Twilight of the Sultanate c13.s3: Extinction of the Sharqī Kingdom
Twilight of the Sultanate c13.s3
- Language
- English
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.
c13.s3.59
Leaving him there the Sultan marched to Kalpi and conferred it on his grandson Khwājā Āzam Humayūn, son of Khwājā Bayezīd.¹¹² In a triumphant mood Bahlūl went to Dholpur by way of Chandwār, and exacting tribute from its Raja as well as from Iqbāl Khan, the ruler of Barī, a pargana eighteen miles west of Dholpur, the Sultan returned to Delhi.
c13.s3.60
¹¹² T.A., I, 312-13; Ferishta, I, 178.
c13.s3.61
Why did the Sharqīs who were in no way second to the Sultans of Delhi in the arts of war and peace, fail against them? The two kingdoms can safely be granted a status of equality,¹¹³ for, if the Afghans, and even their predecessors the Saiyyads, could invoke the sympathies of Gujarat (as in 1409-10) and Malwa (as in 1433 and 1468) the Rajas of Gwalior, Rewa and Bengal used to come to the rescue of the Sharqīs. But in the wars between the two, one is struck by the constant retreats of both the armies sometimes without engaging in any major battle, always without achieving final results except imperfect truces for specific periods. The war between the two kingdoms was, therefore, a war of nerves. As time passed the army of the Sultanate grew very strong. Thousands of Afghans of various tribes from Roh joined its ranks. The Afghans were fine marksmen and it was their excellence in archery ¹¹⁴ that nullified Sharqī superiority in numbers. It had many able generals who have been constantly referred to in these pages, while on the side of the Sharqīs we hardly hear of any great commanders. Even then Bahlūl Lodī worked with caution and remained on the defensive for two decades. On the contrary the initial successes of the Sharqīs made them arrogant and even careless. The last campaign of Husain to Delhi shows that he had marched to the very environs of Delhi without adequate preparations, so that on return after the usual truce he could not manage an organised retreat.
c13.s3.62
¹¹³ The Sharqī kingdom extended from Qannauj to Bihar, and in its hey-day included Sambhal, Bundēlkhand and Baghelkhand. Jaunpur Gazetteer, 160.
c13.s3.63
¹¹⁴ For a few examples see W.M. 3 (a)-(b); T.S.A., 13; T.A., I, 301.
c13.s3.64
The early Sharqīs had fought bravely and tactfully. Even Mahmūd and Muhammad had kept Bahlūl on the defensive. But Husain was both ambitious and impetuous and succumbed before the sly diplomat and brave warrior Bahlūl through "carelessness, folly and perhaps physical cowardice". The last Sharqī was an impatient youth, goaded to action more by the taunts of his wife than by his own martial qualities. He had claimed to fight for the cause of his deposed father-in-law, but Bahlūl had shown towards the Saiyyad King more deference than Husain showed to his brother-in-law whose "kingdom" of Badaon he usurped and thereby earned universal condemnation. The Lodī Sultan by his humility not only retained the loyalty of his Afghan tribesmen, but also won over many from allegiance to the Sharqī monarch. The conduct of Dariyā Khan Lodi of Sambhal, Qutb Khan Afghan of Rapri and Rai Pratap of Bhongaon are glaring instances of this.
c13.s3.65
Besides, the Afghans had learnt the art of scorched-earth policy. Jaunpur armies always suffered for lack of food and fodder on their march towards Delhi. They had even to bring supplies from Jaunpur and sometimes desertions took place in their army when their supplies were cut off.¹¹⁵ In the last campaign fought on the banks of the Kalī Nadī, Bahlūl managed to cut off Husain's water supply and brought about his defeat. From that time on he was almost a fugitive and his doom was ensured.¹¹⁶
c13.s3.66
¹¹⁵ Z.W., I, 136.
c13.s3.67
¹¹⁶ *Ibid.*, I, 136.
Cites (1)
- Tārīkh-i Firishta — Muḥammad Qāsim Hindū Shāh Firishta 1606, Persian