Twilight of the Sultanate c12.s1: Muhammad Shāh

Twilight of the Sultanate c12.s1

Language: English

Muhammad Shāh

c12.s1.1

AFTER MUBARAK SHAH'S murder Sarwarul Mulk, to cover up his crime, immediately raised to the throne Mubārak's nephew and adopted son Muhammad, an offspring of the late King's brother Farīd Khan.¹ The formality of obtaining the assent of the "Amīrs, Maliks, Imāms, Saiyyads, grandees, people, 'Ulemā and Qazīs" was also gone through.² All the nobles who were staunch in their loyalty to the late Sultan were sent to prison.³

c12.s1.2

¹ In the evening of 19 February, 1434 (9 Rajjab, 837 H). T.M.S., 236; T.A., I, 288.

c12.s1.3

² T.M.S., 236.

c12.s1.4

³ *Ibid.*, 238; T.A., I, 288.

c12.s1.5

The treacherous Vazīr took possession of the treasury, the armoury and the elephants.⁴ All the traitors were rewarded with, or they obtained for themselves, honours and titles. Sarwarul Mulk got the title of Khan-i-Jahān and Mīrān Sadr that of Mu'īnul Mulk. The Vazīr kept in his possession the best parganas near the capital,⁵ while the other good ones he distributed among his associates. Sidh Pāl, Sidhāran and their kinsmen were rewarded with Amroha, Narnaul, Kuhram and some districts in the Doab, and Rānū, a slave of Sidh Pāl,⁶ was given the Shiqq of Bayana.⁷

c12.s1.6

⁴ T.M.S., 236-37; T.A., I, 288; Ferishta, I, 169; Badaonī, I, 300.

c12.s1.7

⁵ T.A., I, 288.

c12.s1.8

⁶ T.M.S., 238; so also Badaonī. Ferishta, I, 169 has "Ranū, a slave of the Vazīr". T.A., I, 288 has "Abū Shāh, his own slave."

c12.s1.9

⁷ Ferishta, I, 169 has Samana, which seems to be wrong as Yahyā and others are emphatic about Bayana. T.M.S., 238; Badaonī, I, 300.

c12.s1.10

Since Sarwarul Mulk had concentrated all power in his hands, Sultan Muhammad could not but be a showboy in his hands, but his black deeds had shocked every one, and the embers of hatred against the traitors kept on smouldering. When Rānū arrived at Bayana to take possession, he was opposed and killed by its governor Yūsuf Khan Auhadī, who cut off Rānū's head and hung it up at the gate of the fort. This signal victory of an adherent of Mubārak Shāh together with the excesses of Sarwarul Mulk at Delhi in murdering many Amīrs whom he had earlier imprisoned, encouraged the loyal nobles⁸ to unfurl the standard of revolt. Malik· Allahadād Kālā Lodī, governor of Sambhal and Ahar;⁹ Miyān Chaman, Amīr of Badaon and grandson of the late Khan-i-Jahān; Amīr 'Alī Gujarati and Amīr Gangū¹⁰ Turkbachchā rose in rebellion.

c12.s1.11

⁸ T.A., I, 288; Ferishta, I, 169 has one hundred noblemen.

c12.s1.12

⁹ 20 miles N.E. of Bulandshahr, U.P.

c12.s1.13

¹⁰ T.M.S., 239 has كك (Kīk) and Ms M has كيكو (Kīkū). Ferishta has كنكو (Kanku) while T.A., has كانكو (Kātkū). كيك is a mistaken reading for كيكو. If the dots in كيكو are put above it will read the correct name Gangu. Badaonī does not give the name. E and D, IV, 81 has Malik Kambal.

c12.s1.14

Sarwarul Mulk deputed Kamālul Mulk, Saiyyad Khan son of Saiyyad Sālim, and Sadhāran to bring the rebels to book,¹¹ but he also sent his own son Malik Yūsuf to keep a watch on Kamālul Mulk. Why the Vazīr sent Kamālul Mulk at the head of the expedition is not difficult to guess. Firstly, it was to keep him as far away from Delhi as possible and secondly, to keep him busy fighting and give him no time to counter his (the Vazīr's) moves. But the Vazīr had miscalculated. The shrewd Kamālul Mulk was bent upon avenging the murder of the late Sultan, and distance from Delhi just suited his plans. He marched out in April, 1434 (Ramzān) and crossing the Jumna at the ford of Kichchā arrived at Baran. There he entered into secret negotiations with the rebellious Amīrs and invited Maliks Allahadād and Chaman to join him.¹² This unnerved Yūsuf and he with Sadhāran and Hoshiyār, another creature of the Vazīr sent as a spy, escaped to Delhi to report on the situation. At this Kamālul Mulk decided to force the issue with the Vazīr. With Malik Allahadād and Miyān Chaman he recrossed the Jumna at Kichchā¹³ on Wednesday, 12 May, 1434 (2 Shawwāl, 837 H) and encamped in the orchards on the Jumna.¹⁴ Sarwarul Mulk closed the gates of Sīrī¹⁵ and prepared for a siege. Hoshiyār even made a sally but failed, and Malik Kamāl, whose forces had by now greatly swelled by the arrival of Amīrs and Maliks of the surrounding country, began besieging the fort. The siege went on for three months from Shawwāl to Zilhijjā after which Kamāluddīn was invited into the fort under dramatic circumstances.

c12.s1.15

¹¹ T.M.S., 239.

c12.s1.16

¹² *Ibid.*, 240; T.A., I, 289.

c12.s1.17

¹³ On p. 239 of T.M.S. line 2 from below Yahyā writes, در كرانه لب آب جون نزول فرمود ـ در گذر كيچه گذارا شده, that is, on his expedition Kamālul Mulk crossed the Jumna at Kichchā, which is correct as the ford of Kichchā lies on the Jumna. On his way back Kamālul Mulk again crossed the river Jumna at Kichchā. T.M.S., 240 line 7-6 from below. بكوچ متواتر دوم ماه شوال در گذر كيچه آمد In E and D, IV, 82, the passage is mistakenly translated thus: "He crossed (the Ganges) at the ford of Kicha". Unwittingly Basu also copies out these very words in his translation of the T.M.S. Basu's trs., 248. Yahyā nowhere places Kichchā on the Ganga as it did not exist there. Ni'āmatulla spells it Kanjh but then places it rightly on the Jumna. So does Badaonī, text I, 276, 301, 509; Ranking, I, 364, 396, 406.

c12.s1.18

¹⁴ Badaonī, I, 301 has باغ جود which means orchards on the Jumna, Jūd being a misreading for جون or Jumna.

c12.s1.19

¹⁵ T.M.S., 241; Badaonī, I, 302; Ferishta, I, 170; T.A., I, 289.

c12.s1.20

Sultan Muhammad and Sarwarul Mulk had stood the siege well, but the Vazīr and his confederates were apprehensive of the Sultan's desertion to the enemy. Muhammad Shāh, too, contemplated revenge against the regicide Vazīr. In this atmosphere of mutual suspicion Sarwarul Mulk, who had succeeded in killing one Sultan, now tried his hand on the other. On 14 August, 1438 (8 Muharram, 838 H)¹⁶ he, along with the sons of Mīrān Sadr, broke into the royal chamber to do away with the King, but Muhammad, who was ever on the alert and was always accompanied by a large body of armed attendants, drew his sword and struck down Sarwarul Mulk. The sons of Mīrān Sadr were also done to death by the guards. The Sultan immediately summoned Kamālul Mulk and the latter entered the city with his army through the Baghdād Gate. Sadhāran and other Khattrī accomplices of Sarwar were led off to the tomb of Mubārak Shāh and there tortured to death, while Hoshiyār and Mubārak, the Kotwal, were decapitated in front of the Red Gate.¹⁷

c12.s1.21

¹⁶ T.M.S., 241; Badaonī, I, 302. Ferishta, I, 170, has 840 H.

c12.s1.22

¹⁷ T.M.S., 242; Ferishta, I, 170.

c12.s1.23

The next day a new government was formed. Yahyā even mentions a second coronation of Muhammad.¹⁸ In the new Honours-List Malik Kamālul Mulk got the office of Vazārat and the title of Kamāl Khan. Malik Chaman got the title of Ghāzīul- Mulk and was confirmed in his fiefs of Amroha and Badaon. Malik Allahadād refused any honour for himself, but obtained the title of Dariyā Khan for his younger brother¹⁹ who succeeded him in Sambhal. Malik Kahunrāj Mubārak Khan²⁰ continued in his possession of Hisār Fīrōzā and was entitled Iqbāl Khan. Malik Hajī was entitled Hisām Khan²¹ and was made Kotwal of the capital. The sons of the late Saiyyad Sālim of Bhatinda were given high titles. All loyal Amīrs and Maliks who had held offices and fiefs were either promoted or confirmed in their possessions.²²

c12.s1.24

¹⁸ T.M.S., 242; also T.A., I, 290.

c12.s1.25

¹⁹ Only one MS. of *T.A.* has برادر خرد خود, or *his younger brother*. The texts of *T.A.*, Badaonī and Ferishta all have only برادر خود *his brother*. *T.A.*, De, 326 n.

c12.s1.26

²⁰ The name is not at all clear. *T.A.* has كهوراج مبارك خان. Ferishta has كهوتر اج مبارك خانی. Badaonī does not give the name.

c12.s1.27

²¹ *T.M.S.*, 243 has ملك الشرق حاجی شدنی. *M.R.*, I, 434 and *T.A.*, I, 295 give his name Hājī Shudnī, as well as his title Hisām Khan. Badaonī does not give the name. Ferishta, I, 174, 176 has حاجی صندل المشهور بحسام خان. We come across Hisām Khan quite often in later years and the Malikul Sharq Hājī Shudnī of Yahyā is no other person than Hisām Khan. This is confirmed by Ni'āmatulla, Dorn, 43. For a discussion on the variants of the name see *T.A.*, De, I, 332 n. 3. Ahmad Yādgār (*T.S.A.*, 4) says that he was Naib-i-Hazrat or the Deputy Sultan. Hājī Shudnī (or correctly na-shudnī) is but a term of contempt.

c12.s1.28

²² *T.M.S.*, 242-43.

c12.s1.29

A little after his ascension to real power the Sultan proceeded to Multan on a pilgrimage. There he learnt that Jasrat Khokhar²³ was creating trouble. He returned to Samana in A. D. 1436 from where he sent an army which sacked the country of the rebel. But on his return to Delhi he completely immersed himself in pleasure²⁴ despite threats from many quarters. Trouble was brewing in Sarhind as a consequence of which a new star was rising there. This star was Bahlūl Lodī. It has been noted that during the reign of Mubārak Shāh, Islām Khan Lodī, the governor of Sarhind, who had become a power in the Punjab, had been killed fighting Shaikh 'Alī of Kabul in May, 1431. He was succeeded by his nephew Bahlūl. Why Islām Khan had nominated Bahlūl in preference to his sons will be studied later, but his accession to governorship excited the jealousy of Islām Khan's son Qutb Khan, who sought the intervention of Sultan Muhammad, pleading that Bahlūl was turning Sarhind into an Afghan stronghold.²⁵ The Sultan who did not want to forgo an opportunity furnished by disaffection among the Afghans to curb their rising strength, ordered Malik Sikandar Tuhfā to march to chastise Bahlūl. Sikandar sought the friendship of Jasrath Khokhar against Bahlūl who, unable to face their combined forces, retired to the Siwalik foot-hills (Kohistān). But Sikandar's atrocities on the Afghans made Qutb Khan feel ashamed of having appealed to Delhi. He and his uncle Fīrōz, whose son Shahīn had been killed in the fight against the royalists, joined Bahlūl. The latter turned a free-booter and with his gains from plunder built up a strong force. He reoccupied Sarhind and became a menace to the royal districts in its environs.²⁶ Sultan Muhammad despatched another force under Hisām Khan, the Kotwal and Deputy Sultan,²⁷ to chastise Bahlūl, but the latter met him with 500 horse near the village of Kharar in Ambala district, defeated and pushed him back to Delhi.²⁸ This victory enhanced Bahlūl's prestige and ambition, but for the time being he acted with cautious slyness. He sent a note to Sultan Muhammad giving a long account of "Hisām Khan's ill-behaviour and depravity, together with assurances of his own sincere attachment to the Sultan".²⁹ He ended by promising to attend the court at Delhi on the condition that his arch-enemy Hisām Khan should be put to death and Hamīd Khan be made the Vazīr. The fickle-minded Sultan, unable to see Bahlūl's guile and determined to purchase the Afghan's loyalty at any price, ordered Hisām Khan's death and raised Hamīd Khan to the Vazārat.³⁰

c12.s1.30

²³ Ferishta, I, 170.

c12.s1.31

²⁴ *Ibid.*, I, 170.

c12.s1.32

²⁵ *Ibid.*, I, 173.

c12.s1.33

²⁶ Ferishta, I, 173-4. These details are not given by any other historian.

c12.s1.34

²⁷ T.S.A., 4, 5.

c12.s1.35

²⁸ T.A., I, 295, has Kehra, T.D., 6, has Mauzā Kehdhīrā (كهدھيرا). Ferishta has Khada, while T.S.A., 4, does not give the name of the village. *Makhzan* has Garha, 40 (b). But all chronicles place it in the Pargana of Khizrābād and Sadhora (Ferishta has Shahpur). The text of T.A. from which all others got the name has Kharra کهرا. This is probably Kharār, now in Ambala district. There is a Khizrābād in Kharār Tehsil, seven miles south of Rūpar. Constable, 25, Bb. Sadhora is 30 miles N.E. of Thanesar in Ambala district.

c12.s1.36

²⁹ Ahmad Yādgār wrongly says that Hisām Khan was killed in the battle. T.S.A., 5.

c12.s1.37

³⁰ *Makhzan*, 41(a); Dorn, 44; Ferishta, I, 174.

c12.s1.38

From the character of Muhammad as it unfolds itself and which runs counter to the encomiums showered upon him by the author of the *Tarīkh-i-Mubārak Shāhī*,³¹ it becomes patent enough that he abused the confidence of those who had saved him from his enemies. At the capital the reckless behaviour of the Sultan in destroying a loyal Vazīr shook the confidence of the nobles in him. Besides, his indolence and carelessness were encouraging ambitious elements to defy his authority. The Doab, always refractory, once again got out of control. In the south Gwalior ceased to pay even the periodical tribute³² and the turbulent Mewatīs began to plunder the country within a short distance of the city-wall. In the east Ibrāhīm Sharqī took possession of many royal parganas. Beyond Panipat, to the north and west, Bahlūl Lodi was gathering strength day by day. In Multan the Langāhs,³³ an Afghan tribe recently settled there, rebelled against the royal governor in A. D. 1437 (841 H).³⁴

c12.s1.39

³¹ T.M.S., I, 291.

c12.s1.40

³² T.A., I, 291.

c12.s1.41

³³ Badaonī and Nizāmuddīn call them so. Ferishta calls them Lunga. Ranking has "the tribe of Langāhs" while Briggs has "the Afghans called Lunga". Badaonī, I, 303; Ranking, I, 398; T.A., I, 291; Ferishta, I, 174.

c12.s1.42

³⁴ T.A., I, 291.

c12.s1.43

In such critical times the nobles of Delhi refused to pity the "king who was content to loiter in his palace while his kingdom dissolved". They decided to set matters right. They, together with the Khanzādās of Mewat, who were the ancestors of Hasan Khan Mewatī, invited Sultan Mahmūd Khaljī of Malwa to ascend the throne of Delhi.³⁵ In pursuance of this tempting invitation Mahmūd Khaljī started for Delhi in A. D. 1440 (844 H).³⁶ On the way he was joined by Yūsuf Hindwī of Hindwān. Establishing his power in Nāgor, Hansī and Hisār Fīrōzā,³⁷ he arrived in Delhi late in the year, and encamped at a distance of only two *kos* from the city.³⁸

c12.s1.44

³⁵ Badaonī, I, 303; Ranking, I, 398.

c12.s1.45

³⁶ Ferishta, I, 171. Also T.A., I, 291; Badaonī, I, 303.

c12.s1.46

³⁷ Dorn, 44.

c12.s1.47

³⁸ Ferishta, I, 171; II, 264.

c12.s1.48

Sultan Muhammad at last woke up to the situation, collected whatever troops he could gather and sent hurried summons to Bahlūl Lodī to come to his aid. Bahlūl responded readily, although not so much on account of any loyalty to the King as to strengthen his position in the country's politics, and arrived with twenty thousand Afghans.³⁹ In spite of this succour, Muhammad could not gather sufficient courage to lead the army in person, and only sent his son 'Alāuddīn at the head of the army making Bahlūl Lodī the commander of the vanguard.⁴⁰ When Mahmūd Khaljī learnt that Sultan Muhammad himself was not coming to fight, he also thought it below his dignity to join the battle and sent his army under his two sons Ghayāsuddīn and Qadr Khan.⁴¹ Next day a fierce battle raged between the rival forces, in which the Afghan archers of Bahlūl did a lot of killing, but they failed to gain a decisive victory. As night fell the fighting ceased. A bad dream that night⁴² that a local insurrection threatened his capital as well as an inkling that Ahmad Shāh of Gujarat⁴³ was coming to invade Mandu,⁴⁴ so much distressed Mahmūd that he thought it best to patch up a truce and return to Malwa. But while self-respect made him hesitate,⁴⁵ to the utter surprise and disgust of Delhi, Sultan Muhammad himself came out with an offer of peace. Mahmūd naturally responded readily and he struck tents. Bahlūl Lodī was highly chagrined; he made amends for the humiliating treaty by treacherously attacking Mahmūd Khaljī on his return march, killing a large number of his men and capturing some baggage and treasure.⁴⁶ The vacillating Sultan became exceedingly pleased even with this act of Bahlūl. He addressed him as his son, gave him the title of Khan-i-Khānān and sent him back to Sarhind with all honours.

c12.s1.49

³⁹ *Ibid.*, I, 171, 174.

c12.s1.50

⁴⁰ T.A., I, 291; Badaonī, Ranking, I, 398; Ferishta, I, 171; II, 264.

c12.s1.51

⁴¹ Nizāmuddīn has Qadan Khan (قدن خان) and Badaonī Madan Khan (مدن خان). Ferishta's Qadr Khan seems to be correct.

c12.s1.52

⁴² Ferishta, II, 264. T.A., De, III, 509.

c12.s1.53

⁴³ We learn from the *Mirat-i-Sikandari* that between A. D. 1432 and 1442 not a year passed when Sultan Ahmad Shāh Gujaratī did not send his army to chastise one or the other of his enemies, and the Sultan of Malwa was one of his worst foes. Bayley, *Gujarat*, 112, 114; Commissariat, I, 89-90.

c12.s1.54

⁴⁴ Ferishta, II, 265. T.A., I, 291.

c12.s1.55

⁴⁵ Ferishta, I, 171.

c12.s1.56

⁴⁶ Dorn, 44.

c12.s1.57

Bahlūl Lodī went on gathering strength at Sarhind. The prophecy of Shaikh Sadruddīn,⁴⁷ his own military talents as well as the utter incapacity of the Saiyyad monarch encouraged Bahlūl to seize with impunity a number of royal districts including Deopalpur, Lahore, Sunām and Hisār, and he paid no heed to Sultan Muhammad's protests.⁴⁸ The Sultan was so completely demoralised and felt so helpless that when in A. D. 1441 (845 H)⁴⁹ Jasrat Khokhar again rose in rebellion, he confirmed Deopalpur and Lahore on Bahlūl Lodi⁵⁰ as a price for chastising Jasrat. Jasrat knew the strength of his adversary; he entered into a compact with Bahlū who promised not to invade his homeland provided Jasrat alsoldid not interfere with his designs on Delhi.

c12.s1.58

⁴⁷ Almost all chroniclers say that one day Bahlūl went to Samana with his two companions Qutb Khan and Fīrōz Khan. There they visited a Darwēsh by the name of Saiyyad Ibn Majzūb. The saint was known to be a Sāhib-i-Lafz; and it was believed that whatever passed his lips used to come out true. On seeing Bahlūl and his companions the holy man asked : "Who amongst you would like to buy the kingdom of Delhi for two thousand *tankas*?" Malik Bahlūl had only 1,300 *tankas* with him and placed the amount before the saint. The latter took the money and congratulated Bahlūl by saying, "May the Bādshāhī be auspicious to you". When they left the place, Bahlūl's companions laughed at him for his loss of money. Bahlūl quietly told them that if the prophecy came out to be true he had made a wonderful bargain, and if not, the service to a Darwēsh was not devoid of profit. Also T.D., 3-4. The name of the saint is uncertain. He is called Saiyyad Ibn by Nizāmuddīn and Ni‘āmatulla (T.A., I, 295; *Makhzan*, 40 (b)—41 (a); also M.R., I, 434), Shaida by Ferishta, I, 174, Fata by Ahmad Yādgār (T.S.A., 3) and Seid Ayen by Dorn, 43. According to a legend still current in Ludhiana, his name was Shaikh Sadr-i-Jahān or Sadruddīn, and he was a disciple of Shaikh Bhāuddīn Zakariya of Multan. The Nawabs of Maler Kotla claim direct descent from him and his mausoleum is shown in Maler. J.A.S.B., 1869, Pt. I, 92; I.G. XVII, 86; Hodivala, 491.

c12.s1.59

⁴⁸ Dorn, 44.

c12.s1.60

⁴⁹ T.A., I, 291; Badaoni, I, 304; Ferishta, I, 171.

c12.s1.61

⁵⁰ T.A., I, 291-92.

c12.s1.62

Jasrat's hectic career came to a close with his death in 1442. This indefatigable warrior had fought against the Sultanate for more than two decades, and his career needs summing up. He had fought against Tīmūr when the latter had invaded India. Having failed against him, he helped his father Shaikha in occupying Lahore under the very nose of the terrible conqueror. He was carried away as a prisoner to Samarqand. His privations must have steeled his character and made him a staunch enemy of the Sultanate throngh whose incompetence he had had to suffer so much. When, therefore, he returned and found the Sultanate weak, he struck against it. He fought it for twenty years continually and must have grown grey in the act. His body had failed him, but his animus towards Delhi remained undiminished till the end, so much so, that he bequeathed his task to Bahlūl Lodī. Jasrat was a brave warrior, though a reckless adventurer. Men of his kind abounded in fifteenth century India.

c12.s1.63

The temptation of kingship was too strong for Bahlūl to resist. In 1443-44 he marched with a strong army to Delhi and invested it.⁵¹ The siege went on for a considerable time, but the fort being strong, Bahlūl returned to Sarhind without accomplishing much. On his return, however, he assumed the title of Sultan, abstaining for the time being from having the Khutba read or the coins struck in his name.⁵² The contagion of Sarhind spread as near as twenty *kos* from Delhi; the Amīrs and chieftains openly declared their independence and the Sultan could do nothing. Amidst such a hopeless situation Muhammad Shāh died in A.D. 1445 (849 H) after a reign of a little over twelve years.⁵³

c12.s1.64

⁵¹ Badaonī, I, 304; T.A., I, 296; Ferishta, I, 174.

c12.s1.65

⁵² *Makhzan*, 41 (b); Ferishta, I, 174.

c12.s1.66

⁵³ *Makhzan*, 41 (b) and Dorn, 44 do not give the date, but describing the events chronologically place his death here. A little difficulty has been experienced in deciding upon the year of Sultan Muhammad's death owing to the conflicting dates given by various historians. Nizāmuddīn clearly says: "At length, in the year 847 H (A.D. 1443), Sultan Muhammad Shāh died", but then wrongly adds "After a reign of ten years and some months". (T.A., I, 292 and De's trans., 329 n. 2). We know, on Yahyā's authority, that Muhammad Shāh ascended the throne on 9 Rajjab, 837 H (T.M.S., 236). Ferishta also clearly has 837 H as the year of Muhammad's accession and 849 H as that of his death (Ferishta, I, 169, 171). He also adds that Muhammad Shāh reigned for twelve years and some months (*Ibid.*, 171). Badaonī also has 847 H as the year of Muhammad's death, but he credits him with a reign of fourteen years and some months (Badaonī, I, 300, 304) which is manifestly wrong. As Prof. Hodivala suggests, these discrepancies in the MSS. are due to the bewildering similarity between سبع و اربع and تسع in the semitic script (Hodivala, 410). Col. Ranking was in favour of 849 H, the date given by Ferishta, on the ground that it was "plain and coincident" (Badaonī, Ranking, I, 399-400 note). Numismatic evidence also supports Ferishta's dates as Muhammad Shāh's billon and copper coins of every year from 837 to 849 H are known (J.A.S.B., 1921, Numismatic supplement XXXV; N. Wright, 236, 241). Thomas was inclined to agree with 847 H (*Chronicles*, 336 n.) but the coins of Muhammad Shāh after the year of 847 H were not available to him. Therefore, 849 H as the date of Muhammad Shāh's death is correct and he ruled for a little over twelve years.

Cites (4)

Mandu
Nagori
Sunam
Tārīkh-i Mubārakshāhī — Yaḥyā b. Aḥmad Sirhindī