan Ahmad (or Alacha Khan)—and no other Ahmad—is the personage pointed to by the Chinese annals, seems more than probable, seeing that the dates of his succession and death agree very nearly with those given in the Tarikh-i-Rashidi, and that he is said to be the father of Mansur. But this is not the only reason to suspect inaccuracy in this matter, on the part of the Chinese chroniclers. Even if Ahmad were to be regarded as chief of Turfan, in the sense of being suzerain over the local prince, he could scarcely have played the part they attribute to him, without Mirza Haidar making some mention of his deeds. They represent him, for example, as having proceeded in person against Hami in 1488, as having captured the town, and put to death the local chief—a series of important events about which the Tarikh-i-Rashidi is silent. We find there only a brief statement that his son, Mansur, carried on several wars against Khitai, or China. ### [9.2.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.kashmir.tarikh-i-rashidi~en-ross.9.2.4) To proceed, however. In 1473 this Sultan Ali is said to have attacked and captured Hami, together with some tracts to the eastward, proceedings which called forth an expedition from China to recover these places from him. The Chinese had to retire unsuccessful; the Sultan retained Hami, but the tribute missions went on as before. About the same year that he annexed Hami, it appears that Sultan Ali also captured more than 10,000 of the tribe of Oirat, or Kalmaks, and in general he seems to have been a chief of warlike tendencies. He had in his hands the road by which all the tribute missions from the western countries were in the habit of coming and going, and he made the Emperor feel that it was well to be on good terms with him. In 1478 Ali died, and his son A-hei-ma (Ahmad) succeeded him as Sultan of Turfan. He also was generally successful in holding Hami against the Chinese; if he lost it at one time, he regained it shortly afterwards, and he made the governor nominated by the Chinese, a prisoner. During the period 1478 to 1493 he was nearly always at war with the Chinese, yet he seems to have been ever ready with his tribute, and several missions, carrying lions and other presents, are recorded to have been despatched during these years. At length, however (in 1493) his mission, consisting of 172 men, was stopped and imprisoned near the Chinese border. ### [9.2.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.kashmir.tarikh-i-rashidi~en-ross.9.2.5) This event, occurring at a time when the Kalmáks on his northern frontier were assuming a threatening attitude towards him, decided Ahmad to abandon Hami, and finally peace was established with the Chinese in 1499. Five years later (1504) Ahmad died, and a struggle for the succession to the Khanate took place among his sons. The eldest, by name Man-su-rh (Mansur), got the upper hand, declared himself Sultan, and began at once to despatch tribute to Peking. In 1513 the subordinate Prince of Hami, Bai-yasi by name, made over his province to Mansur, who soon afterwards began to make incursions on Chinese territory proper, by invading Su-chou and Kan-chou. Whether he obtained any but a mere temporary hold on these districts is not apparent, but he is related to have had dissensions with the Chinese, on subjects connected with Hami, till his death in 1545. He was succeeded by his son, Sha—i.e., Shah Khan. ### [9.2.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.kashmir.tarikh-i-rashidi~en-ross.9.2.6) This is a brief outline of Dr. Bretschneider's epitome of the chapters in the Ming history which relate to Turfan, or Uighuristan. It shows, briefly, the course of the history of the province according to the Chinese view; but when we come to compare the names and dates with the same story as gathered from the Tárikh-i-Rashidi, the two accounts are found not to agree. In the summary, or discursive table, given in Section II. of this Introduction, some of the Khans of Uighuristan have been mentioned; with the dates of their reigns (as far as obtainable), from Mirza Haidar's statements. They may be placed here in juxtaposition with those of the Ming-Shi, for purposes of comparison, as follows:— Ming-shi. 1. In-ghi-rh-cha died 1428 2. Manku Timur ? 3. Ba-la-ma-rh was reigning 1442 4. Ye-mi-li Huo-jo was reigning 1450 5. Sultan Ali died 1478 6. Ahmad died 1504 7. Mansur died 1545 8. Shah Khan died 1570 Tarikh-i-Rashidi. 1. Vais Khan died 1428 2. Isan Bugha II. died 1462 3. Dust Muhammad died 1468 4. Kabak Sultan ? 5. Ahmad died 1504 6. Mansur died 1543 7. Shah Khan was reigning at close of history. From this, it appears that none of the rulers mentioned by the Chinese are the same as those given in the Tarikh-i-Rashidi, till the name of Ahmad Khan is reached, while the date of the death of his successor, Mansur Khan, differs by two years in the two accounts. The allusion to Vais Khan accords fairly satisfactorily as to date; but here all accordance ends. ### [9.2.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.kashmir.tarikh-i-rashidi~en-ross.9.2.7) The first and third names on the Chinese list would appear to be of Mongol origin; the second is certainly Mongol, while the fourth and fifth, though Musulman, are in no way to be traced among the Moghul Khans whom we know of. It is, perhaps, possible that the earlier Moghul chiefs, while Islam had only partially spread among them, bore Mongol as well as Musulman names, and that the Chinese found it more convenient to use the former, in reducing them to their own phonetics; but against this conjecture for solving the difficulty, it must be considered that the number of Khans, previous to Ahmad, is too great, and that the dates do not correspond sufficiently to admit of the assumption that the Mongol names point to Khans of Moghulistan. A more probable explanation, perhaps, may be that during the reigns of Isan Bugha II. and Dust Muhammad, there were also Moghul Amirs who (like the Dughlat Amirs in Alti Shahr), if they did not reign, at all events held some kind of hereditary position as local chiefs, and that it was they who sent the tribute missions, and carried on intercourse, with the Chinese court. Thus, though not supreme in the Khanate, they might have been the chiefs best known to the Chinese. The possibility of this suggestion derives some support, I think, from the accounts the Chinese furnish of the towns of Kara-Khoja and Lu-ko-tsin (more anciently Liu-Ch'êng). ### [9.2.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.kashmir.tarikh-i-rashidi~en-ross.9.2.8) During the first half of the fifteenth century, both these towns, though situated close to Turfan, were reckoned independent, and sent their own tribute, separately, to Peking; and it was only when Turfan became powerful, after the middle of the century, that they were annexed to their more important neighbour. This would have been only very shortly before the commencement of the reign of Sultan Ahmad, or when we come to corresponding names and dates in the two lists. At this time, it may be, the custom was changed, and the reigning Khan may have begun to send the tribute missions in his own name; while the names—especially the non-Musulman ones—of the subordinate chiefs, would have tended soon to fall into oblivion and remain unnoticed by Muhammadan writers. This, however, is only a suggestion—a possible explanation of the discrepancies. --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.kashmir.tarikh-i-rashidi~en-ross.9.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.kashmir.tarikh-i-rashidi~en-ross.9.2) · Pramāṇa