Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Twilight of the Sultanate c10.s2: Faulād Turkbachchā and Shaikh 'Alī

Twilight of the Sultanate c10.s2

Language
English

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.

Cites (4)