Twilight of the Sultanate c13.s4: Other Exploits of Bahlūl
Twilight of the Sultanate c13.s4
- Language
- English
Other Exploits of Bahlūl
c13.s4.1
Bahlūl Lodī was engaged in a life-and-death struggle against the Sharqīs for no less than twenty-seven long years (1452-79). Naturally the narrative of the chroniclers of his reign is so replete with the description of wars with Jaunpur that it hardly contains any account of his other activities. Even after the annexation of the Jaunpur kingdom, there is hardly any chronological or authentic account of Bahlūl's last ten years of rule (1480-89), except stray references to his campaigns in Rajasthan, Sindh and Gwalior.
c13.s4.2
Ahmad Yādgār, the author of the *Tārīkh-i-Salātīn-i-Afghānā*, says that the Sultan marched out against the Rana of Udaipur.
c13.s4.3
(in Rajasthan) with 10,000 horse and fixed his camp at Ajmer.¹¹⁷ Yādgār's narrative has not been corroborated by any other historian, although Col. Tod writes, in a very general way, that Mewar had to contest her northern boundary with the Lodīs.¹¹⁸ Sir Henry Elliot in a note on this alleged expedition says that an engagement between the royalists and Mewarīs is recorded in the time of Raimal, who ascended the *gaddī* in A. D. 1474, "but the particulars differ in every respect".¹¹⁹ G. S. Ojha also does not accept the story of Yādgār on the ground that Udaipur was not in existence then (it was founded in A. D. 1559 only)¹²⁰ and also because the name of the Sultan of Delhi has not been mentioned by Rajputs bards or Tod.¹²¹ In view of this, all that can be said is that Yādgār has probably confused Malwa with Mewar and Alhanpur with Udaipur. We know on the authority of Nizāmuddīn and Ni‘āmatulla that after the conquest of Jaunpur, Bahlūl went to Alhanpur near Ranthambhor¹²² and sacked the place. Alhanpur, therefore, seems to have been the limit of Bahlūl's empire in the south-west.
c13.s4.4
¹¹⁷ He gives no date for the campaign but says that it was launched when Prince Nizām Khan was five years old. Bahlūl's son Nizām was born in the seventh year of his reign and so the expedition should have been led twelve years after Bahlūl's accession, that is, in A. D. 1463. T.S.A., 18-20.
c13.s4.5
¹¹⁸ Tod, *Annals* ... *of Rajasthan*, I, 292.
c13.s4.6
¹¹⁹ E and D, V, 4-5.
c13.s4.7
¹²⁰ I.G., XXIV, 89; Duff, C. I., 288; Hodivala, 485.
c13.s4.8
¹²¹ *Udaipur Kā Ithihās*, 639 n. 1.
c13.s4.9
¹²² T.A., I, 313; *Makhzan*, 51 (a).
c13.s4.10
It is Ahmad Yādgār again who credits Bahlūl Lodī with leading his army into Nīmkhār, now known as Nīmsār¹²³ Misrik in Hardoi district. His version is corroborated by 'Abdulla. According to 'Abdulla the Sultan plundered the place and depopulated it of "all the riff-raff and undesirable elements".¹²⁴ Yādgār speaks of Bahlūl's action in Sindh also, but is not supported by any other writer. He says that two or three months after the Nīmkhār campaign¹²⁵ Bahlūl Lodī went to Lahore in response to an appeal from the governor of Multan against whom Ahmad Khan Bhatti, an important chief (Sāhib-i-Jāh), had revolted. A rebellion by the Bhaṭṭī chief is possible, but the fantastic narrative of the campaign carries its own refutation. Besides the Langāhs could not possibly have asked for Bahlūl's help to suppress a local rebel when they themselves were strong enough to defeat the army of Delhi and repulse an attack from Malwa.
c13.s4.11
¹²³ T.S.A., 20 has نیمکھار and T.D., 25 has نیم کھار. E and D, V, 5 somehow has Munkhar. Nīmkhār is mentioned elsewhere too in E and D., V, 296 and VI, 123. The town of Nīmkhār or Nīmsār lies on the left bank of river Gomti in Hardoi district. In Akbar's time it was a Mahal in the Sarkar of Khairabad and a shrine of great resort (Āīn., Trs., II, 172). It is a place of pilgrimage even now. Hodivala suggests that the place may be the country of Mundhars in the neighbourhood of Sarhind, but the details of the campaign point to Nīmsār in Hardoi district only.
c13.s4.12
¹²⁴ T.D., 25. Also T.S.A., 23-27. 'Abdulla places the incident of Nīmkhār in the beginning of Bahlūl's reign giving the heading "Narrative of another story" (نقل داستان دیگر), but he writes it at the end of the account of Bahlūl's reign. Yādgar puts it after the campaign of Rajputana. T.S.A., 18-20.
c13.s4.13
¹²⁵ According to Ahmad Yādgār, the Sultan sent Prince Bayezīd with 30,000 horse against Ahmad Khan Bhaṭṭī whose nephew Nawrang was defeated in battle. But Nawrang's mistress attired herself in man's suit of mail, attacked, and defeated the royalists. Finally Bayezīd, with the help of the reinforcements rushed from Delhi, defeated and killed Ahmad Khan together with the warrior-girl and his country was annexed to the imperial domain. But we know that during Bahlūl's reign the rulers of Multan were Langāhs and of Sindh Summas, and that Sindh, Multan and most of the western Punjab did not form part of the Lodī empire. T.S.A., 20-23.
c13.s4.14
But all historians write about Bahlūl's campaign against Gwalior during his last days.¹²⁶ From the very beginning of his reign Bahlūl Lodī had maintained friendly relations with the Rajas of Gwalior, because firstly, it was not easy to subjugate them and secondly, it was convenient to keep Gwalior independent to serve as a buffer against the Sharqīs and the kings of Malwa. It was because of Gwalior's friendship to Delhi that Husain Sharqī had invaded it in 1466. But during the last Lodī-Sharqī war the Raja of Gwalior, scared at the rising power of Delhi, had helped Husain with men and money and had escorted him up to Kalpi.¹²⁷ This Bahlūl naturally could not forget. He kept quiet so long as Kalyan Singh lived, but after his death he launched an attack on Gwalior in 1486-7. The newly crowned Raja of Gwalior, Mān Singh, thought it safe to pay eighty lacs of *tankās* in tribute and avoid an unnecessary conflict with Delhi.¹²⁸
c13.s4.15
¹²⁶ T.A., I, 313; *Makhzan*, 49 (b); Ferishta, I, 177; Badaonī, I, 312.
c13.s4.16
¹²⁷ *Makhzan*, 49 (b); T.A., I, 311.
c13.s4.17
¹²⁸ Bahlūl's contemporaries in Gwalior were Dungar Singh (1440-1453), Kīrti Singh (1468-73), Kalyān Singh (1473-86) and Mān Singh (1486-1517).
c13.s4.18
From Gwalior, Sultan Bahlūl marched to Dholpur. He defeated its ruler as well as Iqbāl Khan, the governor of Bari,¹²⁹ both of whom paid handsome tribute.¹³⁰ He is also said to have marched to Ujjain and defeated its "Raja",¹³¹ but Malwa then was under Muslim rule and we do not know if there was a Hindu Raja ruling at Ujjain. Yādgār probably has introduced Ujjain only to add glamour to the Sultan's name and the evidence in this regard is as shaky as with regard to the war against the Rana of Mewar.
c13.s4.19
¹²⁹ Situated 18 miles west of Delhi.
c13.s4.20
¹³⁰ M.R., I, 451.
c13.s4.21
¹³¹ T.S.A., 28.
c13.s4.22
Bahlūl Lodī's last campaign was directed against Etawah which he took from Shakti Singh,¹³² son of Rai Dandū. It appears that Shakti Singh had taken possession of the place without the Sultan's permission who had earlier settled it on Ibrāhīm Khan, son of Mubārak Khan Nūhānī. From Etawah, Bahlūl took the road to Delhi, but he was not destined to reach there. As he arrived near Bhadaulī, now called Milaulī¹³³ and situated at a distance of about 15 miles from Saket in Etah district, he was taken seriously ill and expired there in July, A. D. 1489 (Sh'abān, 894 H) after a strenuous reign of about thirty-nine and a half lunar years.¹³⁴
c13.s4.23
¹³² Shakti Singh is not mentioned by Badaonī. Nizāmuddīn and Ferishta call him Sakat Singh سکت سنگھ. It is obviously Shakti Singh of Sanskrit. Col. Ranking suggests that Saket was probably the headquarters of Shakti Singh. Badaonī, Ranking, I, 410, n. 4.
c13.s4.24
¹³³ The name of the place where Bahlūl died is given by Nizāmuddīn as Bilawali, by Ferishta as Bhadauli, and by 'Abdulla as Jalālī. Badaonī does not give the name, but Col. Ranking adopts Ferishta's "Bhadauli". Col. Ranking adds in a note that Sakit is in the Etah district of the N.W. Provinces and it is here according to Hunter (Imp. Gaz., XII, 146) that Bahlūl Lodī died. Abul Fazl also says that he died near the town of Saketh. Āīn, Jarrett, II, 309.
c13.s4.25
¹³⁴ The length of the reign of Sultan Bahlūl, as in the case of so many others, is wrongly given by our historians as being thirty-eight years, eight months and eight days. T.A., I, 313; Ferishta, I, 179; Badaonī I, 312; Ranking, 410; *Makhzan*, 51 (b); Dorn, 54. According to these very authorities Bahlūl had ascended the throne on 17 Rabiul Avval, 855 H and died in 894 H; and since there is no lacuna of time mentioned between Bahlūl's death and Sikandar's accession, in all probability Bahlūl died in Sh'abān, 894 H (July, A. D. 1489). This is the date accepted by Sir Wolseley Haig, who at one place says that the Sultan died in the second week of July, 1489 (C.H.I., III, 235), and at another says that he died on 17 July, 1489 (*Ibid.*, 504) which would correspond with 18 Sh‘abān, 894 H. Thus the length of Bahlūl’s reign according to the lunar calendar would be thirty-nine years, five months and one day. The mistake in the calculation of our historians may be due to two reasons. Firstly, the error of the one was adopted unchecked by the others. Secondly, thirty-eight years, eight months and eight days has an alliteration with the burden on eight and probably sounded to them so well that they adopted it without laying emphasis on truth.