Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of the Khaljis, A.D. 1290–1320 c11.s1: Invasion of Kubak and Iqbālmand (1306)

History of the Khaljis, A.D. 1290–1320 c11.s1

Language
English

Invasion of Kubak and Iqbālmand (1306)

c11.s1.1

In the following year the Mughals again reappeared on the frontiers of India, when Dava Khan sent Kubak⁷² to avenge the deaths of 'Alī Bēg and Tartāq.⁷³ He crossed Indus with a large army and marched on to Ravi burning, murdering and pillaging. Another contingent of the Mughal force, which was commanded by Iqbālmand moved southwards and arrived near Nagor⁷⁴ creating havoc in that part of the country. 'Alāuddīn appointed Malik Naib Kāfūr to oppose the invaders and crush them out in a battle. To encourage his soldiers 'Alāuddīn ordered that every one of them shall receive one year's salary as bonus. Experienced generals like Malik Tughlaq, the Shahnāh-i-Bārgāh and the fief-holder of Deopalpur, and Malik 'Ālam were also sent with Malik Naib Kāfūr. On the eve of their departure the Sultan praised and flattered Malik Naib very much to encourage him to give a gallant fight.⁷⁵ The royal army made for the threatened region making "no distinction between the darkness of the night and the light of the dawn till they had reached their prey", Malik Tughlaq, who led the vanguard, one day suddenly sighted Mughal scouts, and he immediately informed Malik Kāfūr about the location of the Mughal army. Shortly after the rival forces stood face to face on the banks of the river Ravi,⁷⁶ but neither party was willing to open the attack. At last the Mughals advanced blowing conch shells and making immense noise. Kubak delivered the assault on the centre of the royal army, commanded by Malik Naib Kāfūr, and scattered it. But soon Malik Kāfūr rallied his men and fought so gallantly that in a very short time Kubak’s men were completely routed and made to fly. Kubak was taken prisoner just at a moment when he was on the point of being killed by some Delhi soldiers. The prisoners of war, who included women and children, were sent to the Sultan at Delhi.

c11.s1.2

⁷² Kubak was also a son of Dava Khan, but as the Kubak who invaded India was captured alive and then killed by the orders of the sultan, he seems to be different from Dava Khan's son, who ascended the throne of Transoxiana in 1307-8. The name has variously been written by Indian historians. Baranī writes him Kunk or Gung, Amīr Khusrau Kapak or Kabak, 'Iṣāmī Kubak and Ferishtah Gung.

c11.s1.3

⁷³ *Deval Ranī* p. 62. *Khazain* p. 29. Ferishtah pp. 115-16.

c11.s1.4

⁷⁴ Nagor is 75 miles north-east of Jodhpur, Rajputana.

c11.s1.5

⁷⁵ *Futūh* p. 311.

c11.s1.6

⁷⁶ In *Khazain* Khusrau says that the battle was fought near the river of 'Alī (Ab-i-'Alī), but in *Deval Ranī* he makes it clear and says that the Mughals crossed from Multan and began to ravage the region of Ravi. Barani calls the place of combat as "Khekar" while Ferishtah has Nīlāb. 'Isāmī has Hind-i-'Alī. *Khazain* p. 30, *Deval Ranī* pp. 61-63, *Futuh* p. 311,

c11.s1.7

Malik Tughlaq and Malik Naib now marched to encounter that Mughal force which had successfully advanced as far as Nagor. Intelligence was brought to them that the Mughal army was commanded by two generals Iqbālmand, and Tai-Bū. The royal generals marched on and suddenly fell upon the enemy. The Mughal commanders, probably having heard of the defeat of Kubak and also having their right wing attacked by the Indian army fell back and fled northwards “by the same passage across the Sind (Indus)”. The work of the imperialists was now rendered easy. They pursued, overtook and completely routed the Mughal force. The victorious army returned to the capital accompanied by a large number of prisoners of war. Ferishtah says that this was a strange event, for out of fifty or sixty thousand Mughals not more than three or four thousand were left alive. Sultan ‘Alāūddīn, enraged at the persistent audacity of the Mughal invaders who poured into the country year after year, ordered them to be thrown under the feet of elephants and a tower to be constructed of their skulls in front of the Badaon Gate. Their women and children were sold in Delhi and the rest of Hindustan.

c11.s1.8

This invasion has been differently described by various writers, contemporary and later. Amir Khusrau’s account in *Khazāinul Futūh*, being a mixture of verbosity and rhetoric, is a little confused. But it can be made out that Kubak, Iqbālmand and Tai Bū were commanders of the different contingents in one and the same campaign.⁷⁷ This fact, again, is definitely mentioned in *Deval Rānī*.⁷⁸ ‘Iṣāmī who gives the most detailed description of Mughal invasions, treats it as the last in the time of ‘Alāuddīn. ‘Iṣāmī, however, does not refer to any other commander except Kubak.⁷⁹

c11.s1.9

⁷⁷ *Khazain* pp. 29-31.

c11.s1.10

⁷⁸ *Deval Rani* pp. 62-63.

c11.s1.11

⁷⁹ *Futūḥ*, pp. 310-314.

c11.s1.12

According to Ziyāuddīn Baranī, however, Kank, another general whose name he does not mention, and Iqbālmand invaded Hindustan on three occasions and in different, if not successive, years. His description of the three Mughal invasions is as follows:— In the first invasion under Kank or Gung the Mughals were defeated by the army of Islam at Khekar. Gung and many other Mughals, including women and children, were taken prisoner. Gung was trampled under the feet of an elephant and a tower of heads of the Mughals was raised before the Badaon Gate. On another occasion and in another year some commanders of the Indian army fought the Mughals in the Sivalik hills. They cut the retreat of the Mughals and occupied the territory through which the enemy was to pass. It so happened that the Mughals, who were returning after over-running the Sivaliks, arrived at the river bank (the name of the river is not given) with their “horses and themselves both parched with thirst and disordered. The army of Islam thus gained the most advantageous opportunity, and the Mughals with their fingers in their mouths, begged for water.”∗80 They were attacked. A glorious victory fell to the lot of the imperialists and the Mughals were killed mercilessly. In another year Iqbālmand headed another Mughal expedition to Amīr 'Alī⁸¹ but he was completely defeated after a light skirmish with the imperial army. Iqbālmand was slain and some thousand Mughals fell a prey to the sword.⁸²

c11.s1.13

∗80 The details show that Barani is clearly referring to the retreat of the Mughals from Nagor who must have passed through regions scarce of water.

c11.s1.14

⁸¹ It may be Āb-i-'Alī of Khusrau.

c11.s1.15

⁸² Barani pp. 321-22.

c11.s1.16

The above narrative is evidently loose and faulty. It was written long after the actual event and, therefore, there is every probability of discrepancies creeping into it. The author does not give the names of the Indian commanders who fought the Mughals on these three occasions. He does not mention the name of the Mughal commander, who according to him, was in command of the second of these invasions, nor even does he give the dates of the expeditions. These inaccuracies were adopted by Nizamuddin and Ferishtah. Ferishtah follows his predecessor in broad details; but he gives only two invasions. According to him one of them was encountered on the banks of the Indus; but the place of the other has not been indicated by him. He simply says, "A long while after this (i.e. the invasion of Kubak) a Mughal, named Iqbālmand, came to Hindustan with a huge army and wrought much damage. But Ghazi Malik Tughlaq marched against Iqbālmand and after slaying him sent many Mughals to Delhi to be trodden down by enormous elephants."⁸³

c11.s1.17

⁸³ Ferishtah p. 116.

c11.s1.18

The narrative of Khusrau, who treats the invasion under Kubak, Iqbālmand and Tai Bū as one and the same is most trustworthy. He wrote in the life-time of 'Alāuddīn; whereas Barani wrote very much long after. Moreover he confirms his statements of *Khazainul Futūh* in *Deval Rani*, which shows that he was certain of what he was writing in this connection. His statements are corroborated by 'Iṣāmī also who does not mention any other invasion of the Mughals after that of Kubak in the time of 'Alāūddīn. Many other facts also reveal that Kubak's was in all probability the last invasion. Dava Khān, the arch enemy of Hindūstān, who after his accession to the throne of Transoxiana in 1272, had repeatedly sent expeditions to India, died in the last months of the year 1306. After his death the internal affairs of Transoxiana fell into confusion, and within three years three Khāns successively sat upon the throne. Conditions became so unsettled there that Ghāzī Malik, warden of the marches at Deopalpur, every year led expeditions to Kabul and Ghazni and plundered and ravaged those places. In these circumstances it is incredible that after the death of Dava Khān the Mughals would or could have poured into India again.

c11.s1.19

Thus with Kubak's expedition the last spark of Mughal aggression died out. The Mughal menace which had made his predecessors tremble on their thrones was put to an end by the mighty resolve of 'Alāūddīn. His reformative measures, his huge army and above all his consummate generalship relieved the empire of a calamity that was continually haunting the rulers and people of Hindūstān. Not only did the Mughals cease their aggression on Hindūstān, Ghāzī Tughluq, who like Sher Khān of former days was appointed at Deopalpur with a strong force under him, every year led expeditions to "Kābul, Ghaznī, Qandhār and Garmsīr, plundered and ravaged those regions and levied tribute from their inhabitants. The Mughals had not the courage to come and defend their own frontiers against him."⁸⁴

c11.s1.20

⁸⁴ Barani pp. 322-23. Ziyāuddīn's remark is very significant. He says: هر سال در ايام زمستان (Ghāzī Malik) با لشكر خاص خود ارديبالپور بيرون آمدی و تا سرحد های مغل برفتی - مغل را *Ibn Battūtah*, vol. III, p. 202.

c11.s1.21

Barani and Ferishtah speak of plundering raids of Malik Tughlaq only. But a letter in the *Aijāz-i-Khusravi* of Amir Khusrau, and translated and published by Sir H. Elliot shows that the Mughals had successfully been defeated by Tughlaq Malik and that *Khutba* in the name of Sultan ‘Alāūddīn was read in a mosque of Ghazni. The letter which has no date is a part of the ‘*Arz-dāsht* of one Hājib Badr to the address of Khizr Khan, son of ‘Alāūddīn. It would not be out of place to give the full letter as translated by Elliot from Book IV of the Perisian text of *Aijāz-i-Khusravi*.⁵⁵

c11.s1.22

⁵⁵ Elliot, vol III pp. 566-67.

c11.s1.23

"The servant Badr begs to state, for the information of his highness prince Khizr Khan......that according to royal orders he marched with an army, reached Indus, crossed the river on boats and proceeding onward arrived at Ghazni in winter. The season was exceedingly cold. The Mughals of that place were in great alarm from fear of the Musalman army. But when the purport of the royal *firmān* was read to them, they became comforted, expressed their obedience and were happy. As the king had ordered that the *Khutba* of his name should be read in Ghazni all the Muhammadans who had concealed themselves in the mountains and ravines, as well as the elders and the principal Musalmans of Ghazni, who were looking with the eye of expectation towards Delhi, assembled in the Jama Masjid of the city, and on Friday the

c11.s1.24

چراغ بر کرده طلب کردی و مغل را مجال نمانده بود که بر
سرحد های خود بر طریق گشت بیامید –

c11.s1.25

It is obvious that there was no peace on the north-west frontier during ‘Alāūddīn’s rule. Ibn Battūtah mentions an Arabic inscription of Ghāzī Tughlaq on the Jama’ Masjid of Multan, which ran: "I have encountered the Tatars on twenty-nine occasions and defeated them and hence I am known as Malikul Ghāzī."

c11.s1.26

*Khutaba* was read in the name of Sultan ‘Alāūddīn. The noise of acclamations of joy and congratulations rose high from all quarters. The vest of honour, which was sent by the king, for the reader of the *Khutba*, was put on his shoulders. One of the walls of the mosque, which was decayed and fallen down, was newly raised.

c11.s1.27

On the same Friday jewels and gold were showered by Badr which he had brought from Delhi and Musalmans picked them. The Mughals saw this from the top of the walls of the Masjid, and spoke something in their own tongue. In these days some of the infidels have embraced the Muhammadan Faith.”

c11.s1.28

This letter, in spite of the fact that it is of no great historic authenticity, corroborates the idea that ‘Alāūddīn’s arms had penetrated into Ghazni and the Sultan’s *Khutba* was read there.

Cites (2)