The Cambridge History of India, Vol. III: Turks and Afghans v3.c24.11

Language: English

v3.c24.11.1

Neither rebel had much to apprehend from Muhammad Tughluq, whose long course of tyranny was now bearing fruit in these rebellions which led to the disintegration of his kingdom, and ‘Alā-ud-dīn ‘Alī’s transfer of his capital to Pāndua seems to have been a strategic move calculated to bring him within striking distance of his rival’s capital at Sonārgāon. Hostilities between the two continued for some years, and in 1349 Mubārak disappears from the scene. He can hardly have been defeated and put to death, as stated by the chroniclers, who place the event some years earlier, by ‘Alī, for he was succeeded in Eastern Bengal by his son, Ikhtiyār-ud-dīn Ghāzī Shāh, and ‘Alī himself was no longer reigning in 1349, for his foster-brother, Malik Iliyās, who had been contending with varying success for the crown of Western Bengal ever since ‘Alī had assumed the royal title, caused him to be assassinated in 1345, and ascended the throne under the title of Shams-ud-dīn Iliyās Shāh. He was nicknamed *Bhangara* from his addiction to the preparation of hemp known as *bhang*. There is some authority for the statement that he captured and slew Mubārak of Sonārgāon, but he did not obtain possession of Sonārgāon until 1352, when Ghāzī Shāh was expelled. Iliyās is also said to have invaded Jājnagar, as the Muslim historians style the kingdom of Jājpur¹ in Orissa, and there to have taken many elephants and much plunder.

v3.c24.11.2

He also invaded the south-eastern provinces of the kingdom of Delhi and overran Tirhut, thus incurring the resentment of Fīrūz Tughluq, whose punitive expedition against him has already been described². Iliyās was compelled to leave his capital, Pāndua, at the mercy of the invader, and to retire to Ikdāla, where he offered a successful resistance. The victory described by the sycophantic historians of Delhi was infructuous, for Fīrūz was obliged to retreat without obtaining from Iliyās even a formal recognition of his sovereignty, and, though he is said to have remitted tribute to Fīrūz in 1354 and 1358, the truth seems to be that he merely accredited envoys to Delhi who bore with them the complimentary presents which eastern custom demands on such occasions. In December, 1356, Fīrūz formally recognised the independence of Bengal, and the gifts borne by his mission were at least as valuable as those received by him from Iliyās. These gifts, however, never reached their destination, for the envoy, Saif-ud-dīn, heard when he reached Bihār of the death of Iliyās and the accession of his son Sikandar, and applied to his master for instructions regarding their disposal. Fīrūz, notwithstanding his treaty with Iliyās, directed that they should be distributed among the nobles of Bihār and recalled Saif-ud-dīn to Delhi to assist in the preparations for an invasion of Bengal. Some pretext for this breach of faith was furnished by a refugee who had recently arrived at his court.

v3.c24.11.3

This was Zafar Khān, son-in-law to Mubārak of Eastern Bengal, whom, according to his own account, he had had some expectation of succeeding. The conquest of Eastern Bengal by Iliyās had compelled him to seek safety in flight, and after many vicissitudes he reached Delhi, where he was well content with the position of a courtier until his wrongs suggested themselves to the king as a pretext for invading and conquering Bengal. His advance to Bengal has already been described in Chapter VII, and while he halted at Zafarābād, engaged in superintending the building of Jaunpur, he received envoys from Sikandar, bearing valuable gifts. These he meanly retained, while persisting in his design of invading Bengal. Sikandar, like his father, took refuge in Ikdāla, and so completely baffled Fīrūz that when he opened negotiations for peace he demanded and obtained most favourable terms. He is said to have been obliged to agree to send to Delhi an annual tribute of forty elephants and to surrender Sonārgāon to Zafar Khān. The latter condition was never fulfilled, owing, as the Delhi historians say, to Zafar Khān's preferring the security of Delhi to the precarious tenure of a fief in Sikandar's dominions, and if the tribute was ever paid Sikandar obtained an equivalent in the formal recognition of his independence, a jewelled crown worth 80,000 *tangas*, and 5000 Arab and Turkmān horses; and Bengal was no more molested.