Twilight of the Sultanate c13: Chapter 8: Primus Inter Pares
Twilight of the Sultanate c13
- Language
- English
Contents
- c13.s1 Early Career of Bahlūl Lodī — 30 parts
- c13.s2 War with the Sharqīs — 60 parts
- c13.s3 Extinction of the Sharqī Kingdom — 67 parts
- c13.s4 Other Exploits of Bahlūl — 25 parts
- c13.s5 Bahlūl Lodī—An Estimate — 22 parts
Chapter 8: Primus Inter Pares
Early Career of Bahlūl Lodī
c13.s1.1
SULTAN BAHLUL LODI,¹ who ascended the throne of Delhi in 1451, rose to such eminence from a humble beginning. According to Ferishta, Bahlūl's grand-father Behrām Lodī was one of the Afghan traders who used to come to Hindustan to sell their merchandise. Behrām had had some estrangement with his brother and he left his home country to settle down permanently in India during the reign of Fīrōz Tughlaq. He took up service under Malik Mardān Daulat, governor of Multan, whom we have met before. Behrām had five sons—Malik Sultan Shāh, Malik Kālā, Malik Fīrōz, Malik Muhammad and Malik Khwājā.² Sultan Shāh took up service under Khizr Khan, governor of Multan, and was put in charge of a contingent of Afghans. He actively helped Khizr Khan in his fight against Mallū Iqbāl Khan, and it was he who struck down Mallū Iqbāl in battle in 1405. For this act of bravery Khizr Khan rewarded him with the title of Islām Khan and the fief of Sarhind.³ As governor of Sarhind, Islām Khan assigned to his brothers many parganas under his control, and Malik Kālā Lodī was appointed to the pargana of Daurala.⁴ Malik Kālā had married one of his uncle's daughters. When she was in an advanced stage of pregnancy, she was crushed under a collapsing wall, but the child was rescued by a surgical operation.⁵ This child was Bahlūl Lodī.
c13.s1.2
¹ For the origin of the Lodīs see Appendix C.
c13.s1.3
² Ferishta, I, 173-74.
c13.s1.4
³ Ibid., I, 173; T.S.A., 2; T.D., Allahabad University MS., 3.
c13.s1.5
⁴ In Akbar's reign Daurala was included in Sarkar Sarhind. Āīn., II, 296.
c13.s1.6
⁵ Ferishta, I, 173.
c13.s1.7
A short time after, Malik Kālā died in a battle with the Niazīs. The orphan Ballū (for that was Bahlūl's pet name)⁶ was sent for by Islām Shāh to Sarhind to be brought up there. The lad was full of spirit and showed martial qualities. During Khizr Khan's rule, Bahlūl brought many recalcitrant parganas under control and on that account was rewarded with fiefs.⁷ Pleased with his talents, Islām Shāh married his daughter to him and began to favour him even more than his own sons.
c13.s1.8
⁶ T.D., 2, 3, 4, 5 and W.M., 2 (a) have Ballū. Ferishta, I, 173, has Mallū.
c13.s1.9
⁷ Ferishta, I, 173.
c13.s1.10
There is no reason to believe that Bahlūl Lodī was engaged in trade in his youth as has been averred by 'Abdulla, the author of *Tārīkh-i-Dāūdī*.⁸ True, his grand-father was a merchant, but after Islām Khan had taken up service with Khizr Khan, all the sons of Behrām seem to have joined government service. Bahlūl was brought up by his uncle who took every care of him,⁹ and he hardly needed to take to trading for livelihood. This hypothesis is supported by the statements of Nizāmuddīn and Ni'āmatulla.¹⁰
c13.s1.11
⁸ *T.D.*, 4-5.
c13.s1.12
⁹ T.S.A., 2; T.D., 2; *Makhzan*, 40 (a).
c13.s1.13
¹⁰ T.A., I, 295; Dorn, 43. Also M.R., I, 435. *Makhzan*, 41 (a).
c13.s1.14
Islām Khan served Khizr Khan loyally and was raised from the position of Malik to that of Khan. During Mubārak Saiyyad's rule his fame and importance continued to rise and he was given the titles of Malikul Sharq and Khan-i-Āzam.¹¹ In course of time Islām Khan, seeing marks of diligence and integrity in his nephew and son-in-law, put a contingent of twelve thousand Afghans under his charge.¹² And although he had a number of intelligent sons, he nominated Bahlūl as his successor.¹³ When in May, 1431, Islām Khan was killed fighting Shaikh 'Alī of Kabul, Bahlūl took possession of Sarhind.¹⁴ This was resented by Islām Khan's son Qutb Khan, who, as has been seen before, appealed to Sultan Muhammad Saiyyad to remove Bahlūl from Sarhind. But the helpless ruler of the weakened Sultanate could do little against him.
c13.s1.15
¹¹ T.M.S., 208-9, 216.
c13.s1.16
¹² Ferishta, I, 173.
c13.s1.17
¹³ Muhammad Kabīr gives the following reason for the choice of Bahlūl. He says that Islām Khan (whom he calls Jalāluddīn) had two wives, one Afghan and the other Rajput. From the first wife was born a daughter named Firdausī and from the second Qutb Khan. Firdausī was married to Bahlūl. A little before his death Islām Khan called Bahlūl and Qutb Khan to his presence and addressing the latter said : "Bahlūl is born of an Afghan woman while you are the son of a Rajput. The Afghans are rustic. They will not obey you. I nominate Bahlūl as the king and you as his Vazīr''. So saying he took off his turban and placed it on the head of Bahlūl. *Afsānā-i-Shāhān*, British Museum MS., 14 (b); Also trs. in Hindi in *Uttar Tīmūr Kālīn Bharat*, I, 365.
c13.s1.18
¹⁴ *Makhzan*, 41 (a); W.M., 2 (a).
c13.s1.19
Indeed, Bahlūl Lodī had gathered so much strength that Sultan Muhammad had to seek his help against the Khanzādās of Mewat and Mahmūd Khaljī of Malwa. By the time 'Alāuddīn 'Ālam Shāh Saiyyad ascended the throne, Bahlūl had become master of the whole of the Punjab. He was not slow to take advantage of the confusion prevailing in Delhi after 'Alāuddīn's departure for Badaon, and as seen above, by dealing with the Vazīr, Hamīd Khan, sternly and with Sultan 'Alāuddīn softly and tactfully, he ascended the throne on 19 April, 1451 (17 Rabiul Avval, 855 H), under the title of Sultan Abul Muzaffar Bahlūl Shāh Ghāzī.
c13.s1.20
With his accession the Sultanate of Delhi ceased to be the little kingdom extending from "Delhi to Palam". All the districts west of the capital—Panipat, Sarhind, Deopalpur, Lahore, and their outlying regions—had automatically returned to the Sultanate. The strong chiefs around Delhi—many of whom were Afghans—were supporters of Bahlūl.¹⁵ Even so the elements pitted against him were so varied and so bitterly hostile that he had to fight them all through his life. It was not easy to remove the anti-Afghan sentiments from the breasts of men. The Turkish sultans had considered the Afghans to be good soldiers, and nothing more; they were devoid of "culture" and, therefore, the very idea of their becoming rulers was deemed to be outrageous. A similar wave of resentment had swept over Delhi when the Khaljīs had succeeded the Ilbarīs.¹⁶ Bahlūl had also to face problems posed by the demerits of his own Afghan followers. Their sentimental attachment to their queer ideas of unbridled freedom, and their traditional devotion to their tribal leaders, were not conducive to discipline and harmony. Besides this, there were the sympathisers of the Saiyyad ruler living at Badaon. His son-in-law, the King of Jaunpur, could not brook the idea of an alien occupying the throne which he thought belonged to him as a matter of right. Other problems were no less important. Hindustan which had been broken up was to be reclaimed and consolidated. The authority of the crown, so badly shaken during the last years, had to be re-established.
c13.s1.21
¹⁵ Erskine, *Babur and Humayun*, I, 405.
c13.s1.22
¹⁶ T.F.S. (B), 173-75.
c13.s1.23
To surmount these difficulties and to steer his ship successfully, Bahlūl had to act with alertness and discretion. As a first step towards meeting his difficulties he gave all key-posts in the treasury, stores, and stables of elephants and horses to his trusted Afghan officers. He also bestowed important iqt'ās in and around Delhi on his loyal adherents.¹⁷ The fort itself was garrisoned by the pick of the Afghan soldiery. Ni'āmatulla and Ahmad Yādgār say that he even "freed of factious men some districts around Delhi,¹⁸ which again goes to show that he wanted to "Afghanise" the administration and curb all disaffected elements.
c13.s1.24
¹⁷ T.S.A., 8 ; Dorn, 47-8.
c13.s1.25
¹⁸ T.S.A., 10 ; *Makhzan*, 44 (a).
c13.s1.26
For this purpose Bahlūl Lodī felt the need of enrolling many more Afghan troops and thought of marching to Multan,¹⁹ the chief centre of recruitment of Afghans from Roh. During the reign of Mubārak Shāh, Multan had suffered terribly because of the inroads of Shaikh 'Alī, but Mubārak and his incompetent successors had failed to restore peace there. Sick of the strife and discord, the elite of the city, in 1443 (847 H), raised to the throne Shaikh Yūsuf Qureshī, a descendant of Shaikh Bahauddīn Zakaria.²⁰ But the independence of Multan and Uchch had cut off the chief recruiting centre of Bahlūl and he, after leaving the capital in the hands of his son Khwājā Bayezīd, marched to Multan about the end of 1451.²¹ His aims were two ; firstly, to bring that strategic region under control and secondly, to recruit fresh levies.²²
c13.s1.27
¹⁹ Ferishta, I, 175.
c13.s1.28
²⁰ *Ibid.*, II, 324.
c13.s1.29
²¹ Ahmad Yādgār has Lahore in place of Multan. T.S.A., 10.
c13.s1.30
²² Ferishta, I, 175. Also T.A., I, 301. Sir Wolseley Haig (C.H.I., III, 229) and N. B. Roy (Ni'āmatulla's trs., xiii) say that Bahlūl went to reinstate Yūsuf Qureshī on the throne of Multan which Qutbuddīn Langāh had usurped. But they anticipate. As we shall see a little later Qutbuddīn Langāh ousted Yūsuf and occupied Multan not before a.d. 1454.
War with the Sharqīs
c13.s2.1
While Bahlūl was away, a section of the nobility at the capital, which was alarmed at Bahlūl's policy of Afghanisation, invited Mahmūd Sharqī of Jaunpur to occupy Delhi.²³ A warlike monarch like Mahmūd hardly needed an invitation. In the very year of his accession (a.d. 1440—844 H) he had issued a large pattern coin as complete in inscription as that of any Delhi sovereign,²⁴ probably to symbolise his complete equality with the Sultan of Delhi. He and his predecessors had fought the Saiyyads of Delhi on many occasions and had married their daughters either through force or persuasion. Besides Mahmūd had fought many wars against Malwa.²⁵ Until the accession of Bahlūl, the kingdom of Jaunpur was a power to be reckoned with; now it was threatened by the ascendancy of the Afghans who, besides being masters of the Sultanate, dominated the whole of the Punjab and the Western Uttar Pradesh. Mahmūd's wife, a Saiyyad princess, was also nagging and instigating him to capture Delhi which, she pleaded, belonged to her forefathers and not to the upstart Bahlūl. She even threatened to lead a campaign in person if her husband delayed to march against Delhi.²⁶ Mahmūd also knew that Jaunpur was the only power which could champion the cause of the Saiyyads who had been ousted from the throne. Therefore, he could neither miss the opportunity of satisfying his ambition contained in the invitation from Delhi, nor fail to assert his right as envisaged by his wife.
c13.s2.2
²³ T.A., I, 301 ; Ferishta, I, 175.
c13.s2.3
²⁴ J.(P.)A.S.B., New Series, XI, 1915, 490-91.
c13.s2.4
²⁵ Ferishta, II, 306-8, says that he also carried out a successful campaign in Orissa. But Stirling is correct in saying: "The fact that the Muhammadans were levying blackmail from Orissa in 1451 when the great Kapilendradéva was ruling, is unthinkable." *Asiatic Researches*, XV, 275.
c13.s2.5
²⁶ T.S.A., 10.
c13.s2.6
In short, the Sharqī King arrived at Delhi in 1452 (856 H)²⁷ with a large force including a thousand elephants. The campaign was well planned: Bahlūl with his army was away in the west and Dariyā Khan Lodī, governor of Sambhal and a relative of Bahlūl, had been persuaded to join the Sharqī camp. Mahmūd placed Fatéh Khan Harwī, an important nobleman of Jaunpur,²⁸ and Dariyā Khan Lodī in charge of investing the fort, and they began the siege in full force. Khwājā Bayezīd and Bībī Matto,²⁹ Islām Khan's widow and mother-in-law of Bahlūl, had no option but to shut the gates and stand the siege. That brave lady dressed the women in male attire, and stationed them on the battlements to make a show of numbers.³⁰ But the ruse was of no avail. The enemy was very strong and when he started shelling the city,³¹ Bayezīd and Sarwanī, son-in-law of Qutb Khan Lodī, decided to sue for peace. They sent Saiyyad Shamsuddīn to Dariyā Khan with the keys of the fort, but the envoy appealed to the latter’s racial sentiment and pleaded with him not to side with Mahmūd in the Afghan-Turk war. Dariyā Khan was so much impressed with Shamsuddīn’s impassioned appeal that he sent him back without taking the keys of the fort.³² He explained off the affair to Sultan Mahmūd by asserting that occupation of the fort was not so important or urgent as checking the advance of Bahlūl who, having learnt of the siege, had turned back from Deopalpur³³ and had arrived at Panipat. Once Sultan Bahlūl was defeated, he argued, Delhi would automatically fall into their hands.
c13.s2.7
²⁷ T.A., I, 301; Ferishta, I, 157; II, 308; T.S.A., 10; T.D., 13. Only Ni'ämatulla has 855 H. *Makhzan*, 44 (a).
c13.s2.8
²⁸ Ferishta, II, 308.
c13.s2.9
²⁹ Ahmad Yādgār calls her Bībī Matto while Rizqulla has Mastu. T.S.A., 11; W.M., 3 (a) and 4 (a).
c13.s2.10
³⁰ T.S.A., 11; T.D., 14; W.M., 3 (a).
c13.s2.11
³¹ T.S.A., 11. لشکر ساباط و گرگچ بر آورده حقه های آتش بازی چنان در قلعه می انداختند (The soldiers set up *sābāt* and *gargach* and hurled naphtha packets (caskets of fire) inside the fort).
c13.s2.12
³² W.M., 3 (b).
c13.s2.13
³³ T.A., I, 301; T.D., 15; M.R., I, 440.
c13.s2.14
Even after this Mahmūd foolishly lent a ready ear to Dariyā Khan. At his suggestion he and Fatēh Khan Harwī were sent with 30,000 horse and 40 elephants to check the advance of Bahlūl. By that time Bahlūl had reached Narela,³⁴ seventeen miles from Delhi. He had only 14,000 men³⁵ with him, but he did not despair of the outcome. On the contrary his patrols carried away cattle and horses of the Jaunpur army, and the next day he launched an all out attack. Fatēh Khan’s elephant was disabled by the master archer Qutb Khan with a single shot,³⁶ and his movements were retarded. Qutb Khan, probably unaware of the interview between Dariyā Khan and Shamsuddīn, then shouted out to Dariyā Khan : “Your mothers and sisters are besieged in the fort. What sort of a man are you that you are seeking victory for a stranger without having any regard for your own honour”?’’³⁷ Dariyā Khan hardly needed this sermon; he had already decided to leave the field. His retreat completely crippled Fatēh Khan’s strength and he was defeated and captured. As Fatēh Khan had killed Pithora, brother of Rai Karan of Shamsābād, the latter severed his head and presented it to Sultan Bahlūl.³⁸ The Sharqī king could not bear the shock of this catastrophe and retreated towards Jaunpur. But his chagrin was great and this campaign only touched off a long-drawn out war between the two “kingdoms”.
c13.s2.15
³⁴ Now a railway station on the Delhi-Kalka line. T.A., I, 301; T.S.A., 12; W.M., 3 (b).
c13.s2.16
³⁵ T.S.A., 13; T.D., 15-16. ‘Abdulla adds that according to some writers Bahlūl had only 7,000 soldiers with him. W.M., 3 (a) - (b) also has 7,000.
c13.s2.17
³⁶ T.S.A., 13; T.A., I, 301.
c13.s2.18
³⁷ T.S.A., 13; *Makhzan*, 44 (b); Dorn, 47. Ferishta, I, 175; T.A., I, 301; T.D., 16.
c13.s2.19
³⁸ T.A., I, 302; Ferishta, I, 175. M.R., I, 441.
c13.s2.20
Bahlūl’s success, against really heavy odds, was indeed brilliant; it also served to open his eyes to the danger of the existence of an independent kingdom like Jaunpur and to convince him of the necessity for its destruction. He had not been able to go personally to recruit Afghan levies because of Mahmūd’s invasion, but he was now more than ever convinced that he could not do without them. Consequently, he sent letters to the leaders of the different clans of the Afghans in Roh inviting them on liberal terms to come to Hindustan in large numbers and in course of time they swarmed into India to join the Sultan “like ants and locusts”.³⁹
c13.s2.21
³⁹ ‘Abbās Sarwani in Roy’s translation of *Makhzan*, 67-69.
c13.s2.22
Meanwhile, encouraged by the success against a powerful king like Mahmūd, Bahlūl Lodī marched out with his army to obtain or compel the allegiance of the chiefs of the provinces round about. Mewat lay in the immediate neighbourhood and he marched to it first. Ahmad Khan Mewatī made his submission and gave seven parganas as a token of subservience. His uncle Mubārak Khan also entered the service of the Sultan. Bahlūl then went to Baran where Dariyā Khan Lodī, governor of Sambal, made a similar present of seven parganas. At Kol, ‘Isa Khan, at Burhanabad, Mubārak Khan the governor of Saket,⁴⁰ and at Bhongaon, Rai Pratap promised allegiance to the Sultan and were left in full possession of their territories. Only when Bahlūl arrived at Rapri did he meet with some resistance, for Qutb Khan, son of Hasan Khan, had shut himself up in the fort. The citadel was soon taken, but at the intercession of Khan-i-Jahān, Qutb Khan was pardoned and his Jagīrs were returned.⁴¹ Etawah also submitted without resistance.
c13.s2.23
⁴⁰ Burhanabad is said to have been near Marehra, which lies about 15 miles north of Etah. Saket is also in Etah.
c13.s2.24
⁴¹ T.A., I, 302. Ferishta, I, 175-6 generally agrees; also Dorn, 47-48. T.S.A. and Badaonī do not give these movements. T.D., 17, only gives a brief reference.
c13.s2.25
It was a policy of firmness coupled with broad-based liberality which had won Bahlūl the allegiance of many otherwise proud and powerful chieftains, and within a year of his accession he had been able to assert his authority over the entire central region from the Punjab to the very frontiers of Jaunpur. But his advance in arms as far as Etwah brought him into clash with the king of Jaunpur who had known no rest since his last defeat. Goaded by his wife Bibi Rajī,⁴² Mahmūd Sharqī came to Etwah to fight Bahlūl once again.⁴³ Bahlūl was not prepared for a full-scale war and after a day's contest (and at the intervention of Qutb Khan and Rai Pratap Singh), a truce favourable to Mahmūd was concluded on the following terms:
c13.s2.26
⁴² T.D. and *Makhzan*, 45 (a) call her daughter of Sultan 'Alāuddīn Saiyyad, but she was probably his sister as Bibi Khonza, 'Alāuddīn's daughter, was married to Mahmūd's son Husain Sharqī. Also W.M., 5 (b).
c13.s2.27
⁴³ Dorn, 48.
c13.s2.28
(1) Whatever had been in the possession of Mubārak Shāh Saiyyad (A. D. 1421-1434) was to belong to Bahlūl Lodī, and whatever was then included in the Jaunpur kingdom was to belong to Mahmūd Sharqī.
(2) Sultan Bahlūl was to return the seven elephants of Jaunpur he had captured at the time of the defeat of Fatēh Khan Harwī.
(3) At the end of the rains, Bahlūl Lodī was to take Shamsābād from Malik Jūnā, who was holding it on behalf of Sultan Mahmūd.⁴⁴
c13.s2.29
⁴⁴ T.A., I 302-303; Ferishta, I, 176; M.R., I, 442, Dorn, 48; *Makhzan*, 45 (a-b). Badāonī gives no details.
c13.s2.30
The last term of the truce, which Mahmūd did not intend to honour, soon became a cause for another conflict between Delhi and. Jaunpur. When, at the stipulated time, Bahlūl wrote to Jūnā Khan to vacate Shamsābād, he refused to do so.⁴⁵ Bahlūl thereupon forcibly seized it and gave it to Rai Karan. At this Sultan Mahmūd marched to Shamsābād with his army in A. D. 1456 (861 H),⁴⁶ and both sides prepared for war. On one of these days Qutb Khan Lodī and Dariyā Khan Lodī delivered a night attack on the enemy but in the fight Qutb Khan's horse stumbled and he was taken captive. He was sent to Jaunpur to be imprisoned there. Bahlūl Lodī now prepared for a full-scale battle; he left Rai Karan to hold the fort and sent princes Sikandar and Jalāl and ‘Imādul Mulk against Mahmūd, and himself followed them a little later. But at this juncture Sultan Mahmūd suddenly died, A. D. 1457 (862 H),⁴⁷ and the war ended abruptly.
c13.s2.31
⁴⁵ T.A., I, 303. *Makhzan*, 45 (b). Shamsābād, 18 miles N.W. of Fatehgarh, had a fort in Akbar's time. Āīn., II, 196.
c13.s2.32
⁴⁶ Ferishta, II, 308.
c13.s2.33
⁴⁷ Ferishta, II, 308; Z.W., I, 135. Also *Chronicles*, 323.
c13.s2.34
But the death of Mahmūd in camp did in no way affect the position of the Jaunpurīs because of the illustrious and sagacious queen of the deceased Sultan, Bībī Rājī. She, in consultation with the elite of the court, proclaimed Mahmūd’s son, Bhīkhan Khan, as the Sultan of Jaunpur with the title of Muhammad Shāh and patched up a truce with Sultan Bahlūl on the condition that “the territory ruled over by Sultan Mahmūd should be held by Sultan Muhammad, while Sultan ‘Alāuddīn’s possessions should belong to Sultan Bahlūl”.⁴⁸ The two armies then returned to their respective capitals.⁴⁹
c13.s2.35
⁴⁸ *Makhzan*, 45 (b).
c13.s2.36
⁴⁹ T.A., I, 303; Ferishta, I, 176; II, 308.
c13.s2.37
As Bahlūl was close on Delhi, Shams Khātūn, his principal wife and the sister of Qutb Khan, sent him word that rest and repose were unlawful for him until he had rescued his cousin, Qutb Khan. It is not surprising that Bahlūl had not asked for his release when the new Sharqī king had entered into a covenant with him. He was on the defensive and in spite of the round about way in which the chroniclers write, he had lost much territory in the last truce, having been pushed back to ‘Alāuddīn’s frontiers in the east. Any-way, Shams Khātūn’s exhortation spurred him to action and without entering Delhi he turned from Dhankur, about 28 miles S. E. of Delhi, to march to Jaunpur with no other design than that of effecting the release of Qutb Khan. Thereupon, Muhammad Sharqī also returned to meet him. First Muhammad went to Shamsābād, wrested it from Rai Karan and made it over to Jūnā Khan. His strength even made Rai Pratap side with him this time. Shifting of loyalties was a common feature of these wars, and the instance of Dariyā Khan Lodī is a glaring example of it. Muhammad arrived at Sarsuti or Sirsa⁵⁰ and halted there; Bahlūl had already arrived in Rapri lying close to Sirsa. The rival forces occasionally clashed in minor engagements.
c13.s2.38
⁵⁰ Nizāmuddīn (T.A., I, De, 304), and Ferishta (I, 176 and II, 308) have سرستی. C.H.I., 231 makes it Saraswati. The place meant is most probably the old village of Sirsa, now called Sirsagunj, near Rapri, 27 miles south of Mainpuri and 14 miles from Shikohabad. This Sirsa is different from that of the East Punjab. I.G. Atlas, 31 A3; N.W.P. Gazetteer, 1876 Ed., IV, 751.
c13.s2.39
Muhammad Sharqī was a man who could turn friends into foes.⁵¹ He was wrathful and blood-thirsty. His Amīrs dreaded him, his brothers feared him and even his mother developed contempt and hatred for him. While he was at Sirsa he got inkling of a conspiracy at Jaunpur, and sent instructions to the Kotwal there to put to death his brothers Hasan Khan and Qutb Khan,⁵² while to beguile his mother he asked her to come to the camp and effect a compromise between him and his brother Hasan. The unsuspecting lady started from Jaunpur. On her way, at Qannauj, she learnt of the assassination of poor Hasan. She halted there to observe the mourning on which Muhammad wrote to her that since all the princes were to meet the same fate, she could mourn for them all at once.⁵³ The queen-mother could hardly tolerate such an insult added to grief, and determined to destroy the fiend. She sent a word to her other sons present in the camp at Sirsa to escape with their armies. Princes Husain and Jalāl, on the pretext of repulsing an expected night attack from Bahlūl, moved off with their contingents towards Qannauj,⁵⁴ but Jalāl Khan fell into the hands of Bahlūl, who made him captive as a reprisal for the imprisonment of Qutb Khan.⁵⁵
c13.s2.40
⁵¹ T.A., I, 304; T.S.A., 15.
c13.s2.41
⁵² Nizāmuddīn explicitly mentions Qutb Khan, son of Islām Khan Lodī, then a prisoner at Jaunpur. T.A., I, 304 and Ferishta, II, 308 also have Qutb Khan Lodī. 'Abdulla has princes Hasan Khan and Qutb Khan. T.D., 18. Ahmad Yādgār too has Qutb Khan and the two sons of Sultan Mahmūd (T.S.A., 14). Elliot adds a note, E and D, V, 82, to clarify the confusion, "In the *Tārīkh-i-Dāūdī*", says he, "they are called two sons of Sultan Shāh by name Hasan Khan and Qutb Khan. The insertion of Lodī must be an error, though his father's name was also Sultan Shāh. These princes were evidently of the Jaunpur family, and Sultan Shāh (Jaunpurī) himself appears as one of the conspirators against Muhammad Shāh." Sultan Muhammad of Jaunpur had ordered the death of Qutb Khan Jaunpurī and not of the Lodī prisoner of war of the same name. The Persian chroniclers have mixed up the two.
c13.s2.42
⁵³ T.S.A., 15.
c13.s2.43
⁵⁴ T.A., I, 304-5; Ferishta, I, 176; II; 309; *Makhzan*, 46 (b).
c13.s2.44
⁵⁵ T.A., I, 305; *Makhzan*, 47 (a).
c13.s2.45
Muhammad Khan was bewildered at the turn of events, and he decided to retreat. On the road to Qannauj he was hotly pursued and mauled by Bahlūl's men up to the Ganga. At Qannauj the queen-mother had arranged a hostile reception for him. In consultation with the chief nobles she had already declared prince Husain as the Sultan,⁵⁶ and when Muhammad Shāh arrived near Rajgarh⁵⁷ on the Ganga, Bibi Rājī sent Malik Mubārak Gung and Malik 'Ali Gujarātī with the newly crowned Husain Shāh to oppose him. Their arrival completely unnerved Muhammad, and caused major desertions in his camp. Left but with a few men he took up a position in a neighbouring garden. Muhammad was a good archer but Bibi Rājī had neutralised this advantage through his armourer, who had removed the points from the arrows in his quiver. Helpless, he fought with his sword, killed a few men, but was in the end struck down by an arrow shot by Mubārak Gung.⁵⁸
c13.s2.46
⁵⁶ Dorn, 50 and *Makhzan*, 47 (b) give the date of his accession as 857 H. But that is not correct. According to Ferishta, II, 308, Sultan Mahmūd died in 862 H. He also says that Muhammad ruled for five months only, II, 309. Therefore Husain must have ascended the throne of Jaunpur in the very year in which Mahmūd and Muhammad died, i.e. 862-3 H.
c13.s2.47
⁵⁷ T.A., I, 305 has گزر راجگر. Ferishta, II, 309, has the fort of Ajgar; while *Makhzan*, 47, (b) has Rajgarh. I cannot locate the place which possibly was on the Ganga.
c13.s2.48
⁵⁸ T.A., I, 306; Ferishta, I, 176; II, 309; *Makhzan*, 47 (b); T.D., 19. T.S.A., 15-16 says he was captured alive. It is not possible to say definitely as to how long he ruled. Muhammad's coins as well as those of Sultan Husain of the years 861, 862 and 863 H exist. May be the two rival princes were contending for power and each was issuing coins in his own name. Nizāmuddīn credits Muhammad with a reign of five years, but that is a clear case of miswriting *Sāl* for *Māh*. Ferishta (II, 308-9) says that Mahmūd died in 862 H (A.D. 1457) and Muhammad reigned only for five months. Lanepoole says that Muhammad ruled jointly with his father from 861 to 863 H. *Chronicles*, 320-23; Nelson Wright, *Catalogue of Coins in the Indian Museum Calcutta*, Vol., II, Part II. Also J.A.S.B., XIII, 107-8. The chronology of the Sharqī Kings is extremely confusing (H.M. Whittell, Numismatic Supplement No. XXXVI to the J.A.S.B., 1922), but from the narrative of events given by Persian chroniclers it appears that Muhammad had a short reign of five months rather than a long one of five years.
c13.s2.49
The new Sharqī Sultan Husain's first act was to enter into an agreement with Sultan Bahlūl. The two monarchs agreed on a truce for a period of four years. Each party was to be content with his own dominions and was to refrain from acts of aggression. The two royal prisoners Qutb Khan Lodī and Jalāl were exchanged, but Shamsābād remained in the hands of the Sharqīs. Qutb Khan Lodī had been in captivity for seven months.⁵⁹ With his release and because of the turn of events in Jaunpur politics the war came to a close in an atmosphere of cordiality. Also through the good offices of Qutb Khan Afghan, Rai Pratap was reconciled to Sultan Bahlūl.
c13.s2.50
⁵⁹ Nizāmuddīn Ahmad, Ni'āmatulla, Ahmad Yādgār and 'Abdulla say that Qutb Khan Lodī had been in captivity for seven years. Only Ferishta (I, 176 lines 7 ff) has seven months. T.A., I, 303; *Makhzan*, 47 (a); T.S.A., 14; T.D., 17. A.B. Pandey in *The First Afghan Empire in India*, 73, agrees with the other chroniclers. But the period of incarceration given by Ferishta appears to be more reasonable. The year of the last war between Bahlūl and Mahmūd Sharqī is not known, but it is clear from the narrative of the chroniclers that Qutb Khan was imprisoned only a little before the death of Mahmūd. Mahmūd had died in camp while the war was on. His successor Muhammad ruled for five months only (Ferishta, II, 309). The first act of Muhammad's successor Husain Shāh was to come to terms with Bahlūl and release Qutb Khan. So seven months and not seven years is the correct time. Badaonī does not explicitly mention seven months but implies that Qutb's release was effected within a period of one year. (I, 307-8; Ranking I, 404). It may also be remembered that Bahlūl had not visited Delhi during this time. As he was returning after the battle with Mahmūd, Shams Khātūn had sent him a taunting message which had made him immediately turn back towards Jaunpur. He was in all probability not away from the capital for seven long years just after his accession. Pandey's mistake lies in accepting July, 1452 (p. 72 n. 5) for the "second war" with Jaunpur, for which there is no warrant.
c13.s2.51
Bahlūl observed the truce for the stipulated period, from 1457 to 1461 (862-866 H). After its expiry he marched to Shamsābād,⁶⁰ took it from Jūnā Khan and handed it back to Rai Karan.⁶¹ What his further plans were one cannot tell. Probably after this success he wanted to march to Jaunpur, but an unfortunate incident at least marred his further progress. Finding the Sultan at Shamsābād, Narsingh Rai,⁶² son of Rai Pratap Singh, came to pay him respect. Some time previous to this Rai Pratap had wrested the kettledrum and standard from Dariyā Khan, who had felt bitterly humiliated. To avenge his insult he killed Pratap's son in Shamsābād. Because of this heinous crime, say Ferishta and Ni'āmatulla, Rai Pratap, Qutb Khan, son of Husain Khan Afghan, the governor of Rapri, and Mubāriz Khan deserted to Sultan Husain Sharqī. Bahlūl, who could neither punish his cousin Dariyā Khan Lodi⁶³ nor provide redress to Rai Pratap, could now hardly proceed further east and returned to Delhi.
c13.s2.52
⁶⁰ So has Ferishta, I, 176 ; Nizāmuddīn says "after some time".
c13.s2.53
⁶¹ T.A., I, 307 ; Dorn, 51 ; *Makhzan*, 48 (a).
c13.s2.54
⁶² *T.A.* has نر سنگھہ رائے without any dots above or below. Ferishta, I, 176, has Narsingh, Dorn, 51, Rai Bir Singh Deo, and *Makhzan*, 48 (a), Narsingh.
c13.s2.55
⁶³ Nothing is heard of Dariyā Khan hereafter. Probably he died a natural death, for had he been killed by Bahlūl for his crime, Rai Pratap would have been reconciled with the Sultan.
c13.s2.56
After some time Bahlūl Lodi started for Multan in fulfilment of his promise to its ex-ruler Yūsuf Qureshī, leaving the charge of Delhi to Qutb Khan Lodī and Khan-i-Jahān.⁶⁴ We have seen that in the very year of his accession, Bahlūl had tried to go to Multan to re-establish his authority, but the Sharqī king had foiled his plan. All the same, his movements had terribly frightened Yūsuf Qureshī, the elected ruler of Multan, and he had started looking out for friends and supporters. One Rai Sehra, leader of the Langāh tribe of the Afghans, wrote many flattering letters to Yūsuf Qureshī, promising him support against Bahlūl Lodī,⁶⁵ and as a proof of his loyalty married his daughter to Yūsuf. Thereafter the Langāh chief used to pay frequent visits to Multan with a large retinue under the plea of seeing his daughter. About the year A. D. 1454 he marched with his army to Multan on the pretext of its "review" by the Sultan, but then threw off the mask, occupied the capital and took the title of Sultan Qutbuddīn Mahmūd Langāh. The people of Multan had no option but to submit to his rule.⁶⁶
c13.s2.57
⁶⁴ T.A., I, 307 ; Ferishta, I, 177 ; Dorn, 51.
c13.s2.58
⁶⁵ Ferishta, II, 325.
c13.s2.59
⁶⁶ Qutbuddīn Langāh died in 874 H after ruling for sixteen years after which his son Husain succeeded him in A. D. 1469 (874 H). Ferishta, II, 325. Obviously he must have ascended the throne in or about 858 H (A. D. 1454) after removing Yūsuf from Multan.
c13.s2.60
Shaikh Yūsuf escaped to Delhi. Bahlūl Lodī received him cordially, and promised to help him regain the throne. Many a time he tried to march to Multan but the Sharqī kings gave him no respite. Now, after four years of peace with Jaunpur when he had occupied Shamsābād without opposition, Bahlūl marched to Multan in compliance of his promise to the Shaikh. But he was mistaken, for while he was on his way, he was informed that Husain Sharqī had started for Delhi. Bahlūl immediately turned back to meet him.
Extinction of the Sharqī Kingdom
c13.s3.1
Sultan Husain Sharqī was determined to maintain the tradition of his warlike house. One of his first acts after accession was to put to death several officers who had headed a party against him. Now, the loss of Shamsābād and the defection of Rai Pratap and Qutb Khan prompted him to march against Delhi in A. D. 1463 (868 H). Sultan Bahlūl after a precipitate march-back met his adversary at Chandwār.⁶⁷ Skirmishes continued for a whole week and there was some shifting of loyalties, but at last through the exertions of the chief men of the two camps a three-year truce, on the usual condition that each party should be content with its own kingdom, was patched up.⁶⁸
c13.s3.2
⁶⁷ T.A., I, 307; Ferishta, I, 177. *Makhzan*, 48 (a). Dorn does not mention the place.
c13.s3.3
⁶⁸ T.A., I, 307; Ferishta, I, 177; Dorn, 51; *Makhzan*, 48 (a).
c13.s3.4
During this period of three years Sultan Husain besieged Etawah and captured it from its ruler. Ferishta says that he did so after the expiry of the period of truce,⁶⁹ although Nizāmuddīn gives the impression that immediately after the truce, as Bahlūl returned to Delhi, Sultan Husain went to Etawah and captured it.⁷⁰ It is, however, clear that after three years' time, when the hostilities were resumed, Husain Sharqī was well-established at Etawah and had made it a base of operations.⁷¹ He had introduced new vigour into the civil and military affairs of Jaunpur. In A. D. 1466 (871 H)⁷² he repaired the fort of Benares (Varanasi) and in the same year sent an expedition to Gwalior compelling its Raja to come over to his side.⁷³ Ferishta and Wolseley Haig even credit him with leading a campaign into Orissa and defeating its ruler Kapileshwar Deva⁷⁴ but this claim is refuted by modern historians of Orissa.⁷⁵ All the same his power and fame encouraged defections in Bahlūl's camp. The last to go over to the Sharqī side were Rustam Khan, governor of Kol and Ahmad Khan, son of Yūsuf Khan Jalwānī, the governor of Bayana.⁷⁶
c13.s3.5
⁶⁹ Ferishta, I, 177.
c13.s3.6
⁷⁰ T.A., I, 307-8.
c13.s3.7
⁷¹ Dorn, 51. Also T.A., I, 308 and Ferishta, I, 177.
c13.s3.8
⁷² Ferishta, II, 310; C.I. S.G., I, 232.
c13.s3.9
⁷³ T.A., III, 284; Ferishta, II, 310.
c13.s3.10
⁷⁴ Ferishta, II, 309-10. C.H.I., III, 255.
c13.s3.11
⁷⁵ R.D. Banerji, *History of Orissa*, I, 291; H. K. Mahtab, *The History of Orissa*, 85.
c13.s3.12
⁷⁶ The triangular conflict between the sultans of Delhi, Malwa and Jaunpur was the opportunity for the Auhadī (later Jalwānī) governors of Bayana. They played successfully upon the rivalry of the three kings, and this won for Mahmūd Khan Auhadī the gold crown of Mahmūd Khaljī of Malwa. (T.A., III, 330.) Under Ahmad Khan Jalwānī the dynasty fell.
c13.s3.13
So in A. D. 1466 at the expiry of the period of three years, Husain Sharqī marched towards Delhi with 100,000 horse and 1,000 elephants. Sultan Bahlūl too led his army and fought the adversary near Bhatwara,⁷⁷ and a little later near Sarāi Lashkar, 25 miles east of Delhi,⁷⁸ nipping in the bud the grandiose scheme of the adversary. Sultan Husain hardly achieving anything much returned to Etawah.⁷⁹ There his mother, the illustrious matron Bibi Rājī, breathed her last.⁸⁰ Bahlūl considered it a good opportunity to placate his powerful enemy and sent Qutb Khan Lodī and Kalyān Mal, son of Rai Kīrti Singh of Gwalior⁸¹ (1455-1479), to convey his condolences to Sultan Husain. They found the atmosphere at Etawah fully surcharged with hostility towards Delhi, and the Sharqī king unaccommodating. Even they could manage their return only with great difficulty.
c13.s3.14
⁷⁷ T.A., I, 308; Briggs and Ranking all have Bhatwārā. Also *Makhzan*, 48 (b) and Dorn, 51. Ferishta, I, 177, has Thawārā. The place is difficult to identify.
c13.s3.15
⁷⁸ *Makhzan*, 48 (b). Dorn has Sarāi only. Several MSS. of T.A. have Raysingh and the text has رائے لشکر (T.A., De, 347 n. 3). Ferishta, I, 177, has سيكره. C.H.I., III, identifies it with Sikhera, 25 miles east of Delhi. "Sikhara in Sirhpur pargana, Kasgunj tehsil, Etah district might be the battle-site." Roy, *Makhzan's* trs., 43, n. 2.
c13.s3.16
⁷⁹ Ferishta ascribes this campaign to A. D. 1473 (878 H), while Nizāmuddīn puts it somewhere in A. D. 1469 (873 H). Ferishta, II, 310; T.A., III, 348-49. There is no contemporary account, and the chronology of these later writers is not precise.
c13.s3.17
⁸⁰ T.A., I, 308.
c13.s3.18
⁸¹ T.A., I, 308; Dorn, 51; *Makhzan*, 48 (b). Only Ferishta, I, 177 says that it was the Raja himself and not his son who went to Gwalior.
c13.s3.19
The failure of Qutb Khan Lodī's mission prompted Bahlūl to make all-round preparations for the inevitable war. He even decided to seek outside help. In 1468 (873 H) he despatched Shaikh-zādā Muhammad Farmūlī and Kalyān Mal to Mahmūd Khaljī of Malwa with an appeal for help against Husain Sharqī, and promised to give Bayana in lieu of the aid. Nothing could have pleased the Khaljī monarch more than to have received such a message from Delhi. He promised to send 6,000 horse to the aid of Bahlūl if and when Husain marched against him next.⁸² Although Mahmūd Khaljī died the same year and with him his promise of help, yet Bahlūl's appeal shows the gravity of the situation, and the encouraging reply of Mahmūd must have given him great moral strength.
c13.s3.20
⁸² Ferishta, II, 252-53. The names of the ambassadors are given as Muhammad Farmūlī and Kapūr Chand in *Ma'āsir-i-Mahmūd Shāhī*, Camb. MS., 471-76, cited in *The Delhi Sultanate*, 240, n. 9.
c13.s3.21
In all probability Bahlūl's preparations prompted caution in Husain Sharqī, and for a time he dropped the idea of attacking Delhi. For a decade after this he went on making preparations for an attack on Delhi. Then an incident sparked off major war between Jaunpur and Delhi. In A. D. 1478 (883 H) the last Saiyyad ruler 'Alāuddīn 'Ālam Shāh died at Badaon.⁸³ Sultan Husain went there to offer his condolences, but ended by wresting Badaon from the sons of the deceased. Ni'āmatulla denounces him for "such mean action"⁸⁴ but the Sharqī monarch knew that Badaon could not be held by 'Ālam Shāh's sons and that that strategic town would sooner or later be taken by Bahlūl. So he only forestalled Bahlūl, because he would take no risks. From Badaon he pushed on to Sambhal and imprisoning its governor Mubārak Khan, son of Tātār Khan,⁸⁵ sent him to Sāran in Bihar.
c13.s3.22
⁸³ Ferishta, I, 177; No one else gives the date of his death.
c13.s3.23
⁸⁴ Dorn, 52; *Makhzan*, 48 (b).
c13.s3.24
⁸⁵ T.A., I, 309; Ferishta, I, 177. Badaonī, I, 309, says Tātār Khan was imprisoned.
c13.s3.25
This sweep of arms was followed by a blow at the Lodī capital itself. Husain advanced upon Delhi in March, A. D. 1479 (Zilhijja, 883 H)⁸⁶ and encamped on the ford of Kichcha. Bahlūl was at this time absent in Sarhind, but returned quickly on hearing of Hussain's campaign. But the odds were against him. The Jaunpur army was superior both in numbers and in strength. It consisted of 1,40,000 horse and 1,400 elephants while the Lodī monarch had only 18,000 troops under him.⁸⁷ Bahlūl sent a hurried summons to Husain Khan, the son of Khan-i-Khanān, at Meerut,⁸⁸ and even wrote to the king of Malwa for help, but he could hardly postpone the engagement till any aid or even a reply arrived. There was no hope of victory. Bahlūl could not even fight an open battle with such a small army, and so he resorted to an artifice. He made Qutb Khan Lodī write a very servile letter to Sultan Husain saying: "I am a grateful servant of Bībī Rājī. When I was a prisoner at Jaunpur she had treated me with utmost kindness. Now the best course to pursue is to make peace, and return. Let the countries on the other side of the Ganga be ruled by you, and those on this side by Sultan Bahlūl."⁸⁹ The terms were simply ridiculous, for the Sharqī king was to get territory as near as 18 *kos* from Delhi, but Husain Shāh, who was blind with joy, failed to see through them. He made the peace, and marched away.
c13.s3.26
⁸⁶ T.A., I, 309. Ferishta, I, 177; *Makhzan*, 48 (b)—49 (a). Badaonī wrongly has 880 H but later on gives the right chronogram of Husain's defeat as نوید خرابی (Tidings of Ruin) or 883 H. Badaonī, I, 310; Ranking, I, 407.
c13.s3.27
⁸⁷ Ferishta, II, 310.
c13.s3.28
⁸⁸ Badaonī, I, 309; Ranking, I, 406.
c13.s3.29
⁸⁹ T.A., I, 309; Ferishta, I, 177; T.D., 19-20.
c13.s3.30
But no sooner had he moved eastwards, than Sultan Bahlūl started in pursuit.⁹⁰ It was a breach of faith, but it was not Bahlūl alone who had been guilty of it. Sultan Husain had broken his promises more often. Moreover, with the death of Sultan 'Alāuddīn, Bahlūl must have given up even that little regard which he might have had for the son-in-law of his benefactor. The fact of the matter is that the temporary agreements between the two monarchs were patched up just for the convenience of one side or the other or of both. Both believed in swallowing up the territory of the other. Yet neither was strong enough to do it. Bahlūl as the Sultan of Delhi wanted to reunite Hindustan under one rule. Husain Sharqī thought that Delhi belonged to him by right because his wife was the daughter of the last Saiyyad Sultan 'Alāuddīn. The sword was the arbiter and both believed in its efficacy.
c13.s3.31
⁹⁰ T.A., I, 309; Ferishta, I, 177; T.D., 20.
c13.s3.32
In short, Sultan Husain was taken by complete surprise. Due to excessive haughtiness and pride he had disbelieved the reports of his spies that Bahlūl was marching in pursuit.⁹¹ Bahlūl Lodī suddenly fell on him from behind, plundered Husain's baggage train and took prisoner the flower of the Jaunpur nobility including Jaunpur's Vazīr Shamsuddīn,⁹² entitled Qutlugh Khan, one of the most learned men of his age. Leaving him in chains with Qutb Khan Lodī, Bahlūl kept on the trail of the retreating army and on the way he occupied Kol, Jalali, Kampil, Patiali, Shamsābād and Saket.⁹³ The pursuit had gone on unchallenged so far, but at the village of Rampanchu,⁹⁴ near Rapri, the Sharqī king turned back and gave battle. But he was not in a position to dictate terms, and agreeing to recognise Dhopamaū as the boundary⁹⁵ between the two kingdoms, he went away to Rapri while Bahlūl Lodī returned to Delhi.⁹⁶
c13.s3.33
⁹¹ Ferishta, II, 310.
c13.s3.34
⁹² Badaonī, Ranking, I, 406.
c13.s3.35
⁹³ Ferishta, I, 177, has Jalesar. T.A., I, 310 and M.R., I, 448, have Jalali. Jalali lies 13 miles east of Aligarh (Kol). Distt. Gaz. U.P., VI, 448. Ferishta does not mention Kol. Badaonī, Ranking, I, 407, says Bahlūl pursued Husain as far as Shamsābād in the Doab.
c13.s3.36
⁹⁴ *Makhzan*, 49 (a). Ferishta has Rampinjra. Badaonī only says that the battle took place in the vicinity of Rapri. T.A. has Aram Mahjur. M.R., I, 448 has Arāmbhajo.
c13.s3.37
⁹⁵ Ferishta, I, 177.
c13.s3.38
⁹⁶ *Ibid.*, I, 177; T.A., I, 310 and Badaonī, I, 310, say he returned to Dhopamau. According to *Makhzan* both repaired to their dominions. Dorn, 52.
c13.s3.39
The campaign brought to Bahlūl many advantages. He had seized many strategic places like Patiali and Shamsābād. Besides he had taken prisoner forty important officers of Jaunpur, including its Prime Minister. Indeed Bahlūl's star was in the ascendant and his morale was high. But the youthful Husain could not make a correct appraisal of the situation, and after some time he again advanced against Sultan Bahlūl. A fierce battle was fought near Sonhar in Etah district⁹⁷ in which Husain was badly defeated. An immense amount of booty fell into the hands of Bahlūl Lodī which added to his strength and influence. Sultan Husain retreated to Rapri in such desperate hurry that, while crossing the Jumna, many of his officers, wives and children were drowned.⁹⁸ This caused him great affliction.⁹⁹ The fugitive took a detour via Gwalior on his way to Jaunpur, but near Hathkant he was attacked by a band of Bhadauriā Rajputs,¹⁰⁰ who plundered whatever little had been left with him. Broken and tired he reached Gwalior, whose Raja, because of old friendship, offered him every help and escorted him up to Kalpi.¹⁰¹
c13.s3.40
⁹⁷ *Makhzan*, 49 (a); T.A., I, 310; Badaonī, I, 310 and M.R., I, 448 have Sonhār. Ferishta, I, 177 has سهار. C.H.I., III, 233, 257 and n. thinks it to be Senha or Suhnuh in Lat. 27°-21 N., Long. 78°-48′ E. According to the district Gazetteer the battle was fought in the village of Sonhār in Etah Tehsil. Distt. Gaz. U. P., XII, 175; I.G. XII, 36. Hodivala, 493.
c13.s3.41
⁹⁸ T.A., I, 311; Ferishta, I, 177; M.R., I, 449.
c13.s3.42
⁹⁹ *Makhzan*, 49 (b).
c13.s3.43
¹⁰⁰ According to Abul Fazl Bhadawar was a district S.E. of Agra and Hathkant was its chief town. Its inhabitants, called Bhadauria (Rajputs), were known as daring robbers. In spite of their close proximity to the capital, they managed to maintain their independence till Akbar had their chief trampled to death, when they submitted. Āīn., I, 488. Elliot, *Races*, I, 25. Cited in Badaonī, Ranking, I, 408 n. 1.
c13.s3.44
¹⁰¹ Badaonī, I, 311; Also Ferishta, I, 177-78 and T.A., I, 311. *Makhzan* 49 (b).
c13.s3.45
In the meantime Sultan Bahlūl was busy consolidating his gains. He had wrested Etawah from Ibrāhīm Khan, brother of Husain Sharqī, and had settled it upon Ibrāhīm Khan, son of Mubārak Khan Nūhānī. He also conferred certain parganas contiguous to Etawah on Rai Dandu¹⁰² as his reward for cooperation. His last victories as well as the losses of Husain had encouraged him to give up the defensive role, and he was determined to fight the Sharqīs to the finish. He marched to Kalpi where Husain was staying. Sultan Husain also advanced from Kalpi to meet him. The two forces encamped on either side of the Ganga. Because of the river lying between them, only short skirmishes were fought for several months without yielding victory to either side. Then Rai Trilok Chand, ruler of Bagesar (Baksar of the chroniclers)¹⁰³ pointed out to Bahlūl a ford through which the Sultan stealthily crossed over to the other side. Sultan Husain was taken by surprise, his forces were scattered, and he retired southwards to the territory of Bhata¹⁰⁴ (Bhatghora, modern Rewa). Its Raja Bhédchandra of Baghela dynasty treated Husain Shāh well, gave him a few lakh *tankās*, some horses and elephants and escorted him up to Jaunpur.
c13.s3.46
¹⁰² The name is variously written and creates confusion. Ferishta, I, 178, line 2 and *Makhzan* 50 (a) have رای داند. Dorn, I, 53 has Dandoo. Nizāmuddīn, T.A., I, 311 has Daud. The Raja of Etawah was Sakat (Shakti) Singh and his son was Dandu or Dande Rao. Both of them are mentioned in the Dynastic list of the Chauhan Rajas of Partabner. N.W.P. Gaz. (Ed. 1876), IV, 374 and n. For centuries the Chauhans had been in great strength in Mainpuri and Etawah. Vīra Bhānū and Rai Pratap (Rudra) belonged to this tribe. The town of Mainpuri was founded by Jagannāth, ninth in descent from this Rudra. Hunter, Imp. Gaz., II, 403; Ranking, Badaoni, I, 386, n. 3. Hodivala, 406.
c13.s3.47
¹⁰³ Bagesar is situated on the left bank of the Ganga, 34 miles S.E. of Unao. Hunter, Imp. Gaz., 450. I.G., VI, 218.
c13.s3.48
¹⁰⁴ T.A., I, 311. *Makhzan*, 50 (a). Badaoni, I, 311. E and D, V, 89 has 'Panna country' which is incorrect.
c13.s3.49
Even in his capital Husain Shāh did not find a safe refuge for Sultan Bahlūl was following him close at his heels. When the latter arrived near Jaunpur, Sultan Husain slipped to Qannauj by way of Bahraich. Bahlūl kept up the pursuit, went up to Qannauj and engaged his adversary on the banks of Rahāb or Kalī Nadī. In the battle, a "defeat which had become almost natural to Sultan Husain, again fell to his lot".¹⁰⁵ His regalia and insignia of royalty and his chief wife Bibi Khunzā,¹⁰⁶ daughter of the late Sultan 'Alāuddīn, fell into the hands of Sultan Bahlūl. But he treated her with all honour¹⁰⁷ and sent her back to her husband under an escort.¹⁰⁸ He himself returned to Delhi, determined more than ever on the complete subjugation of Jaunpur.
c13.s3.50
¹⁰⁵ T.A., I, 312; Ferishta, I, 178.
c13.s3.51
¹⁰⁶ Sir Wolseley Haig gives her name as Jalila (C.H.I., III, 231, 255) but that is a misreading or Halila which Ferishta calls her (Ferishta, II, 310). Halila means a lawful wife and instances of its use are many. (See Hodivala, 494). Dorn, 52 speaks of her as the Sultan's "First consort, Malka Jehan."
c13.s3.52
¹⁰⁷ "It is in the tradition of Afghan tribal warfare not to molest the women or the children of the enemy." Caroe, 144, Also cf. Sher Shah's treatment of the Mughal queen.
c13.s3.53
¹⁰⁸ Ferishta, II, 310, Badaoni, I, 311; and Nizāmuddīn, T.A., I, 312, say that when on a later occasion Bahlūl attacked Jaunpur, she contrived to effect her release. *Makhzan*, 49 (a), mentions of her capture in an earlier context. Whether she was captured twice, is doubtful.
c13.s3.54
Having made full preparations for the conquest of Jaunpur, Sultan Bahlūl marched against it. Husain could not put up any effective resistance, and fled to Bahraich. The Jaunpur country, which for nearly a century had been lost to Delhi, was conquered by Bahlūl and reincorporated in the Sultanate.¹⁰⁹ Mubārak Khan Nūhānī was appointed as its governor. Qutb Khan Lodī, Khan-i-Jahān and some other nobles were stationed in Majhaulī,¹¹⁰ the easternmost town of the Jaunpur kingdom, to keep the newly conquered country under effective control. But as soon as Bahlūl left for Badaon, Husain Sharqī made a surprise attack on Jaunpur, reoccupied it, and compelled Mubārak Khan Nūhānī to retire to Majhaulī. Hearing of these developments, Bahlūl at once sent his son Bārbak Shāh with a large force to the east and himself followed close behind. Finding resistance useless Sultan Husain left Jaunpur for Bihar late in A. D. 1479 (884 H).
c13.s3.55
¹⁰⁹ Ferishta, I, 178.
c13.s3.56
¹¹⁰ Majhauli lies on the left bank of the Little Gandak, Distt. Gorakhpur. Distt. Gaz. U.P., XXXI, 297; Badaoni, Ranking, I, 409 n. 5; Hunter, I.G., IX, 213.
c13.s3.57
With his flight ended the rule of the Sharqī Dynasty of Jaunpur. Bahlūl appointed Bārbak Shāh as the governor of Jaunpur.¹¹¹
c13.s3.58
¹¹¹ Numismatic evidence shows that Husain was in power in Jaunpur till only 883 H, although the earliest known coin of Bahlūl Lodī which bears the mint name of Jaunpur is dated 888 H. Fuhrer states that Khairuddīn Muhammad in his *Jaunpur-Nāmā* gives the date of the final deprivation of the kingdom of Husain as 884 H (A.D. 1479). (J. A. S. B., XVIII, 1922, Numismatic Supplement, XXXVI, 17). Husain Sharqī died in 905 H, but his coins run in complete sequence to 911 and then irregularly to 919 H. These coins are definitely posthumous. Who issued Husain's coins after 884 H? There can be only one explanation. A son of Husain Sharqī, Jalāluddīn, had married in the Husain dynasty of Bengal, says *Jaunpur-Nāmā*. There are graves in Jaunpur where Husain and his descendants lie buried. It is quite possible that one or two descendants of Husain Shāh issued posthumous coins in his name. But numismatists do not help to elucidate the point. Bahlūl Lodī administered the Sharqī kingdom himself for several years and his coins bearing the mint town name of Jaunpur are known in complete sequence from 888 to 893 H. In either 892 H (A. D. 1486) Bahlūl placed his son Bārbak on the Sharqī throne, or before his death, while dividing his kingdom, confirmed Bārbak in his appointment. J.A.S.B. 1922, Num. Sup., 17-18. Coins of Bārbak Shāh range from 892 to 898, which dates agree with the record of historians. Also Thomas, *Chronicles*, 377. C.I.S.G., I, 233.
First 148 of 210 passages. Read on
Cites (1)
- Tārīkh-i Firishta — Muḥammad Qāsim Hindū Shāh Firishta 1606, Persian