South India and her Muhammadan Invaders c12.s1.1

c12.s1.1

The central fact of Muhammad Tughlak's reign is the revolt of Ma'bar and its setting up independently of him with a sultanate at Madura under the general sent by Muhammad-bin-Tughlak himself. This was Jalalu-d-din Asan Shah, who was the father-in-law of the traveller Ibn Batuta, and whose coins are extant in some number. Dr. E. Hultzsch who examined these coins and published the results of his study in the *Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society* for 1909 ascribes this event to A.D. 1335. The latest coin of Muhammad-bin-Tughlak he finds in the south is of date A.D. 1334. The earliest of Jalalu-d-din is dated A.D. 1335 and carries on it the superscription of which the details are given by Ibn Batuta himself. Dr. Vincent Smith in his recent publication *The Oxford History of India* has the following on page 242. 'The turning point was reached in A.D. 1338-9 equal to A.H. 739 when both Bengal and Ma'bar or Coromandel revolted and escaped from the Delhi tyranny.' The grounds upon which he gives the actual date A.D. 1338-9 are not clear. There is no reference in the chapter to Dr. Hultzsch's article and perhaps he bases this actual date on older information. On the following page 243, he has the following sentence apparently taken from Ferishta, in substance at any rate, 'about the same time approximately 1340, Saiyid Hasan, the Governor of Ma'bar or Coromandel revolted and slew the Sultan's officers.' This date is far too late on the evidence of South Indian coins. Similarly in regard to the change of capital to Deogiri this book has adopted the date A.D. 1326-27 (A.H. 727), admittedly on the basis of the account as given in Ibn Batuta, it may be that Ibn Batuta's narrative in this part is arranged chronologically. Ziau-d-din Barni who certainly did know what he was writing about says actually that the change of capital had taken place when the Sultan went against Kishlu Khan. His rebellion apparently was what directly encouraged the movement in Ma'bar, particularly as the exhibition of Bahau-d-din's corpse brought about the rebellion of this powerful governor of Sind. This diverted the attention of the Sultan to such a degree, 'that he did not proceed to Deogir whither the citizens and their families had removed. Whilst he remained at Delhi, the nobles and the soldiers continued with him, but their wives and children were at Deogir.' The change of capital therefore must have taken place soon after, and in consequence of, the rebellion of Bahau-d-din and in the interval between that and the rebellion of Kishlu Khan in Sind, whose head was seen by Ibn Batuta in Multan on his journey up to Delhi in A.D. 1333-34. We may perhaps date the change of capital in A.D. 1327-8 of which year A.H. 727 we have one gold coin of Muhammad bearing upon it the name Deogir.