The Cambridge History of India, Vol. IV: The Mughul Period v4.c14.42

v4.c14.42

Sher Shāh, after reaching Rāisen, had received a message from Khavāss Khān to the effect that he and Haibat Khān who had been left at Rohtās could not agree. That two Afghān chiefs should thus seek arbitration, even of their king, rather than settle their differences by the sword, speaks volumes for Sher Shāh’s influence over his quarrelsome fellow-countrymen. Sher Shāh recalled Khavāss Khān from the Punjab and left Haibat Khān in the government of that province, with instructions to reduce it to order. Since the flight of Humāyūn, Fath Khān Jāt had been in rebellion and had preyed upon travellers on the high roads between Delhi and Lahore, while the Baloch had been governing the city and district of Multān solely in their own interests. Haibat Khān dealt first with the Jāt, who had established himself in Ajudhan (Pāk Pattan) but fled and retired into a mud fort where he was besieged. In a few days’ time he surrendered himself and was imprisoned, but there still remained in the fort Hindū Baloch and Bakhshū Langāh, whose men cut their way through the besiegers, leaving their leaders in Haibat Khān’s hands. Haibat Khān then marched on Multān and induced some of its citizens and husbandmen to return. He reported his success to Sher Shāh, who rewarded him and at the same time commanded him to repeople Multān, “to observe the customs of the Langāhs”,¹ and not to measure the land, but to content himself with one-fourth of its gross produce. Fath Khān Jāt and Hindū Baloch were put to death, but Sher Shāh ordered Haibat Khān to spare the lives of Bakhshū Langāh and his son, to restore to them their lands, and to retain one of them always with him as a hostage. Haibat Khān returned to Lahore, leaving in Multān Fath Jang Khān, who completely restored the prosperity of the city and the province so that they flourished even more than under the Langāhs. These references to the prosperity of Multān under the Langāhs are instructive, both as to the character of that dynasty, of which little is known, but which evidently identified itself with the interests of its subjects, and as to the justice of Sher Shāh and the historians of his line in admitting that a dynasty which had been in rebellion against Afghān Sultāns of Delhi had left behind it a reputation worthy of emulation.