Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Twilight of the Sultanate c10: Chapter 5: The Punjab in Turmoil

Twilight of the Sultanate c10

Language
English

Contents

Chapter 5: The Punjab in Turmoil

c10.2

AFTER KHIZR KHAN'S demise his son Mubārak Khan succeeded to the throne on 22 May, 1421 (19 Jamadiul Avval, 824 H)¹ under the title of Mu'izuddīn Abul Fateh Sultan Mubārak Shāh². Tīmūr was in his grave for the last fifteen years, and the terror he had inspired was now a memory of the past. Besides, Khizr Khan's seven years of struggle had succeeded to a good extent in establishing the position of the Saiyyad dynasty. Mubārak Shāh therefore felt strong enough to remove Shāh Rukh's name from the Khutba; he assumed full sovereignty, took the title of Sultan³ and issued his own coins.

c10.3

¹ The Bib. Ind. text of T.M.S. has 17 Jamādi I, but in a footnote the editor says that the British Museum MS. has نوزدهم or 19. Elliot's MS. too had 19 (E and D, IV, 53). Ferishta writes that Mubārak Shāh ascended the throne three days after the death of Khizr Khan during which all were in mourning (Ferishta, I, 163). It was on 17 Jamādi I that Khizr Khan had died, and Mubārak Shāh ascended the throne on 19, the third day of the demise of the Sultan, when the period of mourning was over.

c10.4

² Ferishta, I, 163.

c10.5

³ T.M.S., 193. T.A., I, 271 and Ferishta, I, 163.

Jasrat Khokhar

c10.s1.1

Mubārak Shāh inherited all the problems his father had left unsolved, and no sooner had he donned the royal robes⁴ than he was called upon to deal with Jasrat Khokhar's rebellion in the Punjab.

c10.s1.2

⁴ Mubārak Shāh did not effect many changes of portfolios at the time of accession. He only transferred Malik Rajjab Nādira, son of Malik Sadhū Nādira, from the districts of Hisār Fīrōzā and Hansi to that of Deopalpur. Hisār Fīrōzā and Hansi were conferred upon Malik Badr, nephew of Sadhū Nādira. T.M.S., 193; Ferishta, I, 163.

c10.s1.3

According to Badaonī Jasrat Khokhar was the son⁵ of Shaikha Khokhar, chief of the Khokhar tribe,⁶ and master of the countryside around Sialkot. When Amīr Tīmūr was marching through the Southern Punjab, on his way to Delhi, Jasrat Khokhar was courageous enough to oppose him between Tulamba and Deopalpur, but he was worsted and with great difficulty escaped to his father.⁷ Later on, taking advantage of the confusion created by Tīmūr's invasion, he and his father reoccupied Lahore. When Shaikha was killed by the conqueror's orders on account of his "treachery", Jasrat was carried a prisoner to Samarqand. On the conqueror's death he effected his escape,⁸ returned to his homeland, resumed the leadership of his tribe and entrenched himself in the Khokhar stronghold of Sialkot.⁹ Taking advantage of the weakness of the Delhi Sultanate, he made minor additions to his independent principality whenever an opportunity presented itself. He took an active part in the Civil War in Kashmir which broke out between two royal brothers 'Alī Shāh and Shāhī Khan and gained from it immensely. It so happened that Sultan 'Alī Shāh of Kashmir, successor of Sikandar the Iconoclast, while going to pay a visit to his father-in-law, the Raja of Jammu, had left the administration of his kingdom in the hands of his brother Shāhī Khān. When he returned after some time, Shāhī Khān refused to acknowledge him. Thereupon 'Alī Shāh with the help of the Rajas of Jammu and Rajourī defeated his brother and drove him out of Srinagar. Shāhī Khān sought the help of Jasrat Khokhar, and the two together defeated 'Alī Shāh at Thanna¹⁰ in May-June, 1420 (Jamadiul Avval, 823 H),¹¹ and Shāhī Khān ascended the throne at Srinagar as Sultan Zainul Ābidīn. Jasrat's gain too was considerable. He had seized a large booty in the recent war, besides winning the friendship of the new Kashmir king. Thus strengthened, he began to dream of the throne of Delhi.¹² Zainul Ābidīn in his gratitude actively helped Jasrat in his plans with men and money.¹³ It was about this time that Tughān Raīs, after his defeat at the hands of Khizr Khān's general Zīrak Khān, also joined the standard of Jasrat Khokhar.¹⁴

c10.s1.4

⁵ Badaonī, I, 289 and Sharafuddin Yazdī, Z.N., II, 169 call him son of Shaikha Khokhar. Ferishta, I, 156 calls Jasrat 'brother' of Shaikha Khokar. Yahyā in T.M.S., 193, has "Jasrat Shaikha Khokhar".

c10.s1.5

⁶ Ferishta, I, 156 ff. makes the mistake of calling Jasrat Gakkhar. The Khokhars, the Gakkhars and the Kākars are generally confounded with one another, but these are three different tribes. The Khokhars are of indigenous origin and belong to the race of foreign invaders who came to India prior to Muslim conquest. They live on both sides of the Jhelum, from Mianwali to Jhang-Maghiana, and chiefly in the Shahpur district of the Punjab. In the fifteenth century they were in great strength in the region between the Ravi and the Chenab in northern Punjab extending up to Kashmir hill tracts. The Khokhars are split up into Muslim, Rajput and Jāt sections. The Gakkhars, who claim a Persian origin, belong to one of the invading races of India. They live in Attock, Jhelum and Rawalpindi districts in the Punjab, Hazara district in the N.W.F. Province, and Jammu region west of the Chenab. The Kākars are Afghans and inhabit northern Baluchistan. The Gakkhars and Kākars are Muhammedans. Āīn., I, 456, 486; Gakkhars in *Encyclopaedia of Islam*; Punjab Census Report, 1881, 149; Punjab District Gazetteers on Attock, Shahpur and Rawalpindi; I.H.Q., XV, 1939, 49 n; J.A.S.B., XL, 1871, Pt. I, 67; Indian Antiquary, XXXVI, 1-8.

c10.s1.6

⁷ Z.N., II, 57, 171; M.T.,E and D., III, 416; R.S., VI, 105; Ferishta, I, 159.

c10.s1.7

⁸ J.A.S.B., XL, 1871, Pt. I, 80.

c10.s1.8

⁹ Ferishta, I, 163; II, 364.

c10.s1.9

¹⁰ Mohibbul Hasan, *Kashmir Under the Sultans*, 69.

c10.s1.10

¹¹ T.M.S., 194; T.A., I, 271; Badaonī, Ranking, I, 381-82; Ferishta, I, 163.

c10.s1.11

¹² T.M.S., 193-94; Ferishta, I, 163; T.A., I, 271.

c10.s1.12

¹³ Ferishta, II, 342.

c10.s1.13

¹⁴ T.M.S., 191.

c10.s1.14

Khizr Khān's death provided a golden opportunity to Jasrat to raise his head, and in the very month of Mubārak Shāh's accession he descended on the Punjab like lightning. Starting from Sialkot and crossing the rivers Ravi, Beas and Sutlej, he attacked Rai Fīrōz Maīn,¹⁵ governor of Ludhiana, at Talwandi¹⁶ and drove him towards the east. Jasrat ravaged the country along the southern bank of the Sutlej as far as Rūpar and then recrossing the river laid siege to Jalandhar. Jalandhar had been taken by Khizr Khan from Tughān Raīs during his last rebellion and was placed in the charge of Zīrak Khan. Invested and hard pressed, Zīrak agreed to the terms offered by Jasrat Khokhar,¹⁷ but when he came out of the fort he was treacherously imprisoned by the Khokhar chief and carried off to Ludhiana. Marching from Ludhiana, Jasrat arrived at Sarhind,¹⁸ which was held by Sultan Shāh Lodī on behalf of the Sultan of Delhi. He laid siege to the fort but because of the rainy season failed to take it. This gave Sultan Shāh time to appeal to Delhi.

c10.s1.15

¹⁵ Yahyā followed by all other chroniclers says that Kamāluddīn Maīn was attacked at Talwandī and in the next sentence writes, "Rai Fīrōz Zamindar of the place" fled towards the east. T.M.S., 194; Ferishta, I, 163; T.A., I, 271; Badaonī, Ranking, I, 382. Jasrat did not attack Rai Kamāluddīn himself (for he was not alive at this time) but Talwandī of Rai Kamāluddīn, that is, Talwandi bearing his name probably because it had been founded by him. The person attacked was Rai Fīrōz, Kamāluddīn's son or successor. Perhaps Rai Fīrōz, after the custom in certain regions of India, had his name joined with that of his father. His full name therefore was Rai Fīrōz Kamāluddīn Maīn, as is clear from a statement a few pages later where we find Rai Kamāluddīn Fīrōz Maīn joining Sikandar Tuhfā at Lahore. T.M.S., 199; Ferishta, I, 164; T.A., I, 273. For a discussion on the name also see Hodivala, II, 159.

c10.s1.16

¹⁶ Talwandi is situated 20 miles S.W. of Ludhiana. It seems to be a corrupted form of village Tulum on the northern bank of the Sutlej. Rennel's map facing p. 65; also Badaoni, Ranking, I, 382 n.

c10.s1.17

¹⁷ T.M.S., 194-95.

c10.s1.18

¹⁸ T.M.S., 195. Sarhind or Fatehgarh is situated in Himachal Pradesh in 30° 88′ N. and 76° 27′ E. The spelling Sarhind is modern. Sarhind means Lion-Forest, but one tradition assigns it foundation to Sahir Rao, a ruler of Lahore. Imp. Gaz., Punjab, II, 309.

c10.s1.19

The appeal for succour lashed Mubārak Shāh into action, and in spite of heavy rains he left for Sarhind in July, 1421 (Rajjab, 824 H.).¹⁹ As he reached Kohila²⁰ near Samana, Jasrat raised the siege of Sarhind and hurriedly fell back on Ludhiana. During this precipitate retreat Zīrak Khan contrived to escape,²¹ and joined the Sultan at Samana. Mubārak Shāh started in pursuit of the enemy, but on arrival at Ludhiana he learnt that Jasrat had crossed the Sutlej with all available boats. As the river was in spate, and all the boats had fallen into the hands of the enemy, the Sultan could not cross it. But he continued to march along the bank keeping pace with the enemy on the other side. On Tuesday, 9 October (11 Shawwāl),²² when the rains had abated, the Sultan ordered Sikandar Tuhfā, Zīrak Khan, Mahmūd Hasan and Malik Kālū to march ahead and deliver a surprise attack on the enemy. They marched throughout the night and early in the morning forded the river at Rūpar. The sudden appearance of the royal contingent took Jasrat by complete surprise. While he made hurried preparations to encounter it, he found to his consternation that the Sultan himself had crossed the river unnoticed and was advancing from behind. To save himself from being sandwiched between the two royal forces, Jasrat took to flight without even making a show of resistance.²³ The royal army killed many of his men and captured his equipage. Jasrat fled to Jalandhar and then crossing the Beas, the Ravi and the Chenāb,²⁴ entered Tilhar or Talwara²⁵ situated in the lower slopes of the Kashmir highlands. Raja Bhīm of Jammu,²⁶ an old enemy of Jasrat Khokhar, led the Sultan to Talwara, "Jasrat's strongest place", which was captured and destroyed, but the rebel had escaped. Convinced of the futility of pursuing the fugitive any more, the Sultan returned to Lahore early in January, 1422 (Muharram, 825 H). This important outpost on the west had been lying in a deserted state since Tīmūr's invasion. Mubārak Shāh stayed there for a month to strengthen its defences, built a mud wall around it, renamed the city as Mubārakābād, and then leaving it in charge of Mahmūd Hasan with a garrison of 2,000 men, returned to Delhi.²⁷

c10.s1.20

¹⁹ T.M.S., 195.

c10.s1.21

²⁰ Kohila may be identified with modern Koi or Khoi, a village 48 miles south of Ludhiana. Samana is 17 miles S.W. of Patiala town and about 170 miles west of Delhi.

c10.s1.22

²¹ T.M.S., 196 and Badaonī, Ranking, I, 382, say that he was released. Ferishta, I, 163, says that he escaped. T.A. only says that he joined the Sultan.

c10.s1.23

²² T.M.S., 196; Ferishta, I, 164.

c10.s1.24

²³ T.M.S., 196; Ferishta, I, 164; T.A., I, 272.

c10.s1.25

²⁴ T.M.S., 197, has جانپ but obviously Chenāb is meant. Ranking (Badaoni, I, 383) correctly translates it, "Crossed the river Chīnāb".

c10.s1.26

²⁵ See Appendix B.

c10.s1.27

²⁶ T.M.S., 197 has Bhīlam but T.A., I, 272 has the correct name Bhīm.

c10.s1.28

²⁷ T.M.S., 197; T.A., I, 273; Ferishta, I, 164.

c10.s1.29

Jasrat Khokhar was enraged at the sack of Talwara. He collected a large force with the help of the local zamindars, descended from his hilly retreat and stood before Lahore in May, 1422 (Jamadiul Ākhir).²⁸ Establishing his base camp near the tomb of Shaikhul Mashāikh Shaikh Husāin Zanjānī,²⁹ he twice attacked the city, but on both the occasions he was worsted by Mahmūd Hasan.

c10.s1.30

²⁸ T.M.S., 197.

c10.s1.31

²⁹ T.M.S., 198; Ferishta, I, 164; Badaonī, 290; Ranking I, 383. T.A. mistakingly has Rehānī. Shaikh Husāin Zanjānī was a man of great learning. Shaikh Mu'inuddīn Chishtī used to attend his lectures at Lahore, where he lies buried. Shaikh Husāin Zanjānī's tomb is visited by a large number of people every year. Zanjān or Zinjān lies on the borders of Azarbaijān near Qazwīn. Jarret, Āīn., Trs., III, 362 and notes.

c10.s1.32

Finding his position none the better, Jasrat retired to Kalanaur.³⁰ On hearing of Jasrat's activities Mubārak Shāh had ordered Raja of Jammu to intercept him and had despatched Malik Sikandar Tuhfā to Lahore to help in its defence. Raja Bhīm fought Jasrat at Kalanaur and drove him towards the Beas (August-September, 1422). Meanwhile, Malik Sikandar, marching towards Lahore, forded the Beas at Būhī³¹ and drove Jasrat across the Beas and the Ravi back into the hills of Talwara.³² Arriving in Lahore in 825 H Sikandar Tuhfā in company with Malik Rajjab Nādira governor of Deopalpur, Malik Sultan Shāh Lodī governor of Sarhind, Rai Fīrōz Maīn and Raja Bhīm combed the Talwara hills, but Jasrat again eluded their grasp. Thinking further pursuit in that difficult terrain to be fruitless, the royal nobles returned to Lahore.

c10.s1.33

³⁰ Kalanaur is situated 17 miles west of Gurdaspur town. Akbar received the news of Humayūn's death here only, and ascended the throne at Kalanaur before marching to Agra, 1556.

c10.s1.34

³¹ T.M.S., 199 and later on p. 230 has بوهی. Badaonī I, 297 has بوهی. Ferishta has Lohī لوهی, I, 164, l. 12. E and D, IV, 77 also has Pohi. According to Ranking "Puhi in the text is probably identical with Poni". Badaoni, Ranking, I, 384 n; also Hodivala, II, 161.

c10.s1.35

³² T.M.S., 199.

c10.s1.36

After ordering the aforementioned commanders to deal with Jasrat Khokhar, Mubārak Shāh marched to Katēhar to bring order in that problem tract. The details of his campaign would be studied later, suffice it here to say that the failure of the royal generals in the Punjab and the preoccupation of Mubārak Shāh in Katēhar encouraged Jasrat to attack Rai Bhīm at Jammu in April, 1423, ravage his country and kill him in battle. Large quantities of arms and treasures of the Raja fell into his hands, which added to his strength and ambition. With ten to twelve thousand foot and horse he sacked the districts of Deopalpur and Lahore, but could achieve little because of the timely action of Malik Sikandar Tuhfā, the newly appointed governor of Lahore. Unable to make much headway against the Delhi armies all by himself, Jasrat invited Amīr Shaikh 'Alī³³ of Kabul to help him in fighting the Sultanate. Luckily the latter was unable to come at that moment to Hindustan and the danger disappeared as quickly as it had dawned.

c10.s1.37

³³ Shaikh 'Alī was the son of Danishmandchā, a descendant of Chaghtaī, son of Chingīz. He was Naīb or Deputy-governor of Kabul first under Suyurghtimish Mirza, son of Shāhrukh and later under Suyurghtimish's son Masa'ūd Mirza Kabuli. B.N. (B), I, 382; E and D, IV. 59 n. and 233. Also Brown, Trs. of *Tarīkh-i-Guzīda*, II, 134. Yahya probably did not know the name of Masa'ūd Mirza and calls him only "the son of Saratamish". T.M.S., 201 and n. .

c10.s1.38

Unable to secure any help from abroad, Jasrat Khokhar kept comparatively quiet for the next five years. Now and then he would raise his head, especially whenever he found the Sultan busy in some region far away from the Punjab, but this plan did not help him much. In A. D. 1427, taking advantage of the preoccupation of the royal armies in Bayana and Mewāt, he laid siege to Kalanaur. The Sultan deputed Zirak Khan and Islam Khan to march against him, but even before their arrival he was chased out of Kalanaur and later defeated at Kangra by Sikandar Tuhfā and his deputy Ghālib Khan. Jasrat was convinced that he could not fight against the royal armies all alone; so he waited to join hands with any other adventurer. The opportunity did not come soon, but when it came in 1431-2, he once again threw himself into the whirlpool of rebellion.

Faulād Turkbachchā and Shaikh 'Alī

c10.s2.1

During the few years of respite on the score of Jasrat Khokhar in the Punjab, Mubārak Shāh undertook campaigns in the central and eastern regions against independent chiefs and rulers. In the winter of 1429, while he was marching against Bayana, Gwalior, Hatkanth and Rapri on usual revenue-collecting expeditions, Saiyyad Sālim, the governor of Bhatinda, was taken ill and breathed his last.³⁴ He had served the Sultanate with fidelity for the last thirty years, and had held several parganās in the Doab, the Khittā of Sirsutī, the *iqt'ā* of Amrohā and the fort of Tabarhinda (Bhatindā).³⁵ Though a loyal noble, Saiyyad Sālim was a man both greedy and stingy by nature. He had amassed a large amount of wealth and had treasured it in the fort of Bhatindā. At the time of his death his sons were in the royal camp, but his slave Faulād Turkbachchā,³⁶ who was in charge of Bhatindā, raised an insurrection in July, 1430 (Shawwāl, 833 H)³⁷ and confiscated the treasure.

c10.s2.2

³⁴ T.M.S. ; Badaonī, I, 294 ; T.A., I, 280 C.H.I., III, writes that he died at Bhatinda.

c10.s2.3

³⁵ T.M.S., 214. Sirsutī or Sirsa is a district in Hisar Division, Punjab, between the rivers Sutlej and Ghagar. Amroha is in Moradabad district.

c10.s2.4

³⁶ T.M.S., 215 and ff. has Paulād. T.A., I, 280 and Ferishta, I, 166, have Faulād. Both the words mean steel. I am inclined to accept Ferishta's reading.

c10.s2.5

³⁷ Ferishta, I, 166.

c10.s2.6

On receipt of the news of Faulād's insurrection, Mubārak Shāh imprisoned the sons of Saiyyad Sālim, who were with him in the camp,³⁸ and sent Malik Yūsuf, son of Sarwarul Mulk,³⁹ and Rai Hansū (Hansrāj) Bhaṭṭī⁴⁰ to deal with the rebel and seize the treasure. But Faulād proved too clever for them and while posing to negotiate for a settlement, he threw them off their guard, attacked and completely routed them. They fled towards Sirsutī, pursued by Faulād, who captured all their cash, goods and tents. At this Mubārak Shāh himself proceeded to Sirsutī, and also sent word to Imādul Mulk at Multan to join him. In the meantime Zīrak Khan, Malik Kalū, Islām Khan and Kamāl Khan, who had been ordered to march and besiege Bhatinda, had begun the investment of the fort. Hard pressed, Faulād had an interview with Imādul Mulk and agreed to make his submission to the Sultan, but a rumour current in the camp that the Sultan meant to put him to death so scared him that he broke off the negotiations. But Mubārak Shāh did not want to force the issue probably because he had got an inkling that the rebel, who was in possession of an immense treasure, was trying to purchase help from beyond the Indus. To gain time Mubārak Shāh ordered Imādul Mulk back to Multan and leaving Islām Khān, Kamāl Khan and Rai Fīrōz Maīn to carry on the investment, himself returned to Delhi in November, 1430 (Safar, 834 H).⁴¹

c10.s2.7

³⁸ At the time of the rebellion, it was suspected that the sons of Saiyyad Sālim had a hand in it, and so Mubārak Shāh imprisoned them. Ferishta, I, 166; T.M.S., 215; T.A., De, 312 n. Badaonī, Ranking, I, 388. But subsequent events show that they had little to do with Faulād's insurrection. Neither Mubārak Shāh nor his successors ever tried to victimise them. On the contrary, after Faulād's fall, they were enrolled in the order of nobility. In the promotion list of the time of Muhammad Shāh's accession (A.D. 1434), we find the eldest son of Saiyyad Sālim retaining the title of Majlis-i-'Ālī Saiyyid Khan and the younger one of Shujaul Mulk. T.M.S., 243, T.A., I, 290.

c10.s2.8

³⁹ T.M.S., 215 has "Malik Yūsuf Sarūp." Later on on p. 220 he is called Malik Yūsuf-i-Sarwarul Mulk. Yūsuf was the son of Sarwarul Mulk and had been appointed governor of Delhi city when his father was raised to the dignity of Vazīr. Badaonī also reads Yūsuf-i-Sarwar, Text I, 294, Ranking, I, 388. But Yahyā has Sarūp on many pages, which perhaps indicates that he may have been only recently converted.

c10.s2.9

⁴⁰ Rai Hansū, probably short of Hansrāj, was the son of Rai Daljīt Bhaṭṭi. Both Yahyā and Badaonī call him Hansū, but at certain places he is written as Hīmū also.

c10.s2.10

⁴¹ T.M.S., 216; T.A., I, 281; Ferishta, I, 167.

c10.s2.11

The fears of the Sultan turned out to be true. Driven to bay, Paulād sent emissaries to Shaikh ’Alī, the governor of Kabul, soliciting his help against ready money. Greatly tempted, Shaikh ’Alī marched with a large army from Kabul to help Paulād, and in the month of February-March, 1431 (Jamadiul Ākhir, 834 H)⁴² he arrived on the banks of the Jhelum. A’īnuddīn, a Khokhar chief, joined him from Tilwara (this Tilwara is situated opposite Deopalpur) and Shaikh ’Alī’s nephew Amīr Muzaffar⁴³ arrived with a large contingent from Shorkot (Seor).⁴⁴ Passing through Qasūr, Shaikh ’Alī crossed the Beas at the ford of Būhī and ravaged the country of Rai Fīrōz who rushed to it from the siege of Bhatinda. Shaikh ’Alī took particular care to ravage the districts of those nobles who were investing the fort of Bhatinda⁴⁵ with a view to unnerving them. He succeeded in his tactics, because before he arrived within twenty miles of Bhatinda, the royal commanders had raised the siege. Faulād emerged from the fort, paid Shaikh ’Alī the stipulated amount of two lac silver *tankas*⁴⁶ for his assistance and then busied himself in preparations for a stronger defence.⁴⁷

c10.s2.12

⁴² T.M.S., 217.

c10.s2.13

⁴³ T.M.S., 217; T.A., I, 282-83; Ferishta, I, 167.

c10.s2.14

⁴⁴ Yahyā and Ferishta have Seor while Nizāmuddīn and Badaonī have Shor. It is certainly Shorkot 30° 50′ N. 72° 6′ E. Also see p. 17 n. 24.

c10.s2.15

⁴⁵ T.M.S., 217.

c10.s2.16

⁴⁶ Ferishta, I, 167.

c10.s2.17

⁴⁷ Badaonī and Ferishta write: "He (Shaikh ’Alī) removed the slave (Faulād) together with all his family and relations from Tabarhinda and taking them with himself .. came to Lahore." Badaonī, I, 294; Ranking, I, 388-89. This is not correct as a little later we find Faulād in the fort of Bhatinda fighting against the Sultanate as enthusiastically as ever.

c10.s2.18

Shaikh 'Alī left Bhatinda devastating on the way most of the districts of Rai Fīrōz. He crossed the Sutlej at Tirhārā, in Ludhiana district,⁴⁸ took a large number of prisoners from Jalandhar to Jāran-Manjūr,⁴⁹ and then returned along the banks of the Beas. Crossing the Beas in April, 1431 (Rajjab) he arrived at Lahore, where its governor Malik Sikandar saved the country from molestation by "paying him the usual customary annual tribute".⁵⁰

c10.s2.19

⁴⁸ *See* note 52, p. 10.

c10.s2.20

⁴⁹ Jāran-Manjūr has been mentioned before by Amīr Khusru and Ziyauddīn Baranī in connection with a Mongol invasion in the time of 'Alāuddīn Khaljī. *Deval Rani*, 60; T.F.S. (B), 250; Ferishta, I, 102. The place mentioned by Baranī for Jāran Manjūr is Jalandhar. Yahyā (T.M.S., 218), however, makes it a place separate from Jalandhar when he says "from Jalandhar to Jāran Manjūr". Hodivala writes a long note, but gives many alternative place names (246-47). The place was either Jalandhar itself or in its environs. *Also see* K. S. Lal, *History of the Khaljīs*, 153 n. 27.

c10.s2.21

⁵⁰ T.M.S., 218; Ferishta, I, 167. This remark of Yahyā throws much light on the position of the Punjab in which Mubārak Shāh was claiming to reassert his authority. Khizr Khan had been all obedience to Tīmūr and Shāh Rukh, but unlike his father, Mubārak Shāh seems to have cared little for Shāh Rukh (Ferishta, I, 167 lines 9-10). All the same from what Yahyā writes, and writes without an iota of doubt or hesitation, it is evident that annual tribute was remitted to Kabul from Lahore (T.M.S., 218). Shaikh 'Alī's nephew Muzaffar used to reside at Shorkot with a large force probably to collect and remit this tribute to Kabul, and the situation was none too flattering for the Sultan of Hindustan.

c10.s2.22

From Lahore Shaikh 'Alī proceeded to Tilwara, opposite Deopalpur, sacking and pillaging, and during the next twenty days he slew a large number of people and took prisoner many others.⁵¹ Reports of his atrocities made 'Imādul Mulk of Multan gird up his loins and march to Tulamba. His determination made Shaikh 'Alī retire from Tilwara, but the Sultan ordered 'Imād to avoid a conflict and return to Multan. This weak-kneed policy of Mubārak Shāh only emboldened the hired invader. He crossed the Ravi at Khatībpur, plundered the country along the banks of the Chēnab, and arrived within ten *kuroh* of Multan. 'Imādul Mulk sent Sultan Shāh Lodī to intercept Shaikh 'Alī, but the former's force came unexpectedly in contact and inevitable conflict with the latter's. Sultān Shāh was killed and his force scattered.⁵² Only a few escaped to Multan to relate the terrible tragedy.

c10.s2.23

⁵¹ T.M.S., 218; Ferishta, I, 167 line 15.

c10.s2.24

⁵² T.M.S., 219; T.A., I, 282; and Badaonī, Ranking, I, 389, say he was killed. Only Ferishta, I, 167 says he was defeated but not killed. This may be due to a mistaken reading of *shikast* for *shahādat*.

c10.s2.25

Shaikh 'Alī occupied Khusruābād,⁵³ situated close to Multan, and encamped at the Namāzgāh about three *kuroh* from the city. The next day he launched an assault on one of its gates, but 'Imādul Mulk returned the charge and compelled him to return to his camp. Shaikh 'Alī made two more attempts on Multan on 6 and 8 June (25 and 27 Muharram) but 'Imādul Mulk not only succeeded in saving the fort but also inflicted heavy casualties on the enemy. He was still more strengthened by reinforcements from Delhi led by Khan-i-Āzam Fateh Khan, son of Muzaffar Shāh Gujaratī, Zīrak Khan, governor of Samana, Malik Kālu the keeper of elephants, Malik Yūsuf, son of Sarwarul Mulk, and Rai Hansū Bhattī. In consultation with them 'Imādul Mulk planned an offensive and attacked Shaikh 'Alī's camp at the Namāzgāh on 13 July, 1431 (3 Zilq'ada, 834 H),⁵⁴ and so completely sacked it that Shaikh 'Alī could save himself only by taking shelter behind the pile of his baggage.⁵⁵ The imperialists chased him up to the Chēnab compelling him to cross the river. Most of his soldiers, including his nephew Hajī Kar, were killed or drowned, and only a few could effect their escape to Shorkot. Yahyā closes the narrative of this debacle with a cryptic remark: "Such a dire calamity never befell any army on any previous occasion, or in any other reign".⁵⁶ Shaikh 'Alī was thoroughly demoralised with this defeat. Leaving his nephew Muzaffar at Shorkot, he himself returned to Kabul. Operations against Muzaffar were stayed in pursuance of the royal mandate, and the relieving force returned to Delhi.

c10.s2.26

⁵³ Nizāmuddīn and Ferishta call the place Khairābād. According to the latter it was situated 3 stages from Multan (T.A., I, 282; Ferishta, I, 167, line 11). Yahyā and Badaonī have Khusruābād (T.M.S., 219 and Badaonī, I, 295, Ranking Trs. I, 389). Neither of the place names is traceable on the maps now. It may, however, be the Khusruābād of Ibn Battūta, who, while describing his journey from Sindh to Delhi, says that on the way from Uchch to Multan, he crossed the river of Khusruābād at a distance of ten miles (probably he meant 10 *kos*) from the latter. Ibn Battūta, Def. and Sang., III, 117; Also Hodivala, 408.

c10.s2.27

⁵⁴ T.M.S., 221.

c10.s2.28

⁵⁵ *Ibid*. 221. حصار که گرد بنگاه خویش بر آورده بود (Fortress which he had built round his camp).

c10.s2.29

⁵⁶ T.M.S., 221; Basu's Trs., 229.

c10.s2.30

At Delhi Mubārak Shāh ordered the transfer of the governorship of Multan from the charge of Malik 'Imādul Mulk Mahmūd Hasan to that of Malik Khairuddīn. Opinions differ on the Sultan's motive in taking the fief of Multan from the illustrious Mahmūd Hasan, about whose capability and loyalty there could hardly have been any doubt. Yahyā says, in so many words, that because the siege of Shorkot was raised the Sultan ordered this transfer, obviously to punish Mahmūd, but at another place he says that the siege was given up at the bidding of the monarch himself.⁵⁷ There may be more than a grain of truth in the statement of Ferishta that the King had become jealous of 'Imādul Mulk's popularity due to his victory over Shaikh 'Alī, and called him back to the court.⁵⁸ One should also keep in mind the unhealthy ambition of Sarwarul Mulk, who was constantly planning his rise at the cost of others, and was ever plotting towards that end. It had been at his instigation that a chain of transfers was effected in 1422 in which Mahmūd Hasan was shifted from Lahore to Jalandhar. Whatever the reasons, the transfer of 'Imādul Mulk at this critical juncture was most indiscreet, "imprudent and inconsiderate",⁵⁹ and was to create a very grave situation in Multan.

c10.s2.31

⁵⁷ T.M.S., 223. در اثنای آن توقیع همایون اعلی رسید - کل نامزدی از گرد حصار سیور برخاسته سمت شهر آمدند - بدین سبب اقطاع ملطان از ملك الشرق تحویل كرده بحوالهء ملك خيرالدين خانی گردانيد - (In the meantime the imperialists, in pursuance of the royal mandate, gave up the siege of Seor, and took their way to the capital. It was for this reason that the iqt'ā of Multan was taken from Malik Mahmūd Hasan and bestowed upon Malik Khairuddīn Khanī).

c10.s2.32

⁵⁸ Ferishta, I, 167, line 3 from below.

c10.s2.33

⁵⁹ T.M.S., 223.

Anarchical Situation

c10.s3.1

The retreat of Shaikh 'Alī gave no respite to the Sultanate for Jasrat Khokhar was up in arms once again. His relatives had earlier joined Shaikh 'Alī and he too was keen on deriving the best advantage from the confusion created by Shaikh 'Alī's invasion.

c10.s3.2

For many years past he had kept quiet (except in 1427 when he was badly defeated at Kangra). But now, when the Sultanate was grappling with Shaikh 'Alī, Jasrat thought it an opportune time to join hands with the latter and try his strength against the Sultanate once more. At his invitation⁶⁰ Shaikh 'Alī reappeared in Multan to help Jasrat as well as to avenge his last defeat. Meanwhile the rebel emerged from his mountain retreat of Talwara, and crossing the Chēnab, the Ravi and the Beas suddenly fell upon Sikandar Tuhfā near Jalandhar in November, 1431 (Rabiul Avval, 835 H).⁶¹ Sikandar was defeated and taken prisoner. Carrying his captive along with him, Jasrat dashed upon Lahore and invested it. Lahore was bravely defended by Saiyyad Najmuddīn, Sikandar's deputy, and another officer Malik Khushkhabr by name. Meanwhile Shaikh 'Alī again arrived in Multan and attacked Khatībpur and several other villages on the Chēnab, and on 23 November, 1431 (17 Rabiul Avval, 835 H) he sacked Tulamba even after he had promised amnesty to its inhabitants.⁶² About now Faulād Turkbachchā also marched out of Bhatinda, devastated the country of Rai Fīrōz and killed him in battle. The whole of the Punjab was now at the mercy of the rebels and invaders. The suffering of the people knew no bounds.

c10.s3.3

⁶⁰ *Ibid.*, 225; Ferishta, I, 168.

c10.s3.4

⁶¹ T.M.S., 223; Ferishta, I, 167.

c10.s3.5

⁶² T.M.S., 224; T.A., I, 283; Ferishta, I, 168.

c10.s3.6

Mubārak Shāh was completely confounded at the turn of events, but he acted with unusual decision and promptitude. He sent the Vazīr, Sarwarul Mulk, with a large force in advance and himself followed with the army to Lahore *en route* to Multan in January, 1432. The Sultan's movements had a salutary effect. On his arrival in Samana, Jasrat raised the siege of Lahore and retreated into Talwara carrying with him the precious prisoner, Sikandar Tuhfā. Shaikh 'Alī also evacuated Tulamba and retreated towards Marwāt⁶³ on his way to Kabul.⁶⁴ Because of these developments Mubārak Shāh proceeded no further. He bestowed the fiefs of Jalandhar and Lahore on Khan-i-Khanān Nusrat Khan Gurgandāz (the Wolf Slayer), and deputed Sarwarul Mulk to escort the family of Sikandar Tuhfā from Lahore to Delhi.

c10.s3.7

⁶³ T.M.S., 225 has Bartot بارتوت and so has Hajīuddabīr, Z. W., III, 917. Many MSS. of T.A. also have Bartot while the Bib. Ind. text has Martot. (T.A. De, 316, n. 4.) Prof. Hodivala suggests that the place meant is, perhaps, Marot or Marwāt, now a tehsil in Bannū district in Western Pakistan. It contains the town of Lakki. Lakki-Marwat is now a Rly. station, 37 miles southeast of Bannu. Hodivala, 409. I.G., XVIII, 213. Constable, 24 Da.

c10.s3.8

⁶⁴ Badaoni, Ranking, I, 390; Ferishta, I, 168.

c10.s3.9

Having somehow settled the affairs in the west, Mubārak Shāh returned to Delhi, on the way ordering 'Imādul Mulk to chastise the "rebels" of Bayana and Gwalior, obviously to collect revenue. But hardly had he turned his back on the Punjab, than Jasrat reappeared from his stronghold, and sacking the districts on the way attacked Lahore in August, 1432 (Zilhijja, 836 H).⁶⁵ At the news of Jasrat's renewed activity Mubārak Shāh marched towards Samana, but when he learnt that the rebel had been defeated by Nusrat Khan and had consequently retreated, the Sultan returned to Panipat. From there he hastened to the death-bed of his mother, Makhdūma-i-Jahān. After mourning her loss and performing the last rites, he rejoined the army at Panipat after ten days. From there he sent Malik Sarwarul Mulk, Islām Khan and Kahun Raj⁶⁶ to Bhatinda against Faulād Turkbachchā, who had grown stronger from the riches he had obtained from the country of Rai Fīrōz.⁶⁷ He also transferred Jalandhar and Lahore from the charge of Nusrat Khan to that of Allahadād Kālā Lodī,⁶⁸ and himself proceeded to Mewat. Jasrat Khokhar could hardly miss a chance of trying his strength with the new governor, and as Malik Allahadād was proceeding to take charge of his fief, Jasrat marched to Bajwara, defeated Allahadād, and compelled him to seek shelter in the foot hills of Kothi.⁶⁹

c10.s3.10

⁶⁵ T.M.S., 225.

c10.s3.11

⁶⁶ *Ibid.*, 226 has کهون راج. T.A. does not give the name.

c10.s3.12

⁶⁷ *Ibid.*, 226.

c10.s3.13

⁶⁸ Ferishta, I, 168. Badaoni has Kālū Lodī.

c10.s3.14

⁶⁹ T.M.S., 227. T.A., I, 284, has foothills of Kothi Bajwārā. Badaoni does not give the name of the foothill.

c10.s3.15

A little after this, it was reported that Shaikh 'Alī was once again advancing to the aid of Faulād Turkbachchā, who was being besieged at Bhatinda by the royalists. Greatly worried lest the fear of Shaikh 'Alī should prompt the royalists to abandon the siege, the Sultan immediately sent Malik 'Imādul Mulk to reinforce the besieging army and his arrival there indeed emboldened and strengthened the royal officers and men.⁷⁰ But concentration of troops at one place made the work of the governor of Kabul all the more easy. He issued from Shorkot, plundered the villages along the banks of the Ravi, took a number of prisoners from Sahaniwal or Sahiwal⁷¹ (Montgomery) and arriving in Lahore began its investment. Malik Yūsuf, son of Sarwarul Mulk, Malik Ismaīl, nephew of Zīrak Khan, and Malik Raja, son of Bahār Khan, commanders of the Lahore garrison, either because of lack of confidence in themselves or because of lack of trust in the city people,⁷² fled towards Deopalpur, and Shaikh 'Alī occupied Lahore without any opposition. He plundered the citizens, desecrated the mosques,⁷³ and then leaving a garrison of 2,000 troops, he marched out to attack Deopalpur to which Malik Yūsuf had retired. But the wretched Yūsuf having heard of the move of Shaikh 'Alī, began to plan to abandon the fort of Deopalpur just as he had abandoned that of Lahore. This was the result of promoting incompetent men. Yūsuf had never shown any talents and his rise had been due only to his intriguing father, the Vazīr. When 'Imādul Mulk, who was still besieging Bhatinda, came to learn of Yūsuf's intentions, he despatched his brother Malik Ahmad with a large force to hold Deopalpur. Shaikh 'Alī had been badly mauled by 'Imādul Mulk on a former occasion and the dread of the latter's name dissuaded him from attacking the place, but he took possession of all the towns between Deopalpur and Lahore.⁷⁴

c10.s3.16

⁷⁰ T.M.S., 228.

c10.s3.17

⁷¹ The Sāhiwāl of the present maps, 31° 58′ N. 87° 40′ E, does not fall on the route from Shorkot to Lahore. Professor Hodivala, 409, suggests, "This Sahaniwal may be Sāhiwāl, the old name of the modern town of Montgomery which was founded in 1865 and lies between the Ravi and the Sutlej". Also *I.G.*, XVIII, 419.

c10.s3.18

⁷² T.A., I, 285.

c10.s3.19

⁷³ T.M.S., 228-29.

c10.s3.20

⁷⁴ T.A., I, 285; T.M.S., 229.

c10.s3.21

The conduct of the officers who had relinquished Lahore had greatly annoyed Mubārak Shāh. He was now determined to deal with Shaikh 'Alī whatever the cost, and moved out of Delhi in February, 1433 (Jamadiul Ākhir, 837).⁷⁵ At Samana, Malik Kamāluddīn, who had been away towards Etawah and Gwalior, joined him. The Sultan then proceeded via Sunam to Talwāndī, where 'Imādul Mulk and Islām Khan arrived from Bhatinda for consultations. Sending instructions to the other Amīrs at Bhatinda not to abandon its siege,⁷⁶ the Sultan moved towards the Ravi. Alarmed by Mubārak Shāh’s movements and his all-round preparations, Shaikh ’Alī began to pack up for the return march. When Mubārak Shāh reached Deopalpur, Shaikh ’Alī had already crossed the Chenab.⁷⁷ ’Imādul Mulk was sent in pursuit of the fleeing Shaikh ’Alī, while Malik Sikandar Tuhfā, who had secured his release from Jasrat Khokhar on payment of a heavy ransom,⁷⁸ was given the title of Shamsul Mulk, and ordered to invest Lahore which was held by the garrison left by Shaikh ’Alī. The Sultan himself proceeded to deal with his nephew Amīr Muzaffar at Shorkot. He crossed the Ravi at Tulamba and arriving at the fort, laid siege to it. Shorkot capitulated to the Sultan after a month’s resistance in May, 1433 (Ramzān).⁷⁹ Muzaffar made complete submission, married his daughter to the King’s son,⁸⁰ paid a large tribute and vacated the fort the next month. In the meantime ’Imādul Mulk, who was chasing Shaikh ’Alī, succeeded in capturing a number of his horse and a good amount of his goods.

c10.s3.22

⁷⁵ T.M.S., 229; T.A., I, 285.

c10.s3.23

⁷⁶ T.M.S., 230 ; Ferishta, I, 168 and T.A., I, 285. The language of Yahyā and Ferishta is quite clear امرای دیگر را فرمان داد تا از گرد حصار دور نشوند (Directed the other nobles not to abandon the siege of the fort.) But Nizāmuddīn Ahmad uses the words برخیزند (rise, that is, raise the siege) in place of دور نشوند (not to get away), and this has misled both Sir Wolseley Haig and B. De, the translator of the *Tabqāt-i-Akbari*, into believing that the Amīrs were ordered to leave the neighbourhood of Tabarhind. T.A., De’s trs. 319 ; C.H.I., III, 219. Later events also show that Yahyā and Ferishta are correct and the mistake of Nizāmuddīn is probably only of the scribe.

c10.s3.24

⁷⁷ T.A., I, 286.

c10.s3.25

⁷⁸ Ferishta, I, 168 line 6 from below.

c10.s3.26

⁷⁹ T.M.S., 230.

c10.s3.27

⁸⁰ T.M.S., 230 ; T.A., I, 286. Ferishta, I, 168 line 13 from below says, Muzaffar “gave his daughter to the King”. Badaonī, Ranking, I, 392 has “gave his daughter, together with a large amount of money and valuables, to the prince”.

c10.s3.28

Mubārak Shāh had at last succeeded in putting an end to the disorder in the North-Western part of his kingdom. His achievement gave him mental relief too. In all happiness and gratitude he went on a pilgrimage to the tombs of the holy saints at Multan. Incidentally he also checked up on the management of public affairs in those parts, and then returned to Deopalpur. To guard against further incursions of Shaikh 'Alī, Mubārak Shāh placed Lahore and Deopalpur under the charge of 'Imādul Mulk,⁸¹ and his district of Bayana was bestowed upon Shamsul Mulk Sikandar Tuhfā.⁸² Leaving the army under the charge of Kamālul Mulk, the monarch returned in all happiness to celebrate the, 'Īd⁸³ in the capital city where he arrived on the auspicious day itself.

c10.s3.29

⁸¹ Here Basu's translation of the T.M.S. is defective and confused. He is inclined to think that Lahore was bestowed upon Shaikh 'Alī himself. T.M.S., 231, Basu's Trs., 238.

c10.s3.30

⁸² T.M.S., 231 ; Badaonī, Ranking, I, 392.

c10.s3.31

⁸³ Badaonī has 'Id-i-Qurbān or Festival of Sacrifice. This falls on the 10th day of Zilhijja. It is the 'Id-i-Kabīr as distinguished from 'Id-i-Fitr in which is celebrated the termination of the fast of Ramzān. Ranking, I, 392 and n ; T.P. Hughes, *Dictionary of Islam*, 192, 196.

Cites (4)