The Nāṣirī Generations 237: XIX. MALIK TAJ-UD-DIN, ARSALAN KHAN, SANJAR-I-CHAST.
Tabakat-i-Nasiri 237
- Language
- English
XIX. MALIK TAJ-UD-DIN, ARSALAN KHAN, SANJAR-I-CHAST.
237.1
Malik Taj-ud-Din, Arsalan Khan, was an impetuous and warlike man, and had attained the acme of capacity and intrepidity. The august Sultan [I-yal-timish] had purchased him from Ikhtiyar-ul-Mulk, Abu-Bikr, the Habash [Abyssinian]. Ikhtiyar-ul-Mulk had brought him from an ; and some have narrated on this wise, that he was one among the sons of the Khwarazmi Amirs, in the territory of Sham [Syria], and Misr [Egypt] and had been from those parts and sold to Ikhtiyar-ul-Mulk, Abu-Bikr. Sultan first purchased him, he became Jamah-dar [Keeper of the Wardrobe], and in that office he served the Sultan some time. When the period of the Shamsi sovereignty terminated, and the reign of Sultan Rukn-ud-Din, Firuz Shah, also came to its conclusion, he became Chashni-gir [Comptroller of the Royal Kitchen] in the reign of Sultan Raziyyat. After some time, he obtained the fief of Balaram.
237.2
During his own lifetime, the august Sultan [I-yal-timish] conferred upon him, in marriage, a daughter of Malik [Sultan] Baha-ud-Din, Tughril, of Bhianah, which territory and adjacent parts were, in the beginning of the Musalman rule, rendered flourishing and cultivated by him. By this connexion, in the reign of Sultan Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah—May his sovereignty continue!—Bhianah was made Arsalan Khan’s fief. Some years subsequent to this, the dignity of Wakil-i-Dar [Representative in Darbar] was entrusted to him. Subsequently, when the preserved city of Tabarhindah was recovered from the dependents of Sher Khan [Malik Nusrat-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din, Sher Khan-i-Sunkar], it was made over to his charge, in the month of Zi-Hijjah, 651 H. After that, when by the sublime order of the Court, the Khan-i-Mu'azzam, Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, had departed, and gone to Nag-awr, and proposed to return again to the service of the Court, Arsalan Khan-i-Sanjar attached himself to his service and accompanied him. When they arrived at the capital, Arsalan Khan-i-Sanjar received honour at the Court, the asylum of the universe, and returned again to Tabarhindah.
237.3
Malik Sher Khan, having come back again from Turkistan, determined upon [re-]possessing himself of Tabarhindah. He brought a large number of cavalry and infantry from the side of Lohor along with him against Tabarhindah, and, at night, appeared before the walls of the fortress. Sher Khan's troops dispersed themselves in the town, and about the fortress; and when, in the morning, the world became illumined with the sun's light, Arsalan Khan-i-Sanjar, with his sons and principal retainers, attacked him. As his cavalry had become dispersed, Sher Khan was under the necessity of retiring. When Sher Khan, subsequently to this affair, came to the sublime Court, in conformity with the royal command, Arsalan Khan-i-Sanjar likewise presented himself there.
237.4
He continued to sojourn at the capital for some time, after which Awadh was entrusted to his charge. On several occasions, Kutlugh Khan with those Amirs who had confederated themselves with him, began to harass the borders of Awadh and Karah. Arsalan Khan averted this annoyance: he led a body of troops against them, and compelled that faction to disperse. After that, a slight change in his mind, antagonistic to the Court, became manifest; and the sublime standards moved towards Awadh and Karah for the purpose of suppressing his designs. When the sublime standards cast their shadow upon that country, Arsalan Khan-i-Sanjar retired before the [contingents forming the] centre division of the royal forces, and he despatched confidential persons, and sought safety for himself, under the stipulation that, when the Sultan’s troops returned [to the capital], he, Arsalan Khan, along with Kutlugh Khan, son of [the late] Malik ’Ala-ud-Din, Jani, should present themselves there. Their supplication was graciously complied with; and, when the royal army returned again to the abode of sovereignty and illustrious seat of government, Dihli, after some time, Arsalan Khan-i-Sanjar again attached himself to the sublime Court, and was distinguished by ample honour and deference.
237.5
After he had remained in attendance at the Court for some time, in the year 657 H., the city of Karah was assigned to him as a fief, and, in the beginning of that same year, he led an army from Karah with the intention of pillaging the country of Malwah and Kalinjar. After he had advanced some stages, he turned aside and marched towards the territory of Lakhanawati. At this time, the feudatory of Lakhanawati [Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Yuz-Baki] had proceeded towards the country of Bang and left the city of Lakhanawati empty [of troops]. Arsalan Khan-i-Sanjar had not unfolded this secret to a single person among his Amirs and Maliks, his sons and slaves, that he was entertaining the intention of marching against Lakhanawati, and he had neither permission nor orders from the sublime Court for this undertaking. When he reached the frontier of that country, a number of his sons, Amirs, and slaves, discovered that which he had resolved in his mind, and they refused to follow him. As, however, there was no means of returning, out of necessity, they accompanied him.
237.6
When Arsalan Khan-i-Sanjar arrived before the gate of the city of Lakhanawati, the inhabitants thereof took refuge within the walls [and defended themselves]. Annalists have stated on this wise, that, for a space of three days, they fought, and, at the end of that time, Arsalan Khan-i-Sanjar took the city, and gave orders to sack it. The property, cattle, and Musalman captives that fell into the hands of his followers was very great; and, for a period of three days, that plunder, sack, and rapine was kept up. When that tumult had been allayed, and he had taken possession of the city, Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Yuz-Baki, who was the feudatory of Lakhanawati, at the place he then was in, became acquainted with this misfortune. He returned from thence, and between him and Arsalan Khan-i-Sanjar an engagement took place. From the sublime Court an order granting the investiture of the government of Lakhanawati had been [previously] issued to Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Yuz-Baki, after that he had despatched, to the presence of the sublime Court, two elephants, valuable property, and precious things to a large amount. Arsalan Khan-i-Sanjar thus gained the upper hand, and Malik ’Izz-ud-Din Balban-i-Yuz-Baki, became a captive, and it is so stated that he was martyred. This much, that the author was aware of, as to the state of affairs in to the Geography and History of Bengal as there are some errors and discrepancies therein which require to be noticed and corrected.
237.7
At page 37 of Part I., he says the Muhammadan period of the history of Bengal may be “conveniently divided into five parts. I. The ‘Initial period,’ or reigns of the governors of Lakhnauti appointed by the Dihli sovereigns, from the conquest of Bengal by Muhammad Bakhtyar Khilji [i. e. Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Bakht-yar-ud-Din, Mahmud, the Khalj] A.D. 1203 to 1338 A.D.” In Part III. of his Contributions page 134 [See also Appendix D, page xxiv.], he criticizes my statement respecting the year of the conquest of Bengal by the Khalj chief, and says it was conquered in 594 H., or A.D. 1198, whilst A. D. 1203, mentioned in the preceding paragraph, is equivalent to 600 H.— a difference of only six years! He also calls these rulers “governors,” and says they were “appointed by the Dihli sovereigns,” but this is erroneous. The Khalj rulers, from the " conquest ” to the acknowledgment of I-yal-timish’s suzerainty by Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din. ‘Iwaz, in 622 H., were entirely independent of the Dihli rulers with the single exception of the mad-man, ’Ali-i-Mardan. Mr. Blochmann also commences his ‘Initial period’ [Part I., page 38] with “Tughril” in 631 H., but ‘Izz-ud-Din, Tughril-i-Tughan Khan, was the third feudatory of Lakhanawati after the downfall of the Khalj sovereigns. Mr. Blochmann’s List [condensed] is as follows : — “Saifuddin Aibak. Dies at Lakhnauti in 631 H. “Tughril, 631 H., to 5th Zi Qa’dah, 642 H.
237.8
“Qamarud-din Timur [?] [See page 742, note] Khan, governor from 5th Zi Qa’dah, 642, to 29th Shawwal, 644. “Ikhtiyaruddin Yuzbak Tughril Khan, proclaims himself king under the title of Sultan Mughisuddin. Perishes in Kamrup. No dates are given. “Jalaluddin Mas’ud, Malik Jani Khilji [!] Khan becomes governor, 18th Zi Qa’dah 656.” [Mr. Blochmann eschews izafats, and criticizes my use of them as un-Persian. By not using an izafat here, as is meant in the original, he turns Jalal-ud-Din, Mas’ud, into his father, Malik Jani, who was killed in 634 H., and at page 206 of the Calcutta Printed Text, what Mr. Thomas styles the impossible name of Khilji Khan is not given, but Jani— which is an error in the official text—“officially imperfect” I suppose is meant—for Kulich. He is also styled Kutlugh, in some copies, but Malik ’Ala-ud-Din, Jani, who is styled, at page 626 of this Translation [Calcutta Text, page 187, with for], Shah-zadah of Turkistan, was his father.] “’Izzuddin Balban, was governor in 657, in which year he was attacked by Tajuddin Arsalan Khan Sanjar i Khwarazmi, who, however, was captured or killed by ’Izzuddin. Tabq. p. 267 [in a foot-note]— Hence Tajuddin Arsalan Khan should not be put among the governors of Bengal!
237.9
[He must be put among the Sultans then, for he ruled some years. The “official text ” here kills the wrong man. It was ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Yuz-Baki, who was made captive by Arsalan Khan-i-Sanjar, and “some say was put to death.” The certainty of this is proved from the fact that Tatar Khan, who now follows in Mr. Blochmann’s list, was Arsalan Khan-i-Sanjar’s son.] “Muhammad Arsalan Tatar Khan, son of Arsalan Khan Sanjar. He had been for some time governor, when the emperor Balban ascended the throne [664]. Barani, p. 66. After a few years he was succeeded by — that country, and of the events which happened in those parts, is here recorded. May Almighty God have mercy on that great Khan, and long preserve the Sultan of Sultans!
237.10
ceded the tardy justice of decreeing, that, in virtue of his good works, Ghiyas-ud-din ’Awz [’Iwaz ?] should in his grave, be endowed with that coveted title of Sultan, which had been denied to him while living.” Who denied it to him? Minhaj-ud-Din, even at page 163 of the Calcutta “Official Text,” does not say so. What he did say will be found literally rendered at page 587 of this Translation. Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, ’Iwaz, was equally as much entitled to the coveted title of Sultan as his adversary, I-yal-timish, was. He had been chosen precisely in the same way, by the chief men of the country, he owed no fealty whatever to Dihli or its sovereigns, was a Turk like his rival, what is more, was a free-born man, and not a manumitted slave—the slave of a slave—which I-yal-timish, was, and was included among the great Maliks of Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, master of I-yal-timish’s master. These erroneous ideas respecting the two Sultans I have felt myself bound to correct, according to historical facts, and our author’s statements. I would also remark, en passant, that Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah, was not overcome by I-yal-timish until ten years after 614 H. See page 348 of “Initial Coinage of Bengal,” and page 542 of this Translation, and Printed Text, page 144.
237.11
At the time Malik Jani fled before the Khalj Sultan into Awadh, Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah, the eldest son and heir-apparent of I-yal-timish, was there located, having been entrusted with the fief of Awadh in 623 H. About two years and a half after he had been compelled to acknowledge the suzerainty of the Dihli Sultan, as shown by his coins, Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, ’Iwaz, having set out on an expedition against the infidels of Bang and Kamrud [See page 594], Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah, incited by Malik ’Ala-ud-Din, Jani [I-yal-timish was occupied elsewhere in 624 H., but he sent reinforcements to his son, see page 611], whom the Khalj Sultan had expelled from Bihar, seized the opportunity—no intimation, of course, having been given beforehand—and invaded Lakhanawati, which had been left nearly empty of troops, seized the fortress of Basan-kot, and took possession of the city of Lakhanawati. Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, ’Iwaz, on becoming aware of this perfidious act, flew to the rescue—with a portion only of his forces, from what our author states at page 595—encountered the son of I-yal-timish, but was defeated, and taken captive, along with “all the Khalj Amirs,” and the whole of them were butchered.
237.12
Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah, died, or was killed, for there is some mystery about it, seemingly, some time in the month of Rabi'-us-Sani probably, since the news reached Dihli in the following month, or it may have happened in that same month. How or where he died our author, “the sole authority for this period,” does not say, but he repeatedly styles him “the martyred Malik” [See note 1, page 630]. Firishtah’s assertion that he died at Lakhanawati is like a good many of his assertions, without any proof whatever, and his own invention probably. Immediately after the death of Ghiyas-ud-Din, ’Iwaz, it appears, another Khalj chief succeeded in acquiring power, but how, is not clear, and, I fear can never be thoroughly made so. He is styled, by our author, at page 617, Balka Malik-i-Husam-ud-Din, ’Iwaz—that is to say, the son of Husam, &c., the izafat standing for son of [See Appendix D.], which is sufficiently proved, I imagine, from the fact that he was not at all likely to have been called by the precise title of his predecessor—Husam-ud-Din, ’Iwaz—as well; at page 626 tans, Nasir-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din, in sovereignty and prosperity! in the List of I-yal-timish's Maliks, Daulat Shah-i-Balka, son [the izafat understood] of Husam-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, Malik of Lakhanawati, thus showing beyond a doubt that he had been acknowledged by I-yal-timish as dependent ruler, otherwise why put him in the List of Maliks? [See Thomas, “Initial Coinage,” page 366];
237.13
in two copies of the text, I-ran Shah-i-Balka; in one, his title is Abu-l-Ma’ali, and by others he is styled Nasir-ud-Din-i-’Iwaz [See pages 617—618]; in the Calcutta “Official Text,” at page 177, Malik Gazlak Khan Daulat Shah, Khalji, with two names jumbled into one; and, the next page, I-ran Shah, Balka, Khalji. Balka is not peculiar to the Ghaznawi rulers: it is a purely Turkish name. There is another Balka—Saif-ud-Din, I-bak-i-Balka Khan—in the List of Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah's Maliks at page 673, and, from what is said in the account of Malik Kashli Khan [No. XXIV.], there were many Khalj Amirs in the time of Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah. From the coin given by Thomas [“Initial Coinage of Bengal,” page 367], his titles and name—plate, fig. 9—are Abu-l-Ma’ali [Thomas, himself, as mentioned at page 367, was in doubt about being correct, and thought it ended in—i-Daulat Shah, bin Mau-dud [and there is nothing in the titular name of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, who, before he came to the throne was entitled Husam-ud-Din-i-’Iwaz, to show that his name was not Mau-dud], and, although he acknowledges the suzerainty of I-yal-timish, and styles him Sultan-ul-A’zam, he calls himself Shahan-Shah, and also inserts on his coin the name of the Khalifah, and, doubtless, had received a patent conveying the titles from Baghdad. The date on this coin, the only one that has come to light, I believe, is which may be either 627 or 629 H., the stubborn occurring again.
237.14
It is not to be wondered at that “the coin does not give him the name Husamuddin.” Husam-ud-Din was his title before he assumed that of Ghiyas-ud-Din, which he did—not at all an unusual thing—with the title of Sultan. In 628 H., I-yal-timish had to move against this Khalj Sultan, who, doubtless, was getting too powerful to please the Dihli sovereign, and he was overthrown, and “secured,” as our author remarks, much in the same way, probably, as Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-duz, was—in the grave. With him the Khalj dynasty finally terminated. I-yal-timish now conferred the “Lakhanawati” upon Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Jani—the Shah-zadah of Turkistan—but he was shortly after deposed, and then governors, or more correctly feudatories, were appointed from Dihli, and the first of them was Malik Saif-ud-Din, I-bak-i-Yughan-Tat, as he is styled at page 729, which see. It will be noticed from the above that Mr. Blochmann has fallen into considerable error [See “Remarks on Mr. Thomas’s readings,” in the Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, No. x., December, 1872], in assuming that “Daulat shah seems to be the Malik 'Alauddin Jani mentioned in the Tabaqat i Nasiri (Bibl. Ind. Edition), pp. 174, 178).” Our author very distinctly shows that they were two totally different persons.
237.15
In the same way, I cannot agree with him that “The royal titles assumed by the early Bengal Governors were customary in those days;” but, on the contrary, such titles were never assumed unless the feudatory rebelled as in the case of Malik [No. XVIII.] Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Yuz-Bak-i-Tughril Khan, who assumed the title of Sultan [see page 764]. Malik Tughril-i-Tughan Khan