Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of the Qaraunah Turks in India c10: Chapter V. Disorders of the Realm

History of the Qaraunah Turks in India c10

Language
English

Contents

Chapter V. Disorders of the Realm

c10.2.1

The year 1335 A.D. marks the beginning of decline in the fortunes of Muhammad Tughluq. His policy was largely responsible for the rebellions that broke out in all parts of the empire. The failure of his administrative measures accompanied by a heavy financial loss made him unpopular, and did not a little to shake the foundations of his power. The drastic punishments which he inflicted upon his subjects, sorely tried by famine, gave a shock to the confidence which they had previously reposed in him. The provincial satraps, whose authority Muhammad had restricted within very narrow limits, tried to use the failures of their sovereign to their own advantage. Fully aware of the difficulties into which the Sultan had been plunged by his idealism, they began to organise their resources and make preparations for independence. The half-subdued and discontented men all over the empire profited by his misfortunes, and the *amirs Sadah* who had settled in the provinces did all they could to foster sedition and conspiracy against his authority. The jealousy that prevailed between the foreign and the native *amirs* greatly hampered the progress of orderly government. One thing remarkable throughout the history of the Muslim domination in India is the tendency to revolt on the part of the governors in the outlying provinces of the empire.

c10.2.2

These governors often acted as independent rulers, and in an age when the means of communication were far from adequate, and the highways mostly unsafe, the treasures of the state accumulated in the provinces, and furnished sinews of war to those who wished to shake off the yoke of the sovereign power. The two rebellions that occurred in the early part of the reign were ruthlessly put down, but the sentences which the Sultan inflicted upon the malefactors were seared upon the minds of other governors who trembled for their safety, and felt certain of their doom unless they stirred betimes to guard themselves against royal wrath. The disintegrating forces that lie beneath the surface in a feudal state began to operate, and derived fresh strength from every mistake of the Sultan. The ‘infidel’ majority that had acquiesced in Muslim domination simply because Kaithali, the father of Malik Ibrahim, a feoffee of the Sultan, who was generally known as Hasan Kangu, and who eventually obtained the sovereignty of the Deccan with the title of ‘Ala-al-Din Bahman Shah fomented a revolt in Ma‘bar on the grounds of severity of the Sultan's governors, and the innovations introduced in the laws and the number of executions, and gained over to his own party nearly all the great men of Dihli who had been appointed to that district.’⁵ Firishta who probably copies Badaoni assigns 742 A.H.

c10.2.3

as the date of the rebellion⁶ and this is accepted by the French translators of Ibn Batūtah⁷ and by Edward Thomas. Yule in his ‘*Cathay and the Way Thither*’ accepts 1338-9 as the date of this rebellion.⁸ Hajji-ad-Dabir who follows Barani in this respect writes that the Sultan heard the news of the revolt of Sayyid Ahsan, while he was still in the neighbourhood of Kanauj.⁹ Barani who places the revolt after Fakhrā’s rebellion corrects himself by saying that the Sultan heard the news while he was busy in the districts of Kanauj and Dalmau. The date of Indian historians is proved to be wrong by the testimony of Ibn Batūtah and the evidence of coins. Dr. Hultzsch who carefully examined the coins of the Sultans of Madura has come to the conclusion that Muhammad Tughluq’s authority was recognised in the Deccan till 734 A.H.¹⁰ It is clear from the coins cited by him that they were issued by Muhammad, because they bear upon them the superscription الامام العادل العادل of which the emperor was so fond.¹¹ The first coin of Jalal-al-Din Ahsan Shah is dated 735 A.H. As to the identity of this coin (No. 4 in Dr. Hultzsch’s collection plate opposite to page 680) there can be no doubt, for it bears the same superscription on it as is mentioned by Ibn Batūtah. Further, Ahsan Shah boasted of being a descendant of the Prophet, as the appellation Sayyid signifies, and the superscription contains the words Tāhā and Yāsīn, which occur also in Ibn Batūtah.

c10.2.4

Ibn Batūtah’s testimony is reliable, because he had married Hoornasab, a daughter of the Sharif,¹² and must have been intimately acquainted with him. He started from Dihli on the 17th Safar, 743 A.H. (July 22, 1342 A.D.) and after having passed through many vicissitudes reached the Maldive Islands, which he left on the 15th Rabi-'al-Sani, 745 A.H. (August 26, 1344 A.D.) for Ceylon from which place he went to Ma'bar. He must have reached Ma'bar sometime in 745 A.H. His account is as follows:—

c10.3

⁵ Ranking, Al-Badaoni, I, p. 309.

c10.4

⁶ Firishta, Lucknow Text, p. 137.

c10.5

⁷ Ibn Batūtah, III, Advertisement, p. XXI.

c10.6

⁸ Yule, Cathay and the Way Thither, Vol. IV, Series II, p. 34.

c10.7

⁹ Sir Denison Ross's copy of the Arabic History of Gujarat, p. 864.

c10.8

¹⁰ J.R.A.S., 1922, p. 344.

c10.9

¹¹ J.R.A.S., 1909. pp. 667—83.

c10.10

¹² Of this woman Ibn Batūtah writes:— "She was a pious woman who kept awake the whole night and remained busy in reading prayers. She bore a daughter, but I do not know what has become of both of them. This wife (of mine) could read, but she did not know how to write." III, pp. 337-38.

c10.11

"Ghiyas-al-Din Damghāni is the present ruler of Ma'bar. He was formerly employed in the service of Malik Mujir bin Abu Rajā, a trooper in the army of Muhammad Tughluq. Afterwards he entered the service of Amir Haji, son of Sultan Jalal-al-Din, and subsequently assumed kingship under the title of Sultan Ghiyas-al-Din. Ma'bar was formerly included in the empire of Dihli, but my father-in-law Jalal-al-Din Ahsan Shah rebelled and ruled unmolested for five years. He was followed by 'Ala-al-Din Udaiji who after one year attacked a Hindu Raja and captured much booty. Next year, he led an expedition against the Hindus and defeated them, but he was himself killed by an arrow in the fight when he took off his helmet to drink water. He was succeeded by his son-in-law Qutb-al-Din, but the latter turned out a worthless man and was slain after 40 days. After him Ghiyas-al-Din became king."¹³ This account is corroborated by numismatic evidence. We have coins of 'Ala-al-Din Udaiji Shah dated 740 A.H., of Qutb-al-Din Firuz Shah dated 740 A.H. and of Ghiyas-al-Din Damghān Shah dated 741 A.H. and of his successor Nāsir-al-Din Mahmud Ghazi Damghān Shah dated 745 A.H. Ibn Batūtah's order and chronology are completely confirmed. If we accept 741 A.H. as the date of Ahsan Shah's rebellion, Ghiyas-al-Din Damghān Shah would come to the throne after nearly seven years that is in 747-48 A.H. which is not the case, for Ibn Batūtah found him ruling in Madura in 745 A.H. and stayed at his court for sometime.¹⁴ Besides, Dr. Hultzsch has a coin of Ghiyas-al-Din Damghān Shah which is dated 741 A.H. The name of the Sultan and the year of issue, 741 A.H. are legibly inscribed on the coin. Ahsan Shah must have proclaimed his independence early in 735 A.H., for Ibn Batūṭah says that on hearing the news of this revolt the Sultan started for Ma‘bar on the 9th Jamad-al-awwal (he does not give the year).¹⁵ The date 735 A.H. is further supported by the evidence of inscriptions. There is an inscription at Panaiyur in the Tirumeyyam Taluk of the Pudukotta state which refers to the ninth year of “Muhammadi Sultan” (Sultan Muhammad). This would mean that in 1334 A.D. reckoning from 725 A.H. (1325 A.D.) the date of Muhammad’s accession to the throne, the authority of Muhammad was recognised in the south.¹⁶

c10.12

¹³ Ibn Batūtah, III, pp. 337-38.

c10.13

¹⁴ Ibn Batūtah, IV, pp. 189-90.

c10.14

¹⁵ Ibn Batūṭah, III, p. 427. This date corresponds to January 5, 1335 A.D. The revolt must have occurred sometime in 1334 A.D.

c10.15

¹⁶ Another inscription from Rangiyam (Rajasingamangalam) in the Tirumeyyam Taluk in the Pudukotta state refers to the year 732 A.H., of the Ādi Surattān. This shows that in this year at any rate Muhammad’s authority was recognised.

c10.16

The rebellion was caused by the Sultan’s embarrassments in Northern India, and Ahsan Shah seems to have been convinced of the possibility of establishing his own independent power without opposition.¹⁷ The long distance of his province from Dihli, the large extent of the territory over which he ruled, and the disturbed condition of the northern part of the kingdom favoured his designs. When the Sultan heard of the revolt, he started from Dihli and stayed for eight days in a palace called *Kushk-i-Zar* or golden palace not far from Dihli in order to collect supplies and provisions. Khwajah Jahan had preceded the Sultan, but when he reached Dhar and stopped there, his spirited nephew (sister’s son) with four or five nobles, who had been arrested a short time before, made a conspiracy to take the life of the Wazir on Friday at the time of prayer. They determined to seize the royal treasure and then decamp to the rebellious governor of Ma‘bar. When the plot was ripe, one of the conspirators whose name was Malik Nusrat Hajib informed the Wazir of the murderous intent of his nephew. Apprised of the danger, Khwajah Jahan called the conspirators, and a search of their persons revealed that they wore helmets under their cloaks.

c10.17

¹⁷ According to Ibn Batūṭah, Ahsan Shah rebelled, proclaimed his independence, and issued coins in his own name. On one side of his dinar were inscribed the words ‘Descendant of the Prophet and the parent of the mendicants and the poor’ and on the other ‘Ahsan Shah Sultan, the depender upon God’s help,’ III, pp. 328-29.

c10.18

The Wazir forwarded them to the king for proper punishment. They were brought into the royal presence, and Ibn Batūṭah saw one of these culprits with a long beard trembling with fear and reciting a chapter from the Quran. The Sultan sent the culprits back to the Wazir with the command that they should be beheaded and thrown before the elephants. The unhappy victims were torn into pieces by the elephants, who had their tusks covered with sharp blades of iron, and when they were dead, their skin was stuffed with bran. After the suppression of this conspiracy, Khwajah Jahan returned to Dihli, and began to make preparations for the suppression of another revolt which had just broken out at Multan and Lahore. Dihli was in a deplorable condition owing to famine and high prices of grain, and lawlessness prevailed even in the vicinity of the capital. When the Sultan reached Daulatabad, he demanded large contributions from Muslim chiefs and tax-collectors with the result that those who were unable to comply with the exorbitant royal demands committed suicide to escape punishment. A new scheme of taxation was devised, and fresh imposts of a heavy nature were levied upon the people, and officers were appointed to realise them with great severity. Having thus settled the territories of Devagiri, the Sultan proceeded to Warangal, but an epidemic broke out in the royal camp, and most of the soldiers, amirs, and slaves were carried off by it. Malik Daulat Shah and Amir ‘Abdullah Harvi were among the victims of the fell disease. The expedition against Ahsan Shah was abandoned under the pressure of unforeseen circumstances, and the Sultan returned to Daulatabad. On his return journey he suffered from a violent toothache at Bir and lost one of his teeth which was solemnly entombed in the midst of great pomp and ceremony, and a large mausoleum still known as the dome of tooth was erected over it to proclaim to the world the peculiar character of its builder.¹⁸ Malik Maqbūl was appointed governor of Telingana, and Shihāb Sultani on whom was conferred the title of Nusrat Khan was entrusted with the fief of Bidar and the adjoining territories, yielding a revenue of ten million tankahs.¹⁹ Qutlugh Khan, the Sultan's tutor, a man of great integrity, was placed in charge of Devagiri and the Sultan, who was still ailing, proceeded towards the capital. On this occasion he permitted the inhabitants of Dihli, who had stayed in Devagiri to go back to Dihli, if they felt inclined to do so. Barani writes that two or three caravans were formed which returned to Dihli, and those with whom the climate of the Maratha country agreed, permanently settled there with their families. Firishta's statement that many thousands made the attempt, but several of them perished in the way owing to famine which then desolated the country of Malwa and Chanderi is not supported by Barani who is certainly more correct when he says that the Sultan accorded a general permission to go to Dihli.²⁰ Some returned to their old homes, while others preferred to remain at Devagiri.

c10.19

¹⁸ Firishta, Lucknow text. p. 137. Briggs I, p. 424. Annual Report of the Archæological Dept. of the Nizam's dominions 1920-21, Baptist Mission Press, Calcutta, p. 14. Bir is in the Nizam's dominions. It is at a distance of 75 miles north-west of Hyderabad. The tradition of the burial of the royal tooth still survives at Bir and a small tower built along a mountain track 88 miles S.E.S., of the town is pointed out as the tomb of the tooth.

c10.20

¹⁹ Elliot has not correctly translated this passage, III, p. 244. Barani's text is صد لک i.e., a hundred lakhs of tankahs. Nizam-al-Din, Badaoni, and Firishta have followed Barani. One crore seems to be too high a figure for the fief of Bidar, Calcutta Text, p. 481.

c10.21

²⁰ Barani, Calcutta Text, p. 481. Firishta says, thousands made the attempt but many of them perished on the way owing to famine which then desolated the country of Malwa and Chanderi. Barani is certainly more correct when he says that two or three caravans were formed which returned to Dihli but those who liked the Maratha country stayed there.

c10.22

The absence of the Sultan from the headquarters and the prevalence of rebellion in the south encouraged designing persons in the north to revolt against his authority and Amir Halājūn raised the standard of rebellion in Lahore, killed Malik Tatar, the fief holder of Lahore and declared his independence. The date of the rebellion 743 A.H. (1342 A.D.) given by both Firishta and Badaoni is incorrect, for according to Barani and Ibn Batūtah it broke out shortly after the Sultan had left for Ma'bar. Barani summarily disposes of the rebellion in a few lines and says, "Ahmad Ayaz returned to Dihli, but when he arrived there, he found that a rebellion had broken out at Lahore and that was suppressed by Ahmad Ayaz Khwajah Jahan."²¹ The author of the *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi* who is corroborated by a contemporary writer like Ibn Batūtah and followed by later writers like Badaoni and Firishta writes: "In 743 A.H. (1342 A.D.) Kulchand and Halājūn broke out into revolt and

c10.23

²¹ Barani, Calcutta Text, p. 481.

c10.24

Rebellion of Halājūn.

c10.25

slew Malik Tatar Khurd,²² the Jagirdar of Lahore. Khwajah Jahan was appointed to quell the revolt and he proceeded to the scene of action. Malik Halājūn and Kulchand Khokhar appeared in the field to oppose him, but they were defeated. Having suppressed the rebellion, Khwajah Jahan returned to Dihli.²³ Badaoni follows the above, though Ranking has mistranslated the passage in the text which runs thus:

c10.26

²² The author of the Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi has given a wrong description of the governor of Lahore. In Barani's long list of the scions of the royal family and officers (Calcutta Text, pp. 454-55) there are two persons—one is styled Tatar Khan, the elder (buzurg) and the other is Tartar, the adopted son of Sultan Tughluq Shah. The former was the governor of Lahore and the latter held charge of Eastern Bengal at this time.

c10.27

²³ Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi MS.

c10.28

در سنه ۷۴۳ ملک حالاجون و کل چند کھوکھر ملک تتار حاکم لاهور را بغدر کشتند

c10.29

Ranking renders it thus: "And in the year 743 A.H. they put to death treacherously Malik Halājūn, Gulchandar Khakhar and Malik Tatar Khurd, the governor of Lahore, and when Khwajah Jahan came up against them, they came out to do battle with him, but the scoundrels suffered a severe defeat and were sorely punished."²⁴ This is not in agreement with the text. Firishta's account is less complete than that of Yahya and Badaoni. He writes: "In the year 743 A.H. Malik Chandar (Malik Haidar of Briggs) the chief of the Gakkars, rebelled and slew Tatar Khan, the viceroy of Lahore. Khwajah Jahan was sent against the rebels and he utterly defeated them."²⁵ Firishta makes two mistakes. He describes Malik Chandar as Chief of the Gakkars which is wrong, and gives unnecessary prominence to him, though he was only an abettor of the rebellion. Ibn Batūtah is our best authority for this rebellion. He was in Dihli, when the rebellion broke out, and says that his companions accompanied Khwajah Jahan to Lahore when he went there to suppress the rebellion.²⁶ Besides, he is substantially

c10.30

²⁴ Ranking, Al-Badaoni I, p. 309.

c10.31

²⁵ Firishta, Lucknow Text, p. 137. Firishta writes:

c10.32

²⁶ Ibn Batūtah III, p. 332.

c10.33

ملک چندر که سردار کهکران بود علم مخالفت بلند ساخته حاکم ملک تاتار خان را بقتل رسانید - corroborated by the author of the *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi* who wrote before Badaoni and Firishta.

c10.34

It is clear that Halājūn was aided by the Khokhar chief, Kulchand²⁷ whom he elevated to the rank of Wazir. Khwajah Jahan marched at the head of a force which consisted of natives and Khorasanis. The Sultan also sent from the Deccan two powerful amirs, Malik Qairan Safdar and Malik Timur, keeper of drinks (sharabdar) to reinforce him. Halājūn, undismayed by the advance of the royal army, came out to oppose it and gave battle. Khwajah Jahan entered the city in triumph and slew some of the citizens, while others were flayed alive. This duty was entrusted to Muhammad bin Najib, naib Wazir,²⁸ who was a pitiless tyrant. About three hundred women of the rebels were taken captive, and sent to the fort of Gwalior where they were seen by Ibn Batūtah.²⁹

c10.35

²⁷ In the Arabic Text of Ibn Batūtah (III, p. 332) the name of the Khokhar chieftain is Amir Quljand, the same as Kulchand of Yahya and Badaoni.

c10.36

²⁸ According to Ibn Batūtah Malik Najib was a monster of cruelty. The king used to call him the "lion of the market." He used to bite the culprits with his teeth. Ibn Batūtah, III, p. 333.

c10.37

²⁹ Ibn Batūtah, III, p. 332.

c10.38

The misfortune which befell the royal camp in Telingana had a serious effect on the public mind, and the news of the king's illness spread like wild fire all over the country. Mischievous persons started a rumour, as their like had done in the previous reign when Muhammad Tughluq led an attack against Warangal, that the Sultan was dead. Malik Hushang, son of Kamal-al-Din Garg, governor of Daulatabad, misled by his ambition, rebelled and fled to the country of Raja Barbāra, which was situated between Daulatabad and Kokan thana.³⁰ The above account of Ibn Batūtah is corroborated by the author of the *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi*, who says that on hearing the rumour about the king's death, Malik Hushang rebelled and concealed himself in Madhera,³¹ but he submitted when he was convinced of the falseness of the report, and the Sultan pardoned him.³² Barani is silent about this rebellion, and so are Nizam-al-Din, Badaoni and Firishta. The Hindu chief gave shelter to the rebel and prepared himself for the fate, which had previously overtaken the Raja of Kampil during the rebellion of Baha-al-Din Gashtasp. The refusal of the Hindu Prince to surrender the culprit made the Sultan furious, and he pressed hard. Frightened by the stern attitude of the Sultan, the rebel opened negotiations and promised to go to Qutlugh Khan, if the Sultan withdrew to Daulatabad. Qutlugh Khan had promised that his life would be spared, if he surrendered and begged royal forgiveness. The minister was a man of his word. Malik Hushang with his family, comrades and goods placed himself at the mercy of the Sultan who was much pleased with this act of penitence, and with a magnanimity which is difficult to reconcile with his general policy in such matters, he forgave him and conferred upon him robes of honour. The Sultan returned to Dihli where he reached in the first week of July 1337 A.D.³³

c10.39

³⁰ The western coast is divided into two parts. The northern is called Konkan and the southern Malabar. The districts of Thana, Ratnagiri, Kolaba and the states of Sāwant bāri and Janjirah and the cities of Goa and Bombay are included in it. The extent of this tract is 330 miles in length and its breadth is from 50 to 25 miles. Thana is a city 20 miles from Bombay and was formerly the capital of Konkan. Abu Rihān Biruni who came with Mahmud of Ghazni writes it as the capital of the Konkan. Rashid-al-Din writes it as Konkan Thana. Abul Feda speaks of it as a large town. In Marco Polo's time a Hindu chief lived there, but afterwards his possessions were annexed to the empire of Dihli by Qutb-al-Din Mubarak Shah in 1318 A.D.

c10.40

³¹ Madhera or Madheera is a town in the state of Haiderabad, 129 miles East from Haiderabad and 96 miles North-West from Masulipatam. It lies in Lat. 16° 57' and Long. 80° 26'. Thornton, Gaz., III, p. 531.

c10.41

³² Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi, MS.

c10.42

³³ Ibn Batutah, III, p. 338.

c10.43

This rebellion also occurred during the Sultan's absence in the southern country. Barani's account is provokingly brief. He writes: "When Ahsan Shah revolted in Ma'bar, the Sultan seized his son Ibrahim, Kharitadar with his family and relatives."³⁴ But Ibn Batutah who was related to the rebel comes to our aid and furnishes more

c10.44

³⁴ Elliot translates Kharitadar into purse-bearer. This officer used to keep the king's pen and paper. Barani writes:— Calcutta Text, p. 480.

c10.45

و این خبر بسلطان رسید ابراهیم خریطه دار را و اقرباء او را
بگرفتند و سلطان محمد در شهر آمد -

c10.46

From Barani's Text it appears that the Sultan before his return to Dihli from Kanauj seized Ibrahim with his relations. Hajji-ad-Dabir writes that having heard the news of Ahsan Shah's revolt the Sultan returned to Dihli and interned Ibrahim and his kinsmen. This is slightly different from Barani. Barani has made some confusion. If, as he says, Ibrahim had been seized or interned, how could he detain Zia-al-Mulk on his way to Dihli? It is certain that Ibrahim was punished by the Sultan after his return from the Deccan.

c10.47

details about his hostile plans.³⁵ According to him Ibrahim, who was governor of Sirsuti and Hansi aimed at independent power, when he heard of the rebellion of his father, Jalal-al-Din Ahsan Shah of Ma‘bar and of the death of the Sultan in the Deccan. For a handsome, high-spirited, and generous man like him, it was no strange ambition. Just at this time Zia-al-Mulk bin Shams-al-Mulk was escorting the royal treasure through his fief from Sindh to Dihli. Ibrahim told him that he was likely to be plundered by thieves on the way, and that it would be politic to stay with him for sometime. Obviously his motive was to appropriate the whole treasure, when the news of the Sultan’s death was confirmed. The amir was allowed to proceed when the rumour turned out to be entirely baseless. But one of the slaves of Zia-al-Mulk informed the Sultan of Ibrahim’s misconduct, when the latter paid a visit to the capital. Though the Sultan was well-disposed towards him, he could not condone such an offence in the interests of the state. Ibrahim confessed his guilt, and the Sultan ordered him to be cut into two by the executioners. This must have been sometime after the Sultan’s return from the Deccan. The dead body of the deceased was interred by his relatives in the stealthy manner which was usually followed when a criminal was slain by royal command.

c10.48

³⁵ Ibn Batūṭah, III, pp. 337-38.

c10.49

As has been previously said Ghiyās-al-Din Bahadur was reinstated in the government of Bengal by Muhammad Tughluq soon after his accession to the throne. But Bahadur who was an ambitious man, once more allowed himself to be led astray by evil counsels, and rebelled about the year 730 A.H.³⁶ According to Ibn Batūṭah one of the conditions of his restoration was that he would send his son Muhammad-al-Manshur as a hostage to Dihli, but Bahadur excused himself on the ground that his son did not obey him.³⁷ This act of contumacy enraged the Sultan who sent his does the same, and accepts 739 A.H. as the date of rebellion.⁴⁴ A careful examination of the coins shows that the date is 737 and not 739 A.H. The date on the coin is on the margin in Arabic figures and Blochmann and Sir Wolseley have, it seems to me, read تسع for سبع which alters the date by two years. If it were سبع and not تسع the letter ت would have been slightly bulging upwards and would not have been joined to the letter preceding it in the manner in which it is joined.⁴⁵ On a large number of coins issued from the mints in Bengal and other parts of India in the 14th century A.D. the word تسع is written as تسع and not as سبع. Secondly, after the letter س the mark of ب is quite clear on the coin. What Blochmann and Sir Wolseley read as ت is not ت but س and therefore the date seems to be 737 and not 739 A.H. There is yet another piece of evidence which supports 737 A.H. The Sultan returned to Dihli from the Deccan sometime in July 1337 after nearly two years. After his return he was too much occupied with affairs in Hindustan to deal effectively with the rebellion in Bengal. Ibn Batūtah who was present in Dihli says nothing about it. Barani says that during the interval when the Sultan stayed at Dihli and his migration to Saragdwari which occurred in 739 A.H. four rebellions broke out which were quickly suppressed. These four rebellions were of Nizam Ma'in at Kara, Nusrat Khan at Bidar, 'Ali Shah at Kulburga and 'Ain-al-Mulk and his brothers at Saragdwāri. He does not mention among these the rebellion of Fakhr-al-Din. This is not conclusive evidence, but it throws a doubt over the date 739 A.H. It appears from Barani's narrative and the testimony of the coins that Fakhr-al-Din declared his independence early in 737 A.H.

c10.50

³⁶ His latest coins are dated 730 A.H. and 731 A.H. J. A. S. B., 1908, p. 203. J. R. A. S., II, p. 197. J. A. S. B., 1874, p. 83. J. A. S. B., Numismatic Supplement XVI, pp. 699-700. J. A. S. B., Numismatic Supplement XXXV, pp. 152-53. Lane-Poole, The coins of the Muhammadan states of India in the British Museum, p. 11.

c10.51

³⁷ Ibn Batūṭah, III, p. 317.

c10.52

⁴⁴ Blochmann's article in the J. A. S. B., 1873, p. 252 and 1874, p. 291. Sir Wolseley Haig's article on "Five questions in the history of the Tughluq dynasty of Dihli" in the J. R. A. S., 1922, p. 349.

c10.53

⁴⁵ Thomas, The Initial Coinage of Bengal. J. A. S. B., Vol. XXXVI, Pt. I, p. 52 and Plate I, Figure 7. For further reference the following may be consulted:— Man Mohan Chakravarti's article on Bengal in the J. A. S. B., 1909, p. 203. Thomas, The Chronicles, p. 263 Yule, Cathay and the Way Thither, IV, p. 86. Yule does not investigate the date. He simply says Fakhr-al-Din declared his independence either in 737 or 739 A.H. N. K. Bhattāsāli, Coins and Chronology of the Early Independent Sultans of Bengal, pp. 9—14. Mr. Bhattāsāli is inclined to agree with Blochmann but does not give any cogent reason in support of his statement.

c10.54

Barani's account of the rebellion is very brief. According to him after the death of Bahram Khan, governor of Sonargaon, the army became mutinous, killed Qadar Khan and destroyed his family and his goods. The treasures of Lakhnauti were seized by the rebels who took possession of that place and of Satgaon and Sonargaon.¹ The author of the *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi* who wrote after Barani gives a more detailed account of the affairs in Bengal, and he is copied by Badaoni. The story of this rebellion is as follows: "After the death of Bahram Khan at Sonargaon, Malik Fakhr-al-Din, his armour-bearer, rebelled and became king. Having heard of this revolt, Malik Bidar or Pindar Khilji Qadar Khan who was governor of Lakhnauti sent Malik Husam-al-Din Abu Raja mustaufi mamalik, 'Iz-al-Din Yahya A'zam-al-mulk, governor of Satgaon and Firuz Khan, son of Nusrat Khan, amir of Kara against Fakhr-al-Din. The latter offered resistance, but seeing the heavy odds arrayed against him, he fled from the field of battle, leaving his entire baggage to be captured by the enemy. Qadar Khan thus became master of Sonargaon, but Fakhr-al-Din was not the man to rest in silence. Having made his preparations, he marched against his rival again, and on this occasion he was helped by the discontent that prevailed in Qadar Khan's army." According to the author of the *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi* Qadar Khan had hoarded plenty of silver *tankahs* in the hope of placing a large heap of them before the august throne of Dihli, in spite of the remonstrances of Malik Husam-al-Din, who always asked him to send the treasures of the state to the capital. Qadar Khan paid no heed to the Malik's counsel, and his niggardliness led to serious developments. Discontent spread among the troops, when he deprived them of their legitimate share in the spoils of war. Fakhr-al-Din appeared at this favourable moment and seduced Qadar Khan's troops. The latter conspired against their chief and slew him and Fakhr-al-Din again became master of Sonargaon. Then he sent his slave Mukhlis against Lakhnauti, but he was opposed by Qadar Khan's 'Ariz, 'Ali Mubarak, who defeated and slew him. Ranking has mistranslated the passage in Badaoni's text which is a paraphrase of Yahya's narrative.⁴⁷ ‘Ali Mubarak informed the Sultan at Dihli of what had happened. The Sultan sent Yusuf, the *Shahnah* of the capital, who was raised to the rank of Khan, but he died shortly afterwards. The Sultan was so busy with troubles in Hindustan that he could not send a fresh army to the help of ‘Ali Mubarak. Pressed hard by the exigencies of the situation, ‘Ali Mubarak assumed the honours of royalty under the title of ‘Ala-al-Din. Ibn Batūtah is not very clear about the history of Bengal, and he concludes his account by saying that ‘Ali Shah established himself as king at Lakhnauti and wars were frequently waged between ‘Ali Shah and Fakhr-al-Din. The rivalry between ‘Ali Shah and Fakhr-al-Din lasted for sometime. Fakhr-al-Din led an attack against Lakhnauti in the rainy season, for his naval strength was superior to that of ‘Ali Shah. The latter who possessed better land forces retaliated with equal vigour, and this mutual warfare continued. During one of these campaigns a certain Sufi, Shaida by name, who had been appointed governor of Satgaon—a fact which is corroborated by Barani who says that Satgaon had also fallen into Fakhra’s hands, rebelled and killed the only son of Fakhr-al-Din. Shaida fled towards Sonargaon where he was captured by the people who made him over to the royal army. By the orders of the Sultan (Fakhr-al-Din) he was beheaded, and many of his associates were slain.

c10.55

¹ Barani, Calcutta Text, p. 480.

c10.56

⁴⁷ This is Ranking’s translation : “The absolute control of Sonargaon was given him (Fakhr-al-Din); he appointed one Mukhlis, a servant of his, to Lakhnauti and ‘Ali Mubarak, inspector of troops; Qadar Khan put Mukhlis to death and aspired at independence writing diplomatic letters to the court of the Sultan.” This is not in agreement with the text which has : “The government of Sonargaon passed into his hands and he appointed Mukhlis, his slave to Lakhnauti. ‘Ali Mubarak, the ‘ariz of Qadar Khan’s troops put to death Mukhlis and sent peaceful representations to the Sultan.” It appears from the narrative of the *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi* that Qadar Khan had remained at Sonargaon after the defeat and flight of Fakhrā. It was there that Fakhr-al-Din appeared and won over the army.

c10.57

Fakhr-al-Din is described by Ibn Batūtah as a learned ruler “fond of the company of saints, foreigners, and men of learning.” The 14th century was a period of great religious revival in Bengal and tradition affirms that in Sonargaon alone there were 150 *gaddis* of saints.⁴⁸ The large number of religious saints was probably due to the profuse liberality of Fakhr-al-Din.⁴⁹ Under his rule the province of Bengal became rich and prosperous, and the people led easy and comfortable lives.⁵⁰ But the climate was malarious, and for this reason the people of Khorasan called it a ‘hell crammed with good things.’

c10.58

⁴⁸ J. A. S. B., 1874, p. 85.

c10.59

⁴⁹ J. A. S. B., 1909, p. 226. Ibn Batūṭah, IV, pp. 212-13

c10.60

⁵⁰ Ibn Batūṭah who visited Bengal in 1346 A.D. on his return from China describes Bengal as a vast country where rice is produced in abundance and where prices are cheap. The traveller was informed by Muhammad Ma‘sūd that he could buy provision for himself, wife and servant, for a year for eight dirhams. They could buy 80 *ritals* of husked rice of Dihli which yielded 50 *ritals* of rice after being thrashed for eight dirhams. The prices of provisions were as follows:—

c10.61

It is difficult to assign a definite date to Fakhr-al-Din's death. That he lived up to 750 A.H. is established beyond doubt by numismatic evidence and up to 754 by the testimony of Shams-i-Siraj ‘Afif who is a contemporary writer. In the coins of the Shillong cabinet there are two coins of Mubarak Shah issued from Sonargaon and are clearly dated 750 A.H. ‘Afif writes in his *Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi* that after Firuz's expedition to Bengal (754 A.H. = 1354) Shams-al-Din seized Fakhr-al-Din who was commonly called Fakhrā and killed him.⁵¹ Badaoni's statement that in 741 A.H. Sultan Muhammad marched against Sonargaon, seized Fakhr-al-Din, and brought him a prisoner to Lakhnauti, where he put him to death and returned is incorrect.⁵² The author of the *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi* whom Badaoni faithfully copies writes that in 741 A.H. Haji Ilyas who had

c10.62

⁵¹ ‘Afif, *Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi*, Calcutta Text, pp. 137-38.

c10.63

⁵² Ranking, Al-Badāoni, I, p. 309.

c10.64

| Ghi | ... | ... | ... | 1 rital | 4 dirhams. |
| Sugar | ... | ... | ... | " | 4 " |
| Rose | ... | ... | ... | " | 8 " |
| Sesamum oil | ... | ... | ... | " | 2 " |
| 30 Yards of cloth | ... | ... | | | 2 dīnārs. |

c10.65

Ibn Batūṭah, IV, pp. 210-12. The slaves were very cheap and so were the cattle. A milch cow could be had for 3 dīnārs. Good fat hens could be had for a dirham and 15 pigeons for a dirham, a fat ram for two dirhams.

c10.66

A beautiful slave girl could be purchased for one dīnār of gold which is equal to 2½ dīnārs of the west. Ibn Batūṭah purchased a maid-servant named ‘Ashurah and a companion of his purchased a young slave whose name was Lūlū for 2 dīnārs.

c10.67

become king under the title of Shams-al-Dīn, proceeded towards Sonargaon, and seized Fakhr-al-Dīn alive and after some time killed him at Lakhnauti.⁵³ After this Lakhnauti remained for a long time in the possession of Shams-al-Dīn and his descendants, and the Sultan of Dihli had no control over it. The date 741 is obviously incorrect. It seems probable that either Badaoni himself in copying the *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi* or some scribe who copied his *Muntakhab-ut-tawarikh* wrote Sultan Muhammad instead of Shams-al-Dīn. It is impossible to accept Badaoni's date in view of the evidence of coins and of Ibn Batūṭah who found Fakhr-al-Dīn ruling in Bengal in 746 A.H., and his account is too detailed to be inaccurate.

c10.68

⁵³ *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi* MS.

c10.69

A difficulty is presented by the fact that there are coins of one Ikhtiyar-al-Dīn Ghazi Shah struck at Sonargaon in 751—53 A.H., and he is described as Sultan bin Sultan.⁵⁴ No historian has pointed out his relationship to Fakhr-al-Dīn, but the presumption is that there was a close connection between the two kings. The evidence of the coins is against Ibn Batūṭah who says that the only son of Fakhr-al-Dīn was killed by Shaida, but Ibn Batūṭah may have been mistaken in describing the deceased as his only son. The fact that Ikhtiyar-al-Dīn Ghazi Shah issued coins from Sonargaon shows that he had established an independent kingdom in a part of Sonargaon. This he may have done during Fakhr-al-Dīn's life-time.

c10.70

⁵⁴ Thomas, The initial coinage of Bengal. J. A. S. B., Vol. XXXVI, Pt. I, pp. 54-55. Thomas, The Chronicles, p. 266. Nelson Wright, Catalogue of coins in the Indian Museum of Calcutta, Vol. II, Pt. II, 149, No. 21.

c10.71

When the Sultan returned from the Deccan, he found a dreadful famine raging in the Doab. The cultivating classes gave up all hope, and thousands perished helplessly for want of food. The scarcity of fodder was still more serious, and the cattle died in large numbers. Barani writes that the price of grain rose abnormally high from 16 to 17 *jitals* per sir, and death and starvation threatened the people on all sides. To encourage cultivation the Sultan made advances from the public treasury, but all these efforts proved of no avail. Death took a dreadful toll of human life, and tried by famine beyond the point of endurance, the population patiently resigned itself to adverse fate. Barani writes: "The Sultan tried to promote cultivation and caused wells to be dug, but of Saragdwāri which literally means the ‘gate of heaven.’ Probably this high-sounding name was given to the new city, because the people prized it no less than heaven at this critical period, when food and fodder were so scarce elsewhere. As the thatched cottages often caught fire, the people dug holes in the ground, as the gipsy tribes still do in India, in which they deposited all their goods and covered them with sand. To the west of the Ganges the whole country was rendered desolate by famine, but towards the east there was plenty of cultivated land. From the territories of Oudh and Zafrabad, the most fertile provinces in the Doab, the local governor, ‘Ain-al-Mulk supplied grain worth 70 to 80 lakhs of tankahs to relieve distress. The price of grain became comparatively cheaper, and every day ‘Ain-al-Mulk sent to the royal camp 50 thousand mans of wheat, rice and grain for the cattle.

c10.72

It is difficult to determine with exactitude the date of this rebellion. There is no doubt that it occurred sometime between 737 and 738 A.H. prior to the revolt of ‘Ain-al-Mulk Multani and the royal migration to Saragdwāri. The date of this rebellion 745 A.H. (1345 A.D.) given by the author of the Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi and copied by Badaoni and Firishta is incorrect.⁶² The author of the Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi slightly differing from Barani writes that the rebellion was suppressed by Shahrullah, brother of ‘Ain-al-Mulk, the governor of Oudh, while Firishta says that ‘Ain-al-Mulk himself raised forces, defeated him, and sent his head to court. Barani corroborates the details to some

c10.73

⁶² Sir Wolseley Haig accepts 745 A.H. as the date of this rebellion which is inadmissible in view of Barani's statement that it occurred during the interval when the king was at Dihli, and then at Saragdwāri and that it was suppressed by ‘Ain-al-Mulk and his brothers. The Sultan had left Saragdwāri in 741 A.H. J. R. A. S., 1922, p. 353.

c10.74

Revolt of Nizam Ma'in at Kara.

c10.75

Shamsabad stands on the old cliff of the Ganges 18 miles North-West of Fatehgarh in 27° 32' N. and 79° 28' E. It is mentioned in the Ain-i-Akbari as the headquarters of a pargana and the site of a fort on the banks of the Ganges. District Gaz., Farrukhabad, p. 255.

c10.76

Some Kānyakubja Brahmans in the United Provinces still call themselves Khor ke pānde [pāndes (Brahmans) of Khor] and consider themselves as superior to others.

c10.77

The author of the Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi who wrote in the 15th century makes mention of this town which shows that it existed in his time. He writes that Tāj-al-mulk when he went into the Doab to suppress the infidels of Khor crossed the Ganges at the ford of Saragdwāri.

c10.78

extent though he gives no date. According to him during the interval when the Sultan was staying at Dihli and then at Saragdwāri, four revolts broke out, which were quickly suppressed.⁶³ These were of (1) Nizam Ma‘in at Kara, (2) Nusrat Khan at Bidar, (3) ‘Ali Shah at Kulbarga, (4) and ‘Ain-al-Mulk in Oudh. He says the first of these was put down by ‘Ain-al-Mulk and his brothers, which makes it clear that the revolt must have occurred prior to the revolt of ‘Ain-al-Mulk, the date of which is 740-41 A.H. Again, Barani clearly states that (1) before the Sultan could send a force, ‘Ain-al-Mulk and his brothers marched with their troops upon Kara, defeated the rebel, and sent him to the capital, (2) and that the rebel was after being flayed sent to the capital, (3) and that the Shaikhzadah was sent from Dihli to govern the province of Kara. It is clear from this that when the revolt broke out, the Sultan was at Dihli, and had not migrated to Saragdwāri. That the revolt occurred before 740-41 A.H. admits of no doubt, for the very fact of its suppression by ‘Ain-al-Mulk and his brothers, agreed to by all historians, proves that it must have occurred while the maliks were still loyal to the Sultan.

c10.79

⁶³ Barani, Calcutta Text, p. 487.

c10.80

Nizam Ma‘in, an opium-eating manikin of low origin, had obtained the fief of Kara for several lakhs of tankahs. But as he had no means or position in society, he could not realise even a tenth part of the sum which he had stipulated to pay by executing a bond or khat. Barani writes that he purchased a few opium-eating paiks and with their assistance raised the standard of revolt and assumed the title of Sultan ‘Ala-al-Din. The author of the Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi also states that he was instigated to do so by certain malcontents among the slaves. Before the Sultan could despatch forces, ‘Ain-al-mulk and his brothers advanced upon Kara and suppressed the revolt. The rebel was flayed and sent to the capital. Shaikh Zādah Bustāmi,⁶⁴ son-in-law of the Sultan’s sister, was sent from Dihli to govern in his place. He was ordered to inflict condign punishments upon the malefactors who had taken part in the insurrection, but he failed to do so.

c10.81

⁶⁴ Shaikh Zādah Bustāmi is described by Barani as داماد خواهرین سلطان محمود which means the son-in-law of the Sultan’s sister, and not the husband of the Sultan’s sister as Maulvi ‘Abdul Wāli translates it. Sir Wolseley Haig calls him sister’s son to the emperor which is not in agreement with the text. Barani, Calcutta Text, p. 488. J. A. S. B., 1923, p. 259. Sir Wolseley Haig’s article in the J. R. A. S., 1922, p. 353.

c10.82

It appears from the narrative of Barani and Ibn Batūṭah that this rebellion occurred before that of ‘Ain-al-Mulk. He was appointed to the fief of Bidar, when the Sultan had gone to the Deccan to suppress the rebellion of Jalal-al-Din Ahsan Shah, and when he was obliged to stay at Devagiri, after having returned from Warangal on account of plague. The Sultan was in the Deccan during the years 735-37 A.H. for about two and a half years. Nusrat Khan was appointed to his office sometime in 736 A.H. Barani says that he remained in office for three years from which we may conclude that the rebellion must have occurred sometime in 739-40 A.H. That the rebellion must have occurred not later than 740-41 A.H. is beyond doubt. Barani clearly places it before the rebellion of ‘Ain-al-Mulk and Ibn Batūṭah says that after the Sultan’s return from Saragdwāri in 741 A.H., Nusrat Khan and ‘Ain-al-Mulk both were pardoned and admitted to royal favour. Ibn Batūṭah has made some confusion in giving an account of this rebellion. He writes: ‘when the king returned from Telingana and the rumour of his death began to spread, Taj-al-mulk Nusrat Khan Turk, who was governor of Telingana, and was one of the old courtiers of the king rebelled on hearing of the report.’⁶⁵ This is incorrect. Ibn Batūṭah himself says in describing the Sultan’s visit to the shrine of Salar Mas‘ud at Bahraich that Nusrat was pardoned with ‘Ain-al-Mulk in 741 A.H.⁶⁶ If Nusrat rebelled, when the Sultan was in the Deccan, how is it that he was pardoned after nearly four years? Again, this is in conflict with Barani’s statement that he held office for three years.

c10.83

⁶⁵ Ibn Batūṭah, III, pp. 340-41.

c10.84

⁶⁶ Ibn Batūṭah, III, p. 357.

c10.85

The date 745 A.H. given by the author of the Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi and copied by Badaoni and Firishta is incorrect for the reasons mentioned above.⁶⁷

c10.86

⁶⁷ Sir Wolseley places the revolt of Nusrat just after that of Ibrahim Kharitādār. This suggests a date which would be too early by three years. Nusrat did not rebel when the Sultan was in the Deccan. If we accept Barani’s story of his appointment to the fief of Bidar, it is impossible to accept Ibn Batūṭah’s account of his rebellion. Sir Wolseley Haig’s article in the J. R. A. S., 1922, pp. 346, 347, 348.

c10.87

Nusrat Khan had given, at the time of his appointment, an undertaking that he would do his utmost to realise the revenues of the state with regularity and honesty. During his three years of governorship he could not realise more than three-fourths of the stipulated amount. Not only did he fail to carry out his promise, but he was also dishonest enough to defraud his sovereign. Having collected a number of discontented men, whom he fed upon false hopes, he entrenched himself in the fort of Badrakot which he fortified against attack. Barani writes that he was a coward, and it was chiefly on account of the fear of the Sultan that he hoisted the flag of rebellion. The Sultan's tutor Qutlugh Khan marched against him from Devagiri at the head of a contingent, and was reinforced by some maliks from Dihli and Dhar. After a stubborn contest in which the imperialists overpowered Nusrat's mercenary rabble, Qutlugh Khan made his way to the fortress and besieged it. Nusrat's younger son opposed the imperial general at the head of a considerable force, but he was defeated. The siege was pushed on. Nusrat and his party baffled the attempts of the besiegers to capture it, until at last when mines were ordered to be constructed beneath the walls of the fortress, the enemy, fearing for life, surrendered to the imperial general. He was taken prisoner and was sent to the capital. His associates were punished, and his fief was confiscated. He was subsequently pardoned and appointed supervisor of the royal gardens and received robes of honour and allowances.⁶⁸

c10.88

⁶⁸ Ibn Batūṭah, III, p. 357. 69 Ibn Batūṭah describes him as 'Ali Shah Kar (deaf).

c10.89

Nusrat's rebellion was followed by that of 'Ali Shah, nephew of Zafar Khan 'Alai and one of the amirs Sadah of Qutlugh Khan, described by Ibn Batūṭah as a brave, handsome and good-natured man.69 This rebellion occurred in the Deccan in 740 A.H. It is clear from Barani and Ibn Batūṭah that the date 746 A.H. given by the author of the Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi Badaoni and Firishta is incorrect. The date given by the first two is contradicted by their own admission that Qutlugh Khan sent the vanquished rebels to the Sultan at Saragdwāri. But this cannot be, if we accept the date 746 A.H., for the king had already left the place early in 741 A.H. after the suppression of 'Ain-al-mulk's revolt. Barani who places this revolt after Nusrat's rebellion in point of time says that

c10.90

The revolt of 'Ali Shah, the deaf.

c10.91

after a few months in the same country occurred the rebellion of ‘Ali Shah, nephew of Zafar Khan, and it was suppressed by Qutlugh Khan who sent the rebels to Saragdwāri for punishment. Ibn Batūtah’s testimony also militates against the date 746 A.H. From his narrative it appears that the rebellion broke out, when he was still in Hindustan, that is to say, before Safar, 743 A.H. (July, 1342) when he left for China.

c10.92

‘Ali Shah had been sent by Qutlugh Khan to realise the revenues of Kulbarga. Finding the country denuded of troops, he desired to establish his own independent power. He and his brothers treacherously murdered Bhiran,⁷⁰ the Hindu chief of Kulbarga, and misappropriated the royal treasure. Emboldened by this success, they proceeded towards Bidar which they seized and put the governor to death. The Sultan directed Qutlugh Khan to proceed against the rebels at the head of a powerful force. Undismayed by the advance of the imperialists, the traitor ‘Ali Shah organised his forces and gave battle to Qutlugh Khan. The latter dealt a crushing blow in the preliminary engagement that ensued and compelled the enemy to seek refuge in the fort of Bidar. Driven to extremities, the rebel accepted the terms dictated to him by the imperial general, and under the threats of a renewed attack he and his brothers came out of the fort. Qutlugh Khan captured them and immediately dispatched them to the Sultan at Saragdwāri. They were exiled to Ghazni, but after some time two of them returned and were severely punished by the Sultan for this act of disobedience.⁷¹

c10.93

⁷⁰ This name is Bhiran in Barani, Bharan in Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi and Bahaian in the Calcutta Text of the Tabqat-i-Akbari.

c10.94

⁷¹ Barani writes :

c10.95

سلطان محمد علی شاه و برادران او را درغزنین فرستاد و ایشان از آنجا باز آمدند و هر دو برادر را در پیش داخل سیاست نمودند -

c10.96

Badaoni alone says that the Sultan sent them to Ghazni in exile, but afterwards recalled them thence and put them to death. Ranking, Al-Badāoni, I, p. 312. It is not clear on whose authority Badaoni says so. The author of the Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi simply says that they returned and were punished. Nizam-al-Din Ahmad and Firishta also say that they returned without permission. Barani's account is trustworthy. He is corroborated in material particulars by Ibn Batūtah and Nizam-al-Din who wrote prior to Badaoni.

c10.97

The most formidable rebellion, however, was that of ‘Ain-al-mulk, the governor of Oudh and Zafrabad, an old and distinguished officer of the state. This occurred in 740-41 A.H.

c10.98

Neither Barani nor Ibn Batūṭah specifically mentions the date of this rebellion, but with the help of their writings we can determine the correct date. Badaoni accepts the date 747 A.H. (1347 A.D.) given by the author of the *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi*, and he is copied by Firishta. A close examination of the narratives of Barani and Ibn Batūṭah leads to the conclusion that the revolt of ‘Ain-al-Mulk occurred at the end of the period during which the Sultan stayed at Saragdwāri, which must be sometime in 740-41 A.H. Barani says: ‘when the Sultan came back to Dihli after the suppression of the revolt of ‘Ain-al-Mulk, he stopped the prayers of Friday and the ‘Ids. He had his own name and style removed from his coins and that of the Khalifah substituted . . .’⁷² There is a coin in Mr. Thomas’ collection dated 741 A.H. issued from Dihli which bears on it the name of the Khalifah Al-Mustakfi’ Billah Abu-al-rabi’a Sulaiman of Egypt.⁷³ This shows that the rebellion must have taken place before the issue of such coins, *i.e.*, either sometime in 741 A.H. or a little before that.

First 100 of 210 passages. Read on

Linked texts (9)