Twilight of the Sultanate c15.s3: Nobles in Revolt
Twilight of the Sultanate c15.s3
- Language
- English
Nobles in Revolt
c15.s3.1
We have seen the injustice of the imprisonment of Āzam Humayūn Sarwānī and his son Fatēh Khan at the hands of the Sultan. At the news of the disgrace of Āzam Humayūn, his son Islam Khan unfurled the standard of revolt at Kara.⁹¹ He seized the treasure, arms and stores of Kara and enlisted a number of good and experienced soldiers. With the strong force so collected, he defeated in battle Ahmad Khan, whom the Sultan had sent against him.
c15.s3.2
⁹¹ T.A., I, 349; Badaonī, Ranking, I, 433-34; *Makhzan*, 79 (b); Ferishta, I, 190. Only W.M., 40 (b) has Fatēh Khan in place of Islām Khan.
c15.s3.3
Worse still, having heard of the cruel treatment of nobles like Sarwānī and Bhuā, Āzam Humayūn Lodī⁹² and Sʻaīd Khan Lodī fled from the Sultan’s camp to their Jagirs in Lakhnau, and joining hands with Islām Khan began to fan the flames of rebellion in the east. Because of their activities the whole of Avadh, from Kara to Qannauj, was up in arms against the Sultan.⁹³ Whatever the responsibility of the king in the creation of such a situation, he took immediate steps to curb the insurrection. He built up a large force and placed it under some young nobles as the older ones had proved to be undependable. The young commanders included Ahmad Khan, brother of Āzam Humayūn Lodī (in rebellion), sons of Husain Farmūlī, Dilāwar Khan, son of Ahmad Khan (recently defeated by Islām Khan), Qutb Khan, son of Ghāzī Khan Jalwānī, Bhīkan Khan Nūhānī, and Sikandar, son of Ādam Kākar.⁹⁴ Thus the royal commanders included officers of all tribes of Afghans. They might have been so selected as to keep a watch over one another. It also shows that the loyalists did not belong to any particular section and comprehended all sections of the nobility. The army was ordered to quell the insurrection.
c15.s3.4
⁹² Āzam Humayūn was only a title and not a name.
c15.s3.5
⁹³ *T.A.*, I, 349; *Makhzan*, 79 (b).
c15.s3.6
⁹⁴ *T.A.*I, 349; also Badaonī, Ranking, I, 434. *T.D.*, 114, has twelve names. Also *Makhzan*, 80 (a).
c15.s3.7
On their way to the east, the royal army was ambushed at Bangarmau near Qannauj.⁹⁵ Iqbāl Khan, a cavalry commander (Khasa Khail) of Āzam Humayūn Lodī, suddenly came out of his ambush with 5,000 and killed and wounded a large number of royalists (A. D. 1519).⁹⁶ This discomfiture evoked a just reprimand from the Sultan, who, while sending them fresh reinforcements, warned them not to return without achieving their objective.⁹⁷ Stung to the quick and sufficiently strengthened, the royalists resumed their march. The rebel forces by now had swelled to 40,000 horse and 500 elephants.⁹⁸ As the two armies lay facing each other, everybody could see that the battle was going to be sanguinary. Shaikh Yūsuf Qattāl, a leading contemporary saint,⁹⁹ intervened between them and advised the rebels to come to terms with the Monarch. They agreed to do so on the condition that Aʻzam Humayūn Sarwānī was released from prison,¹⁰⁰ but the Sultan, who insisted on their unconditional surrender, refused to come to terms with them. At the same time he ordered Dariyā Khan Nūhānī, governor of Bihar, Nāsir Khan Nūhānī of Ghazīpur and Shaikhzādā Muhammad Farmūlī to advance upon the rebels from the east. With their advance the rebel forces were sandwiched between two loyal armies. The forces fighting on the side of the Sultanate were now in a position of vantage which they had gained through the initiative of the Sultan as well as the complacency of the enemy. On the day of the battle the two sides were locked in mortal conflict, “and shed such streams of blood, that the eyes of the age became blind and old an beholding it”.¹⁰¹ In the words of Niʻāmatulla, “For many years such a sanguinary action had not occurred in Hindustan. … Dead bodies, heap upon heap, covered the field, … and streams of blood ran over the plain. Brother against brother, and father against son, urged by mutual rivalry and inborn bravery, mixed in the conflict; and restraining their hands from long arrow and spear, they contended only with dagger, sword and knife. In that battle 10,000 gallant Afghans fell on both sides.”¹⁰² Islām Khan was killed and Saʻīd Khan with a number of rebel chiefs was captured by the soldiers of Dariyā Khan Nūhānī.¹⁰³ Thus the rebel forces were utterly routed, and the insurrection suppressed. All chroniclers have moralised on the ingratitude of the rebels,¹⁰⁴ but none has blamed the cruelty and obstinacy of the Sultan in fanning this civil war. He might have found satisfaction in the fact that this war had broken the backbone of the rebellious nobility. In fact he felt exceedingly happy on the occasion and profusely rewarded those who had fought on his side.¹⁰⁵ Little did he realise that such a great conflict, in which the flower of the army had been lost, was bound to affect the strength and stability of his own Empire.
c15.s3.8
⁹⁵ Bangarmau lies half way on the road joining Hardoi and Unao.
c15.s3.9
⁹⁶ *T.S.A.*, 76; *M.R.*, I, 485. Ferishta, I, 190.
c15.s3.10
⁹⁷ Dorn, I, 75. *Makhzan*, 80 (a).
c15.s3.11
⁹⁸ *T.A.*, I, 350; Ferishta, I, 190; *T.S.A.*, 77; *M.R.*, I, 486; *Makhzan*, 80 (a).
c15.s3.12
⁹⁹ Nizāmuddīn and Ferishta give the name of the saint as Shaikh Rājū Bukhārī. According to ʻAbdul Haqq, Saiyyad Sadruddīn Rājū Qattāl Bukhārī was the son of Saiyyad Ahmad Kabīr. He obtained the gaddī from his brother Makhdūm Jahāniyān. *Akhbārul Akhyār*, 150. But Rājū Qattāl Bukhārī had died in A. D. 1423 (827 H), almost a century before the present war. The saint who intervened was most probably Yūsuf Qattāl who died at Delhi in A. D. 1527 (933 H). *Akhbārul Akhyār*, 219.
c15.s3.13
¹⁰⁰ T.A., I, 350; T.S.A., 77; Ferishta, I, 190.
c15.s3.14
¹⁰¹ T.A., I, 350; Also T.S.A., 77.
c15.s3.15
¹⁰² *Makhzan*, 81 (a); Dorn, I, 76. Also E and D, V, 15 n. 4.
c15.s3.16
¹⁰³ T.S.A., 77; *Makhzan*, 81 (b).
c15.s3.17
¹⁰⁴ T.A., I, 350; Ferishta, I, 190; T.S.A., 77.
c15.s3.18
¹⁰⁵ T.A., I, 351.
c15.s3.19
Ibrāhīm's success only prompted him to destroy those remaining barons whose loyalty he suspected. Some of them had fought for him in the last war, but that did not win for them the confidence of the Sultan. His nature was certainly suspicious, although it is difficult to correctly apportion the blame between the king and the barons for the sad state of affairs. All the same Ibrāhīm's not too short a reign of nine years was spent in fighting a fruitless and disastrous war with his own nobility.
c15.s3.20
In pursuance of his vindictive policy Sultan Ibrāhīm got Husain Khan Farmūlī murdered by some low Shaikh-zādā at Chanderi.¹⁰⁶ He even rewarded the assassin with 700 gold coins and ten villages.¹⁰⁷ This murder created great alarm coming as it did close on the death of Miān Bhuā and Āzam Humayūn Sarwānī in prison under very suspicious circumstances. It was reported that a gunpowder plot had been hatched and these unsuspecting prisoners had been induced to shift to a cell in which they were blown to pieces.¹⁰⁸ Suspicion breeds suspicion and these murders created widespread consternation, and disaffection increased all the more. Dariyā Khan Nūhānī, governor of Bihar, Khan-i-Jahān Lodī and others like them unfurled the standard of revolt in the east.¹⁰⁹ These were the barons who had fought for the Sultanate in the last war, but their loyalty was now undermined. The situation only worsened with Dariyā Khan Nūhānī's death shortly after. His son Bahādur Shāh¹¹⁰ declared complete independence in Bihar. He took the title of Sultan Muhammad and instituted the Khutba¹¹¹ and issued coins in his own name. He was readily joined by many Amīrs who had forsaken allegiance to Delhi, and the forces under him soon swelled to one hundred thousand horse.¹¹² He reduced to submission the whole of the upper Ganga country from Bihar to Sambhal,¹¹³ situated as close as eighty miles from Delhi as the crow flies. Nāsir Khan Nūhānī, the governor of Ghāzīpur, being defeated by Miān Mustafa¹¹⁴ on orders from Sultan Ibrāhīm, also went over to Muhammad Shāh. Other disaffected nobles of the eastern region also flocked to Muhammad Shāh.¹¹⁵ With time Muhammad Shāh's power went on increasing in Bihar.
c15.s3.21
¹⁰⁶ T.A., I, 351; Badaonī, Ranking, I, 435; Ferishta, I, 191; *Makhzan*, 81 (b).
c15.s3.22
¹⁰⁷ E and D, V, 20 n.
c15.s3.23
¹⁰⁸ T.S.A., 75-76; T.D., 122-25.
c15.s3.24
¹⁰⁹ T.S.A., 86; Dorn, I, 76.
c15.s3.25
¹¹⁰ M.R., I, 487; *Makhzan*, 82 (a). T.S.A., 87 wrongly calls him Shahbāz Khan. W.M., 41 (a) has Bihar Khan.
c15.s3.26
¹¹¹ W.M., 41 (a).
c15.s3.27
¹¹² T.A., I, 351; Dorn, I, 76; Ferishta, I, 191. T.S.A., 87 has only 70,000.
c15.s3.28
¹¹³ T.A., I, 351; Badaoni, Ranking, I, 435.
c15.s3.29
¹¹⁴ This Miān Mustafa was the brother of Shaikh Bayezīd Farmūlī who made himself conspicuous under Bābur.
c15.s3.30
¹¹⁵ Dorn, I, 76.
c15.s3.31
The east having got out of control and the Rajputs having become too strong in the south and west (with Bayana having become the boundary between the Sultanate and Rana Sāngā's dominions), Ibrāhīm must have felt deeply distressed. The *de facto* ruler of Bihar had fought several battles with the forces of the Sultanate and had come off with flying colours.¹¹⁶ In these circumstances Sultan Ibrāhīm sent for Daulat Khan Lodī, son of Tātār Khan and governor of the Punjab for the last twenty years,¹¹⁷ in all probability for consultations and help. But Daulat Khan was scared by the happenings in eastern Hindustan, and being in arrears, he avoided coming. Instead, he sent his youngest son Dilāwar Khan to Agra. Sultan Ibrāhīm at once guessed the reasons for Daulat's excuse of absence, and threatened Dilāwar and his father with dire consequences if the latter did not obey his orders. Dilāwar, greatly alarmed, managed to escape to Lahore and related to his father what had transpired between Ibrāhīm and himself. Daulat Khan could clearly see what was in store for him. To escape from the wrath of the Sultan, he, in 1523, invited Bābur from Kabul to destroy the power of Ibrāhīm Lodī.
c15.s3.32
¹¹⁶ T.A., I, 351; Ferishta, I, 191; *Makhzan*, 82 (a).
c15.s3.33
¹¹⁷ T.S.A., 87. Tātār Khan, it may be remembered, was one of the leading Afghān nobles of the Punjab who had helped in the elevation of Bahlūl Lodī to the throne.
c15.s3.34
Ordinarily it would have sufficed to discuss Bābur's relations with India from about this date. But since the Mughal conqueror had already carried out a number of raids into north-western Hindustan, it would be proper to study, howsoever briefly, such events of his early career as have a bearing on his conquest of India.