Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Twilight of the Sultanate c9: Chapter 4: Revenue Through Bayonet

Twilight of the Sultanate c9

Language
English

Contents

Chapter 4: Revenue Through Bayonet

Khizr Khan's Early Career

c9.s1.1

Khizr Khan was the son of Malikul Sharq Malik Sulaiman, an adopted son of Malik Nasīrul Mulk Mardān Daulat.¹ It is claimed by contemporary and later chroniclers that Khizr Khan was a descendant of the Prophet, and hence they describe him a Saiyyad. But the story given in favour of this claim seems to be apocryphal.² It is just possible that Khizr Khan's ancestors might have originally hailed from Arabia, but no historian has been able to trace, in fact none has tried to trace, the nature of the consanguinity of Khizr Khan to the Prophet's family. It was in all probability to associate honour with him, and silence the opposition to a simple Turk's mounting the throne of Delhi. It also affords proof of the importance of heredity in the medieval polity.

c9.s1.2

¹ T.M.S., 181; Badaonī, Ranking, I, 352.

c9.s1.3

² The story runs thus: Once Malik Mardān, Governor of Multan, invited Shaikh Jalāluddīn Bukhārī to his mansion. At the time of dinner Malik Sulaimān brought the ewer and bason for the saint to wash his hands. At this Shaikh Jalāl pointed out to Malik Mardān Daulat: "This lad is a Saiyyad-zādā and it is derogatory for him to do a menial service". It was in this strange way that the descent of Sulaimān is claimed to have been discovered, about which neither Malik Mardān nor any one in his court obviously knew anything. T.M.S., 181-82; T.A., I, 265. Badaonī, Ranking, I, 376. Ferishta, I, 161-62. Ferishta adds to his sources of information the *Tarikh-i-Mahmūd Shāhī* also.

c9.s1.4

Khizr Khan's career prior to his assuming the reins of government may be briefly recapitulated. Malik Mardān was governor of Multan in the time of Fīrōz Tughlaq. After Mardān's death the office devolved upon his son, Malik Shaikh, and on his death, on the latter's adopted brother Malik Sulaimān. When Sulaimān died, the government of Multan was conferred upon his son Malik Nasīrul Mulk by Sultan Fīrōz Shāh.³ In the civil war which followed in the wake of Fīrōz Shāh's death, Nasīrul Mulk threw in his lot with prince Muhammad against Abu Bakr and was awarded the title of Khizr Khan by him.⁴ Khizr Khan is next heard of when he was besieged and imprisoned by Sārang Khan in A.D. 1396 (798 H.) Having escaped from his bondage he took refuge with Shams Khan Auhadī of Bayana.⁵ From there he hastened to wait upon Tīmūr when the latter was marching on Delhi. The Amīr received him kindly and appointed him governor of Multan,⁶ Deopalpur and Lahore.⁷ After the departure of the great conqueror, he moved his pieces with calculated caution for full fifteen years till at length he secured the throne of Delhi.

c9.s1.5

³ Ferishta, I, 161; Badaonī, Ranking, I, 376. T.M.S., 182.

c9.s1.6

⁴ T.M.S., 147.

c9.s1.7

⁵ Both Z.N., II, 175 and M.T., E and D, III, 475 have Ahodan (اهودن) but the person referred to is Shams Khan Auhadī who was the Amīr of Bayana from about 1396 (800 H). Ferishta, I, 159, also has اوحدى.

c9.s1.8

⁶ Z.N., II, 175-76.

c9.s1.9

⁷ Ferishta, I, 159.

c9.s1.10

Persian chroniclers are all praise for Khizr Khan's excellent qualities which they think to be an additional proof of his alleged high descent. He is called generous, brave, gentle, kind, humble, temperate and true to his promise.⁸ His life was pious, his manners amiable and his morals pure.⁹ Be that as it may, Khizr Khan possessed all the tact and talents of a medieval soldier, politician and ruler. He was worldly-wise and clung to monarchical power with jealous alertness. He was watchful of the happenings in Hindustan and struck when he found the moment ripe for an attack.

c9.s1.11

⁸ T.M.S., 182, trs. by Basu, 188.

c9.s1.12

⁹ T.A., I, 265.

c9.s1.13

In the context of his character and antecedents, it is not at all surprising that Khizr Khan thought it discreet to associate the names of Tīmūr and his successor Shāh Rukh with the Delhi throne by including them in the Khutba.¹⁰ He also did not strike any coins in his own name,¹¹ and only restamped the coins of Fīrōz Tughlaq and his successors, after the fashion of Mallū Iqbāl Khan.¹² But that was probably because of the dearth of the precious metals for coining, so that most of the specimens available are those actually belonging to the reign of Fīrōz and other Tughlaq kings with dates altered on them.¹³ Besides, the Tughlaq money had established its reputation in the market and it was neither safe nor wise to replace it.

c9.s1.14

¹⁰ Indeed Tīmūr's successors had not forgotten India. At the time of his death, Pīr Muhammad Jahāngīr was present in the Punjab, obviously not just for sight-seeing. Abdur Razzāq affirms that Khizr Khan sent regular tributes to Shāh Rukh, son and successor of Tīmūr. So did Khizr Khan's successor Mubārak Khan. Abdur Razzāq: *Matl'aus S'ādain*, cited in Hodivala, 400. T.M.S., 217-18.

c9.s1.15

¹¹ Although Nizāmuddīn and Ferishta say that he did strike coins in the later part of his reign. T.A., I, 265-66; Ferishta, I, 162.

c9.s1.16

¹² Thomas, *Chronicles*, 328.

c9.s1.17

¹³ Thomas, *Chronicles*, 326, 329-30. The actual years of alteration under Khizr Khan's authority are indicated on the coins of Fīrōz Shāh ranging from 818 to 830 H and of Muhammad Shāh from 818 to 825 H. Also Nelson Wright, *Coinage and Metrology of the Sultans of Delhi*, 186, 201, 214. Khizr's son Mubārak Shāh first issued coins in his own name only in 832 H. N. Wright, 231-3.

c9.s1.18

The inclusion of the names of the Tīmūrides, however, did not in any way compromise Khizr Khan's position as the king. His historians address him by high sounding titles. Yahyā calls him Bandgī-i-Rāyāt-i-Ālā (Service of the Exalted or Imperial Standard)¹⁴ and Badaonī, Masnad-i-Ālā (The Exalted Throne).¹⁵ Khizr Khan's name was also introduced in the Khutba, a privilege exclusively of the kings, although a year after his accession.¹⁶ In view of this to assert that the Saiyyads were not recognised as kings in India or abroad,¹⁷ would not be correct. Khizr Khan had won the Sultanate by the sword and he and his successors maintained it by the sword for full thirty-seven years.

c9.s1.19

¹⁴ T.M.S., 181 ff.

c9.s1.20

¹⁵ T.A., I, 265 ff. ; Badaonī, Ranking, I, 375 ff. Ferishta, however, always addresses him as "Saiyyad Khizr Khan". Ferishta, I, 162.

c9.s1.21

¹⁶ T.A., I, 266, Ferishta, I, 162. According to *Tarikh-i-Alfī* in A.D. 1415-16 (819 H) with Shāh Rukh's permission. Qureshi, *Administration of the Sultanate of Delhi*, 37.

c9.s1.22

¹⁷ R.P. Tripathi, *Some Aspects of Muslim Administration*, 78-79.

c9.s1.23

As has been seen, Khizr Khan took possession of Delhi in June, 1414. He did not wreak any senseless vengeance on the people or order any massacres. On the contrary the inhabitants of the city who had suffered much during the last few years were given gifts, pensions and allowances.¹⁸ By degrees most of the nobles submitted to him and many of them were permitted to retain their offices, parganās and districts which they had held in the time of Sultan Mahmūd. Governmental machinery was reorganised. Malikul Sharq Malik Tuhfā was given the title of Tājul Mulk and the office of the Vazīr. Saiyyad Sālim¹⁹ received the *iqt‘ā* of Sahāranpūr. Malik Abdur Rahīm, an adopted son of Malik Sulaimān, was awarded the title of 'Alāulmulk and the government of Multan and Fatehpur.²⁰ Malik Sarwar²¹ was appointed viceregent and Shahnā (magistrate) of the city. Malik Khairuddīn was appointed the Muster-Master; Malik Kālū, the keeper of the elephants and Malik Dāūd, Deputy to the Secretary (Naib Dabīr). The charge of the Doab was entrusted to Ikhtiyār Khan.²²

c9.s1.24

¹⁸ T.M.S., 183.

c9.s1.25

¹⁹ Saiyyadus S‘adāt, Saiyyad Sālim, was chief of the fraternity known as the Saiyyads of Bārah, whose ancestors had settled in Muzaffarnagar. In course of time they became great military leaders and served the Sultans of Delhi well. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries they held many important offices in the State. T.M.S., Basu; 189n. Also Blochmann, Āīn, II, 425 ff.

c9.s1.26

²⁰ T.M.S., 183; Ferishta, I, 162.

c9.s1.27

²¹ T.A., I, 266 and E and D, IV, 47. T.M.S., 183 has Sarūb or Sarūp which does not seem to be correct.

c9.s1.28

²² T.M.S., 183.

Struggle for Establishment of Sovereignty

c9.s2.1

With Khizr Khan’s accession the Punjab, Sindh and Uttar Pradesh were reunited to the Sultanate of Delhi. But these were not quite submissive. Specially the whole of western Uttar Pradesh, accustomed to rebellion for more than a decade, hardly paid any revenue. It was then the granary of Hindustan, and like Iqbāl Khan, Khizr Khan decided to fight for the recognition of his authority in the western Uttar Pradesh first. In the very year of his accession²³ he sent the Vazīr, Tājul Mulk Tuhfā, against Rai Virama Singh (Har Singh of Chronicles) of Rohilkhand, called Katehār²⁴ after its inhabitants the Katehriya Rajputs. Crossing the Jumna near Ahār, situated between Bulandshahr and Moradabad,²⁵ and the Ganga at the ford of Pirāha,²⁶ Tājul Mulk entered Katehār, pillaged the countryside and compelled Virama Singh to pay taxes and tribute.²⁷ The Vazīr then proceeded to Badaon where he obtained the submission of its ruler Mahābat Khan. From there, marching by the side of the river Rahāb, he recrossed the Ganga at the ford of Saragdwārī²⁸ and entered the Farukhābād district. Turning westward, he fought the zamindars of Khor²⁹ and Kāmpil³⁰ and then went to Saket³¹ and Bādham.³² His lightning march was quite impressive, for Hasan Khan, Amīr of Rapri,³³ and his brother Malik Hamza, readily joined him. Thus encouraged, he turned southward to Gwalior and exacted revenue and taxes from Gwalior, Seori³⁴ and Chandwār. Jalesar was wrested from the zamindar of Chandwār and handed over to the Muslims who had formerly held it.³⁵ Tājul Mulk once again turned to the east and marching along the Āb-i-Siyāh or Kālī Nadī, he sacked Etawah of Rai Sumer. He then returned to Delhi.

c9.s2.2

²³ *Ibid.*, 184.

c9.s2.3

²⁴ In the Medieval period Rohilkhand or the Bareilly division of U.P. was called Katehār. It was named after its inhabitants the Katehriya Rajputs, who, according to tribal traditions, came from Tirhut in the 13th and 14th centuries.

c9.s2.4

²⁵ Lat. 28° 27', Long. 78° 18'.

c9.s2.5

²⁶ Badaoni, Ranking, I, 377.

c9.s2.6

²⁷ T.M.S., 184, has محصول و مال خدمتی (i.e. taxes and tribute).

c9.s2.7

²⁸ The town of Saragdwārī was founded by Muhammad bin Tughlaq about the year 739 H (A.D. 1338-39) when he went there to provide relief to the famine stricken populace. Saragdwārī had a ford where the Ganga was crossed. T.M.S., 184; Ishwari Prasad, *Qaraunah Turks*, I, 157-58.

c9.s2.8

²⁹ T.M.S., 184. T.A., 266, has كهورك الان بشمس آباد دارند (Khorak which is now famous by the name of Shamsābād). It is situated in 27° 33′ N and 79° 33′ E about 6 miles east of Shamsābād. The old town of Khor was founded about the beginning of the 13th century by a Rathor chief. To-day it is nothing more than a mound called the Kot or fort of the Khor Rajas. Some Kanyakubja Brahmans still use the old name and call themselves as "Khor kē Pandē". The modern town of Shamsābād was built upon the ruins of Khor. It lies 18 miles N.W. of Fatehgarh, and had a fort in Akbar's time. Āīn, II, 196. District Gaz. Farukhābād, 255. Hunter, Gaz. of India, XII, 375.

c9.s2.9

³⁰ Kāmpil is a village 28 miles N.W. of Fatehgarh, district Farukhabad.

c9.s2.10

³¹ T.M.S., 184 n, gives a number of readings of this place-name, but it is certainly Sākét in Etah district. It lies on the direct route between Kāmpil and Rāprī, 12 miles S.E. of Etah and 24 N.W. of Mainpurī. It was near here that Bahlūl Lodī died. It is shown in Constable 27 Db.

c9.s2.11

³² T.M.S., 184, has بارهم. MS. I has بارهم. T.A. has بادهم—Bādham or Pādham, which seems to be the correct form. Pādham is the name of an ancient village in Mainpurī district. It is situated on the road to Etah near the Arind river, 23 miles from Mainpurī and 18 miles from Shikohābād in 27° 20′ N. 78° 40′ E. District Gaz. Mainpurī, 83, 146, 245-6. Some coins of satraps of Mathura (Circa A.D. 100) have been found at Padham. Arch. Sur. Rep., XI, 25, 38.

c9.s2.12

³³ The village of Rāprī, in Shikohābād Tehsīl, is situated 44 miles S.W. of Mainpurī district town; 26° 58′ N and 78° 36′ E. It is said to have been founded by one Zorāwar Singh, also known as Rapar Sen. Hunter, Gaz. of Ind., XI, 511. Situated at a bend of the Jumna, B.N. (B), II, 643, it was a Mahāl in the Sarkar of Agra in Akbar's time. Āīn, II, 183, 194.

c9.s2.13

³⁴ T.A., I, 266 has Rabri.

c9.s2.14

³⁵ T.M.S., 184-85.

c9.s2.15

While eulogizing the work of the Vazir, Badaoni adds that by giving Jalesar back to the Muslims, Tājul Mulk "gave fresh currency to the Muhammadan religion".³⁶ But the situation was not so bright. The Sultanate had grown so weak indeed that local rajas and zamindars enjoyed independence undisturbed by moves from Delhi. For the Sultanate it was a struggle for survival; its star was at its nadir. The boast of Badaonī, therefore, has no foundation in so far as the present achievements of Delhi were concerned. In the far-off regions of Kashmir and Gujarat, however, Sultan Sikandar Shāh (a.d. 1394-1417) and Ahmad Shāh II (a.d. 1411-42) respectively were carrying on a policy of persecution of the Hindus.³⁷

c9.s2.16

³⁶ Badaonī, Ranking, I, 377.

c9.s2.17

³⁷ Ferishta, II, 182-185; *Mirāt-i-Sikandarī*, 29.

c9.s2.18

Tājul Mulk's exploits of a.d. 1414-15 had been impressive, but they had failed to yield any permanent results. No sooner had he turned his back, than the region returned to old conditions and the chiefs and zamindars withheld payment of tribute. They had learnt the trick of bowing before a transitory storm, and then to resume their old ways. But Khizr Khan was determined on their subjugation. Unlike Iqbāl Khan he did not fight against far-off kingdoms like Jaunpur, but concentrated his attention on the region of Katehār (140 miles east of Delhi), Etawah (200 miles south-east) and Gwalior (190 miles south of Delhi) and the region within this range he decided to bring under effective control even if it meant sending yearly expeditions for collecting revenue.

c9.s2.19

Accordingly, in a.d. 1416-17 (819 H.)³⁸ the Vazīr was sent with a large army to Bayana and thence to Gwalior; both had assumed independence during the decade of decline. At Bayana, Malik Karīm-ul-Mulk, brother of Shams Khan Auhadī the founder of the house, came to wait upon him and the town was spared, but Gwalior was sacked and its Rai compelled to pay the tribute. Once more Tājul Mulk crossed the Jumna opposite Chandwār and taking the old route entered Katehār. He exactted tribute from Virama Singh, and then returned to Delhi.

c9.s2.20

³⁸ T.M.S., 185.

c9.s2.21

While the Vazīr was busy in the south and east, Khizr Khan sent his son Mubārak Khan (Shahzādā-i-Mu'azzam) to manage the restive elements in the west. Districts of Fīrōzpur and Sarhind and all the *iqt'ās* of Bairam Khan Turkbachchā were placed in his charge,³⁹ and Malik Sadhū Nadira⁴⁰ was appointed his deputy (*naib*). The Prince and his deputy, in co-operation with Zīrak Khan, the ruler of Samānā, brought the country to order. Mubārak Khan thereafter returned to Delhi in February, 1416 (Zilhijja). But within four months of his departure the near relatives of Bairam Khan, who could hardly bear the loss of Sarhind, sought the help of their leader Tughān Raīs and they attacked, defeated and killed Malik Nadira. At this Khizr Khan despatched Malik Dāūd and Zīrak Khan to deal with the rebels. On hearing them approach, the Turkbachchās crossed the Sutlej and retreated to the lower slopes of the Himalayas. Zīrak Khan marched in their pursuit, but the zamindars of the mountains, which are a continuance of the hills of Nagarkot,⁴¹ actively helped the Turkbachchās and after a couple of months the royalists, finding that they could hardly achieve anything much in that difficult terrain, withdrew.⁴²

c9.s2.22

³⁹ Which virtually meant the Eastern Punjab. Fīrōzpūr is a district in the Punjab, now quite close to the Pakistan border. Sarhind lies between the Sutlej and the Jumna.

c9.s2.23

⁴⁰ T.M.S., 185 has ملك سدهو نادره (Malik Sadhu Nadira). T.A., I, 267 has سدهو ناهر (Sadhu Nāhar). Badaonī, Ranking, I, 378 has Malik Sadhu Nādir.

c9.s2.24

⁴¹ Ferishta, I, 162.

c9.s2.25

⁴² T.M.S., 186; also Badaonī, Ranking, I, 378.

c9.s2.26

The failure of Sarhind was followed by further discomforting news. In August-September, 1416 (Rajjab, 819 H) Khizr Khan was informed that Sultan Ahmad Shāh of Gujarat had marched to Nagor⁴³ and had invested it.⁴⁴ The event was not without significance for Delhi, the more so because of the growing supremacy of Gujarat over Rajputana.⁴⁵ And although Ahmad Shāh had a reason for the invasion of Nagor,⁴⁶ yet Khizr Khan could not remain a silent spectator of his movements and let the peril approach too close to the borders of his kingdom.

c9.s2.27

⁴³ Nagor lies 75 miles N.E. of Jodhpur. It is situated in Lat. 27° 11′, Long. 73° 46′.

c9.s2.28

⁴⁴ T.M.S., 186; Ferishta, I, 162-3; II, 185.

c9.s2.29

⁴⁵ Commissariat, I, 82. Bombay Gazetteer, VIII, Kathiawar, 286. Bayley, *Gujarat*, 98. Also Feristha, II, 184.

c9.s2.30

⁴⁶ In A.D. 1414 Ahmad Shāh was confronted by a formidable palace conspiracy which aspired to place his uncle Fīrōz on the throne of Gujarat. The trouble was nipped in the bud and Fīrōz fled to Nagor, and although he was killed by its Raja there, Ahmad Shāh attacked Nagor in August, 1416. Ferishta, II, 184; *Mirāt-i-Sikandarī*, 29-30.

c9.s2.31

He at once marched towards Nagor passing through Tonk⁴⁷ and Todah⁴⁸ on the way. On this Ahmad Shāh retreated towards Dhār, the capital of Malwa. It is difficult to assert that it was Khizr Khan's approach that had made Ahmad Shāh retire, for at that very time, nearer home, the Hindu Rajas of Idar, Champaner, Jhalawar and Nagor, tired of Ahmad's religious intolerance, had formed a confederacy against him⁴⁹ which was also joined by the Muslim ruler of Malwa, ever jealous of Gujarat's ascendancy. Thus situated, Ahmad Shāh could not have safely stayed away in Rajputana. But his retreat to Gujarat almost appeared as Khizr Khan's victory. This had a sobering effect on many independent princes. Thus as Khizr Khan was returning towards Delhi, Iliyās Khan, governor of Shahr-i-Nau or Jhaīn,⁵⁰ made his submission. Similarly the Raja of Gwalior and Karīmul Mulk, the brother of Shams Khan Auhadī of Bayana,⁵¹ paid taxes and tribute. In a triumphant mood Khizr Khan returned to Delhi.

c9.s2.32

⁴⁷ In Rajputana situated in Lat. 26° 10′, Long. 75° 56′.

c9.s2.33

⁴⁸ Todah is situated 63 miles S.W. of Jaipur; Lat. 26° 4′, Long. 75° 39′.

c9.s2.34

⁴⁹ *Mirāt-i-Sikandarī*, 33.

c9.s2.35

⁵⁰ Jhaīn got its new name of Shahr-i-Nau when Ulugh Khan took it in 1301 in 'Alāuddīn Khaljī's time. *History of the Khaljīs*, 101 and n.

c9.s2.36

⁵¹ Yahya (T.M.S., 186) as well as all other chroniclers write that Shams Khan Auhadi met Khizr Khan. That is a mistake. Shams Khan was killed by Mallū Iqbāl Khan in A.D. 1401 (803 H). It was certainly Karīmul Mulk, brother of Shams Khan, who was governing Bayana, and met Tājul Mulk when the latter visited Bayana early that year.

c9.s2.37

Soon after the Sultan ordered Zīrak Khan to march against Tughān Raīs, who had murdered Sadhū Nadira, and now invested his successor Malik Badhan in Sarhind. On Zīrak Khan's approach the Turkbachchās raised the siege. But the royal commander chased them up to Pāīl⁵² and compelled Tughān Raīs to pay a large indemnity and send one of his sons as hostage. For this act of abject subservience he was rewarded with the *iqṭ‘ā* of Jalandhar.⁵³

c9.s2.38

⁵² T.M.S., 187 has پایل (Pāil) and so has T.A., I, 267. Other MSS. of T.M.S. (text note 3, 187) have باید (Bāid) and بابل (Bābul). K. K. Basu (T.M.S. trans., 193, n. 8) says that Pāil may safely be identified with Baila in the Dehradun district on a high mountain. Lat. 30° 45′, Long. 78°47′. But he is not correct. This Pāil, now a railway station, lies 25 miles N.W. of Sarhind as the crow flies.

c9.s2.39

⁵³ Jalandhar is a place of great antiquity. It has been described by Hieun Tsang as then being a town two miles in circuit. It is also mentioned by Ptolemy by the name of Kulindrinepr Sulindrine. See Cunningham, A. G. I. 135. Hunter, Gaz. of Ind., VII, 91. Ranking, note in Badaonī, 382.

c9.s2.40

Taking advantage of the trouble in the Punjab, Vīrama Singh of Katehār rose in revolt in A.D. 1418 (821 H). Tājul Mulk’s punitive expeditions in the Doab-Katehār region in 1414 and 1416 had exasperated Vīrama into defying the authority of the Sultanate. Khizr Khan ordered Tājul Mulk to proceed against Vīrama, but the latter was prepared for the worst. He laid waste his own country after the time-honoured scorched-earth policy, and escaped into the forest surrounding Aonla in the Kamaon hills.⁵⁴ Unable to deal with the object of his pursuit, the Vazīr “contented himself with the ignoble but customary satisfaction of plundering the people”.⁵⁵ To carry his mission further Tājul Mulk proceeded to Etawah. He crossed the Ganga at the ford of Bijlānā⁵⁶ and then besieged Etawah. Finding his countryside put to indiscriminate plunder,⁵⁷ Rai Sumēr made peace by giving tribute and rendering homage. But Tājul Mulk’s devastating progress had exasperated the people of the region so that within six months Khizr Khan himself had to march out to bring to book the disaffected western Uttar Pradesh. But the more the raids the greater the resistance. Perhaps a policy of conciliation would have brought about better results. Not only did the rulers of Gwalior, Katehār and Etawah never submit to Khizr Khan, but his policy of continuous repression turned even friends into foes. The instance of Mahābat Khan, ruler of Badaon, amply bears out this thesis.

c9.s2.41

⁵⁴ T.M.S., 187; Ferishta, I, 162. Aonla is now a full-fledged town shown on modern maps, Lat. 28° 16′, Long. 79° 12′.

c9.s2.42

⁵⁵ C.H.I., III, 207.

c9.s2.43

⁵⁶ T.M.S., 188 has بجلانه and so have Badaonī, Ranking, I, 379, and T.A., I, 268. Ferishta, I, 162 (fourth line from bottom) alone has “he came to Badaon and crossed the Ganga.” The “Bajlānā” of the chroniclers was, therefore, near Badaon and can certainly not be Bijnor as suggested by K. K. Basu, in his translation of the T.M.S., 194 n. 5. Bajlānā is a misreading for Pachtana. It was a *sarkar* in Kol, Sūba Agra (Āīn, Trs., II, 186). It now does not lie on Ganga as the river has changed its course, but on “the old Ganga” in Kasgunj Tehsil, district Etah. Elliot, *Races*, II, 97. I.G. XV, 69.

c9.s2.44

⁵⁷ Ferishta, I, 162.

c9.s2.45

On his punitive expedition Khizr Khan had first chastised the inhabitants of Kol (Aligarh), situated within eighty miles of the capital city, and then had scoured the region of the Rahāb and Sambhal.⁵⁸ Mahābat Khan, the governor of Badaon, who was present in the Sultan's camp, having had a foreboding that his own fief might be attacked, fled from the camp and entrenched himself in Badaon. Mahābat Khan was a nobleman of Nāsiruddīn Mahmūd Shāh,⁵⁹ but after the new dynasty had come to the helm of affairs he had turned loyal to Khizr Khan and whenever Tājul Mulk had marched to Katehar Mahābat had showed him due deference. But now for no ostensible reason Khizr Khan had scared him, and when he fled for safety Khizr Khan laid siege to Badaon in January, A.D. 1419 (Zilhijja, 821 H.).⁶⁰

c9.s2.46

⁵⁸ Sambhal lies 22 miles west of Moradabad.

c9.s2.47

⁵⁹ Ferishta, I, 162.

c9.s2.48

⁶⁰ T.M.S., 189.

c9.s2.49

The investment went on for six months.⁶¹ The rebellion of such an old and trusted nobleman, who had a number of friends and supporters in the royal camp, was not easy to deal with. It was reported that Amīrs and Maliks such as Qawām Khan, Ikhtiyār Khan⁶² and many officers of Mahmūd Shāh were sympathising with the rebel. To isolate them from Mahābat Khan, Khizr Khan raised the siege even when "victory was imminent".⁶³ On his way to Delhi he invited all the suspected nobles, including Qawām Khan and Ikhtiyār Khan, to a function arranged on the banks of the Ganga and there got them done to death.⁶⁴

c9.s2.50

⁶¹ T.M.S., 189; Badaonī, Ranking, I, 380; T.A., I, 268; Ferishta, I, 162-63.

c9.s2.51

⁶² Ferishta, I, 163 has Ikhtiyār Khan Lodī.

c9.s2.52

⁶³ T.M.S., 189.

c9.s2.53

⁶⁴ On 14 June, 1419 (20 Jamadiul Avval, 822 H) according to both Yahyā and Nizāmuddīn. T.M.S., 189; T.A., I, 268. Only Ferishta, I, 163 has 8 Jamadiul Avval.

Pseudo-Sārang and Tughān Raīs

c9.s3.1

Interested groups were not slow to take advantage of such a state of affairs, and an impostor from Bajwara,⁶⁵ a dependency of Jalandhar, declared himself to be Sārang Khan.⁶⁶ It was well known that Sārang Khan had been killed during Tīmūr’s invasion,⁶⁷ but many people, some foolish and ignorant while others clever and interested, joined the Pretender. It was Sārang Khan who had expelled Khizr Khan from Multan a little before Tīmūr’s invasion, and his very name must have given the Sultan a creeping feeling as well as revived bitter memories in his mind. He therefore immediately directed Malik Sultan Shāh (subsequently entitled Islam Khan),⁶⁸ belonging to a family of the Lodī clan recently domiciled in India and holding the governorship of Sarhind, to march against the impostor. In July, 1419 (Rajjab, 822 H)⁶⁹ Sultan Shāh marched with his forces from Sarhind. On the way he was joined by Zīrak Khan of Samana and Tughān Raīs of Jalandhar.⁷⁰ The pseudo-Sārang together with the forces of Khwājā ’Alī Māzindrānī,⁷¹ the Amīr of Jath in Sindh⁷² who had joined him, advanced from Bajwara to Rupar to meet Sultan Shāh. The latter succeeded in inflicting a crushing defeat on the rebels, who retreated into the Simla hills. The royalists occupied Rupar, where they were joined by Malik Khairuddīn who had been sent from Delhi to help quell the rebellion.⁷³ They combed the mountains but the Pretender succeeded in eluding them. Finding the task hopeless, the royal commanders returned to their respective fiefs. Khizr Khan had failed against the Pretender, but the latter soon fell a victim to the perfidy of Tughān Raīs who inveigled him into his power, not so much from any sense of loyalty to the Sultanate as for possessing the great wealth which the impostor had amassed, and later put him to death in February, 1420 (Muharram, 823 H).⁷⁴ Howsoever his fall was brought about, the death of the Pretender was Khizr Khan’s gain.

c9.s3.2

⁶⁵ Yahyā and all other chroniclers except Ferishta have Bajwara. Yahyā also adds that it was a dependency of Jalandhar (T.M.S., 189). Bajwara lies 1½ miles east of Hoshiarpur and 25 miles N.E. of Jalandhar. (Hunter, Imp. Gaz., II, 439). Only Ferishta makes it Machchīwara. Machchīwara lies 23 miles south of Ludhiana on the Sutlej and is said to be a very ancient city having been mentioned in the *Mahābharata*. Ferishta is mistaken and the place of the Pretender was certainly Bajwara. Also see Ranking's note in Badaonī, I, 380; T.A., De, note 297 and Rennel's map.

c9.s3.3

⁶⁶ T.A., I, 269; Ferishta, I, 163.

c9.s3.4

⁶⁷ Ferishta, I, 163. Also E and D, IV, 51 n.

c9.s3.5

⁶⁸ T.M.S., 189; Ferishta, I, 163.

c9.s3.6

⁶⁹ T.M.S., 189; T.A., I, 269.

c9.s3.7

⁷⁰ T.M.S., 190.

c9.s3.8

⁷¹ E and D, IV, 51, has Indarabi and Basu, translator of T.M.S., repeats the mistake. T.A., I, 269, also wrongly has اندرابی. It is clearly given in T.M.S., text, 190, as مازندرانی, i.e. Khwājā ’Alī belonging to Māzindarān.

c9.s3.9

⁷² Jāth or Jhet may be Chāth or Chahat which was a Mahāl in the Sarkar of Sindh and lay on the Ghaggar. Āīn. Trs. II, 296.

c9.s3.10

⁷³ T.M.S., 190; T.A., I, 269.

c9.s3.11

⁷⁴ T.M.S., 190-91.

c9.s3.12

Simultaneously in the east Tājul Mulk was busy collecting the annual revenue. Marching through and sacking Baran (Bulandshahr), Kol (Aligarh) and Deoli, “which was a stronghold of the infidels,”⁷⁵ he arrived at Etawah. The inhabitants of the countryside were plundered and the fort invested, whereupon Rai Sumēr paid the usual revenue or tribute. Chandwār was plundered next and revenue was collected from Vīr Singh of Katēhar and Mahābat Khan of Badaon.

c9.s3.13

⁷⁵ T.M.S., 191 has موضع دهلی. So has T.A., I, 269. This Dehili must be Deoli-Jakhan near Etawah. Deoli lies about 20 miles N.E. of Etawah. Even now Chouhans are found there in great strength. U.P. Gaz., X, Mainpuri, 94, 151, 204; Elliot, *Races*, II, 86.

c9.s3.14

Hardly had Tājul Mulk returned from his expedition when in August, 1420 (Rajjab, 823 H) Tughān Raīs, strengthened by the treasure he had seized and afraid of some action on the part of Khizr Khan, unfurled the standard of revolt. He pillaged the tract up to Mansūrpur and Pāil⁷⁶ in the northern Punjab and then laid siege to the fort of Sarhind. Malik Khairuddīn marched from Delhi via Samana, where he was joined by Zīrak Khan, to deal with the rebel. On their approach Tughān Raīs raised the siege and retreated, crossing the Sutlej near Ludhiana.⁷⁷ The royal commanders too crossed the river and inflicted on him a crushing defeat. The rebel fled to seek refuge with Jasrat Khokhar⁷⁸ and his fief of Jalandhar was bestowed upon Zīrak Khan.

c9.s3.15

⁷⁶ T.M.S., 191.

c9.s3.16

⁷⁷ T.M.S., 192. Ferishta wrongly has Lohānā.

c9.s3.17

⁷⁸ T.M.S., 191-92.

c9.s3.18

Early in the year A. D. 1421 (824 H) Khizr Khan marched into Mewat, where trouble was brewing. The Kotla of its erstwhile ruler Bahādur Nāhar was taken in the first assault and thoroughly sacked. Some recalcitrant Mewatīs escaped into the mountains while the others made their submission. Khizr Khan then turned towards Gwalior. During the march the loyal and veteran general Malik Tājul Mulk passed away on 13 January, 1421 (8 Muharram, 824 H).⁷⁹ He had rendered invaluable service to the Sultanate in the most trying times, and had almost killed himself with exertion in the act of bringing the recalcitrants to book. It was, therefore, in the fitness of things that Khizr Khan should bestow upon his eldest son Malik Sikandar Tuhfā the office of Vazārat and the title of Malikul Sharq (Lord of the East) enjoyed by Tājul Mulk.

c9.s3.19

⁷⁹ *Ibid.*, 192.

c9.s3.20

From Gwalior Khizr Khan collected the stipulated tribute and then proceeded to Etawah. Rai Sumēr had died and his son Deva Rai purchased peace on the usual terms of payment of revenue or tribute. Here the monarch fell ill. In all haste he returned to Delhi, but only to breathe his last on Tuesday, 20 May, 1421 (17 Jamadiul Avval, 824 H).⁸⁰

c9.s3.21

⁸⁰ T.M.S., 192; T.A., I, 270; Badaoni, Ranking, I, 381; Ferishta, I, 163. His tomb lies in Okhla to the S.E. of Khizerābād. Asār, chap. II, 25-6. Carr Stephen, 159; List, IV, No. 17. J.I.H., XXXI, 1953, 211.

A Resume of Khizr Khan's Work

c9.s4.1

Khizr Khan had died after a reign of seven years.⁸¹ He had learnt from the experience of Mallū Iqbāl Khan and Sultan Mahmūd that too many irons in the fire resulted in success in no quarter. Therefore, he formulated no ambitious schemes. He did not take cudgels against Jaunpur or Gujarat. True he marched towards Rajputana when Gujarat threatened his position, and tried to quell insurrection in the Punjab, but otherwise he mainly concentrated on stamping out sedition within a perimeter of about 200 miles from Delhi—up to Samana in the west, Katēhar in the east, Etawah in the south-east and Bayana and Jhaīn in the south and south-west. He created a terrible stir in that region, and although time was needed for its complete subjugation, yet the petty and prominent chiefs of this area were ever kept reminded that they could live in peace only if they made their submission. Rebels in the Punjab were dealt with with a strong hand, and taxes and tributes were exacted from the Doab, Katēhar, Mewat and Gwalior regions, year after year. In the circumstances obtaining, it was no mean achievement that he had managed to keep his territories intact, if not augment them. This was mainly possible because Khizr Khan trusted his officers. He never changed their assignments. Tājul Mulk was always sent to the east, and though his success there was partial, his area of action was never transferred. Similarly Zīrak Khan was left to look after the west. Experience in their respective areas added to their strength in dealing with the rebellious elements.

c9.s4.2

⁸¹ Ferishta says that he reigned for seven years and four months, while Nizāmuddīn Ahmad is accurate in saying that he reigned for seven years, two months and two days. This is according to the Lunar Calendar. According to the Solar Calendar he ruled for seven years, short by a fortnight.

c9.s4.3

However, Khizr Khan's policies and achievements had certain shortcomings. The yearly collection of revenue at the point of the bayonet was not a happy affair. While it exasperated the local chiefs, the state could not be sure of a regular revenue, and hence its finances remained shaky. Perhaps the best proof of it is that throughout his and his dynasty's rule the coins struck are uniformly of copper, and the old silver and gold coins of India completely disappear.⁸² Moreover Khizr Khan's preoccupation in the difficult region of western Uttar Pradesh left him no time to deal with the kingdom of Jaunpur which went on growing from strength to strength under its talented monarch Ibrāhīm Sharqī. Besides, to maintain his position and to deal with the rebels of the Punjab, he had to requisition the services of Afghan leaders and men. The ascendancy of the Afghans during the reign of Khizr Khan and that of his successors, in the long run proved to be disastrous for the Saiyyad dynasty.

c9.s4.4

⁸² Pringle Kennedy, *op. cit.*, I, 85.

Cites (2)