Twilight of the Sultanate c7.s1: March into Hindustan

Twilight of the Sultanate c7.s1

Language: English

March into Hindustan

c7.s1.1

Tīmūr left Samarqand in March, 1398 (Rajjab, 800 H)¹³ and set off for India with an army of 92,000 strong¹⁴ chiefly drawn from the Turkish tribes beyond the Oxus.¹⁵ After a halt at Tirmiz he crossed the Jihūn (Oxus) and then encamped at Khulm.¹⁶ Then passing through Ghazniyāk¹⁷ and Samangān, he arrived at Indarāb, *en route* to the passes of the Hindu Kush. From Indarāb he marched at the head of a contingent of 30,000 to punish the Siyāh Pōshes, probably the descendants of Indo-Bactrians.¹⁸ Having dealt with them in his own way he resumed his advance, arrived at Naghz via Kabul from where he dispatched Amīr Sulaimān to join Pīr Muhammad at Multan,¹⁹ and himself proceeded to Bannū.

c7.s1.2

¹³ Z.N., II, 17.

c7.s1.3

¹⁴ Sykes, II, 207; Gibbon, II, 1238. Price, III, 220 citing the *Institutes* of Tīmūr gives the figure as 62,000. Yazdī has "more numerous than the leaves of the forest or the drops in rain"; Z.N., II, 18. Mīrkhwānd has "100,000 under his own command". R.S., VI, 103.

c7.s1.4

¹⁵ Erskine, I, 72.

c7.s1.5

¹⁶ Khulm lay about 50 miles east of Balkh and about 5 miles north of modern Tashqurgān. Constable, 22 Bb; Holdich, *Gates of India*, 270.

c7.s1.6

¹⁷ Z.N., II, 19. M.T., E and D, III, 400 wrongly has Ghaztik. It is shown as Ghazniyāk in the India Survey map of Afghanistan. It lies about 20 miles south of Tashqurgān and forty miles north of Samangān. Samangān is not shown on modern maps. It is the old name of Haibak and lies 40 miles S. W. of Baghlān, and about 110 miles N.W. of Indarāb. Holdich, *op. cit.*, 272. Haibak is shown in Constable 22 Cb.

c7.s1.7

¹⁸ J.A.S.B., II, 1833, 305-7. J.A.S.B., III, 1834, 76-79.

c7.s1.8

¹⁹ Price, III (I), 234.

c7.s1.9

He reached the banks of the Indus on 20 September, 1398 (8 Muharram, 801 H).²⁰ It was crossed at Dhankōt, near Kālābāgh, on a bridge of boats, and the Amīr encamped at the very spot where Jalāluddīn Khwarizm Shāh, had fled before Chingīz Khan. Here the Amīr received envoys from various rulers who had been seized with alarm, professing their submission. Of these one was from the king of Kashmir, Sikandar Shāh, conveying his feelings of loyalty and obedience. In reply the Shāh was directed to join the invader with his army at Deopalpur.²¹

c7.s1.10

²⁰ Z.N., II, 64.

c7.s1.11

²¹ Deopalpur in the Montgomery district is situated on the north bank of the Sultej between Fīrōzpur and Jalandhar, 30° 40′ N 73° 32′ E. A place of historical importance, it is indentified by Cunningham with Daidala of Ptolemy.

c7.s1.12

From the camp to Delhi the shortest distance measured no more than six hundred miles; but Tīmūr turned towards southeast, firstly, because his original plan was to relieve his grandson who was in distress, and secondly, because his army was small and he did not want to embroil himself in unnecessary conflicts. Accordingly, even though there was a better route to Multan he chose the shorter route. He met with no opposition on the way; on the other hand, many Rajas and Zamindars purchased their peace by sending presents to him.²²

c7.s1.13

²² Z.N., II, 47-8; M.T., E and D, III, 409-10.

c7.s1.14

After a long and arduous march Amīr Tīmūr arrived on the bank of the Jhelum. Here he was informed of the treachery of Shihābuddīn Mubārak Shāh Tamīmī who had first surrendered to Pīr Muhammad but had subsequently changed his mind. He not only refrained from coming to pay his homage to the great conqueror, but he shut himself in the citadel which was protected by an almost impregnable moat.²³ Tīmūr laid siege of the fort and compelled Shihābuddīn to fly to Uchch.

c7.s1.15

²³ In the M.T. Shihābuddīn's kingdom is said to be a "*Jazīra* in the middle of the river". But in Z.N. it is clearly mentioned as being by the side of the river Jamd.

c7.s1.16

*Through the Punjab*

c7.s1.17

Havin nt down the citadel of Shihābuddīn, Tīmūr resumed his march along the banks of the Jhelum. On Thursday, 3 October, 1398 (21 Muharram, 801 H), he arrived at Shorkot on the confluence of the Jhelum and the Chenab²⁴ which he crossed on 9 October.²⁵ He encamped on the other bank facing the town of Tulamba, 52 miles north-east of Multan.²⁶ He demanded from the inhabitants a ransom of two lacs; the 'Ulema and the Shaikhs were to be exempted from its payment. Soon quite a large proportion of the demand had been paid. While the balance was being realised, the soldiers poured into the town and sacked it, sparing only the Shaikhs and Saiyyads.²⁷ The unscrupulous conduct of the invader opened the eyes of others who had already submitted to Pīr Muhammad. They now changed their mind and became hostile towards him.

c7.s1.18

²⁴ The name of the place where the junction took place is not given either in the M.T. or the Z.N. But Nizām-i-Shamī calls it سور Sūr. (130 b), by which he must mean Shor or Shorkot. Shor or Shorkot lies twenty six miles north of Tulamba on the road from the latter to Jhang. I.G. XVI, 161.

c7.s1.19

²⁵ Z.N., II, 53.

c7.s1.20

²⁶ Tulamba is said to have been 35 *kuroh* from Multan in Z.N., II, 54. T.M.S., 218 has 40 *kuroh*, and so also has Ferishta. But *kuroh* was about 1¾ miles and not 2. The mīl of Ibn Battūta described "Synonymous with *kuroh*" (Trs. Mahdi Husain, Introduction, 1) was equal to 1.44 of the present mile. A *farsakh* or *farsang* was equal to 6,000 yards. Tulamba is actually 52 miles N.N.E. of Multan and is shown in Rennel's map (facing p. 65). During the time of Akbar it was a Pargana or Mahāl in the Sarkar of Bari Doab, the province of Multan. Āīn Jarret's trs., II, 329-30. Also Hunter, Imp. Gaz., XIII, 163.

c7.s1.21

²⁷ Z.N., II, 55; M.T., E and D, III, 414.

c7.s1.22

Tīmūr next moved to Shāhpur situated opposite the town of Shāhnawāz.²⁸ From there he led a sortie on Jasrat Khokhar, son of Shaikha Khokhar of Lahore.²⁹ Jasrat was worsted, many of his men were slain, but he himself managed to join³⁰ his father. The Khokhar chief, because of his enmity towards Sārang Khan, readily submitted to the conqueror and, according to Hājī Dabīr, even helped Tīmūr in his attack on Delhi.³¹

c7.s1.23

²⁸ Z.N., II, 56; M.T., E and D, III, 415-16. Shāhnawāz seems to have disappeared because of the changes in the courses of rivers. It is, however, given in Rennel's map facing p. 65 on the eastern bank of the Chenab. It also finds mention in the itinerary of one Saiyyad Ajal, 1786. According to him the stages were Multan to Shāhnawāz 15 *kos*, Shāhnawāz to Shāhpur 10 *kos* and then 10 *kos* more to Tulamba. Raverty, Mihran, 282 n. Also Hodivala, 351.

c7.s1.24

²⁹ R.S., VI, 104.

c7.s1.25

³⁰ Sharafuddīn wrongly writes that Jasrat was killed (Z. N. II, 57). Jasrat remained a prominent figure in the politics of the Sultanate during the rule of the Saiyyads.

c7.s1.26

³¹ Z.W., III, 905.

c7.s1.27

Tīmūr left Shāhnawāz on Thursday, 25 October (13 Safar) and marching along the bank of the Ravi encamped outside the village of Janjān, where the river was fordable.³² Here he received a detailed account of the difficulties which beset his grandson after he had occupied Multan.³³ Heavy rains followed by an epidemic had killed a large number of horses forcing him to the necessity of using bullock-carts for transport purposes.³⁴ Added to this was the harassment caused by local zamindars who exploited the situation to their advantage. Pīr Muhammad found himself at his wits' end, but the report of his grandfather's arrival infused fresh courage into his heart.

c7.s1.28

³² Z.N., II, 59..

c7.s1.29

³³ Vide Chapter I.

c7.s1.30

³⁴ Z.N., II, 59-60. M.T., E and D, III, 417. The rains must have been very severe. Although Sindh experiences very slight rainfall and the average annual rainfall in Multan is seven inches, yet there are freaks of nature. In 1902 it reached 20 inches. Multan was also visited by severe floods as in 1893-4 and 1905. *I.G. XVIII*, 24. Also *I.G. XXII*, 394.

c7.s1.31

On 26 October (14 Safar) Pīr Muhammad had audience with his grandfather,³⁵ who lavishly rewarded the prince and his nobles. Fresh mounts were supplied to all of his soldiers who once more became ready for fresh adventures.³⁶ Tīmūr was always liberal in giving rewards and providing free accoutrements to his troops. He writes that he could maintain his power for so long because he "divided among his soldiers the treasures which he had gathered".³⁷ At another place he says: "I advanced to my troops their wages even before they were due".³⁸

c7.s1.32

³⁵ Z.N., II, 60.

c7.s1.33

³⁶ Z.N., II, 62.

c7.s1.34

³⁷ Davy, *Institutes of Tīmur*, 65.

c7.s1.35

³⁸ Davy, *op. cit.*, 217.

c7.s1.36

Tīmūr halted at Janjān for four days and then marching via Sehwāl and Aswān he arrived at Jahwāl where he encamped.³⁹ There he began preparations for punishing the people of Deopalpur, who had not only retracted their promise of loyalty to Pīr Muhammad, but had killed the Timuride governor Musāfir Kabuli and his one thousand men.⁴⁰ The news of the approach of Tīmūr now greatly scared the people of Deopalpur. After the fall of Sārang Khan, they had no leader to guide or protect them. Abandoning the city they took refuge in the fortress of Bhatnīr, then considered to be one of the strongest forts of India. Tīmūr appointed Amīr Shāh Malik and Daulat Tīmūr Tawāchī to lead the main force to Delhi via Deopalpur and Samana while he himself marched via Ajodhan (modern Pāk Patan)⁴¹ with a body of 10,000 picked cavalry.⁴² At Ajodhan though most of the Saiyyads and 'Ulema, encouraged by the preferential treatment meted out to their section at Tulamba, waited upon Tīmūr, there were patriots like Shaikh Sa'āduddīn and Shaikh Munawwar⁴³ who exhorted the people not to submit to the blackmailer but to accompany them to Bhatnīr on their way to Delhi. After paying a visit to the mausoleum of the celebrated saint Shaikh Farīd Shakargunj⁴⁴ and appointing Khwājā Muhammad and other officers to protect the 'Ulema and the Saiyyads whose conduct must have annoyed the people of the city, Tīmūr left Ajodhan early in November, 1398.⁴⁵ Crossing the river Gharra he halted at Khālis Khatoli,⁴⁶ now known as Pīr Khālis, fifty *kos* from Bhatnīr. Next morning, at about breakfast time, he arrived at Bhatnīr having marched fifty *kos* in less than twenty-four hours⁴⁷ which was deemed to be an extraordinary feat in those days.

c7.s1.37

³⁹ Z.N., II, 58, 62; M.T., E and D, III, 420; Price, III (I), 241; *R.S.*, VI, 105. From Multan Janjān is said to have been situated at a distance of 40 *kuroh* (Z.N., II, 61). Janjān, Sehwāl and Aswān have disappeared on account of the changes in the courses of the rivers. However, they have all been located by Rennel on his *Memoir of a Map of Hindostan*, facing p. 65.

c7.s1.38

⁴⁰ Z.N., II, 62; *R.S.*, VI, 105-6.

c7.s1.39

⁴¹ Ajodhan also known as Pāk Patan lies at about 80 miles S.W. of Shāhnawāz. The distance from Ajodhan to Bhatnīr is about 90 miles. For a copious and informative note on Ajodhan see Badaonī, Ranking, I, 362-63.

c7.s1.40

⁴² Z.N., II, 64; R.S., VI, 106.

c7.s1.41

⁴³ Z.N., II, 65. M.T., E. and D. III, 421. Sharafuddīn and Nizām-i-Shamī (136) say that Shaikh Munawwar was a grandson of some Shaikh Nūruddīn. Hodivala, 359, says, "I venture to identify the latter with Shaikh Nūruddīn of Hānsī who was preceptor of Shams Sirāj 'Afīf". T.F.S. (A), 81. Shaikh Sa'āduddīn was a descendant of Shaikh Farīduddīn Shakargunj.

c7.s1.42

⁴⁴ For the saint and his tomb see J.A.S.B., V, 634-38. He was the *pīr* of the celebrated saint Nizāmuddīn Auliyā.

c7.s1.43

⁴⁵ Z.N., II, 67, has Tuesday, 25 Safar (5 November). So has Price, III (1), 243.

c7.s1.44

⁴⁶ Z.N., II, 67, does not give the name of the river and only says: از آب اجودھن که معظمات انهار هند است گذشته در خالص فرود آمد (He crossed the river of Ajodhan, which is one of the biggest streams of India, and came to Khālis (Kotli), but the river was surely the Gharra or Ghara which runs between Ajodhan and Kotli. E and D, III, 488 note; Also Raverty, Mihrān, 394 n. Ferishta, I, 156, calls it Khālis Kol.

c7.s1.45

⁴⁷ Z.N., II, 67-68.

c7.s1.46

Bhatnīr (or Hanūmāngarh) was a Rajput stronghold, and people considered it impregnable⁴⁸ as it was surrounded by a desert for about 50 *kos* around in which no water could be obtained. The citadel itself was supplied with water throughout the year by a reservoir which was replenished during the rainy season. A large number of refugees from Deopalpur and Ajodhan had come there to seek asylum. The chief of the fort, Rao Daljīt,⁴⁹ had made adequate preparations to meet the invader, but Tīmūr sought to strike terror among the garrison by massacring all those who had not been able to gain entrance into the fort because it was overfull. Then he delivered the assault from all sides. Having carried the outer wall, he rushed towards the citadel. A hand-to-hand fight ensued. "Jahān Malik fought like a lion, and Saiyyad Khwājā cut down several of the enemy."⁵⁰ When Daljīt had lost all hopes of saving the fort, he sent Shaikh Sa'aduddīn of Ajodhan to Tīmūr to intercede on his behalf. Tīmūr agreed to the proposal of peace and withdrew his men from the fort. On the morning of Friday, 8 November (28. Safar) Rao Daljīt with the Shaikh waited upon Tīmūr⁵¹ with presents consisting of 27 Arab horses with gold mounted harness and several sporting hawks. Tīmūr received the Rao with kind consideration.

c7.s1.47

⁴⁸ M.T., E. and D. III, 422; Z.N., II, 66-67; Also R.S., VI, 106. درميان غول (چول text wrongly has) و بیابان واقع شد (was situated in the wilderness).

c7.s1.48

⁴⁹ His name is given as Duljīn (دلجین) in *Z. N.*, II, 68. *Mulfuzāt* has Dulchīn (دولچین). Badaonī calls him (جلجین) Jaljīn. Ferishta has Rao Khaljī (راو خلجی). In his translation of the *Mulfuzāt*, Dowson adds a note (E. and D, III, 422) that Chain or Chan is most probably intended for Chand. Chand is rather a Vaishya name and would not fit with the Kshatriya Rao. Briggs was obviously not satisfied with the reading of Sharafuddīn but does not risk a suggestion (Briggs I, 488 n). I suggest that it is Daljīt, for whom an error of the copyist ت was perhaps changed into ن. Chand from چین is rather far fetched; جیت would be more appropriate. T.A. calls him Bhattī Rajput. Also *T.A.*, De's Trs., I, 279.

c7.s1.49

⁵⁰ M.T., E. and D, III, 423.

c7.s1.50

⁵¹ Z.N., II, 71.

c7.s1.51

But the trouble did not end there. To take revenge for the murder of Musāfir Kabulī and his men, Tīmūr ordered the arrest of all the refugees from Deopalpur and Ajodhan. About 500 of them were massacred in cold blood and their women and children were enslaved.⁵² This act of cruelty so much incensed Rao Daljīt's cousin Kamāluddīn Maīn,⁵³ that he closed the gates of the city for a last trial of strength. Tīmūr at once put Rao Daljīt to death,⁵⁴ levied a blackmail (which he euphemistically called ransom) on the town, and deputed Amīrs Nūruddīn and Allahadād to collect the ransom.⁵⁵ The step occasioned general resentment and Hindus and Musalmans all rose in a body to oppose the enemy. The Muslims, after the fashion of the Rajputs, consigned their women and children to the fire, and dashed out to fight. But their valour proved unavailing. They were killed to a man and their fortress was razed to the ground.

c7.s1.52

⁵² *Ibid.*, 72.

c7.s1.53

⁵³ All MSS. mention Kamāluddīn as being the brother of Rao Daljīt. Dowson expressed surprise at this because one brother had a Muslim name while the other had a Hindu name (E and D, III, 425 n. and 499). There were large scale conversions throughout the medieval period. Kamāluddīn Maīn may be one of the converts and a distant cousin, if not a real brother, of Daljīt. T.M.S. gives the name as Kamāluddīn Maīn مین. Maīn are a branch or sect of the Bhattīs. "The term Bhattī is commonly applied to any Musalman, Jat or Rajput, from the direction of the Sutlej, as a generic term". (Crooke, *Tribes and Castes*, 14; cited in Hodivala, 360). Yahya calls Daljīt and his son Hansū (Hansrāj) Bhaṭṭīs while Rai Kamāluddīn Maīn and his son Dāūd are invariably styled Maīns. T.M.S., 157 and ff; E and D, IV, 22, 28, 29, 32, 40. Baranī also mentions Bhaṭṭīs and Maīns.

c7.s1.54

⁵⁴ Badaonī, I, 269; Ranking, I, 355.

c7.s1.55

⁵⁵ Z.N., II, 74.

c7.s1.56

On Wednesday, 12 November (3 Rabiul Avval),⁵⁶ Tīmūr left Bhatnīr for Fīrōzābād, now known as Fīrōzābād Harni Khēra.⁵⁷ From there, on his eastward march he sacked Sirsuti⁵⁸ (situated on the river of the same name), Fatehābād⁵⁹ and Ahroni,⁶⁰ in the last of which "not a house was left standing".⁶¹

c7.s1.57

⁵⁶ Z.N., II, 77.

c7.s1.58

⁵⁷ Fīrōzābād got its name probably because of the fort constructed there by Fīrōz Tughlaq, T.F.S. (B), 566, and is called Fīrōzābād Harni Khēra by Shams Sirāj ‘Afīf, T.F.S. (A) 354, and Yahya, T.M.S., 126; E and D, IV, 8 n. The village of Fīrōzābād Harni Khēra still exists and lies about 12 miles west of Sirsā.

c7.s1.59

⁵⁸ Z.N., II, 77.

c7.s1.60

⁵⁹ Price, III, 247-48.

c7.s1.61

⁶⁰ Ahroni was a Mahāl in Sarkar Hisār Fīrōzā, Subā Delhi (Āīn. Trs., 293). It is now called Ahīrwān as its nomenclature is said to be from Ahīr tribe. Elliot, *Races*, II, 133.

c7.s1.62

⁶¹ Z.N., II, 79.

c7.s1.63

From Ahroni, Tīmūr arrived at Tohana.⁶² The people of the place were Muslim Jāts, but casting "aside all restraints of religion"⁶³ Tīmūr decided to attack them. In fact from Bhatnīr to Delhi the Jāts were his main target of attack. They were killed in thousands; their places were occupied and governors appointed.⁶⁴ Resuming his march Tīmūr shortly after arrived on the banks of the Khagar,⁶⁵ where Amīr Sulaiman, who had marched via Mung,⁶⁶ joined him. A week later Tīmūr was joined by the main army coming up from Deopalpur under Amīr Shāh Malik. Since now all his force amounting to 92,000 strong was with him, Tīmūr thought it fit to reorganise it in the final stage of the march to Delhi.

c7.s1.64

⁶² Tohana, now a railway station, is situated 20 miles east of Ratia. Ratia is shown in constable 25 A.C. and it lies about 15 miles N.E. of Fatehābād.

c7.s1.65

⁶³ Z.N., II, 79.

c7.s1.66

⁶⁴ *Ibid.*, II, 81.

c7.s1.67

⁶⁵ The Khagar river is about half way between Bhatnīr and Saraswati. *See* also Price, III, 247 n.

c7.s1.68

⁶⁶ Z.N., II, 82. Mung or Munk is shown in Rennel's map. According to Thornton it is on river Ghagghar on the road from Delhi to Fīrōzābād, 140 miles N.W. of the former. It lies N.E. of Fatehābād. Raverty, *Mihrān*, 439 and n.

c7.s1.69

*To Delhi*

c7.s1.70

On Wednesday, 2 December, 1398 (24 Rabiul Avval) the army arrived at Tughlaqpur,⁶⁷ twelve *kos* from Panipat. The city was deserted, but inside the fort a thousand maunds of wheat were found. Tīmūr could have directly moved on to Delhi, but he did not want to take any risks. He, therefore, crossed the Jumna on 8 December, at a point facing the village of Palla,⁶⁸ and then captured and burnt the fort of Lōnī.⁶⁹ He halted at Lōnī and occupied all the fords of the Jumna, one after another.⁷⁰ Simultaneously most parts of the Jumna-Ganga Doab opposite Delhi were harried. "The inhabitants of the towns and the villages, Muslims and Hindus alike, got panicky and ran away, some to the mountains, some to the jungles, while some others sought shelter in the fort of Delhi."⁷¹

c7.s1.71

⁶⁷ Price, III, 251 n. says, "This was probably the same with what is now called in the maps as Safedon, about the distance of 20 miles to the westward of Panipat".

c7.s1.72

⁶⁸ Z.N., II, 86.

c7.s1.73

⁶⁹ Lōnī was 7 miles N.N.W. of Delhi. Tieff., I, 136. Tīmūr arrived there on 27 Rabiul Avval. T.A., De, 279, n. 7.

c7.s1.74

⁷⁰ Ferishta, I, 157.

c7.s1.75

⁷¹ T.M.S., 165; Basu's trs., 172.

c7.s1.76

On 10 December (1 Rabiul Ākhir), according to his usual practice,⁷² Amīr Tīmūr held a council of war in which everybody was allowed to have his say. Two apprehensions were universally expressed. One was the fear of the war-elephants of Hindustan the stories of whose terrific charges were widely current; and the other related to the scarcity of provisions. Moreover, the number of the prisoners of war had swelled to more than fifty thousand. They needs must be fed and fed probably for a long time in case Delhi stood a siege.⁷³ To guard against the first danger Tīmūr had strong iron claws made which were given to the foot soldiers who were to hurl them before the attacking elephants.⁷⁴ To overcome the second difficulty Amīr Jahān Shāh and Amīr Sulaimān Shāh were directed to detail forage parties to collect large quantities of grain.⁷⁵

c7.s1.77

⁷² Davy, *Institutes of Timur*, 9-11.

c7.s1.78

⁷³ Z.N., II, 102.

c7.s1.79

⁷⁴ Price, III, 252.

c7.s1.80

⁷⁵ Z.N., II, 87-88.

c7.s1.81

Next day the Amīr set out with about 700 horsemen to decide on the site of the battle. On the other hand Mallū Khan, who was constantly watching the movements of the enemy, considered it a good opportunity to strike particularly when the latter had only a scanty following. Marching under the cover of trees and orchards,⁷⁶ he delivered a surprise attack with a force twenty times the number of the enemy. Tīmūr was hardly prepared for an engagement, and made a precipitate retreat, leaving Saiyyad Khwājā with 300 Turks to hold the ground. They were soon reinforced by two regiments (Kushūns) under Sanjak Bahadur and Amīr Allahadād who hurled back Mallū.

c7.s1.82

⁷⁶ R.S., VI, 108.

c7.s1.83

During the skirmish the prisoners in the camp of Tīmūr had become jubilant; and it was feared that on the day of the final battle with Sultan Mahmūd, when the army would be completely engrossed in war, the prisoners would break their bonds and make common cause with the Indian army. He, therefore, took a cruel and quick decision to do away with them. It took little time to kill the unarmed captives and about 50,000 men were massacred in cold blood on 12 December, 1398 (3 Rabiul Ākhir).⁷⁷ A pious man like Maulana Nasīruddīn 'Umar, "who in all his life had never killed a sparrow", for fear of Tīmūr slew with his own hand fifteen men who were his captives.⁷⁸

c7.s1.84

⁷⁷ For the number of the massacred see Appendix A.

c7.s1.85

⁷⁸ Z.N., II, 92.

c7.s1.86

The massacre over, Tīmūr issued final instructions to his officers about his plan of action and their respective duties. He did not want "the war to be of long continuance".⁷⁹ The experience of Pīr Muhammad at Multan, the failure of the strategy of the Mongols against 'Alāuddīn Khaljī and the debacle of Tarmashīrīn must have convinced him of the futility of wasting time in sieges in India. He had not besieged Tulamba, and he did not want to lay siege to Delhi. So he manoeuvred for an open fight. He crossed the Jumnā on Sunday, 14 December (5 Rabiul Ākhir)⁸⁰ with his whole army and encamped on the plains of Fīrōzābād⁸¹ near the hill of the Pusht-i-Bīhālī, site of the present Wellingdon aerodrome.⁸² The encampment was protected with trenches, felled trees, palisades, and all kinds of facines and gabions. In front of the ditch were fastened buffaloes and camels with their feet and neck tied together⁸³ and inside the fence they raised pent-houses (khamhā).⁸⁴ This disposition besides being effective in breaking any charge of elephants, was also intended to lure the enemy into the open by producing on him the impression of uncertainty and fear.⁸⁵

c7.s1.87

⁷⁹ M.T., E and D, III, 437.

c7.s1.88

⁸⁰ Z.N., II, 96; M.T., E and D, III, 437 and R.S., VI, 109 have the above date. Ferishta (I, 158) mistakingly puts it a month later as 5 Jamadiul Avval and continues the mistake by making all subsequent events happen a month later than they actually did.

c7.s1.89

⁸¹ Ferishta, I, 158.

c7.s1.90

⁸² Tīmūr's camp was on what is now known as the Ridge, and the battle took place on the plain traversed by the high road from Safdar Jang's tomb to the Qutb Mīnār. (Fanshawe, *Delhi, Past and Present*, 58). Ghayāsuddīn Tughlaq routed Nāsiruddīn Khusru on the same spot. Also Hodivala, 361.

c7.s1.91

⁸³ According to Ferishta, I, 158, the buffaloes were stationed inside the ditch. So also has *Tuzuk*.

c7.s1.92

⁸⁴ Z.N., II, 96.

c7.s1.93

⁸⁵ *Tuzuk*, text, 74; Z.N., II, 98-99.

c7.s1.94

Sultan Mahmūd also made ready for the battle, although his preparations were much too inadequate for defeating a general like Tīmūr with his host of ninety thousand warriors. The entire Delhi army consisted of 10,000 cavalry, 40,000 infantry and 125 elephants.⁸⁶ He could not bank upon the support of neighbouring rulers. Khwājā Jahān of Jaunpur was busy in extending his territories in the east, and cared little to come to Delhi's rescue. Gujarat was far too distant, though it pretended loyalty.⁸⁷ Mewat was restive, and the contumacious Punjab lay low at the feet of the conqueror. Mahmūd had for some years under him only the old Delhi, the fortress of Sīrī and the Jahānpanāh. Though Mallū Khan was loyal to the Sultan; he had hardly any friends or supporters outside Delhi,⁸⁸ and the prospects of victory were few. Thus "the harvest was fully ripe for the bloody reaper Tīmūr".⁸⁹

c7.s1.95

⁸⁶ Z.N., II, 83; A.N., I, 244. Z.W., III, 906, has 120 elephants and twenty or forty thousand cavalry.

c7.s1.96

⁸⁷ Epi. Indo-Moslemica, 1939-40, 2.

c7.s1.97

⁸⁸ Z.W., III, 905.

c7.s1.98

⁸⁹ E.I. New Imperial Series, II, 1894, 297.

c7.s1.99

During the night preceding 7 Rabiul Ākhir, Tīmūr's men were constantly on the alert to prevent any surprise attack by the enemy. On the morning of the 7th⁹⁰ (16 December, 1398) the rival forces moved forward for the final encounter, each side arrayed in the traditional order of Centre, Right and Left. Tīmūr's right wing was led by Prince Pīr Muhammad, Amīr Yādgār Barlās, Amīr Sulaimān Shāh and other officers. The left wing was under Princes Sultan Husain, Khalīl Sultan, Amīr Jahān Shāh and Shaikh Arsalān. Tīmūr himself commanded the centre, while the vanguard was placed under Prince Rustam, Amīr Shaikh Nūruddīn, Amīr Shāh Malik, Amīr Allahadād and others.⁹¹

c7.s1.100

⁹⁰ It may be remembered that the day in Islam begins with sunset.

c7.s1.101

⁹¹ Z.N., II, 98-99.

c7.s1.102

Mahmūd's left wing was commanded by Taghī Khan, Mīr 'Ali of Uchch⁹² and other officers; while the right wing was under Mu'īnuddīn and Malik Hādī.⁹³ The Sultan himself with Mallū Khan was in the centre.⁹⁴ "The elephants were covered with armour," writes Sharafuddīn, "and sharp poisoned points were fastened firmly on their tusks. Rocket men (*takhsh-afgan*) and grenade throwers (*r'ād andāz*) marched by their sides."⁹⁵ Sultan Mahmūd traditionally relied too much on elephants, the animate tanks of medieval India. "They were trained in war as famous for their power as rank-breakers (*saf-shikan*) and cavalry dispensers."⁹⁶

c7.s1.103

⁹² Ibid., 100, has میر علی هوجه. Mīr 'Alī Haujā must be 'Alī Malik of Uchch, who was in command of the fortress when Pīr Muhammad besieged it. هوجه is a perverted transcription of Uchch (اوچه).

c7.s1.104

⁹³ E and D, III, 498 has Malik Hānī. Mu'īuddīn and Malik Hānī cannot be identified, but Taghī Khan or Tughān Khan (as Nizām-i-Shāmī calls him at fol. 140 a) may be Taghī Khan Turkbachcha-i-Sultānī of the T.M.S., 170. Hodivala, 353-56. Also Z.W., III, 906.

c7.s1.105

⁹⁴ This is the organisation given in Z.N., II, 100 and M.T., E and D, III, 439. Dowson in all probability through oversight transposes the command of the right and left wings in his trans. of the *Zafarnāmā*, E and D, III, 498.

c7.s1.106

⁹⁵ Z.N., II, 100; Trs. in E and D, III, 498.

c7.s1.107

⁹⁶ Jadunath Sarkar, "Military History of India," *The Hindustan Standard*, March 21, 1954.

c7.s1.108

But the Hindustani infantry was poor in stuff having been drawn from amongst the Gūjar and Jāt peasants and Meo robbers. "Their favourite weapon was the bamboo staff, though many of them carried a rusty sword also,"⁹⁷ while the archers amongst them were ineffective.

c7.s1.109

⁹⁷ *Ibid.*

c7.s1.110

*Battle of Delhi*

c7.s1.111

The battle began with the beating of drums and raising of shouts and cries from both sides. In the very first charge Tīmūr's army struck at the various wings of the enemy engaging it at every point, thus rendering it impotent for concentrated action and dispersing it into separate units to be dealt with in detail. Sanjak Bahādur, Saiyyad Khwājā, Amīr Allahadād and others of the vanguard first moved off to the right, and then wheeling suddenly behind the enemy's advance-guard scattered five to six hundred of them in a single onslaught.⁹⁸ Meanwhile Pīr Muhammad Jahangīr of the right wing assisted by Amīr Sulaimān Shāh fell upon the left wing of the enemy under Taghī Khan and mauled it so severely as to throw it back as far as the Hauz-i-Khās.⁹⁹ Similarly prince Sultan Husain of the left wing attacked and scattered the Indian army's right wing under Malik Mu'īnuddin, pursuing its remnants to the very gates of Delhi. But the centre of the Delhi army held its ground. Nay, supported by the armoured elephants it made a fierce charge on Prince Rustam's men, but they managed to parry it with courage and determination. This gave time to Shaikh Nūruddīn, Amīr Shāh Malik, Tīmūr Tawāchī and Manglī Khwājā to bring their men into action and cut their way across to the elephants. The frontal attack of Sultan Mahmūd thus received a check while his two wings had been badly broken. But the battle raged fiercely until the evening, when Mahmūd's soldiers, despondent and exhausted, began to flee. The flight soon turned into a stampede and in the enveloping darkness many were trampled underfoot and heaps of dead were left behind. As night descended Sultan Mahmūd with Mallū Khan escaped into the citadel of Delhi "with a thousand difficulties" and closed its gates. Tīmūr pursued Mahmūd up to the city gates but because of darkness he returned to the Hauz-i-Khās.¹⁰⁰

c7.s1.112

⁹⁸ Z.N., II, 105.

c7.s1.113

⁹⁹ *Ibid.*, 106.

c7.s1.114

¹⁰⁰ Z.N., II, 106. M.T., E and D, III, 441. Tīmūr was mistaken in his belief that Hauz-i-Khās "was built by Sultan Fīrōz Shāh". Sharafuddīn persists in the mistake. Z.N., II, 109. The reservoir of Hauz-i-Khās, also known as Hauz-i-'Alāī, was built by Sultan 'Alāuddīn Khaljī (1296-1316) in the very first year of his accession. This magnificent tank covered an area of over 70 acres, and was surrounded by a stone and masonry wall. Fīrōz Tughlaq only got it cleaned in about 1354 as it had got filled with mud and silt by that time obviously through neglect. Badaonī, Ranking, I, 338-9 also 347 n. Thomas, *Chronicles*, 310 n. Carr Stephen, 183. Saiyyad Ahmad Khan, Āsār, BK III, 27. K. S. Lal, *History of the Khaljīs*, 375.

c7.s1.115

The army of Hindustan had failed, but it had fought bravely against a force at least twice as large in numbers. Tīmūr does not fail to give it due praise, and the praise from the enemy is the greatest compliment. "The soldiers of Sultan Mahmūd and Mallū Khan," says he, "showed no lack of courage. On the contrary they bore themselves manfully in the fight, but they could not withstand the successive assaults of my soldiers."\'101

c7.s1.116

\'101 M.T., E and D, III, 441.

c7.s1.117

Inside the fort Sultan Mahmūd and Mallū Khan made a hurried review of the situation. Surrender would have meant complete annihilation, with no hope of recovery. Tīmūr's movements had clearly indicated that his was a lightning campaign and he had no intention of staying in India. Consequently the Sultan and his Vazīr decided on flight. Avoiding the Hauz-i-Khās near which Tīmūr had encamped, they left by two different gates, Mahmūd by the Hauz-i-Rānī Gate and Mallū Khan by the Hauz-i-Shamsī Gate.¹⁰² Tīmūr, who was keeping a constant watch, had got scent of their flight and sent Amīr S'aīd and Khwājā Aqbugha in their pursuit. They captured many men including Saifuddīn and Khudādād,¹⁰³ the two sons of Mallū Khan, but Sultan Mahmūd and Mallū Khan escaped, the former towards Gujarat and the latter towards Baran (Buland Shahr).¹⁰⁴

c7.s1.118

¹⁰² Hodivala, II, 144.

c7.s1.119

¹⁰³ Z.N., II, 116; Ferishta, I, 158; R.S., VI, 111.

c7.s1.120

¹⁰⁴ Ferishta, I, 158. T.A., I, 255. Badaonī, Ranking I, 357.

c7.s1.121

Next morning, Wednesday, 17 December, 1398 (8 Rabius Sānī 801 H)¹⁰⁵ Tīmūr held his court in the Īdgāh situated between the Jahānpanāh and the Hauz-i-Khās.¹⁰⁶ Fazlulla Balkhī,¹⁰⁷ the veteran financier, nobles, Shaikhs and the elite of Delhi came to pay homage. At the request of Fazlulla, amnesty was granted to the city.¹⁰⁸ Maulana Nasīruddīn 'Umar recited the Khutba in the conqueror's name in the Jama' Masjid of Delhi.¹⁰⁹ Such officers as had distinguished themselves in the campaign were given titles and rewards and the learned and the Saiyyads of Delhi were honoured with presents and robes of honour. Dispatches proclaiming victory in Hindustan were sent to the principal towns of Tīmūr's empire like Samarqand, Tabrīz, Shīrāz, Herat and Azerbaijān, together with one hundred and twenty war elephants, and several rhinoceroses as gifts for the princes.¹¹⁰ The conqueror's flag was hoisted on the city walls and drums were beaten to proclaim the new regime. The people of the city lavishly decorated and illuminated their houses and shops.¹¹¹ And then Tīmūr, who was sixty-three and was to live for only six years more, immersed himself in "pleasure and enjoyment".¹¹²

c7.s1.122

¹⁰⁵ E and D, III, 502; Price, III, 262.

c7.s1.123

¹⁰⁶ The date of the construction of this Īdgāh is not known, but it still exists some 300 yards west of the citadel of Rai Pithora and ½ mile N.W. of Adham Khan's Tomb at Mahrauli. List., III, Monument No. 133.

c7.s1.124

¹⁰⁷ Fazlulla Balkhī was Naib-i-Mustaufī or Deputy Accountant General in the latter part of the reign of Fīrōz Shāh, T.F.S. (A), 482. Later on he became a partisan of Nāsiruddīn Nusrat Shāh, the rival of Sultan Mahmūd Tughlaq, who conferred upon him the title of Qutlugh Khan. T.M.S., 160 ; Ferishta, I, 155.

c7.s1.125

¹⁰⁸ M.T., E and D., III, 443 ; Z.N., II, 116-117.

c7.s1.126

¹⁰⁹ Sharafuddīn (Z.N., II, 118) says : "Maulana Nasīruddīn was ordered to go with other learned doctors and proclaim the name of the Sahib-i-Qirān Amīr Tīmūr Gurgān in the same way as the name of Fīrōz Shāh and other Sultans had been proclaimed ...." But curiously enough Tīmūr did not strike any coins. Neither the *Memoirs* nor Yazdī make mention of any coins being struck on this occasion or even later. Rogers says that no gold or silver pieces of Tīmūr have been ever found. A small copper coin which he calls *damrī* he saw in the British Museum collection. It bears the legend عدل سلطان تيمور on the obverse and ضرب بحضرت دهلی on the reverse. J.A.S.B., XLII (1883) Pt., I, 59, 62, 63. Dr. Hoernle came across a gold coin of Tīmūr, but doubted its genuineness, and published it only as a curio. J.A.S.B., LXVII, 1897, Pt. I, 134-37.

Cites (5)

Tārīkh-i Firishta — Muḥammad Qāsim Hindū Shāh Firishta 1606, Persian
Jahanpanah
Idgah
Tārīkh-i Fīrūzshāhī — Shams-i Sirāj ʿAfīf, Persian
Tārīkh-i Mubārakshāhī — Yaḥyā b. Aḥmad Sirhindī