Twilight of the Sultanate c14.s4: The Tōmars of Gwalior
Twilight of the Sultanate c14.s4
- Language
- English
The Tōmars of Gwalior
c14.s4.1
Gwalior had remained under Muslim occupation ever since its conquest by Iltutmish in 1232 up to the end of the fourteenth century when, taking advantage of the Sultanate's weakness, Vīr Singh, a Tomar chief, gained possession of the fortress. Thereafter, in spite of the Saiyyad rulers' pressure and the aggressive attitude of the Sharqī kings and Bahlūl Lodī, the principality continued to grow in strength under its Tomar rulers Dungar Singh, Kīrti Singh and Kalyān Singh. Dungar Singh even felt strong enough to attack the Narwar fort, then acknowledging the authority of the Malwa sultan, Hoshang Shāh. The latter, however, foiled this attempt by a diversionary attack on Gwalior fort. Dungar's reign has become notable for two achievements: firstly, for the Jain sculptures on the Gwalior rock and secondly, for his present of certain musical works to Zainul Ābidīn of Kashmir.⁶¹ After him his successor Kīrti Singh kept the Gwalior territory intact despite the attempted aggression of Bahlūl Lodī and Husain Sharqī. But the greatest ruler of this house was Raja Mān Singh (1486-1517).
c14.s4.2
⁶¹ T.A., De's Trs., III, 659-60; Mohibbul Hasan, *op. cit.*, 73.
c14.s4.3
Mān Singh was a veritable genius. He was great in war and still greater in peace. Because of his extremely liberal religious views, he was popular with both Hindus and Muslims, so much so that according to Ni'āmatulla he was "taken to be a Muslim by the Muslims and a Hindu by the Hindus". The chronicler also avers that it was because of his popularity and friendship with the Muslims, that no Muslim ruler could gain ascendancy over him.⁶²
c14.s4.4
⁶² *Makhzan*, 78 (b).
c14.s4.5
Sikandar Lodī was angry with Mān Singh for giving shelter to an important nobleman of the Punjab whom the Sultan had banished. The hold of the Lodīs on the Punjab was precarious. During his last days Bahlūl had to face a difficult situation there. The reason was that the Punjab was held by the Afghan relations and dependents of the Lodīs of Delhi, but they were not unconditionally loyal or obedient to the latter, and Bahlūl and Sikandar "were content with such acknowledgement of their supremacy as was indicated by occasional remittances of tribute or revenue".⁶³
c14.s4.6
⁶³ C.H.I., III, 241.
c14.s4.7
They were not asked, perhaps because they were not willing, to provide large contingents for the subjugation of Hindustan. Otherwise the kingdom of Jaunpur would not have taken as much as three decades to subdue. In A.D. 1500 Sa‘īd Khan Sarwānī, governor of Lahore, came to pay his respects to the Sultan but, according to Ni‘āmatulla,⁶⁴ he and Asghar, *hākim* of Delhi, together with twenty members of the military aristocracy joined in a plot to raise Sikandar’s brother Fatēh Khan to the throne. The Prince himself divulged the plot and the conspirators were punished with imprisonment and exile. Asghar was jailed and Sa‘īd Khan Sarwānī along with his associates like Tātār Khan and Muhammad Shāh were banished. They fled to Gwalior, where, in keeping with the traditions of medieval hospitality, they were given shelter by Mān Singh. But to avoid a crisis in his relations with Delhi, the Raja sent one Nihāl with presents and tributes to the Sultan, who, unprepared for a compromise, sent the envoy back in rage with threats of coming to reduce Gwalior.⁶⁵ Refuge to fugitives, a common excuse for declaration of hostilities in medieval times, was there indeed, but Sikandar’s real intention was expansionist; the country from Bihar to Bayana had been brought under control and now Gwalior should also be annexed.
c14.s4.8
⁶⁴ *Makhzan*, 58 (a)-59(b).
c14.s4.9
⁶⁵ T.A., I, 323; Ferishta, I, 183; T.D., 68; M.R., I, 462.
c14.s4.10
The Sultan began with an attack on Dholpur, a dependency of Gwalior, lying 34 miles south of Agra and 37 miles northwest of Gwalior,⁶⁶ and ruled by Vināyak Dēva. ’Ālam Khan from Mewat, Khan-i-Khānān from Rapri, and Khawās Khan from Delhi were ordered to converge on Dholpur. Their combined attack was too much for the small fort of Dholpur, but Vināyak Dēva⁶⁷ gave a tough fight in which a large number of royalists were killed,⁶⁸ including the veteran warrior Khwājā Babban. At this the Sultan himself left for the site of action on 26 March, A.D. 1501 (6 Ramzān, 906 H).⁶⁹ His arrival unnerved Vināyak Dēva who fled to Gwalior and the garrison surrendered. Sikandar plundered the place so that trees and orchards extending to fourteen miles around Dholpur were "torn up from the roots". Houses and temples were destroyed and mosques built.⁷⁰
c14.s4.11
⁶⁶ Hunter, Imp. Gaz., IV, 273.
c14.s4.12
⁶⁷ Ferishta and a MS. of T.A. clearly have بنايك ديو (See note 1 in T.A., De, 370). Only *Makhzan*, 60 (a) and Dorn, 61 have Manik Deo, which, with slight variation in Persian, will be Bināyak or Vināyak.
c14.s4.13
⁶⁸ Badaoni, I, 318.
c14.s4.14
⁶⁹ T. A., I, 324; Ferishta, I, 183; Dorn, 61, *Makhzan*, 60 (a).
c14.s4.15
⁷⁰ *Makhzan*, 60 (a); Ferishta, I, 183; T.A., I, 324; T.D., 68.
c14.s4.16
After about a month the Sultan left Dholpur in charge of Ādam Khan Lodī and himself started for Gwalior. Crossing the river Chambal he encamped on the bank of the Asi, otherwise called Mandaki.⁷¹ There, because of shallow water in the river, an epidemic, probably cholera, broke out in the camp and took a heavy toll in lives. Raja Mān of Gwalior thought it a good opportunity to come to terms with the Sultan. He sent his son Vikramāditya with presents to Sikandar and promised to expel Sa'īd Khan, Babū Khan and Rai Ganēsh on the condition that Dholpur would be returned to Vināyak Dēva. In face of the difficulties he was confronting, Sikandar Lodī readily agreed to these terms, and returned to Bayana via Dholpur where he reinstated Vināyak Dēva.⁷² Although the narrative of the chroniclers is as usual flattering to the Sultan, yet it appears that Gwalior had successfully resisted the Lodī attack for more than a year and Vināyak Dēva had not lost Dholpur after all.
c14.s4.17
⁷¹ Asi is nothing else than the modern Asūn or Ashīn flowing west of Gwalior. Mandaki in T.A. is very near to the Sanskrit Manduki which means frog-hunted. Ranking, Badaonī, I, 418 writes a note (6) on it. In Rennel's map the river is indicated, but is given no name.
c14.s4.18
⁷² M.R., I, 464; *Makhzan*, 60 (b); T.A., I, 325; Ferishta, I, 183.
c14.s4.19
This initial failure kept the Sultan away from the Gwalior region for the next four years. The offensive was resumed in February, 1504 (Ramzān, 910 H)⁷³ when Sikandar Lodī marched against the fortress of Mandrael. The Tomars had built a strong line of fortresses all round Gwalior, and the Sultan's plan now seems to have been to reduce these citadels to force Gwalior into surrender. Mandrael was situated on a round hill twelve miles S. S. East of Karauli and two miles distant from the western bank of the Chambal.⁷⁴
c14.s4.20
⁷³ *Makhzan*, 60 (b).
c14.s4.21
⁷⁴ Tieffenthaler, I, 174. The place is not shown in Rennel's Map. Ranking spells it as Maudalayer. In Keith Johnson's Atlas it is Mandler. Āīn, Jarret, II, 190 has Mandlair. It was the chief town of a Sarkar in Sūba Agra. Also see note 5 by Ranking, Badaonī, I, 420; Constable 27 cb; I.G. Atlas, 34 E 2.
c14.s4.22
The fort was easily taken but, as was the Sultan’s habit, he sacked and plundered the country to earn the “felicity of a holy war”. Indiscriminate killing and destruction resulted in the outbreak of “typhus and other bad diseases”⁷⁵ and many of his men lost their lives. Leaving Mian Mākhan in charge of the fort, the Sultan returned to Delhi.
c14.s4.23
⁷⁵ *Makhzan*, 60 (b).
c14.s4.24
Recent expeditions had impressed upon the King the necessity of establishing the headquarters of his army at a place from which “rebels in the neighbourhood might be rendered obedient and submissive”, in other words, places like Bayana, Dholpur and Gwalior could be brought under complete control. Accordingly he sent out some officers on an exploratory mission to recommend a site for a new capital. The commission after going from Delhi to Etawah on the Jumna recommended the place where Agra city now stands. The Sultan approved of the site and “at an auspicious hour” ordered the foundations of a fort to be laid. It was in this way that in A.D. 1505 (911 H)⁷⁶ the foundations of modern Agra were laid. Gradually a splendid city, which became the headquarters of the army and the capital of the Sultanate, grew up.⁷⁷
c14.s4.25
⁷⁶ *Ibid.*, 61 (a); Dorn, 62. Ishwari Prasad, *Medieval India*, 484, has A. D. 1504 (910 H).
c14.s4.26
⁷⁷ Tradition gives a long antiquity to Agra. It is said to have been a state prison in the time of Raja Kans, uncle of Lord Krishna, who ruled at Mathura. (Abdul Latif, *Agra Historical and Descriptive*, Calcutta, 1896, 2). When Mahmūd of Ghaznī invaded Hindustan he so ruined the place that it was reduced to an insignificant village. Later on it regained some of its old importance, and a Hindu prince Bādal Singh built a fort Bādalgarh there in A. D. 1475. Cunningham, Arch. Sur. Rep., IV, 1871-72, 98 n., 137. According to 'Abdulla it was formerly only a village of the district of Bayana (T.D., 42), but that is not correct, for it was a walled town when it was captured from Haibat Khan in 1492. Thus it seems to have been already well populated when Sikandar Lodī founded his new capital there (J.I.H., VII, 131), to justify mention of an earthquake on 6 July, 1505 (3 Safar, 911 H) when "buildings fell down and hills began to shake... and people thought the day of resurrection had come." T.A., I, 325-26; Ferishta, I, 183; T.D., 68-69; Badaonī, I, 319-20; Ranking, 1, 421 & n.; *Makhzan*, 61 (a & b). Whatever the importance or population of Agra, it was Sikandar Lodī who rebuilt it. There he founded the Sikandara which is called after him and built a fine *bārādarī* or summer-house, afterwards converted into the tomb of Maryam Zamānī, Jahāngīr's mother. But the new capital took time to be as good as Delhi as the coins of Sikandar Lodī struck at Agra are not so fine as those of Delhi (J.(P.)A.S.B., XI, 1915, 479). Akbar (A.N., II, 246-47) and Jahāngīr (*Tuzuk*, Rogers and Beveridge, I, 4) revived its glory. When Shāhjahān retransferred his capital to Delhi, one reason for doing so was Agra's overgrowth of population, narrowness of streets and want of space in the fort. Arch. Sur. Rep., 1911-12, 2.
c14.s4.27
The first effect of the shifting of the capital from Delhi to Agra was that Dholpur was captured. The Sultan placed it in charge of Qamaruddīn⁷⁸ with a garrison. Dholpur's capture so much encouraged the Sultan that making it a base of operations he started for Gwalior after the rainy season in A.D. 1505 (911 H.).⁷⁹ He declared the war to be a Jihād⁸⁰ and constantly ravaged the Raja's territory in the hope of exacting his surrender. But his devastation of the countryside only made the campaign a long-drawn and nerve wrecking affair. For about a whole year from September, 1505 to May, 1506 he fought and destroyed, but Raja Mān Singh successfully defied him by his hit-and-run tactics. It appears that Sikandar was not strong enough to force the surrender of Gwalior, nor was Raja Mān strong enough to drive him out. At last the reckless destruction of the place came as a boomerang to the Sultan. No crops were left standing, and because of the terror Sikandar had inspired, even the Banjārās (gipsy merchants) would not go near the royal camp,⁸¹ and scarcity of provisions compelled the Sultan to raise the siege. Mān Singh ambushed the retreating army near Jatwar⁸² lying north of Gwalior, and inflicted heavy casualties. In a word the campaign to Gwalior ended in utter failure.
c14.s4.28
⁷⁸ T.A., I, 325; Ferishta, I, 83; M.R., I, 464; *Makhzan*, 61 (b) has Mu'izuddīn in place of Qamaruddīn.
c14.s4.29
⁷⁹ T.A., I, 326; Ferishta, I, 183.
c14.s4.30
⁸⁰ *Makhzan*, 61 (a); T.A., I, 326.
c14.s4.31
⁸¹ T.A., I, 326; Ferishta, I, 183; *Makhzan*, 61 (a).
c14.s4.32
⁸² Ferishta, I, 183 last line has Janwar and Nizāmuddīn has Chatawar. So has Ni'āmatulla, *Makhzan*, 61 (a). Jatwar lies north of Gwalior. Āīn, Jarrett, II, 187.
c14.s4.33
A direct attack on Gwalior having failed again, the Sultan reverted to the policy of capturing the smaller fortresses in its vicinity. On February 6, 1507 (23 Ramzān, 912 H)⁸³ Sikandar Lodī arrived at Uditnagar or Avantgarh lying south of Mandlaer on the Chambal. Situated 28 miles south-west of Karauli it lies at the southern mouth of the Pannar Pass running between Narwar and Gwalior.⁸⁴ Naturally, according to Ferishta, the King considered Uditnagar (Utgir) as the key to the reduction of Gwalior,⁸⁵ and began the investment of the citadel at a time declared auspicious by the astrologers. Malik 'Alāuddīn succeeded in effecting a breach in the bastions, and although he was blinded in the act, he forced his entry into the citadel. After the fort was taken by assault, the Rajputs fell back on their dwellings and villas and fought bravely,⁸⁶ but unable to force the enemy to retreat, the women performed *jauhar* and the men died fighting.
c14.s4.34
⁸³ *Makhzan*, 62 (a).
c14.s4.35
⁸⁴ Avantgarh also called Utgir and Himmatgarh was a Mahāl in Sarkar Mandlaer. Āīn., Jarrett, II, 190; Blochmann, I, 412 n. 1; Cunningham, Arch. Sur. Rep., II, 328, 330; *I.G.* Atlas, pl. 34 E2, where it is shown as Utgarh; C.I.S.G., I, 243.
c14.s4.36
⁸⁵ Ferishta, I, 184, lines 6-9.
c14.s4.37
⁸⁶ *Makhzan*, 62 (a).
c14.s4.38
The Sultan conferred Uditnagar on Mian Bhīkan, son of Mujāhid Khan, to destroy temples and raise mosques in their stead.⁸⁷ Soon after, however, Mujāhid Khan was arrested on a charge of disloyalty and the fort was transferred to Malik Tājuddīn Kambūh. In the last week of May, 1507 (Muharram, 913 H) Sikandar Shāh left for Dholpur by a circuitous route probably because he feared an attack from Raja Mān. But the departure from the usual route proved unfortunate. "Men died of thirst and were crushed to death by the press of the baggage animals. A single jug of water sold at 15 Sikandarī *tankās*. Some died of want of water; others who obtained water drank so unrestrainedly that they also collapsed. The dead were counted at 800."⁸⁸ With great difficulty the Sultan arrived at Dholpur and thence proceeded to Agra where he passed the rainy season.
c14.s4.39
⁸⁷ *Makhzan*, 62 (a); Ferishta, I, 184; T.A., I, 327.
c14.s4.40
⁸⁸ T.A., I, 328; *Makhzan*, 62 (a-b); Ferishta, I, 184.
c14.s4.41
Sikandar's encirclement of Gwalior was proceeding according to plan. Dholpur, Mandlaer and Avantgarh situated on the west and north-west of Gwalior had been captured. At the close of the rainy season in September, A. D. 1507 (913 H),⁸⁹ the Sultan marched against Narwar, a strong fortress with a perimeter of eight *kuroh*, situated 44 miles south of Gwalior.⁹⁰ He also ordered Jalāl Khan, son of Mahmūd Lodī and governor of Kalpi, to march against it. Jalāl was already investing the fort when the Sultan arrived there. Narwar was a dependency of Malwa,⁹¹ but its Tomar Raja, whose ancestors had ruled it since 1398,⁹² fluctuated in his allegiance between the Sultan of Malwa and the ruler of Gwalior. Undaunted by the combined attack of Kalpi and Agra, the ruler of Narwar offered determined resistance which was prolonged to one full year⁹³ because of the dissensions and suspicions existing between Sikandar Lodī and Jalāl Khan from the very beginning. Sikandar was envious of the strong army of Jalāl, and when in spite of it the besiegers died in large numbers, he began to suspect the loyalty of Jalāl Khan. He contrived to imprison the prince, sent him to Avantgarh, and in the end succeeded in starving Narwar into surrender, but not before the garrison had left the citadel with all their belongings.⁹⁴ The Sultan stayed at Narwar for six months during which time he destroyed temples, built mosques, and constructed a fort wall around it.⁹⁵
c14.s4.42
⁸⁹ T.A., I, 328. Ferishta, I, 184 has 914 H. We learn from both Nizāmuddīn (T.A., I, 329) and Ferishta (I, 184, line 8 from below) that the siege of Narwar alone took one year. Again we learn from both (T.A., I, 330; Ferishta, I, 185, lines 1-2) that he returned from there in Sh'abān, 914 H. Consequently he could not have gone there in 914 H but in 913 H only.
c14.s4.43
⁹⁰ Tieffenthaler, I, 175 gives a description of the fort. Also Āīn, Jarrett, II, 190; Imp. Gaz., X, 227; Ranking, Badaoni, I, n. T.A. De, 376 n. 3. *Makhzan*, 62 (b).
c14.s4.44
⁹¹ T.A., I, 328; Ferishta, I, 184; *Makhzan*, 62 (b).
c14.s4.45
⁹² C.I.S.G., I, 272-73.
c14.s4.46
⁹³ T.D., 81.
c14.s4.47
⁹⁴ T.A., I, 329; Ferishta, I, 184; *Makhzan*, 63 (a).
c14.s4.48
⁹⁵ T.A., I, 330; Ferishta, I, 185; T.D., 71.
c14.s4.49
Leaving Narwar in charge of Rāj Singh Kachchwāhā,⁹⁶ he marched to Lahayer situated 50 miles south-east of Gwalior,⁹⁷ on 10 December, 1508 (26 Sh'abān, 914 H).⁹⁸ He stayed there for some months during which he appointed his son Jalāl Khan to the governorship of Kalpi. Sikandar Shāh left Lahayer on 1 May, 1509 (10 Muharram, 915 H), cleared its neighbourhood of "rebels and disturbers of peace", and then establishing small posts on the route 'at every place',⁹⁹ he returned to Agra.
c14.s4.50
⁹⁶ C.I.S.G., I, 273.
c14.s4.51
⁹⁷ Rennel's map has Lahar, correctly so, in Gwalior State. Hunter, Imp. Gaz., 400; Ranking, Badaonī, I, 423 n. 5.
c14.s4.52
⁹⁸ T.A., I, 330; Ferishta, I, 185; Badaonī, I, 321. M.R., I, 469.
c14.s4.53
⁹⁹ T.A.,I, 330.
c14.s4.54
The capture of Narwar cut off the possibility of military assistance to Raja Mān Singh from the side of Mewar. Besides, the occupation of Dholpur, Mandrael, Avantgarh, Narwar, Lahayer and Hathkant had cast an iron ring of encirclement round Gwalior, and it was left in isolation to await its inevitable doom, which it at last met at the hands of Sikandar's son and successor Ibrāhīm Lodī. But the ten years (1500-1509) of continual warfare had cost the Sultanate much more than it had gained from it. In 1505 Bābur had started his campaigns in the North-Western-Frontier region of India. In his *Memoirs* Bābur notes that when he first came to Kabul in 1504-5 (910 H), the government of Behreh, Khushāb and Chenāb was held by Saiyyad 'Alī Khan on behalf of Sikandar Lodī, but alarmed by his (Bābur's) inroads, he had surrendered it to Daulat Khan Lodī, the governor of the Punjab.¹⁰⁰ It is clear from this statement that Sikandar Lodī, while fighting against the Tomars, criminally neglected the North-West-Frontier and the Punjab. In view of the fact that Sikandar's successor paid for this neglect as dearly as with his life and Empire, the gain of a few strongholds in the Tomar country was a poor compensation. Besides, Gwalior, which he had tried his best for a decade to humble, stood defiant.
c14.s4.55
¹⁰⁰ B.N. (B), II, 382.