Twilight of the Sultanate c11: Chapter 6: The Problem Tract

Twilight of the Sultanate c11

Language: English

c11.s1 Katehar—Bayana—Mewat—Doab — 40 parts
c11.s2 Jaunpur — 23 parts
c11.s3 Murder of Mubārak Shāh — 25 parts

Chapter 6: The Problem Tract

Katehar—Bayana—Mewat—Doab

c11.s1.1

BESIDES THE PUNJAB, the recalcitrant western Uttar Pradesh with its numerous independent principalities formed another problem-tract for Mubārak Shāh Saiyyad. The eastern U. P. had already been gradually occupied by Jaunpur. It could not be reclaimed until the Jaunpur kingdom was destroyed and this was beyond the power of the Saiyyads. So the Saiyyad monarchs concentrated on re-establishing their authority in western U. P. only. This was the policy of Khizr Khan, and of his successors. However, ever since his accession right up to A. D. 1433, Mubārak Shāh’s attention and armies were concentrated on the Punjab, and he could deal with the problem-tract of western Uttar Pradesh only in a desultory manner.

c11.s1.2

For a year and a half since Mubārak’s accession, his attention had been kept concentrated on the Punjab by Jasrat Khokhar, giving a welcome opportunity to the Rajas and Zamindars of U. P. to avoid payment of tribute. Having finished with Jasrat for the time being, the Sultan marched into Katehar at the beginning of A. D. 1423 (Muharram, 826 H),¹ and began to exact revenue and tribute at the point of the sword. Mahābat Khan of Badaon,² who had defied Khizr Khan in his last days, fearing the Sultan’s wrath, submitted to him and joined him in his expedition. They crossed the Ganga and ravaged the territory of the Rathors, putting a large number of them to the sword. Such behaviour so alarmed Rai Sumer’s son Deva Rai, who had submitted to Khizr Khan in 1421 and was all along in the suite of the Sultan, that he fled to Etawah. He successfully defended the town against Malik Khairuddīn Tuhfā, brother of Sikandar Tuhfā, who was tricked into raising the siege on a promise, and not actual payment, of tribute.³ The Sultan who was back in Delhi in May, 1423 (Jamadiul Ākhir, 826 H)⁴ was not naturally happy at Khairuddīn's performance and transferred his charge of 'Āriz-i-Mumālik to Malik Mahmūd Hasan, a nobleman "worthy, righteous and trustworthy".⁵

c11.s1.3

¹ T.M.S., 200.

c11.s1.4

² It was an important out-post in the fifteenth century and its governors, who were always chosen from among the best nobles, had to keep the Katehariyā Rajputs under control.

c11.s1.5

³ According to Ferishta, I, 164, a son of the Rai was sent to the King as a hostage for his father's future good conduct.

c11.s1.6

⁴ T.M.S. Text has Jamadiul Avval. In a note Basu adds that another MS. has Ākhir. JNS and Elliot's MSS. also have Jamadiul Ākhir. T.M.S., Basu's trs., 208 n. 1.

c11.s1.7

⁵ T.M.S., 201.

c11.s1.8

Jasrat was not slow to take advantage of the Sultan's preoccupation in the east; he attacked and killed the Raja of Jammu and invited Shaikh 'Alī from Kabul. Shaikh 'Alī did not come, but trouble was reported from another quarter. It was reported that Sultan Hoshang Shāh of Malwa⁶ was marching upon Gwalior.⁷ A prince of restless and unscrupulous disposition, Hoshang was constantly provoking wars on all fronts—against Gujarat, Bahmanī and Jaunpur kingdoms. It is not surprising, therefore, that he wanted to try his strength with the Sultanate of Delhi also. Refusing to learn a lesson from his defeat at the hands of the king of Gujarat in March, 1423 (Rabiul Ākhir, 826 H),⁸ Hoshang Shāh shortly after proceeded to attack Gwalior. Though the Raja of Gwalior was independent and not always loyal to Delhi, Gwalior was deemed to form a part of the Sultanate; hence Mubārak Shāh started with a large force to defend it. On the way, he brought to book Muhammad Khan Auhadi⁹ of Bayana who, having assassinated his uncle Mubārak Khan, had risen in revolt. The Sultan sacked Bayana¹⁰ but later pardoned and reinstated Muhammad when he had paid tribute and put "his neck into the collar of obedience".¹¹ Meanwhile Hoshang Shāh arrived at Gwalior, invested the fort¹² and stationed troops to guard the fords on the river Chambal.¹³ Mubārak's advance-guard, led by Malik Mahmūd Hasan and Nusrat Khan, managed to cross the river by an unfrequented ford and in a surprise attack seized some prisoners and goods, but the Sultan set the captives free on the ground that they were all Muhammedan. This gesture as well as the desire of both sides not to enter into a general conflict, brought about peace and presents were exchanged. Hoshang returned to Malwa, but the Sultan stayed on in the Chambal region "levying contribution on the infidels", before finally returning to Delhi in June, 1424 (Rajjab, 827 H).¹⁴

c11.s1.9

⁶ Some chroniclers have Dhar, Ferishta has Malwa. The towns of Ujjain and Dhar have supplied capitals to Malwa from the time of the legendary Hindu dynasties. Hunter, Imp. Gaz., IV, 245.

c11.s1.10

⁷ Yahyā, followed by all other historians, writes Alp Khan. Ferishta, I, 165; II, 238, gives only the title. Nizāmuddīn writes both, saying "Alp Khan, the governor of Dhar who had taken the name of Sultan Hoshang". T.A., I, 275. Hoshang had ascended the throne in A.D. 1407 (810 H).

c11.s1.11

⁸ Ferishta, II, 238.

c11.s1.12

⁹ T.M.S., 202. Ferishta, I, 165, has Amīr Khan, son of Dāūd Khan, son of Shams Khan, ruler of Bayana. T.A. also has the same (I, 275). Badaonī has Shams Khan Auhadī, son of Auhad Khan, and is followed by Ferishta and all others. But while here Ferishta has Amīr Khan, a few lines later he has Muhammad Khan, and thus he contradicts himself, but not Yahyā. Muhammad Khan may therefore be accepted. At this place Badaonī and Nizāmuddīn also have Muhammad Khan.

c11.s1.13

¹⁰ Bayana or Biana in the erstwhile Bharatpur state in Rajasthan, lies 50 miles S.W. of Agra.

c11.s1.14

¹¹ T.M.S., 202.

c11.s1.15

¹² Ferishta, II, 238.

c11.s1.16

¹³ Chambal is one of the principal tributaries of the Jumna. It rises in Malwa, flows through Central India where it is joined by Kali Sind, Parbati and Banas, and falls into the Jumna 40 miles south of Etawah. Hunter, Imp. Gaz., III, 331.

c11.s1.17

¹⁴ T.M.S., 202-03; also Ferishta, I, 165, II, 238.

c11.s1.18

In the winter of A. D. 1424 (Muharram, 828 H)¹⁵ Mubārak Shāh marched towards Katehar. The last he had been there was two years back, in December 1422, and revenues from that turbulent region had fallen into arrears. To punish its ruler the Sultan plundered the country as far as the foot of the Kumaon hills¹⁶ and compelled Rai Har Singh to pay three years' revenue and tribute,¹⁷ in place of two. He then descended into the Doab, but a recent famine and consequent scarcity of provisions there compelled him to retire towards Mewat where the Mewatīs, habitually addicted to rebellion, were up in arms. There too he did not gain anything much, for the Mewatīs, after destroying their effects,¹⁸ fled to the mountains of Tijārā, their stronghold.¹⁹ Their scorched-earth policy had rendered pursuit difficult and the Sultan returned to Delhi in June, 1425 (Rajjab, 828 H)²⁰ determined to visit the country again. True, in those days a supply corps was thought to be a superfluity. The invading army depended for its supplies on the loot in the enemy country; and ordinarily there should have been no difficulty for Mubārak. But uncertain conditions for more than a generation like instability of government, Tīmūr's invasion, constant campaigns against petty rulers and zamindars and consequent harassment of the peasantry with no thought of providing irrigation facilities or remitting land revenue in times of difficulty had greatly affected agricultural production.

c11.s1.19

¹⁵ T.M.S., 203; Ferishta, I, 165; T.A., I, 275. Only Badaonī (Ranking, I, 385) has 827 H.

c11.s1.20

¹⁶ T.M.S., 203. Badaonī also writes that he went to Kumaon and Katehar. (Ranking, I, 385). T.A. does not mention Kumaon but follows T.M.S. in other details. Ferishta's account is very brief. He does not only not mention Kumaon, but says that after punishing the rebels (of Katehar) the Sultan returned to Delhi. Ferishta, I, 165.

c11.s1.21

¹⁷ T.M.S., 203; Ferishta, I, 165, and T.A., I, 275.

c11.s1.22

¹⁸ B.M. and J.N.S. MSS. (Basu's Trs. n. on p. 211) of the T.M.S. have كل خلق را خراب كرده, which Elliot translates as "having driven off all the population". But Nizāmuddīn has the correct version: "Leaving their country unoccupied and in ruins". T.A., I, 276.

c11.s1.23

¹⁹ T.M.S., 204 has درین كوه جهره كه محكم ترین جایگاه ایشانست. (In the hill of Jahrah, their point *d' appui*). Earlier when Bahadur Nāhar fleeing from the Kotla had taken refuge in Aug.-Sept., 1393, he had sought shelter in the mountain of جهر (Jahar), T.M.S., 154. Ferishta on this occasion reads the place-name as پنجهر (Panjahar). In all probability the place meant is Tijārā only. Also Hodivala, 405.

c11.s1.24

²⁰ T.M.S., 204; Ferishta, I, 165; T.A., I, 276.

c11.s1.25

Next year when the Sultan marched into Mewat, Jalāl Khan and Qadr Khan, the grandsons of Bahādur Nāhar (contemptuously called Jallū and Qaddū by the chroniclers), repeated their tactics of laying waste their country and retired into the hill fortress of Indūr.²¹ There they were besieged and after "making dying struggles"²² they fled to Alwar.²³ The Sultan dismantled Indūr and proceeding to Alwar laid siege to it. Unable to hold on against a superior force, Jallū and Qaddū sued for peace. Amnesty was granted to them; but Qadr Khan, who was suspected of double-dealing, was imprisoned.²⁴ Mubārak Shāh returned to Delhi in July, 1426 (Sh'abān, 829 H).

c11.s1.26

²¹ Indūr is mentioned in the Āīn. (trs., II, 192) as a Mahāl in Sarkar Tijara. Its fort was situated on a high hill. "It is now a ruined town lying about ten miles east of Tijara." Powlett, *Gazetteer of Alwar*, 134-5. It was a well-known stronghold of the Mewatīs. According to Elliot it lies on the western brow of the Mewat hills between Nūh and Kotla, 8 miles south of Nūh. Elliot, *Races*, II, 88, 100.

c11.s1.27

²² T.A., I, 276.

c11.s1.28

²³ Alwar is in Rajasthan, Lat. 27° 4′ and Long. 76° 7′.

c11.s1.29

²⁴ T.M.S., 204. According to Ferishta both Jallū and Qaddū tried to escape but were imprisoned. Yahyā and Nizāmuddīn, however, speak of the confinement of Qaddū only.

c11.s1.30

The end of the year A. D. 1426 found Mubārak Shāh in Bayana. He had marched through Mewat sacking it on the way. On his arrival in Bayana, Muhammad Khan Auhadī shut himself up in the fort which was situated on the summit of a hill. But some deserters²⁵ from his ranks indicated to the Sultan a secret passage to the mountain fastness and he entered it on Friday, 31 January, 1427 (2 Rabiul Ākhir, 830 H).²⁶ At the sudden appearance of the royal forces, Muhammad Khan lost his nerve and sued for peace. Mubārak Shāh showed no clemency, took possession of everything Muhammad possessed and sent him with his family a prisoner in the palace of Jahān Numa.²⁷ He divided the iqt'ā into two. Bayana proper was put in the charge of Muqbil Khan and the pargana of Sikrī²⁸ in charge of Malik Khairuddīn Tuhfā. Collecting tribute from the Rais of Gwalior, Thankir²⁹ and Chandwār the Sultan arrived back in Delhi in April, 1427 (Jamadiul Ākhir, 830 H).³⁰

c11.s1.31

²⁵ Ferishta, I, 165.

c11.s1.32

²⁶ T.M.S., 205.

c11.s1.33

²⁷ The text of T.M.S. has Jahānpanah (p. 205). In another MS. it is given Kaushak-i-Jahān-numāI (p. 205 n. 8). Ferishta and Badaonī have Jahān Numa. Nizāmuddīn only says that Muhammad was sent to Delhi.

c11.s1.34

²⁸ Sikrī, later celebrated as Fatehpur Sikrī where Akbar built his capital, lies 18 miles west of Agra. Strangely enough, K. K. Basu has confused it with another Fatehpur lying 80 miles west of Allahabad and writes a long no's on p. 313 of his translation of the *Tarīkh-i-Mubārak Shāhī*.

c11.s1.35

²⁹ E and D., IV, 63 has Bhangar.

c11.s1.36

³⁰ T.M.S., 206.

c11.s1.37

But Bayana would not let Mubārak Shāh rest in peace. Shortly after his internment, Muhammad Khan Auhadī effected his escape. He collected most of his old followers in Mewat and attacked the royal garrison of Bayana. Malik Muqbil was out on an expedition to Mahāban,³¹ and the scanty following of Khairuddīn Tuhfā³² could not withstand the attack. He fled to Delhi and Muhammad Auhadī once more occupied the fort. At this the Sultan sent Malik Mubāriz with a large force, but when he learnt that Muhammad Khan had appealed to the king of Jaunpur for help, Mubārak Shāh himself marched in person to Bayana in October, 1427 (Muharram, 831 H).³³

c11.s1.38

³¹ T.M.S., 206 has مهر ماون; T.A., I, 277 has بجانب مياون; Ferishta, I, 165, has بهاؤن. It is the modern Mahāban, in Mathura district, U.P., near the left bank of the Jumna, 27° 27′ N. and 77° 45′ E.

c11.s1.39

³² T.M.S., 206; T.A., I, 277. Ferishta has Nāsiruddīn, I, 165.

c11.s1.40

³³ T.M.S., 207.

Jaunpur

c11.s2.1

Sultan Shamsuddīn Ibrāhīm Sharqī, "as good a master of pen as of sword", ruled over Jaunpur for forty years from A. D. 1401 to 1440.³⁴ All his life he not only constantly fought his neighbours—the Sultans of Delhi, Bengal and Malwa—but also found time to embellish his capital with magnificent buildings and patronise art and letters. In the desert of the strife and confusion prevailing in Hindustan, Jaunpur was like an oasis of learning, art and culture. The court of Jaunpur during the forty years of Ibrāhīm's rule far eclipsed that of Delhi, and was the resort of all the learned men of the east. People were happy under his benign rule and saints and scholars and artists flocked to Jaunpur from all parts of Hindustan and abroad. According to Ferishta, Ibrāhīm's court rivalled that of Iran and his capital came to be addressed as the second Shīrāz.³⁵

c11.s2.2

³⁴ Nizāmuddīn gives the date of his death as 840 H (A.D. 1436). But his coins show that he was alive up to 844 H (A.D. 1440). J.A.S.B., XVIII, 135, 157. Also Ferishta, II, 305-6.

c11.s2.3

³⁵ Ferishta, II, 305-306.

c11.s2.4

Ibrāhīm Sharqī could hardly miss the opportunity offered by the appeal of Muhammad Khan of Bayana, for trying his strength with that of the Delhi Sultan. He had already prepared an elaborate scheme of invading the Doab. In the south his target was Kalpi, in the north Badaon, and had his schemes materialised, Mubārak Shāh would have found himself relieved of the whole of the Doab. Thus, as Mubārak Shāh was marching towards Bayana, he received an urgent appeal for succour from Qādir Khan, governor of Kalpi,³⁶ to the effect that the king of Jaunpur was marching upon Kalpi. Mubārak Shāh at once turned towards the south-west to meet Ibrāhīm, checkmate his plans on Kalpi and prevent him from joining Muhammad Auhadī at Bayana. The Sharqī king had already sacked Bhongaon in the Doab and was now advancing upon Badaon lying fifty miles north of it. Mubārak Shāh forded the Jumna at Tappal, sacked Chartoli or Jartaulī³⁷ and arrived at Atraulī,³⁸ lying 16 miles east of Aligarh. Ibrāhīm continued his advance along the banks of the Āb-i-Siyāh or Kalindī and reached Burhanabad in Etawah district, while Mubārak Shāh left Atraulī in his pursuit. But the Sharqī king avoided giving battle and moved to Rapri.³⁹ Crossing the Jumna at the ford of Nārang,⁴⁰ he succeeded in reaching Bayana, the friendly country of Muhammad Auhadī, and encamped on the river Gambhīr.⁴¹ Mubārak Shāh marched close at his heels, crossed the Jumna at Chandwār and encamped at a distance of four *kos*⁴² from the enemy. The two forces dug trenches and consolidated their positions.⁴³ For twenty-two days minor skirmishes were fought, whereupon Ibrāhīm Sharqī decided to give a final battle. On Wednesday 24 March, 1428 (7 Jamadiul Ākhir) he left his trenches and arrayed his army, footmen and cavalry, on the plain. At this Mubārak Shāh’s courage failed him, and although he ordered Sikandar Tuhfā and other officers to march into battle, he himself along with many important officers like his Vazīr, Sarwarul Mulk, refrained from personally participating in it.⁴⁴ The battle began at noon and raged till dusk when the rival forces withdrew to their respective encampments. Having failed to win a decisive victory, Sultan Ibrāhīm decided to retire. He crossed the Jumna at the ford of Nārang, and passing through Rapri returned to his own country by successive marches.

c11.s2.5

³⁶ Kalpi is in Jalaun District, U.P., Lat. 26° 8′ N. and Long. 79° 45′ E.

c11.s2.6

³⁷ Badaonī has جرتولی (Jartaulī) and Elliot Harolī. T.M.S., 207 also has جرتولی. Col. Ranking says he is unable to find the place. This Harolī or Jartaulī is Thorton’s Jurowlee lying 28 miles N.E. of Aligarh on the road from Aligarh to Moradabad.

c11.s2.7

³⁸ Atraulī was a Mahāl in Sarkar Kol or Aligarh in Akbar’s time. It lies 16 miles N.E. of Aligarh. Āīn., II, 186; Hunter, Imp. Gaz., I, 180.

c11.s2.8

³⁹ T.M.S., 208.

c11.s2.9

⁴⁰ The word Gudrang گدرنگ has been written by Yahyā. No such place exists. It may be a mistaken reading for گذرگ or ford, or گذر رنگ the ford of Nārang. It is stated in the Mainpuri Gazetteer that at Nārangī the Jumna contracts to a width of about 50 yards in winter, thus providing a natural ford. It lies very near Rapri. Ferishta and Nizāmuddīn do not make mention of any ford but only say that Ibrāhīm Sharqī crossed the Jumna near Rapri. U.P. Gazetteer, X, 248-49.

c11.s2.10

⁴¹ T.M.S., 208 correctly has آب گنهیر. Badonī has Āb-i-Katehar. Elliot has "river of Katehar". Obviously river Gambhīr is meant. Bayana lies close to the left bank of Gambhīr.

c11.s2.11

⁴² T.M.S., 208; Ferishta, II, 306; T.A. has 5 *kos*.

c11.s2.12

⁴³ Ferishta, I, 166; II, 306.

c11.s2.13

⁴⁴ T.M.S., 208-9. T.A., I, 278; Ferishta, I, 166.

c11.s2.14

With the retreat of Ibrāhīm Sharqī, Muhammad Khan Auhadī was rendered helpless. Abandoning the fort on 11 May, 1428 (26 Rajjab, 831 H), he went away towards Mewat. Mubārak Shāh remained at Bayana for three weeks to arrange for its administration, and then appointing Mahmūd Hasan as its governor, returned to Delhi.

c11.s2.15

Two months later he sent an expedition to Mewat, where Muhammad Auhadī had taken refuge. During the last war Qadr Khan (Qaddū) had been found to be in secret correspondence with Ibrāhīm Sharqī. Consequently, the Sultan ordered his death. Qadr Khan’s execution enraged his brother Jalāl Khan (Jallū) and other Mewatī leaders, who rose in revolt. Sarwarul Mulk marched to suppress them, and laid siege to the fort of Indūr.⁴⁵ The Mewatīs could not hold on for long and purchased their peace by giving “revenue; tribute and hostages”.⁴⁶ By the end of A.D. 1428 Mahmūd Hasan, who had been deputed to Bayana, had crushed whatever recalcitrant elements had remained there. As a reward he was confirmed in his fief of Hisār Fīrōzā.⁴⁷

c11.s2.16

⁴⁵ T.M.S., 212; Ferishta, I, 166. E and D., IV, 66 has fort of Alwar.

c11.s2.17

⁴⁶ T.M.S., 212.

c11.s2.18

⁴⁷ According to Yahyā it was in Jamadiul Ākhir 830 H (March-April A.D. 1427) that Mahmūd Hasan was given Hisār Fīrōzā and Malik Rajjab Nadira was transferred to Multan (T.M.S., 206). At p. 213, however, Yahyā once again mentions that Hisār Fīrōzā was conferred upon Mahmūd Hasan after his return from Bayana. It appears that Mahmūd Hasan was constantly busy fighting and could not take charge of his assignment on the first occasion. But being highly favoured by the Sultan, he was once again confirmed in Hisār Fīrōzā. Mahmūd Hasan’s promotion was only on the grounds of merit. In the early years of Mubārak Shāh’s reign he had successfully fought Jasrat Khokhar. Later on he had made a stand against Shaikh ’Alī of Kabul. It were his capabilities as a soldier that Bayana, the key province, was given to him. Badaonī also says that the “fortress of Fīrōzā was confirmed to him”. Text, I, 293; Ranking, I, 387.

c11.s2.19

Taking advantage of the preoccupation of the royal armies in Bayana and Mewat, Jasrat Khokhar, who was lying low for the last five years, became restive again and laid siege to Kalanaur. Sikandar Tuhfā rushed from Lahore to the aid of its governor Ghālib Khan, and there defeated the rebel. But the event diverted Mubārak Shāh's attention from the western U.P. to the Punjab. In July 1429, Malik Rajjab Nadira of Multan died, and the governorship of Multan was restored to Mahmūd Hasan, who was given the title of Imādul Mulk or Pillar of the State. Having thus settled the affairs in the west, Mubārak Shāh again marched to Bayana in the winter of the same year. He also went to Gwalior, Hatkanth and Rapri on the usual revenue collecting expeditions. He transferred the charge of Rapri from the son of Hasan Khan to that of Malik Hamza. As he moved from Rapri, Saiyyad Sālim of Bhatinda breathed his last. His slave Faulād rose in rebellion and the Sultan had to rush to Bhatinda to deal with him. The situation became extremely complicated at the appearance of Shaikh 'Alī in the Punjab, first at the invitation of Faulād and later at that of Jasrat Khokhar. Consequently the Sultan could not look to the affairs in the east for four long years.

c11.s2.20

At last finding a break in the activities of Shaikh 'Alī, he ordered Imādul Mulk to Bayana and himself marched in November, 1432 (Rabiul Avval, 836 H) against Mewat, where Jalāl Khan Mewatī was again in revolt. On the Sultan's arrival at Taoru,⁴⁸ Jalāl Khan first shut himself up in the stronghold of Indūr, and later in the Kotla.⁴⁹ The Sultan made Tijara his headquarters and sacked the greater part of Mewat. Finding resistance futile, Jalāl Khan made his submission on the usual terms of a present payment and promise of good behaviour. Here at Tijara, Imādul Mulk rejoined the Sultan after having returned from the expedition to Bayana. Mubārak Shāh despatched Malik Kamāluddīn to bring Gwalior and Etawah to obedience and himself returned to the capital in January, 1433 (Jamadiul Avval),⁵⁰ only to march to the Punjab against Shaikh 'Alī, on whom he ultimately inflicted a crushing defeat.

c11.s2.21

⁴⁸ *T.M.S.*, 227. T.A., I, 284 wrongly has Nawar. Taoru was a Mahāl in the Sarkar of Rewari, Sūba Agra, *Āīn. Trs.*, II, 293. It is situated about 20 miles east of Rewari. It is now a parganai n Nūh Tehsil, Gurgaon District, East Punjab.

c11.s2.22

⁴⁹ *T.M.S.*, 227.

c11.s2.23

⁵⁰ *Ibid.*, 227.

Murder of Mubārak Shāh

c11.s3.1

In August, 1433 (late Zilhijja, 836 H)⁵¹ Malik Kamāluddīn, entitled Malikul Sharq Kamālul Mulk, arrived in the capital with his troops. Of late his credit had risen with the Sultan. He had done excellent work and had exhibited extreme loyalty during the past few months. All historians bear testimony to his sobriety, sagacity and experience.⁵² On the contrary Sarwarul Mulk, who had ever basked in the sunshine of royal benignty and held the two highest offices of the Vazīr (Prime Minister) and the Dīvān (Finance Minister), had been remiss in the performance of his duties.⁵³ He was an extremely intriguing man and as early as September 1422, taking advantage of the absence of the Vazīr, Sikandar Tuhfā, in the Punjab against Jasrat Khokhar, had induced the Sultan to transfer the Vazārat to him and give the governorship of Delhi to his son Malik Yūsuf. Sikandar was made governor of Lahore from where Mahmūd Hasan, whose record of work against Jasrat Khokhar had been simply excellent, was shifted to Jalandhar. As Sir Wolseley Haig rightly observes: "These changes bred much discontent; to which may be traced the assassination of Mubārak Shāh which took place twelve years later".⁵⁴

c11.s3.2

⁵¹ Yahyā states (T.M.S., 231) that Kamālul Mulk arrived on 1 Zilhijja, but since the 'Id-uz-Zuha or 'Id-i-Kabīr falls on 10 Zilhijja and since Kamālul Mulk arrived in Delhi after the Sultan, he could not have come on 1 Zilhijja. Yahyā is ordinarily correct in his dates, but here he, or his scribe, has obviously slipped up. The arrival of Kamālul Mulk may be on the last but not the first day of Zilhijja.

c11.s3.3

⁵² T.M.S., 231; Ferishta, I, 169; T.A., I, 286.

c11.s3.4

⁵³ T.M.S., 232.

c11.s3.5

⁵⁴ C.H.I., III, 212.

c11.s3.6

Now the Sultan, who wanted to reward Kamāluddīn, added the work of financial administration (Kār-i-Ashrāf)⁵⁵ to his portfolio of Deputy Military Secretary (Nāib-i-Lashkar),⁵⁶ although the formality of depriving Sarwarul Mulk of the post of Dīvān was not observed. It was in fact not only to reward Kamālul Mulk that Mubārak Shāh had effected the change, but also to reduce the power of the Vazīr. Khizr Khan had employed his Vazīr, Tājul Mulk, largely on military duties and so had Mubārak Shāh employed his Vazīrs, Sikandar Tuhfā and Sarwarul Mulk.

c11.s3.7

⁵⁵ T.M.S., 232; Ferishta, I, 168-69.

c11.s3.8

⁵⁶ Badaonī, Ranking, I, 393.

c11.s3.9

This had greatly enhanced the powers and prestige of the Vazīrs. The present Vazīr had become all in all. He was chief of the Army, Finance Minister and Auditor General (Ashrāf). Mubārak Shāh, therefore, had very good reasons to put a check on his power by appointing Kamālul Mulk as Auditor General and asking the Vazīr to manage the finance department jointly with him.⁵⁷

c11.s3.10

⁵⁷ Tripathi, *op. cit.*, 188.

c11.s3.11

Sarwar continued to be the Vazīr, but the division of his portfolio rankled in his heart. And when his influence and prestige were eclipsed by the more energetic and popular Kamāluddīn, he flew into paroxysms of rage. Sarwarul Mulk had yet another thorn in his side; he had been deprived of Deopalpur There can be no doubt that the policy of the Sultan of constant transfers and changes of assignments must have bred discontent, but excepting the last one, in all other transactions Sarwarul Mulk had been the gainer and not the loser. He was as ungrateful as he was scheming. He forgot all the favours the King had bestowed upon him from time to time, but gloated with bitterness over the loss of the finance portfolio. In sheer desperation he conspired with Mīrān Sadr the Nāib-i-’Āriz-i-Mumālik, Qāzī Abdus Samad the Royal Chamberlain, and scions of two rich Khattrī families of Delhi to do away with the King.⁵⁸ For generations Mīrān Sadr and his relations had been obliged to the royal family and had held several high offices,⁵⁹ but this did not deter him from lending a hand in the conspiracy for which there was no justification. Outwardly things went on as smoothly as ever, but the traitors lay in waiting for an opportunity to strike.

c11.s3.12

⁵⁸ T.M.S., 232; Ferishta, I, 169; T.A., I, 286-87.

c11.s3.13

⁵⁹ Badaonī, Ranking, I, 393.

c11.s3.14

Meanwhile, as seen earlier, Shaikh ’Alī was thrown out of India and his nephew Muzaffar made complete submission to the Sultan (May, 1433). Mubārak’s joy knew no bounds. He went on pilgrimage to Multan, effected important transfers and decided to build a new city in keeping with the traditions of the Sultans of Delhi. On Sunday, 1 November, 1433 (17 Rabiul Avval, 837 H)⁶⁰ the foundations of Mubārakābād were laid on the bank of the Jumna.⁶¹ The Sultan was so enthusiastic about the new township that he used to go to its site pretty often and personally supervise its construction.

c11.s3.15

⁶⁰ T.M.S., 232. Ferishta, I, 169; T.A., I, 287.

c11.s3.16

⁶¹ There is some difference of opinion about the site of the city. Col. Mackenzie in his map places it half way between Sahpoor and Roshan Sarai, but he forgets that Yahyā is emphatic about its being built on the Jumna (T.M.S., 232). So also has been said by Nizāmuddīn and Badaonī. (T.A., I, 287; Badaonī, I, 279). Yahyā's testimony is of the greatest value as he witnessed the laying of the foundations of the city in question. In all probability the modern village of Mubārakpur is the site of Mubārakābād. The tomb of Mubārak Shāh (who was killed there) still stands there and the village has most certainly derived its name from the ancient monument. Also Āsar, 26 and 41; Journal Asiatique, 90; J.A.S.B., 1866, 216 and Map; J.A.S.B., 1870, 83; Thomas, *Chronicles*, 332-33.

c11.s3.17

Meanwhile news was brought that the siege of Bhatinda had at length been brought to a successful close, the fort had been captured and Paulād killed. A little later Mīrān Sadr brought the head of the rebel. Mubārak Shāh could hardly restrain his joy at such a happy event; he paid a flying visit to Bhatinda to arrange for its administration and punish the zamindar accomplices of the rebel. On his return he learnt from travellers coming into Delhi (was the intelligence service so inefficient?) that a war had broken out between Sultan Hoshang of Malwa and Sultan Ibrāhīm of Jaunpur for the possession of Kalpi. Kalpi was in the royal dominions and any attack on it from any quarter was an affront to the royal authority which Mubārak Shāh was determined to vindicate.⁶² He sent orders to his Amīrs and governors to report with their armies and began preparations to march to the relief of Kalpi. On hearing of Mubārak Shāh's determination, Ibrāhīm returned to Jaunpur, but Hoshang Shāh, undaunted, attacked and captured the city from the royal governor Abdul Qādir, better known as Qādir Shāh.⁶³ Mubārak Shāh now collected his forces at the Chautra of Shergarh for the expedition.

c11.s3.18

⁶² Ferishta, I, 169; II, 306; T.A., I, 287; Badaonī, Ranking, I, 394.

c11.s3.19

⁶³ Ferishta, II, 306.

c11.s3.20

But Sarwarul Mulk, who was waiting for an opportunity, now set to work Mīrān Sadr and the Khattrī desperadoes to finish off the Sultan before the latter moved far away from the capital. On 19 February, 1434 (9 Rajjab, 837 H)⁶⁴ the Sultan went to the site of Mubārakābād only with a few attendants. As he got busy with his evening prayers, Mīrān Sadr craftily removed the few guards and Sadhāran, son of Gangū Khattrī,⁶⁵ posted himself at the door to prevent any outside relief. Next moment Sīdh Pāl, grandson of Gangū, appeared from his hiding and struck Mubārak Shāh with his sword while Sīdh Pāl’s slave Rānū completed the work with a spear.⁶⁶

c11.s3.21

⁶⁴ T.M.S., 234; Ferishta, I, 169.

c11.s3.22

⁶⁵ T.M.S., 234 has سدهارون کانکو. Ferishta, I, 169 explicitly has سدهارن ولد کگو.

c11.s3.23

⁶⁶ T.M.S., 235; Ferishta, I, 169.

c11.s3.24

Mubārak Shāh’s murder was the sad end of an unfortunate king. He had ruled for a little more than thirteen lunar years⁶⁷ under extremely trying circumstances. Ever since his accession, the Punjab had been at the mercy of local rebels or foreign invaders. The Khokhars, the Turkbachchās and Shaikh ’Alī were occupying or sacking one or the other of its regions. The aim of the rebels was to carve out an independent kingdom, the aim of Shaikh ’Alī was loot and plunder. Because of the preoccupations of the Sultan in the Punjab, the ever restless western Uttar Pradesh grew still more restive. Mewat, Gwalior, Etawah and most of the districts of western Uttar Pradesh hardly cared for the Sultanate or the Sultan, and only paid some tribute when forced to do so. Withal the kings of Jaunpur and Malwa tried to grab at the Sultanate’s territories. Mubārak Shāh fought against the rebels and the foreign free-booters to the best of his resources and always remained at their heels. He and his officers did commendable work. They repeatedly chased out the invaders and stamped out local rebellions. But they hardly succeeded in alleviating the suffering of the people of the Punjab, who must have suffered untold privations for more than a decade. At last when the foreign menace had ended and the rebels were made to lie low, Mubārak Shāh himself succumbed to the knives of the traitors. The benefits of his strenuous efforts were nullified by his untimely death.

c11.s3.25

⁶⁷ Yahyā and all other historians wrongly say that Mubārak Shāh ruled for thirteen years, three months and sixteen days. T.M.S., 235; Badaonī, Ranking, I, 394, text, 299; T.A., I, 287 and Ferishta, I, 169. They themselves give the date of his accession as 19 Jamadiul Avval, 824 H (T.M.S., 193; Ferishta, I, 163) and, therefore, his reign would come to thirteen years, one month and twenty days (lunar) only.

Cites (2)

Tārīkh-i Firishta — Muḥammad Qāsim Hindū Shāh Firishta 1606, Persian
Tārīkh-i Mubārakshāhī — Yaḥyā b. Aḥmad Sirhindī