[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [General history and culture](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general) › [Twilight of the Sultanate](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.lal-1963) › c8.s3 # Twilight of the Sultanate c8.s3: Khizr Khan Twilight of the Sultanate c8.s3 - **Language:** English ### Khizr Khan ### [c8.s3.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.lal-1963.c8.s3.1) Khizr Khan had returned without achieving anything worth the name, but he had made a correct appraisal of the situation. He clearly saw the pecarious position of Sultan Mahmūd and was convinced that one day he would be able to defeat him and occupy Delhi. So from now onwards he made persistent efforts towards that end. In A. D. 1409-10 (812 H) he attacked Bairam Khan Turk-bachchā, who had gone over to Daulat Khan Lodī, and compelled him to allegiance. Next year he marched to Rohtak,⁷⁹ and although its governor Malik Idrīs held out for full six months without any reinforcements from Delhi, he was forced into submission. ### [c8.s3.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.lal-1963.c8.s3.2) ⁷⁹ 42 miles N. W. of Delhi. ### [c8.s3.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.lal-1963.c8.s3.3) Even when the intentions of Khizr Khan were now no longer a secret, Sultan Mahmūd was more complacent than ever. Yahyā makes a pointed reference to the fact that after the Sultan's in-vestment by Khizr Khan in 1409 "Mahmūd remained in Delhi and undertook no further incursions". Only once did he go out to Katehar, but that too just for hunting, and kept himself busy in "amusement and merry-making".⁸⁰ ### [c8.s3.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.lal-1963.c8.s3.4) ⁸⁰ T.M.S., 178-79. ### [c8.s3.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.lal-1963.c8.s3.5) Meanwhile in A. D. 1411-12 (814 H) Khizr Khan once again marched to Rohtak. Malik Idrīs and his brother Mubāriz Khan were "admitted to the honour of kissing his feet".⁸¹ He ravaged Narnaul,⁸² which was in the hands of Iqlīm Khan, son of Bahādur Nāhar, and proceeding further into Mewat,⁸³ he sacked Tijārā,⁸⁴ ### [c8.s3.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.lal-1963.c8.s3.6) ⁸¹ T.M.S., 179. Also Ferishta, I, 161. ### [c8.s3.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.lal-1963.c8.s3.7) ⁸² Narnaul is now a railway station lying S.W. of Rewari on the Delhi-Ajmer line. It is situated in 28° 2′ N., 76° 14′ E. ### [c8.s3.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.lal-1963.c8.s3.8) ⁸³ Mewat was so called after the Meos, of obscure origin, claiming descent from Rajputs. According to some Mewat is the Sanskrit \*Mīnā-Vati\*, rich in fish, while some others derive Meo from Mahes, a word used in driving cattle. The original Meos were probably converted to Islam during the time of Mahmūd of Ghaznī. Throughout the Sultanate period the Meos harassed the kings of Delhi and vice versa right up to the coming of Bābur. During Tīmūr's invasion, Bahādur Nāhar founded the sub-division of the Mewatīs called Khan-Zadas, members of which ruled Mewat for many years. Mewat lay south of Delhi and in Mughal times formed part of the Sūbā of Agra. Its most famous towns were Narnaul, Alwar, Tijārā and Rewari. Today the region comprises of the districts of Mathura and Gurgaon, a considerable portion of Alwar and some of Bharatpur. See Tieffenthaler, III, map where the province is marked; Hunter, Imp. Gaz., 4, 8, ff; Badaonī, Ranking, I, 365 n; Basu's Trs. of T.M.S., 184 n; 209-10 n; Imp. Gaz. U.P., I, 223. ### [c8.s3.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.lal-1963.c8.s3.9) ⁸⁴ Tijārā lies about 30 miles N.E. of Alwar. I.G., XXIII, 358. It is shown in Constable, Pl. 27 Cb. Bābur describes it as a stronghold of the Mewatīs, B.N. (B), II, 578. Tijārā is well-known for its security because of the strength of the hills surrounding it. Powlett, Gaz. of Alwar, 132. ### [c8.s3.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.lal-1963.c8.s3.10) Sarahta and Kharol.⁸⁵ Ikhtiyār Khan, the governor of Fīrōzābād, deserted to Khizr Khan, who thus gained possession of the Doab and the environs of Delhi.⁸⁶ He once again besieged Sultan Mahmūd at Sīrī. But the city was not yet destined to fall. Scarcity of provisions once again compelled him to raise the siege, and he returned to Fatehpur via Panipat⁸⁷ in April-May, 1412 (Muharram, 815 H). ### [c8.s3.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.lal-1963.c8.s3.11) ⁸⁵ Sarahta is four miles east of Tijārā. Kharol is Gahrol, now a ruined town. ### [c8.s3.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.lal-1963.c8.s3.12) ⁸⁶ T.M.S., 179. ### [c8.s3.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.lal-1963.c8.s3.13) ⁸⁷ Panipat lies 53 miles north of Delhi, Lat. 29° 23′ N., Long. 71° 1′ E. ### [c8.s3.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.lal-1963.c8.s3.14) Six months after Sultan Mahmūd died a natural death at Kaithal in October, 1412 (Rajjab, 815 H).⁸⁸ He had ruled for a little more than eighteen years. All chroniclers, without a single exception, mistakenly write that he ruled for twenty years and two months. Obviously the error of one seems to have been copied by the others.⁸⁹ Inclined to a life of pleasure and ease and neglectful of the affairs of the state, Mahmūd had ruled all these years only in name.⁹⁰ The ruler of Jaunpur did not respect him; Iqbāl Khan, who had first invited him to Delhi, developed a contempt for him for his “treachery”. The turmoils of his times would have proved too much even for a capable ruler; Mahmūd simply could not face them. His stars however did him one good turn. In the end he could reoccupy the throne; and he died as the Sultan of Delhi if he had not quite lived as one. With his death the house of Tughlaq ceased to exist. ### [c8.s3.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.lal-1963.c8.s3.15) ⁸⁸ T.M.S., 180. ### [c8.s3.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.lal-1963.c8.s3.16) ⁸⁹ Including Sir Wolseley Haig in C.H.I., III, 192. Mahmūd had come to the throne in Jamadiul Avval 796 H, March, A.D. 1394 (T.M.S., 159) and died in Rajjab 815 H, October, A.D. 1412 (T.M.S., 180). Thus he reigned only for eighteen and a half years. ### [c8.s3.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.lal-1963.c8.s3.17) ⁹⁰ Ferishta, I, 161; T.M.S., 179; Badaonī, Ranking, I, 366. ### [c8.s3.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.lal-1963.c8.s3.18) On Mahmūd’s death the nobles paid homage to Daulat Khan. Although he had no claims to the throne, yet the nobility of Delhi could not just think of offering the crown to Khizr Khan, the hated “nominee” of the “accursed” Tīmūr. Daulat was aware of his precarious position and the strength of Khizr Khan. So, to begin with, he only concentrated on securing as many allies as possible. He succeeded in obtaining the fealty of Rai Vīra Singh of Katehār and the support of Mahābat Khan of Badaon.⁹¹ Even Malik Idrīs and Mubāriz Khan, who had submitted to Khizr Khan, were induced to come over to his side. But his enemies were stronger than his few friends, and when Ibrāhīm Sharqī besieged Qādir Khan, son of Mahmūd Khan, at Kalpi,⁹² Daulat Khan avoided fighting him. Meanwhile Khizr Khan started on a full-scale invasion of Delhi. He sent a strong force to besiege Rohtak and himself marched to Mewat where he received the submission of Iqlim Khān's nephew Jalāl Khan. Thence he marched across the Doab and sacked Sambhal. He arrived in Delhi in March, 1414, with 60,000 horse,⁹³ and invested Sīrī.⁹⁴ Daulat Khan withstood the siege for full four months and surrendered only when some officers led by Malik Lona⁹⁵ treacherously admitted the besiegers. Daulat Khan was taken prisoner, confined in the Hisār Fīrōzā and later killed.⁹⁶ ### [c8.s3.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.lal-1963.c8.s3.19) ⁹¹ T.M.S., 180; Badaonī, Ranking, I, 375. ### [c8.s3.20](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.lal-1963.c8.s3.20) ⁹² Ferishta, I, 161. Qādir Khan has been mentioned as the son of Sultan Mahmūd Khan by chroniclers like Badaonī and Ferishta. This was not the Sultan Mahmūd of Delhi but Nāsiruddīn Mahmūd Khan, son of Malikzādā Fīrōz, son of Malik Tājuddīn Turk who is said to have held the Shiqq of Mahoba and Kalpi. See Hodivala, 400. For the history of Mahmūd Khan see Hodivala in the Numismatic Supplement No. XLII to the J.A.S.B., 1930. Also Thomas, \*Chronicles\*, 325-26. ### [c8.s3.21](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.lal-1963.c8.s3.21) ⁹³ Ferishta, I, 161. ### [c8.s3.22](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.lal-1963.c8.s3.22) ⁹⁴ T.M.S., 181. ### [c8.s3.23](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.lal-1963.c8.s3.23) ⁹⁵ T.M.S., 181. ### [c8.s3.24](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.lal-1963.c8.s3.24) ⁹⁶ Badaonī, Ranking, I, 375. ### [c8.s3.25](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.lal-1963.c8.s3.25) Thus did the Sultanate of Delhi finally pass into the hands of Khizr Khan Saiyyad on Monday, 4 June, A. D. 1414 (15 Rabiul Avval, 817 H).⁹⁷ ### [c8.s3.26](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.lal-1963.c8.s3.26) ⁹⁷ T.M.S., 181, has این واقعه در ماه ربیع الاول .... بود (\*i.e.\* this event took place in the month of Rabiul Avval). In a foot-note of the translation (p. 186) Basu remarks that MS. M-BM reads در هفتم ماه ربیع الاول (On the 7th of the month of Rabīul Avval). JNS has ماه در هفدهم (17th of the month). In E and D, IV, 45, the date is 8 Rabīul Avval while in Ferishta, I, 161, it is 15th. At another place Yahyā (T.M.S., 183) says that Khizr Khan took Sīrī on 15 Rabīul Avval. This date is agreed upon by Nizāmuddīn (T.A., I, 265) and Ferishta (I, 161). Badaonī, Ranking, I, 375 has 17 while E and D, IV, 45, in the translation of T.M.S., has 8 Rabiul Avval. Thomas, \*Chronicles\*, 326, has 7 Rabiul Avval, 817 H. ## Cites (1) - [Tārīkh-i Mubārakshāhī](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tarikh-i-mubarakshahi) — Yaḥyā b. Aḥmad Sirhindī --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.lal-1963.c8.s3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.lal-1963.c8.s3) · Pramāṇa