Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of the Khaljis, A.D. 1290–1320 c21: Chapter XXI. Nasiruddin Khusrau Shah (1320)

History of the Khaljis, A.D. 1290–1320 c21

Language
English

Chapter XXI. Nasiruddin Khusrau Shah (1320)

c21.2

Quṭbuddīn's murder saw the accession of Khusrau Khan to the throne. Khusrau was not a Khaljī. He belonged to the Barvārī or Parvārī¹ caste of Gujarat. Ziyāuddīn, indignant at the very idea of a convert's accession, hurls every sort of abuse on the king and his tribe. And since his short reign was not popular, the invectives of the historian become relentless. Thus he declares Khusrau to be "faithless and cunning, dishabille and of low origin (بد اصل)."² "A low born menial" and abuses of this kind are repeatedly inserted in Barani's narrative.³ But these are merely personal aspersions on Khusrau and do not throw any light on the tribe or caste to which he belonged. Depending on Barani, ‘Iṣāmī, Yaḥya, Niẓāmuddīn and other later Persian chroniclers aver that Khusrau Khan belonged to a low caste of Gujarat. Following on their narratives European scholars like Briggs and Thomas think the Parvārīs to be worse than scavengers. Briggs declares that "the Parwari is a Hindoo outcaste, who eats flesh of all kinds, and is deemed so unclean as not to be admitted to build a house within the town."⁴ Since Briggs had thought that Parvār must be the same as Parvārī, and Molesworth defined Parvārī as an individual of low caste, chiefly employed as village watchmen, gate-keepers, porters and said to be synonymous with Dhed and Mahār.¹ Thomas was not slow to conform to Briggs' opinion.² W. Haig also did not choose to differ from his predecessors and writes that the corps of 40,000 Barvārs organised by Khusrau Khān about which Ferishtah makes a mention "was largely composed of and exclusively commanded by members of his own despised tribe."³

c21.3

¹ The word is variously spelt by medieval historians. Barani writes Barvār (برو دار) and Barvārān (برواران). Badaonī also has Barvār. Khusrau has Barado (برادو). ‘Iṣāmī Parāo (پراو) and Yaḥya Barāo. Niẓāmuddīn and Ferishtah have Parvār (پروار). Ḥājīuddabīr spells it Rao.

c21.4

² Barani p. 390.

c21.5

³ Ibid. p. 391.

c21.6

⁴ Briggs' Ferishtah vol. I p. 387.

c21.7

¹ Molesworth: *Marathi-English Dictionary*, Second Edition p. 492. Steingass: *Persian-English Dictionary*, p. 169 gives the meaning of Baraon as a sweeper of the streets, a dustman.

c21.8

² Thomas: *Chronicles*, p. 184 footnote.

c21.9

³ *Camb. Hist. of India* vol. III p. 123.

c21.10

On the contrary some other European scholars have declared Khusrau Khan as belonging to the high caste of Rajputs. Thus James Bird⁴ and Bayley⁵ think that Barvār or Parvār is nothing else than Parmār (Rajputs) and confound Parvār with Parmār.

c21.11

⁴ *History of Gujarat*, Translation of *Mirāt-i-Ahmadi* p. 167.

c21.12

⁵ *Local Muhammedan Dynasties*, Gujarat p. 41 footnote.

c21.13

Now, neither of the conclusions arrived at by the European writers is convincing. No contemporary historian has specifically stated the real caste or tribe of Khusrau Khan. Barani, and following upon him some later historians repeatedly abuse Khusrau and in the course of their personal aspersions add one of low origin. On the contrary there are facts which go to prove that the Barvaris were a people of strong mettle and independent disposition. Amir Khusrau, a contemporary authority, praises the Barvaris for their gallantry and sacrifice. He says that they were men brave and courageous, and were employed by the Rajas of Hindustan for whom they were always prepared to lay down their lives.¹⁰ Barani also testifies to their readiness to lay down their lives while describing Targhi's insurrection in Gujarat in the time of Muhammad Tughlaq. He says that in the battle near Kadi Pattan about one hundred rebels attacked the sultan's body guard like the brave Baravān-i-Fidā'iyān, who carried their lives on the palm of their hands".¹¹ Hisāmuddīn, according to Barani, planned a revolt against Qutbuddin Mubarak with the help of all the renowned Barvārs of Gujarat.¹² "The renowned Barvārs" cannot belong to a low caste because a low caste cannot be renowned in Hindu society. Ferishtah at one place clearly says that Khusrau Khan belonged to the Pahalvāns of Gujarat.¹³ Ibn Battūtah also praises the Barvārs and says that "Khusrau Khan gathered a troop 'of Indians chosen from among the bravest and greatest, his brother the Khan-i-Khanān was among them".¹⁴ In these circumstances it is impossible to believe that they belonged to the low caste of Dhed and Mahār. The victories of Khusrau Khan in south India and the gallant fight he and his relations put against Ghāzi Tughlaq clearly show that he did not belong to a low caste.

c21.14

¹⁰ *Tughlaqnamah* Aurangabad text p. 19 verses 338-39:— بود این طایعه در پیش رایاں — که جانباز مدبو فومانبوا یاں

c21.15

¹¹ Barani p. 519 has بر طریق خدائیاں بیواراں جانرا بر کف تست نها ده

c21.16

¹² Barani p. 397 has بپرو اران نام گرفته

c21.17

¹³ Ferishtah p. 124 has بپرواران نام گرفته

c21.18

¹⁴ Ibn Battūtah vol. III p. 198.

c21.19

But if the above inference is correct it can also not be said that the Barvār was so high a caste as the Parmār.

c21.20

No historian, contemporary or later, says so. Hājiuddabīr who wrote in Gujarat and had a special knowledge of the history of that part of the country joins Baranī in giving a low origin to Khusrau Khān. Professor Hodivala rightly observes that "The real name of the tribe or caste to which Khusrau Khān belonged cannot be ascertained." All that is known is that he and his Barvārī associates were brave and courageous, clever and unscrupulous.

c21.21

*Early Life.*

c21.22

Khusrau Khān seems to have been converted to Muhammadanism in early childhood and given the name Ḥasan. When 'Ainulmulk Multānī sacked Malwa in 1305 Ḥasan and his brother fell into his hands. At the imperial court Ḥasan was chosen for the body of the personal slaves of sultan 'Alāūddīn and assigned to Malik Shādī, a nobleman, under whose care he grew up. When Quṭbuddīn Mubārak Shāh ascended the throne he became highly enamoured of the youthful Ḥasan and in the very first year of his reign he bestowed upon him the title of Khusrau Khān, the office of Vazarat and all the dignities and jagīrs of Malik Kāfūr. In elevating Khusrau Khān Quṭbuddīn had refused to gain from the experience of 'Alāūddīn who had conferred extraordinary distinctions upon his favourite Malik Kāfūr. As seen above Khusrau Khan proved as much an anathema for the Qutbī as Malik Kāfūr had been for the ‘Alāī’ regime.

c21.23

¹⁵ Hodivala p. 369.

c21.24

¹⁶ For discussion on the caste of the Barvārīs see Hodivala pp. 369-71. Ishwari Prasad: *History of Qarauna Turks* vol. I pp. 8-9 footnote.

c21.25

¹⁷ Baranī p. 381.

c21.26

¹⁸ The author of *Tarīkh-i-Muḥammadi* (completed 842 H.) writes that Khusrau Khān was brought up by Malik Shādī of the court of 'Alāūddīn. *Tarīkh-i-Muḥammadi* Allahabad University Ms. fol. 126

c21.27

After the gruesome murder of Qutbuddīn, Khusrau Khan sent for all the high officials of the State like Malik ‘Ainulmulk Multānī, who had then arrived from Devagiri,¹⁹ Malik Vahīduddīn Qureshī, Malik Fakhruddīn Jūnā, M. Bahāuddīn Dabīr and the sons of Qara Beg. He kept them under semi-imprisonment that night and compelled them to promise allegiance to him. While the usurper was busy in establishing his power, Randhol, Hisāmuddīn, Jahariya and many other partisans of Khusrau entered the royal *haram* and began to perpetrate horrible crimes. At the outset they finished all the possible claimants to the throne one after another after effecting a thorough search with the help of torches.²⁰ Farīd Khan Abū Bakr Khan and three other young sons of ‘Alāuddīn namely ‘Alī, Bahā and ‘Usmān were murdered in cold blood.²¹ The mothers of Qutbuddīn and Shihābuddīn were also killed and many an inmate of the *haram* was ravished. Such ghastly punishments were inflicted upon the innocent, says Ziyā Barani, “as no infidel could prepetrate even in the land of infidelity”.²²

c21.28

¹⁹ Ferishtah p. 128.

c21.29

²⁰ *Tughlaqnāmah* p. 26.

c21.30

²¹ Ibid pp. 23-32.

c21.31

²² Barani p. 408.

c21.32

Not being confronted with any opposition whatsoever, the regicide ascended the throne and styled himself as Sultan Nāsiruddīn Khusrau Shah. He conferred titles and honours on the people, raising to high positions many of his favourites and those who had helped him in securing the throne. Besides, he ordered the execution of some of the nobles risen to eminence during Qutbuddīn’s reign. Randhol was given the title of Rai Rayān and the house and property of Qāzī Khan. The wife and children of the Qāzi saved themselves by effecting their escape on the previous night. Hisāmuddin, the sultan’s brother, was married to a daughter of ‘Alāóddin²³ and the title of Khān-i-Khānān was bestowed upon him. Bahāuddin Dabir received the title of Azamul Mulk and the son of Qirat Qīmār was made Shayastā Khan. Among others who obtained titles were Yūsuf Sūfi who became Sūfi Khan, Ikhtiyāruddin Sumbal who became Hātim Khān and Malik Kamāluddin Sūfi who was made the Vakil-i-dar. Khusrau did not forget to keep in good humour all those who hated him. Thus ‘Ainulmulk Multāni was made ‘Ālim Khan and Malik Fakhruddin Jūnā was appointed Akhūrbeg. The Vazārat was entrusted to Tājulmulk and Vahiduddin Qureshi, and the offices of Malik Qarā Beg were entrusted to his sons. Everybody, willingly or unwillingly, submitted to the new regime and the new king was proclaimed from the pulpits of the mosques as the Leader of the Musalmans (Amīrul Mauminīn).

c21.33

²³ Subah Sādiq, Bankipore Ms. fol. 1673.

c21.34

According to Maulana Ziyāuddin, however, the accession of Khusrau ushered in a reign of untold misery for the true believers. On the fifth day of his accession, says he, idol worship was begun inside the palace. Khusrau Khan usurped the (chief) wife of Qutbuddin and the Barvārīs took possession of Muslim girls. Copies of the Quran were torn to pieces and used as seats for idols which were placed in the niches (*mehrābs*) of the mosques. In short infidelity was in the ascendant and the followers of the true faith were subjected to humiliations unprecedented in the history of the sultanate. The sultan thought of enhancing the power and dignity of the Hindus and a large number of them gathered round him.²⁴ Treasures were thrown open and money was freely distributed to them. All this the chronicler writes with the passion of a staunch Muslim who could not tolerate a convert ascending the throne; particularly one whose accession was accompanied by cruel punishments inflicted on Muslim women and children. But the narrative of Barani suffers from gross exaggerations. It is not surprising that some Barvārīs worshipped idols inside the palace and tore up copies of the Quran since they had known the Muslim conquerors breaking temples and burning religious books of the Hindus. In a spirit of revenge the Barvārīs did all this, and the sultan on account of his obligation to them for securing him the throne did not interfere with what they did. Yahya is quite correct when he says, "The Hindus (rather Barvārīs) confident of their position as the relations of Nāṣiruddin Khusrau Khan, subjected the Muslims to cruelty..."²⁵ But the assertion of Barani that Khusrau Shah tried to establish Hindu Raj is wholly incorrect. Khusrau had been converted when he was a mere boy, so that even his Hindu name has not come down to us. In the wars that he fought in the Deccan he was as cruel to the Hindu kings and inhabitants as any other Muslim conqueror. There he broke Hindu temples, and Amīr Khusrau graphically describes the humiliations to which the king of Telingana was subjected by him. Not only Khusrau, but his brother and a number of other relatives also had accepted Islam. These facts clearly show that Khusrau always regarded himself as a Musalman and there is not a single instance to prove that his behaviour or inclination was anti-Islamic. Barani nowhere says that Nāṣiruddīn persecuted Muslims simply because they were Muslims. On the other hand he admits that so long as Nāṣiruddīn reigned his *khuṭbah* was read from the pulpits of the mosques and the title of Amīrul Mauminīn was struck on his coins.²⁶

c21.35

²⁴ Barani p. 411.

c21.36

²⁵ *T.M.S.* p. 87. The so-called cruelties of Nāṣiruddin were multiplied by later writers. Thus Ibn Baṭṭūṭah writes that he prohibited cow-slaughter and ordered the Musalmans to paste the walls of their houses with cow dung,—a Hindu practice. Niẓāmuddin Aḥmad goes a step further and says that Khusrau ordered destruction of mosques (*Tab. Akb.* p. 187). It is really strange how these atrocities escaped the notice of Barani, 'Iṣāmī and Amīr Khusrau. In all probability Baṭṭūṭah and Niẓāmuddin indulge in gross exaggerations.

c21.37

²⁶ Nelson Wright: p. 104.

c21.38

A glance at the list of the newly appointed officers, again, would clearly show that almost all of them had held various offices in the reign of his predecessor. There is scarcely any doubt that some of them were raised for being Khusrau's allies, but one thing is evident that except Randhol and one or two others, all the Barvārīs dropped into the back-ground after Nāṣiruddīn's accession. The new king relied on the trusted nobles of Delhi; and he was so anxious about their good-will and co-operation that he even resorted to a *coup d'état* to secure their support. At the capital he had not done anything prejudicial to the interests of the Musalmans. In the provinces also he left the Muslim governors undisturbed, and as later events show, most of them were quite satisfied with the revolution that had come about at Delhi. It is impossible that the governors of Multan, Samanah and Ajmer would have helped Khusrau Shah in the establishment of a Hindu Raj against Ghazi Tughlaq who had proclaimed himself as the champion of Islam. Moreover, the army of Delhi, which consisted mostly of muslim soldiers, could never have fought on the side of Khusrau Shah against Ghazi Malik had they in the least considered Khusrau to be inimical to Musalmans. If at the time of actual warfare a portion of the royal army deserted to the Tughlaqs it was simply because Nāṣiruddīn's cause was fore-doomed to failure and not because they had deserted a champion of Hinduism and gone over to a champion of Islam.²⁷ It is, therefore, evident that Nāsiruddīn was in no way prejudiced against the Muslims, and the accusation of Baranī that under his regime neither the honour nor the religion of Muslims was safe, is quite wrong.

c21.39

²⁷ Cf. in this connection the desertion of Delhi noble to 'Alāuddīn's camp a quarter of a century back. They had left the sons of Jalāluddīn not because they were worse Musalmans than 'Alāuddīn but because their cause was sure to fail.

c21.40

Nāsiruddīn had obtained the throne by murdering Qutbuddin and assassinating all the royal princes. Naturally his conduct had made him unpopular among his subjects. Although the majority of the people at Delhi had reconciled themselves to the new government, a certain section of the nobility was bitterly opposed to the rule of the regicide. Day and night did they plan to overthrow the usurper. Prominent among these nobles was Malik Fakhruddīn Jūnā, who was ever in search of an opportunity to fly away from Delhi and join his father Ghāzī Tughlaq, Warden of the Marches at Deopalpur. The veteran warrior was very indignant at the wrongs that had been done to the family of sultan 'Alāuddīn and "writhed like a snake" to wreak vengeance upon Khusrau Shāh. But he could not rise in open revolt against him so long as "the light of his eyes", Malik Jūnā, was there at the capital.²⁸ Fakhruddīn used to write to his father about the state of affairs at Delhi and messages between the two were constantly exchanged through the services of one 'Alī Yaghdi. Ghāzī Tughlaq exhorted his son to reach Deopalpur from where they could organize opposition against the king and Malik Jūnā one day astounded the court by riding off with a few chosen followers to Deopalpur.²⁹ He was careful to take the son of Bahrām Aiba with him on his flight. Khusrau Shāh at once sent a force under the son of Qirat Qimār in pursuit of the fugitive, but the latter eluded the pursuers and safely reached Sirsuti (modern Sarsa). On his arrival there he found that his father had already garrisoned its fort by sending Malik Sarbata there.

c21.41

²⁸ *Tughlaqnāmah* pp. 62-64.

c21.42

²⁹ Amīr Khusrau says that Malik Jūnā had received many favours from Nāsiruddīn but on one occasion he became dissatisfied for some reason and finding an opportunity fled away. He is supported by Yahya in this statement. *Tughlaqnāmah* p. 40

c21.43

Relieved of the anxiety about his son, Ghayāsuddin set to work for the overthrow of his avowed enemy. He sent letters to governors of various provinces requesting them to assist him in overthrowing Khusrau who was guilty of being an infidel and faithless to his patron. It was an appeal made to the Muslims because to the Tughlaqs the cause of Islam seemed to be in danger. "The slogan of revenge for religion, so common yet so effective in the history of the Muslims, was now started."⁵⁰ 'Alī Alhaūs, the Amir of Deopalpur and Behrām Aiba, governor of Uchch joined Ghāzī Malik, but Malik Maghlati governor of Multan refused to side with him. The diplomat Ghāzī instigated the people of Multan to rebel against their governor and Maghlati was killed by his own men.⁵¹ Muḥammad Shāh, the Amir of Sivistān, had been imprisoned by his own nobles but a letter from Ghāzī became a "talisman of his release." The people set him free and he set to work for the cause of the Tughlaqs.⁵² Malik Hoshang, fief holder of Ajmer showed signs of genuine support but in reality his "feet of determination was lax." 'Ainulmulk, the governor of Malwa, Dhar and Ujjain at first hesitated but then promised to help the Ghāzī.⁵³ But Malik Yaklakhi was not content with sending a curt refusal to the Tughlaqs. He marched out to fight the Ghāzī but was killed by his own men.⁵⁴ According to 'Isāmī, Gul Chandar and Sahaj Rai, the Khokhar chiefs, also joined the banner of the Tughlaqs.³⁵

c21.44

⁵⁰ Tripathi: *Some Aspects of Muslim Administration*, p. 56.

c21.45

⁵¹ *Tughlaqnāmah*, p. 63.

c21.46

⁵² *Ibid.* p. 64.

c21.47

⁵³ *Ibid.* p. 67.

c21.48

⁵⁴ *Tughlaqnāmah*, pp. 68-70.

c21.49

³⁵ *Futūh*, pp. 369, 372, 375.

c21.50

Thus did Ghazi Malik, after welcoming his supporters and setting aside his enemies, prepare for a final struggle for the throne. It is not possible, on the study of Barani, to impute motives to Ghāzī Malik's sincere efforts to overthrow Nāsīruddin, but undoubtedly he had given the war a religious colour. To his fervent appeals for help in the holy cause the Muslim governors of Multan, Sīvistān and Samanah, and many other nobles of Delhi had sent a blunt refusal. Their action clearly shows that they did not trust Ghāzī Malik's high-toned appeals. Moreover, the Ghāzī had sent the circular letter to the governors of the provinces on the western frontier only. Had he sent the appeal to the governors of all the Indian provinces, perhaps his disappointment would have been greater. It was only Behram Aiba who had wholeheartedly supported the Ghāzī, and his motives in taking the decision are not far to seek when it is remembered that Malik Jūnā had taken Aiba's son with him when he had escaped from Delhi. How could Ghayāsuddin have been a saviour of Islam when most of the governors and people of northern India and the greatest Musalmans of the day Shaikh Nizāmuddin Aulia never recognised him as one? The truth appears to be that in spite of his emphatic professions the motives of Malik Tughlaq in fighting for the throne were quite secular and he had risen against Nāsīruddin only after his son had sent him full information about the conditions at Delhi and had joined him at Deopalpur.

c21.51

Events at Delhi also had taken a new turn. From the very beginning Khusrau had great apprehensions from Ghayāsuddin, and it was on account of him that he had given particular attention to Malik Jūnā and had appointed him to the high office of Akhūrbeg.³⁶ Ever since Malik Jūnā had fled from the court the real intentions of the Tughlaqs had become all the more manifest. Nāṣiruddin set to organise his forces for future emergency. Intelligence of the happenings in the various provinces caused by the diplomacy of Ghāzī Malik had reached his ears and the deaths of Maliks Maghlatī and Yaklakhī had sufficiently alarmed him. Although Khusrau had fought many battles in the Deccan yet he was no match for the veteran warrior Ghāzī, who had struck terror into the hearts of the Mongol invaders. Khusrau Shah gave the command of his forces to Sūfī Khan. With the troops he already had, and some others whom gold had secured for him, he prepared to fight the Tughlaq adventurer. A portion of his army, some 40,000 strong, marched under the command of Khan-i-Khānān, the king's brother, to check the advance of Ghāzī Malik from the very start. They marched to Sirsuti but failed to capture it. Then they proceeded onward to Deopalpur to give battle to Ghayāṡuddin there. The rival forces met in an open field somewhere near Dabhali or Dalili, then a village between Sirsuti and Deopalpur. After a short skirmish the royal forces were utterly routed and they fled pell-mell. Their youthful commander fled from the field of battle leaving behind elephants and horses and treasures to be seized by the victors. A large number of the vanquished were taken prisoners. The intelligence of this terrible disaster was conveyed to the king. It broke his spirits and frightened his partisans.

c21.52

³⁶ *Zafarul Vālī* p. 848.

c21.53

After the conclusion of this battle Ghāzī Tughlaq reorganised his forces for the final encounter. By now his financial resources had become quite satisfactory. While at Deopalpur, he had come to know of a caravan of horses and goods meant for the sultan of Delhi and had waylaid it.³⁷ Again in the battle fought near Sirsuti he had obtained much loot. So far as his fighting force was concerned, it consisted of the brave warriors of the northwest who had served him for several years in the past and on whose fidelity he could put implicit trust. The right wing of his forces was commanded by Bahāuddin, his sister’s son, and in support of this young general was deputed Bahrām Aiba of Uchch. The left wing was commanded by Malik Jūnā and with him were deputed Shihāb Ghaurī and Mīr Shādī, two other veteran warriors of repute. The centre was commanded by the brave Tughlaq himself. With his forces thus marshalled Ghāzī Tughlaq arrived by forced marches near Delhi and encamped in the vicinity of Raziya’s tomb in Indrapat.

c21.54

³⁷ *Tughlaqnāmah*, p. 77.

c21.55

Khusrau Shāh on his part also prepared to fight a last desperate battle. He brought out all the treasures from Kīlughari and Delhi, gave his soldiers two and a half months' salary in advance, and tried all means to prevent any sort of disaffection from spreading among his troops. But so confident had the people become of Ghāzī’s victory that many a soldier who had accepted Khusrau’s gold gave up all idea of fighting and went home. Indeed the demoralised army of Delhi was no match to the sturdy soldiers who followed in the wake of Ghāzī Malik “and to whom the present war seemed to be nothing short of a Jihād.”³⁸ In his extreme despondency and nervousness Nāsiruddīn burnt all records and account books of the imperial treasury. He held a council of war and consulted his supporters regarding the course of action to be adopted. It was decided to fight to a finish. The sultan marched out of Sīrī with his nobles and followers and encamped near the Hauz-i-‘Alāī. ‘Isāmī details the marshalling of Khusrau’s army. The sultan, the Khān-i-Khānān and Maldeva,³⁹ Raja of Chittor, took up positions in the centre. Sumbal, who had received the title of Hātim Khan and the post of Amīr-i-Hājib, commanded the right wing with Sūfi Khan as second in command. The left was in the charge of Shayasta Khan, Talbagha Nagori and Randhol.⁴⁰ Having thus organised his forces Nāsiruddin took up a position of great advantage, not far from Indrapat where the Ghāzī had pitched his tents. Behind him stood the gigantic fort of Delhi on which he could rely for provisions in case of emergency, and in front of him were a large number of groves and gardens to save him from terrific assaults. But the advantage of his position was marred by the betrayal of 'Ainulmulk, who took the road to Dhar and Ujjain on the eve of the day of battle. His desertion broke the heart of Khusrau Shah who saw around him naught but despondency.

c21.56

³⁸ Ishwari Prasad: *Qarauna Turks* vol. I p. 13.

c21.57

³⁹ 'Isāmī does not say who he was, but in all probability he was king of Chittor whom 'Alāuddīn had installed there after Khizr Khan's evacuation. Maldeva died in 1321.

c21.58

⁴⁰ *Futūh* pp. 374-75.

c21.59

It was on a Friday that the belligerant armies came in conflict on the plain of Lahravat, a village now untraceable but then surely situated between Delhi and the Hauz-i-Khās. Khusrau Shah himself commanded his troops. According to Yahya a short but stiff engagement was fought in which the royalists hurled back the forces of Ghāzī Malik.⁴¹ But in this battle Malik Talbagha Nagori, one of the staunchest supporters of Nāsiruddin, was killed; and Shayasta Khan, son of Qirat Qimār, fled away from the field of battle, although he did not forget to plunder the camp of Ghāzī during his flight. In spite of these losses Khusrau Khan held on till the evening, fighting gallantly and desparately all the time. His stubborn resistence moved Ghāzī Malik to a quick and determined action. He collected his troops and exhorted them to fight with all the might they could muster. His stirring appeal had the desired effect and about three hundred of his loyal and chosen horses fell fiercely upon their adversaries. The force of this charge made an irreparable breach in the ranks of Nāṣiruddīn. The Delhi army sustained a crushing defeat and fled in confusion.

c21.60

⁴¹ *T.M.S.* p. 91.

c21.61

Khusrau Khān had lost the battle. Realising that all was over for him now, he left the battle field and escaped towards Tilpat. A whole day's battle had exhausted him completely and he craved for some rest. As night came on he concealed himself in the garden of Malik Shādī, his patron of yore. All night long he stayed there but the next day they seized him and struck off his head. This is Barani's version. Amīr Khusrau also gives a similar account while Ibn Battūṭah gives a little different and more detailed account. He says that Khusrau successfully concealed himself in the garden of Malik Shādī but when he could not bear the pangs of hunger he gave his ring to the gardener to fetch him some food. The ring was detected and its owner caught. Ghāzī Malik first treated Khusrau kindly but later on ordered him to be beheaded at the same spot where he had got Quṭbuddīn murdered, and his corpse to be thrown down the palace from where he had thrown the deadbody of Mubārak Shāh. According to Amīr Khusrau Nāṣiruddīn was killed on Saturday, 1st Sh'abān 720 (September 6th 1320).⁴²

c21.62

⁴² The date given by Amīr Khusrau appears to be quite correct. Numismatical evidence shows that Ghiyāśuddīn Tughlaq ascended in 720 and not in 721 H. as Yahya and Ferishtah say. Nelson Wright, pp. 112-15. Thomas: *Chronicles*: pp. 158, 176-92. According to Baranī Nāṣiruddīn reigned for four and a half months. He, therefore, ascended the throne some time in Rabiul Avval so as to complete four and a half months in the beginning of Sh'abān. It is, therefore, evident that Yahya's date of Nāṣiruddīn's accession (5th Rabīul Avval 720, April 20, 1320) and Amīr Khusrau's date of his death (1st Sh'abān 720, September 6th, 1320) are the most probable.

c21.63

Thus died Nāsiruddin Khusrau after a restless reign of four months and some days. He had lived a life of great vicissitudes. Captured in the sack of Malwa, he began his life as a slave. From that low position he rose from post to post and ultimately attained to the highest dignity of sovereign through favouritism, through cunning and through his own merit. The orthodox Barani, to whom this low born infidel was nothing short of a devil upon earth, hurls every short of abuse upon Khusrau Shāh. But other historians like Amīr Khusrau, Yahya and even the orthodox Badaonī give him just praise: He secured the throne by such crafty yet admirable means that he deserves our praise for his planning intellect and dexterity. Once he had gained possession of the crown he tried to preserve it with all the might he could command. It was not his fault that his reign was so short. His only fault was that he had trusted too much to a nobility and a soldiery who were accustomed to worship the rising sun and desert a weak cause. Deceived by his followers and deserted by his troops, he stood on the field of battle till the last hour of the fight, and directed the remnant of his army with perseverence that deserves our applause. The last days of Khusrau call forth for a pardon of his early life. He had lived a life of scandal but died the death of a soldier.

Cites (4)