Twilight of the Sultanate c13.s2: War with the Sharqīs
Twilight of the Sultanate c13.s2
- Language
- English
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.