The Nāṣirī Generations 170.1
Tabakat-i-Nasiri 170.1
- Language
- English
170.1.1
Trustworthy narrators have related after this manner that, when Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, Jahan-soz, was removed from the habitation of the world, and Sultan Saif-ud-Din, Muhammad, his son, ascended the throne of Ghur, he commanded, that both the Sultans, Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad, and Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhammad, sons of Sam, who were imprisoned within the fortress of Wajiristan, should be released, as has been stated previously in the account of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din. Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din abode at the court of Firuz-koh in the service of Sultan Saif-ud-Din [his cousin], and Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din proceeded to the court of Bamian to the presence of his uncle, Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas’ud-i-Husain Bamiani. When Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din ascended [the throne of] the dominion of Ghur, after the catastrophe of Sultan Saif-ud-Din, Muhammad, and the news of it reached Bamian, Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud, turned his face towards Mu’izz-ud-Din and said: “Thy brother hath distinguished himself; when wilt thou do the like, and bestir thyself?” Mu’izz-ud-Din hung his head in the presence of his uncle, and left the audience hall, and set out then and there for the Court of Firuz-koh. When he reached the presence of Ghiyas-ud-Din [his brother], he became Sar-i-Jandar [Chief Armour-Bearer], and he continued to serve his brother, and served him with assiduity, as has been previously recorded.
170.1.2
He continued in his brother’s service for the period of one year, when some cause of umbrage arose in his august mind, and he proceeded towards Sijistan, to [the Court of] Malik Shams-ud-Din, Sijistani, and there he remained one cold season. Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din despatched a distinguished person and brought him back again, and committed to his charge the territory of Kasr-i-Kajuran and Istiah. After he had brought the whole of the district of Garmsir under his authority, Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din entrusted to him the city of Tigin-abad, which was one of the largest cities of Garmsir. This Tigin-abad is the place about which, and the possession of it by the Sultans of Ghur, the downfall of the dynasty of Mahmud-i-Ghazi, son of Sabuk-Tigin, has been caused, and about which Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, had improvised and sent to Khusrau Shah, son of Bahram Shah, the quatrain, which is as follows:— "Thy father first laid the foundation of enmity, Hence the world's people all under oppression fell. Have a care, lest for one Tigin-abad thou dost not give, From end to end, the kingdom of Mahmud's dynasty to the wind." The Almighty's mercy be upon the Sultans of both dynasties!
170.1.3
When Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din acquired the territory of Tigin-abad, the Ghuzz tribe, and the chieftains of that sept, who, retiring defeated from before the forces of Khita, had moved towards Ghaznin, during a period of twelve years had taken the Ghaznin territory out of the hands of Khusrau Shah and of Khusrau Malik, and had brought it under their own sway. Mu’izz-ud-Din was in the constant habit of making raids upon the Ghuzz from Tigin-abad, and assailing them, and continued to harass that territory until the year 569 H. when Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din subdued Ghaznin, and placed Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din upon the throne [of that territory] and returned to Ghur again, as has been previously recorded. The second year after this, [namely] in 570 H., Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din brought the districts of Ghaznin under his sway, and acquired Gardaiz; and, in the third year [571 H.] he marched an army towards Multan and delivered it from the hands of the Karamitah; and, in this year, 571 H., the Sankuran tribe broke out into rebellion, and committed great violence, until, in the year 572 H., he marched an army against them, and fell upon that people, and put the greater number of them to the sword. They have related that most of the Sankuran tribe were manifestly confessors of the Kur’an creed, who, on this occasion, obtained martyrdom; but, as they had stirred up rebellion, they were put to death, as a matter of exigency, according to sovereign prerogative.
170.1.4
In the following year after this event, Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din marched an army towards Nahrwalah by way of Ochchah and Multan. The Rae of Nahrwalah, Bhim Diw, was young in years, but he had numerous forces and many elephants; and, when a battle took place, the army of Islam was defeated and put to the rout, and the Sultani-Ghazi returned again without having accomplished his designs. This event took place in the year 574 H. In the year 575 H., Mu’izz-ud-Din led an army to Furshor and subdued it; and, in another two years subsequent to that, he marched an army towards Lohor. As the affairs of the Mahmudi empire had now approached their termination, and the administration of that government had grown weak, Khusrau Malik, by way of compromise, despatched one of his sons, and one elephant to the presence of the Sultan-i-Ghazi. This circumstance happened in the year 577 H. The following year, 578 H., the Sultan led an army towards Diwal [or Dibal] and possessed himself of the whole of that territory [lying] on the sea-coast, and acquired much wealth, and returned.
170.1.5
In the year 581 H., he [again] led an army towards Lohor, and ravaged and pillaged the whole of the districts of that territory; and, on his return homewards, directed that the Hisar [fortress] of Sial-kot should be restored. Husain son of Khar-mil was installed therein, and the Sultan again retired. After his departure, Khusran Panjab; and, at the suggestion and representation of the Rajah of Jamun, repaired anew the fort of Sial-kot [Sial is the name of a tribe of Jats, since displaced, and dwelling much farther south, at and around Jang-i-Sial], which was then in a ruinous and dilapidated state, and left there Husain-i-Khar-mil [turned into Hussein Churmili by Dow, and Hoossein Furmully by Briggs !] as governor, with a garrison. The Mian-ji, of Jamun, was then dismissed, with a request to inform the Rajah that next year his wishes would be fulfilled.
170.1.6
“Khusrau Malik, after the Sultan’s departure, aided by the tribe of Khokhar, invested Sial-kot; but, as Rajah Jakr [Chakr] Diw, assisted and supported the defenders, Khusrau Malik was unable to take it. At this period the Rajah, who had attained to nearly his eightieth year, died, and was succeeded by his son, Rajah Bij, who is also called Bijayi Diw, in 1221 of Bikramaditya; and in that year, which corresponds with 582 H., the Sultan [Mu’izz-ud-Din] crossed the Sind at the Nilab ferry, where the Rajah’s Mian-ji went to receive him; and on the banks of the Bihat [the Jhilam] the Rajah’s son, Nar-singh Diw, joined him with a considerable force. He was presented to the Sultan through Husain-i-Khar-mil, and received with honour. He accompanied the Sultan to Lah-nor, which was taken, and made over to the charge of Kar-makh [’Ali-i-Kar-makh, who is turned into Kirmany by Briggs !], governor of Multan. The Rajah’s son and his agent were dismissed with honorary robes, and the town of Sial-kot, together with the fort, was entrusted to the care of the Rajah. Khusrau was taken to Ghaznin, and was subsequently put to death. From the circumstance of the Sultan, in his communications, styling the Rajah’s agents by the term Mian-ji, according to the custom of Iran, instead of Wakil, the whole family of the Jamun-wal [not the present dynasty] considering this title great honour, adopted it; and from it the abridged term Mian, used by their descendants, is derived.”
170.1.7
Dow, in his translation of Firishtah, states, under the reign of Khusrau Malik [page 129], that “the Emperor Chusero [Khusrau would not have known his own name thus written], in alliance with the Ghickers, besieged the fort of Salcot, but, their endeavours proving unsuccessful, they were obliged to desist.” Briggs, in his version, repeats this in the same words, with the exception of styling Khusrau, Khoosrow Mullik; and the Khokhars, Gukkurs; and that Khusrau had to abandon the investment; but under the reign of Mu’izz-ud-Din, Dow [page 137] states: “This fort [Salcot], as we have before related, was effectually besieged by Chusero, in the absence of Mahommed;” and Briggs also [page 176] says: “This fort, as we have before related, being successfully besieged and taken Khoosrow Mullik, &c.; and thus both translators totally contradict their own previous statements. Firishtah, whom they translate, of course, states, as other writers do, that Khusrau Malik was unable to take it. Led away, I imagine, by this statement, and placing reliance on its correctness, Elphinstone has repeated [page 311] this absurdity. He says “Khusru Malik, taking courage from despair, made an alliance with the Gakkars [Dow, Ghickers; Briggs, Gukkurs; Elphinstone, Gakkars !], captured one of Shahab u din’s strongest forts, and obliged him to call in the aid of stratagem,” &c.
170.1.8
Thus a totally incorrect translation of a native historian’s words, and a statement respecting which the translators themselves contradict their own previous translation, is handed down from one writer to the other. This is writing history with a vengeance. The stratagem referred to above is related in Firishtah, which see but it Malik assembled the forces of Hindustan and a levy of the [different] Khokhar tribes, and appeared before the gates of Sial-kot, and sat down before it for a considerable time, and again retired without being able to effect his object. After that, in the year 582 H., the Sultan-i-Ghazi [Mu’izz-ud-Din] appeared [again] before the gates of Lohor. As the Mahmudi sovereignty had reached its termination, and the sun of the empire of Sabuk-Tigin had reached its setting, and the Recorder of Destiny had inscribed the decree of Khusrau Malik’s dethronement, that monarch was not possessed of the power to resist, and he entered into negotiations for peace; and, for the purpose of having an interview with the Sultan [Mu’izz-ud-Din], Khusrau Malik came out [of Lohor]. He was seized, and imprisoned, and Lohor passed into the possession of the Sultan-i-Ghazi, and the kingdom of Hindustan came under his sway.