Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of the Qaraunah Turks in India c6: Chapter I. The Warden of the Marches as Ruler

History of the Qaraunah Turks in India c6

Language
English

Contents

Chapter I. The Warden of the Marches as Ruler

c6.2

(1320—1325 A.D.)

c6.3

Ghiyas-al-Din Tughluq, the founder of the Tughluq dynasty, according to Ibn Batūṭah, was a Qaraunah Turk, one of those who dwelt in the mountains between Sindh and Turkestan. Shams-i-Sirāj ‘Afīf, the official historian of Firuz’s reign, writes in his *Tarīkh-i-Firuz Shahi* that he does not want to repeat his account of the origin of the dynasty which, he says, he has already given in his work, the *Manāqib-i-Sultan Tughluq*, of which, so far as I am aware, no copies are available.¹ Firishta,² who at the beginning of the reign of Nūr-al-Din Muhammad Jahangir made enquiries at Lahore from persons well-versed in the affairs of the Sultans of India, was informed that there was a tradition in the Punjab that the father of Sultan Ghiyas-al-Din Tughluq was a Turkish slave of Ghiyas-al-Din Balban, who had married a Jat woman of the Punjab, and he is supported by the author of the *Khulāsat-ut-tawarīkh*³ who bases his information upon oral tradition which he found current in his native country. He writes:

c6.4

¹ ‘Afīf, Cal. Text, p. 36. Amir Khusrau’s *Tughluqnāmah* throws no light upon this problem. Thomas (*Chronicles*, p. 186) adopts the form Qarauniah, but the French edition of Ibn Batūṭah has Qaraunah which I think is correct.

c6.5

² Firishta, Lucknow Text, p. 130.

c6.6

³ Dihli Edition, p. 235. Asiatic Society of Bengal, MS. F., 155 b.

c6.7

پدر سلطان ترک نژاد باسم تغلق از غلامان سلطان غیاث الدین بلبن و مادر او از قوم جت پنجاب بود -

c6.8

سپهسالار رجب مذکور برادر سلطان غیاث الدین تغلق غازي بود - چنانچه از حالت ولادت ایشان این مورخ داستان در مناقب سلطان تغلق شرح باز نمود -

c6.9

Marco Polo who travelled in Asia in the thirteenth century, speaking of the Qaraunahs whom he met at Kirman and other places in Persia, writes that they were the sons of Indian mothers by Tartar fathers and describes them as a predatory and marauding tribe.⁴ Elias and Ross, the learned translators of Mirza Haider’s *Tarikh-i-Rashidi*, rightly think that Marco Polo used the word Indian in a very broad sense and opine that probably it refers to Beluchi. Marco Polo alone writes that this name is given to them because of their mixed breed. No other writer has given an explanation of the word Qaraunah except Marco Polo, and no dictionary affords any assistance. Among Muslim historians neither Wassāf nor Mirkhond, nor Rashid-al-Din explains the origin of the term. They only dwell upon their warlike qualities and their peculiar physiognomy. They describe them as a sub-tribe of Mongols who entered Khorasan and Persia under Halākū or some time after his invasion. Mirza Haider Daghlāt, the well-known author of the *Tarikh-i-Rashidi*, writes of them:

c6.10

⁴ Yule, Travels, I, p. 92.

c6.11

“The learned Mirza ‘Ulugh Beg has written a history which he has called ‘Ulus Arbaa. One of the ‘four hordes’ is that of the Moghul who are divided into two branches, the Moghul and the Chaghtai. But these two branches, on account of their mutual enmity, used to call each other by a special name, by way of depreciation. Thus the Chaghtai called the Moghul Jatah, while the Moghul called the Chaghtai Karawanas.”⁵

c6.12

⁵ Elias and Ross's translation, p. 148.

c6.13

Now it is very difficult to determine with perfect accuracy the origin of the Qaraunahs.⁶ Colonel Yule in a highly learned and elaborate note examines the statement of Marco Polo and comes to the conclusion that his account is a ‘mistaken one.’⁷ Agreeing with Khanikoff he says that probably Marco Polo confounded the Qaraunahs with the Beluchis “whose Turanian aspect shows a strong infusion of Turki blood and who might be rudely described as a cross between Tartars and Indians.” The Qaraunahs are often mentioned, he says, in the histories of the Mongol regime in Persia, first as a Mongol tribe forming a *tuman*, i.e., a division or corps of 10,000 in the Mongol army and afterwards as daring and savage freebooters scouring the Persian provinces, and having their headquarters in the eastern frontiers of Persia.⁸ Marco Polo also mentions the figure 10,000 in describing the Qaraunahs. Cordier, the learned annotator of Marco Polo’s Travels, says, he was informed by a learned Goklan Mulla that the word *Qarnas* means *Tirandaz* or *Shikari* (i.e., archer or hunter) and was applied to this tribe of Mongols on account of their professional skill in shooting, which apparently secured them an important place in the army. In Turki the word Qarnas means *Shikam-parast*—literally, ‘belly-worshipper’—which implies avarice. This term is in use at present, and Cordier was told by a Qazi of Bujnurd that it was sometimes used by way of reproach. The Qarnas people in Mana and Gurgan say it is the name of their tribe, and they give no other explanation.⁹ Better light is thrown on the subject by Ney Elias, the translator of the *Tarikh-i-Rashidi*, who caused enquiries to be made into the origin of the families of Qarnas by Mr. Maula Bakhsh Attache at the Meshed Consulate General. The Maula wrote to him: ‘These people speak Turkish now, and are considered part of the Goklan Turkomans. They, however, say that they are Changez Khani Moghuls, and are no doubt the descendants of the same Qarnas or Qarauanahs, who took such a prominent part in the victories in Persia.’¹⁰

c6.14

⁶ The term Qaraunah is frequently used in the history of the Ilkhans to denote a body of freebooters whose exact nationality it is not easy to decide. Von Hammer connects them with Karaun Jidun by which the Mongols knew the mountains separating the Gobi desert from China and Manchuria. One branch of the Turkish tribe settled in this country, says Von Hammer, is called Karanut by Rashid-ud-Din. D'ohsson thinks the Qaraunahs were the same as Nigudarians, but this view is doubted by Hammer and he seems to be correct. He has fallen into error because of the predatory habits of both tribes. Howorth says (III, p. 389) ‘I am not at all certain that they are not to be identified with the Kara Tartars, who are mentioned in Khorasan at the break of the power of the Ilkhans.’ The historians are indecisive but there is little doubt that the Qaraunahs were a predatory Turkish tribe.

c6.15

⁷ Yule, Travels of Marco Polo I, pp. 94-100.

c6.16

⁸ Ibid., I, Note 4, p. 94.

c6.17

⁹ Ser Marco Polo, Notes and Addendum, p. 21. Redhouse's Turkish Dictionary gives (p. 698) Qarnas (قرناس) which means subtle or sly.

c6.18

¹⁰ Tarikh-i-Rashidi, Appendix B, pp. 76-77.

c6.19

The Qaraunahs may have been originally connected with the Mughals in some way, but what has been said above is not enough to set at naught our Indian authorities who clearly state that Tughluq was a Qaraunah Turk. Maula Bakhsh's observations read together with Mirza Haider's remarks indicate the process of interfusion by which the Mongols rapidly became Turks. There may have been Mongol blood in the Qaraunahs as it was in the Chaghtai Turks, of whom Babar may be taken as a fair specimen, and Babar was a Mongol on his mother's side. Ibn Batūṭah's informant was Shaikh Rukn-al-Din Multani, who knew the Sultan intimately, and we have no reason to disbelieve what he says. Later writers like Firishta and Sujan Rai Khatri following their immediate predecessors distinctly state that the father of Ghazi Malik (the name by which Ghiyas-al-Din was known in his earlier days) was a Turk. Sir Wolseley Haig's view that Ghiyas-al-Din's father came of the tribe of Turks now dwelling near Khotan and called by Sir Aurel Stein, in his *Ruins of Desert Cathay*: "Taghlik" may be accepted because it is in agreement with Ibn Batūṭah. Ghazi Malik's hostility to the Mughals as is evidenced by his repeated attempts to drive them out of India, points to the predominance of Turkish blood in him. There is nothing in contemporary writers to indicate that there was anything of the Mongolian type in the features of the Tughluqs. Sultan Muhammad Tughluq is described as a handsome man and cultured scholar, whose urbanity struck all who came in contact with him, and in a rare portrait of Firuz which is available to us the features of that monarch seem to be more Turkish than Mongolian. All these facts go to prove that Ghiyas-al-Din Tughluq was a Turk. Indeed, a more effective argument may be put forward by saying that Indian Turks who were fanatically hostile to the Mongols would not have unanimously elected him to the imperial throne, if they had not been convinced of his Turkish descent.

c6.20.1

The dynasty is known by the name Tughluq.¹¹ What does the cognomen Tughluq signify? Sir Wolseley Haig had once expressed the opinion,¹² which he informed me in a private letter he had abandoned, that Tughluq was not the name of Sultan Ghiyas-al-Din Tughluq but a tribal cognomen, and argued that it was not necessary to describe the second ruler of the dynasty as Muhammad Bin Tughluq.¹³ But on this point the testimony of contemporary authorities is conclusive. Tughluq was not an unfamiliar name in the middle ages. Such names were common among the Mughals as appears from the *Tarikh-i-Rashidi*, and sometimes dynasties were called after the names of their founders. The suggestion of the *Muhlaqāt* alluded to by Firishta that Qutlugh became Tughluq through frequent use by Indians seems to be incorrect. If it had been so, Muhammad Tughluq, who was a well-educated scholar, would have restored the original spelling of the word, as there is evidence to show that he was very careful about his coin legends. Besides, Tughluq and Qutlugh seem to have been carefully distinguished from each other, for Qutlugh Khan was a recognised title which was conferred upon Amirs by these Sultans. Muhammad Tughluq's tutor enjoyed the title of Qutlugh Khan. Ibn Batūṭah and Barani both write Tughluq (تغلق) and they are supported by ‘Afif, Yaḥyā, Nizam-al-Din, Abul-Fazl, Badaoni, Hajji-ad-Dabir and many others.

c6.20.2

Firishta in speaking of the origin of the dynasty writes that Malik Tughluq was the name of the father of Ghiyas-al-Din Tughluq who was a slave of Sultan Balban. Now Firishta differs from other writers in one important particular. He alone speaks of the father of Ghiyas as a slave of Balban, while others (S. S. ‘Afif included) say that the three brothers Rajab, Abu Bakr and Tughluq came from Khorasan and entered the service of Sultan ‘Ala-al-Din Khilji.¹⁴ If Tughluq (Ghazi Tughluq) came with his brothers from Khorasan, how are we to explain the tradition that he was born of a Jat woman of the Punjab whom his father had married? The tradition need not be doubted, for among the Tughluqs there seems to have been no prejudice against such intermarriages, and we have the instance of the marriage of Sultan Ghiyas’s brother Rajab with Rana Mal Bhatti’s daughter at the suggestion of the former. There is no mention of Tughluq or even Ghazi Malik in Barani’s lists of the officers of Balban, Kaiqubad and Jalal-al-Din Khilji.¹⁵ In Barani’s history we hear of him for the first time in the reign of ‘Ala-al-Din Khilji, leading expeditions against the Mughals, Barani mentions Fakhr-al-Din Jūnā as occupying the office of Dādbaḳ¹⁶ at the opening of the reign, and we read of his father Ghazi Beg Tughluq driving out of India the Mughals under Aibak Khan, an officer of Amir Daud Khan, ruler of Transoxiana, in 1305 A.D. eight years after ‘Ala-al-Din’s accession to the throne.

c6.20.3

It does not seem probable that both father and son should have secured ‘Ala-al-Din’s favour so quickly after their arrival from Khorasan, and then, neither Barani nor Ibn Batūtah, nor any other writer says that Tughluq also brought his son with him. The office of Dādbaḳ was a highly responsible one, and ‘Ala-al-Din would not have entrusted it to Juna, if he had been a newcomer. It appears that Ghazi Malik or Ghazi Beg Tughluq, for he is so variously styled by Muslim historian, had been in India for some years and had given proof of his abilities. Hajji-ad-Dabīr, relying upon a certain history of which he does not give the name, writes that the three brothers Sipahsalar Rajab, Abu Bakr and Ghazi came from Khorasan in the reign of Sultan ‘Ala-al-Din Khilji. Ghazi was the eldest, and by virtue of his abilities rapidly rose in the Sultan’s favour and finally became governor of Dipalpur.¹⁷ He gives neither the date of this work nor the name of its author, though after some discussion regarding internal evidence furnished by the work itself he concludes that the author was neither an ‘Arab nor a Persian. Hajji-ad-Dabīr is supported by Ibn Batūtah and ‘Afif. How are we to reconcile the discrepancy between these authorities and Firishta and the author of the Khulāsat-ut-Tawarīkh?

c6.20.4

Barani and Afīf are contradicted by Amir Khusrau, another contemporary writer, who in his Tughluqnamah, which has now become available to us, writes that Ghazi Malik was in the service of Jalaluddin Khilji and Prince ‘Ulugh Khan prior to entering the service of Sultan Alauddin Khilji. When the crown of Delhi was offered to him after his victory over Khusrau, he reviewed his past career before the assembled nobles and told them that he had received great favours at the hands of Sultan Jalaluddin Khilji. This is not a mere casual mention for the nobles in recounting the brave deeds of Ghazi Malik made a special mention of his gallant fighting during the siege of Ranthambhor in the time of Jalaluddin Khilji. It appears from this account that Ghazi Malik who was a veteran warrior in 1320 was holding high offices long before Alauddin's time. Now that Barani's statement that Tughluq came from Khorasan in the reign of Alauddin Khilji is wrong it is possible that his father may have come in the time of Balban and married a Jat woman of the Punjab.

c6.21

¹¹ The word is variously spelt in English though in Persian and Turki it is always (تغلق) I have adhered to the form adopted by Sir Wolseley Haig.

c6.22

¹² J.R.A.S., 1922, p. 321—'Article on Five Questions in the History of the Tughluq Dynasty of Dihli.'

c6.23

¹³ J.R.A.S., 1922, p. 321.

c6.24

¹⁴ ‘Afif writes : المقصد چون این هر سه برادر تغلق و رجب و ابوبکر از ملک خراسان در دهای آمدند در آن ایام عهد دولت سلطان علاءالدین بود - Cal. Text, p. 36.

c6.25

¹⁵ Barani, Cal. Text, pp. 24, 126, 174.

c6.26

¹⁶ This office corresponds to Mir ‘Adl of the Mughals which corresponds to the Law Member of the present day.

c6.27

¹⁷ Hājji-ad-Dabīr writes that when Tughluq was governor of Dipalpur he went one day to Baba Farid Ganj Shakar of Ajodhan (584—670 A.H.=1191—1271 A.D.)., A piece of cloth was placed before him. He tore off 4½ yards from it and gave it to Ghazi, 27 yards to his son Muhammad and 40 yards to Firuz and told them that they would attain to royalty in the future. The length of the piece given to each represented the duration of the reign. Now the Shaikh cannot have been living in the time of ‘Ala-al-Din for he died in 1271 A. D. Besides if the tradition were accepted Firuz would be eighty years of age at the time of his accession to the throne which is absurd. The incident to which the tradition refers seems to be chronologically impossible.

c6.28

In a matter like this Firishta is preferable to 'Afif who was a court historian to Firuz Tughluq, inclined to suppress the fact of the low origin of his patron's dynasty, and to Ibn Batutah who may have carelessly written 'Ala-al-Din Khilji for Ghiyas-al-Din Balban. Besides, the latter wrote from memory, and a slip of this kind is not impossible particularly when one is writing long after the event took place and when no verification is possible in a distant land.

c6.29

Born of an Indian mother, Ghazi Malik typified in his character the salient features of the two races—the modesty and mildness of the Hindu and the virility and vigour of the Turk. Again and again he had fought the Mughals and effectively guarded the frontiers of the empire. Ibn Batūtah has translated for us an inscription of Ghazi Malik, which he saw on the Jam-i-masjid at Multan, which records that he had defeated the Tartars on twenty-nine occasions and won the title of Malik-al-Ghazi.¹⁸ When 'Ali Beg and Khwajah Tash invaded Hindustan and ravaged Multan in 705 A.H. (1350 A.D.), and devastated the plains as far as the Sewalik range, Ghazi Beg led his forces against them and by vigorous attacks succeeded in defeating them. Later, when Iqbal Mandā another Mughal warrior, made his appearance in Hindustan, Ghazi Malik marched against him and inflicted a crushing defeat upon him. Periodically from his post at Dipalpur, situated in a highly important part of the empire, he used to advance at the head of a spirited corps to the frontiers of the Mughal territory, and throw the gauntlet of war before the Mughal leaders. The provinces of Kabul, Qandhar, Ghazni and Gurumseer were ravaged, and the inhabitants were subjected to a heavy blackmail. These repeated encounters with the Mughals, attended by unprecedented success, established the fame of Ghazi Malik as a redoubtable captain of war all over Hindustan and Khorasan. The dynastic revolution which occurred at Dihli in 720 A.H. gave Ghazi Malik the opportunity to carve out a career for himself.

c6.30

¹⁸ I.B., III, p. 202; Also Barani, Cal. Text, p. 416.

c6.31

Khusrau's plot succeeded well enough, and after the murder of Qutb-al-Din Mubarak Khilji he ascended the throne in the palace of the Hazar-sitūn under the title of Nāsir-al-Din some time in 720 A.H. Though himself a Hindu convert, he assumed after the traditional manner of Muslim kings the title of Amir-al-muminin, as is testified by his coinage.¹⁹ The date of his assumption of royalty is given neither by Barani nor by Ibn Batūtah. The Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi gives 5th Rabi I, 721 A.H., which Firishta copies, though Briggs makes it into 25th Rabi I, 721 A.H., which is either a misprint or a mistake due to some defective text. Badaoni and Hajji accept 720 A.H. There are no coins of Khusrau, dated 721 A.H., but there are coins of Ghiyas bearing the date 720 A.H., which shows that he assumed the sceptre in that year.²⁰ There is another difficulty in accepting the date given by the author of the Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi. Khusrau reigned only for four months and a few days, and if we accept 1st Sha'ban, 721 A.H. as the date of Ghiyas's accession to the throne, the duration of Khusrau's reign would be from Rabi I, 721 A.H. till the end of Rajab, 721 A.H. which is in conflict with numismatic evidence.

c6.32

¹⁹ N. Wright, Catalogue of Coins in the Indian Museum, Calcutta, Vol. II, p. 47, Coin No. 270.

c6.33

²⁰ N. Wright, Catalogue of Coins in the Indian Museum, Calcutta, Vol. II, p. 48, Ncs. 282, 293, 294. Thomas, Chronicles, p. 191.

c6.34

Soon after the assumption of royalty, Khusrau, according to Muslim chroniclers, inaugurated a reign of terror and put to death the friends and attendants of the former Sultan. Some of the most distinguished nobles of the empire were murdered in their homes, while others were brought into the palace by means of guile and treachery and beheaded. Their wives and daughters were given to the Parwarīs,²¹ or Barwārs disgrace.²² Qazi Zia-al-Din's house was raided and given to Randhol, though his wife and children succeeded in effecting their escape. The associates of the Parvenu were richly rewarded; Randhol²³ was given the title of Raya Rayan, and Hisām-al-Din who had been his confederate and ally received the title of Azam-al-Mulk. Yusuf Sufi became Sufi Khan, ‘Ain-al-Mulk Multani ‘Alam Khan, and the title of Hatim Khan was conferred upon Ikhtiyar-al-Din Sambal. Kamāl-al-Din Kūfi was appointed Vakil-i-dar²⁴ and Malik Juna, son of Ghazi Malik

c6.35

²¹ The Calcutta text of Barani calls Khusrau a Barwar (بروار). The Bankipur, India Office, and Buhar MSS. have Barao bacchah (براو بچه). Ibn Batutah simply says (III, p. 197) he was originally a Hindu. Amir Khusrau writes Barādū and says that they are men of great courage and are ever ready to lay down their

c6.36

²² Firishta writes:—

c6.37

²³ Hajji-ad-Dabīr writes Ratdhol.

c6.38

²⁴ The word is variously written in various texts. Some have Vakil-i-dar, others Vakil-al-dar and Vakildo. Briggs is right in adopting the form Vakil-i-dar. Major Raverty (*Tabqat-i-Nasiri* I, p. 694) discusses at length the meaning of Vakil-i-dar and says that Vakil-i-dar and Vakil-i-darbar are equivalent. This seems to be incorrect. Ibn Batutah distinctly says (III, p. 196) that the Vakil-i-dar held the keys of the palace.* Barani supports Ibn Batutah. There is no resemblance whatsoever between the Vakil-i-dar and Vakil of Mughal times.

c6.39

such as the "Parmar" Rajputs were. This read together with the statement of the *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi* that Hasan was captured by the Muhammadans during the sack of Malwa may seem to lend support to the view that Hasan was originally a Rajput, but it is difficult to get over Barani's testimony who emphatically says that he was a low-born menial. Then, the author of the *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi* also states that there was defect in his caste. Besides, Hajji-ad-Dabīr who had a special knowledge of the history of Gujarat does not say that Hasan was originally a Rajput. Like Barani he also describes him as a filthy outcast and pours ridicule upon him. There is an ugly and repulsive side of Khusrau's character, condemned by all historians which is thoroughly un-Rajputlike.

c6.40

سلطان قطب الدین دیول دیوی منکوحه خضر خان را داخل حرم ساخت

c6.41

Badaoni simply says Khusrau Khan took to himself in marriage, the chief wife of the Sultan. Hajji-ad-Dabir supports Firishta. Barani is silent on the subject, but Amir Khusrau, a contemporary writer, (*Ashiga, Elliot III, p. 555*) says that her hands were cut off, while she was clinging to the body of her husband who was murdered by the order of Mubarak and that she was left among the slain.

c6.42

Edward Thomas is wrong in speaking of her as the enforced wife of two succeeding Sultans of Dihli, one of the brothers and murderers of her husband and the other the foul pariah Khusrau. In a matter like this Amir Khusrau's testimony is more reliable, for he was specially interested in Deval Rani and Khizr Khan, and her fate must have been known to him. It seems probable that she escaped indignity at the hands of the Parwari. Her Rajput pride would have surely kicked at such a union. Before slaying Khizr Khan, Qutb-al-Din sent word to him that he would make him governor of a province, if he sent Deval Rani to him but he refused. Qutb-al-Din became angry at this.

c6.43

* Qazi Zia-al-Din, tutor of Qutb-al-Din Mubarak Shah Khilji held this office and used to keep the keys of the royal palace.

c6.44

appointing him to the office of *Amir-i-Ākhur* (master of the horse). But he secretly brooded over the wrongs done to the house of 'Ala-al-Din and planned ways and means to effect the overthrow of the Parwarīs. Juna communicated all that had happened to his father Ghazi Malik at Dipalpur, who asked him to place no reliance upon the wretch and to avoid all contact with him. The veteran warrior was moved with indignation when he heard of Khusrau's atrocities and outrages. He 'writhed like a snake' and swore to wreak vengeance upon the Parwaris who had stained their hands with the blood of the family of his patron, and who had defiled Islam and destroyed its power. But the safety of his son who was a Court noble required that he should proceed with caution. Ghazi Malik bided his time and began to mature his plans for the speedy and effective overthrow of the usurpers.

c6.45

Juna was not reconciled to the newly established government, and, in a position of unusual embarrassment, he continued to confer daily with the leading nobles of 'Ala-al-Din to devise means of Khusrau's overthrow. Neither the attention of Khusrau nor the prospect of official honours served to dissipate his sombre broodings. After two months and a half his patience was exhausted. The author of the *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi* writes that he was asked by Khusrau to take out for a ride the 'Arab horses who had become too fat, and he is supported by Ibn Batūtah.²⁶ He seized this opportunity, and one day at the time of afternoon prayer he left the Court with Bahram Aiba's son rode post-haste in the direction of Dipalpur. As soon as his flight was known to Khusrau, he was filled with dismay, and forthwith a small contingent of nobles, headed by the son of Qara Qimar, who was the commander of the royal forces, was dispatched to overtake the disaffected Amir. But Fakhr-al-Din continued his march the whole night and next day, eluded the grasp of his pursuers, and reached Sirsuti²⁷ in safety. Before his arrival his father had already sent there Muhammad Sartabā at the head of 200 horse from Dipalpur to occupy and garrison the fortress in anticipation of the coming danger. Freed from anxiety on the score of his son, Ghazi Malik vowed vengeance upon Khusrau and began to make preparations for an encounter with the Hindus. He issued a circular letter to all the nobles of the empire appealing to them for assistance. With a few exceptions the most notable of which was Maghalati, the governor of Multan, who did not like to play the second fiddle to Ghazi Malik, the nobles expressed their willingness to join the confederacy. But the people disapproved of Maghalati's conduct and turned against him.

c6.46

²⁶ Ibn Batutah III, p. 204.

c6.47

²⁷ Sirsuti, the modern Sirsa is mentioned by Ibn Batutah as a big town where rice was abundantly grown. It was situated on the bank of the river Sirsuti. Ibn Batutah III, pp. 142-43. Sirsa is mentioned in the Ain. Jarrett II, pp. 105, 281, 294, 326.

c6.48

He sought refuge in flight. But he was arrested and killed by his men. The people of Siwistan compelled their Amir, Muhammad Shah, to join forces with those of Ghazi Malik. Strangely enough, 'Ain-al-Mulk Multani adopted an attitude of neutrality and offered to pay homage to the man who acquired possession of Dihli. Khusrau Khan was informed of these proceedings by Malik Lakhi, governor of Samana, who forgot the injuries that he had received at his hands, and gave his adhesion to the party in power. The Malik marched towards Dipalpur, but he was overpowered by Ghazi Malik and was finally killed by the people of Samana. This news alarmed Khusrau, and he began to organise his forces. The command of the army was conferred upon Yusuf Khan surnamed Yusuf Sufi. Both were inexperienced men, and the task of opposing a warrior, whose might had made the Mughals of Khorasan and Mughalistan tremble, was without doubt beyond their capacity. The army of Dihli, demoralised by indolence and debauchery, was no match for the sturdy Muslims who followed in the wake of Ghazi Malik, and to whom the present war, seemed to be nothing short of a Jihad. Lack of experienced generalship, added to want of discipline, made the cause of Khusrau from the outset hopeless. They marched towards Sirsuti, but having failed to capture it they proceeded towards Dipalpur to encounter Ghazi Malik. The latter had just been reinforced by Bahram Aiba, governor of Ucch, who joined with horse and foot to assist the cause of justice. He marched from Dipalpur, passed by the town of Dabhali²⁸ and taking the river in the rear encamped in an open field between Sirsuti and Dipalpur.

c6.49

²⁸ It is Dalili (دليلي) in Barani, (p. 416). The Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi says, the battle was fought near Hauz Bahati or Bahali. Major Raverty quoting from some text of Barani (J. A. S. B., 1892, Pt. I, p. 2623 writes Zabhali (ذبهالي) He translates Barani's text thus: 'Ghazi Malik, leaving Dipalpur passed the qasbah of Dabhali and with the river in his rear, he encountered them. Major Raverty, commenting on this writes that the river is not named, but the place here mentioned lies between Dipalpur and Sirsuti or Sirsa, thirty-six miles

c6.50

Barani and Ibn Batūṭah as well as all later writers speak of two battles between Ghazi Malik and the forces of Dihli—one of which was a preliminary engagement in the plain above referred to and the other near the Hauz Khas,²⁹ in which Khusrau himself led his men. The two armies drew themselves in battle array and each side began to plan dexterous manœuvres to overpower the other. The rickety forces of Khusrau were utterly routed and fled in confusion. Much baggage, elephants and treasure fell into the hands of the victors, and a good many of the vanquished, besides the wounded and the killed, were made prisoners. The raw youths, to whom Khusrau had entrusted the supreme command, fled from the field of battle, panic-stricken, and conveyed to their master the news of the disaster that had befallen them. To all appearance, the cause of the Parwarīs was doomed and they were so frightened that hardly any life was left in their bodies.

c6.51

²⁹ I.B. describes the Hauz Khas (حوض خاص) as a large reservoir between Dihli and the capital—larger than the Hauz Shamsi. There are 40 domes on its banks and around it live musicians (اهل طرب) and for this reason it is called City of Music (طرب آباد). I.B. III, p. 155.

c6.52

After the battle was over, Ghazi Malik remained for seven days on the field of battle, obviously to organise his forces for a determined bout of action with the ‘infidels.’ Having possessed himself of considerable spoil, the victorious general commenced his march towards Dihli to deal a decisive blow. He encamped at Indarpat near the tomb of Raziyah. Reduced to sore straits, Khusrau began to look for help in all quarters. Like one “despised by fortune or worsted in gambling,” he brought out all the treasures from Kilughari and Dihli. All records and account books were burnt, and the exchequer was emptied to win the support of the army. He gave the soldiers two-and-a-half years’ pay in advance and showered gifts recklessly to prevent defection in the royal army. But this prodigality proved of no avail; the soldiers, who knew that Ghazi Malik’s cause was just and righteous, accepted his gold, but gave up all intention of fighting against him, and quietly betook to

c6.53

to the westwards of Uboh-har (Abuhar) and stands on the bank of the oldest channel of the Sutlej, called in the maps ‘the eastern “Naiwal” and “Nyewal.”’ Dalili or Zabhali is not mentioned in the Ain-i-Akbari. According to Badaoni this battle was fought near the reservoir of Thanesar but the T. M.’s version is different. The Hauz Bahati is a name probably connected with Barani’s Dalili or Raverty’s Zabhali. The place of the first battle cannot be near Thanesar. [Ranking, I, p. 293 (note 5)].

c6.54

their homes. Khusrau, in great perplexity and fear, held council with the chiefs of the army, and employed every device of which his artful nature was capable to attach them to his cause, but nothing availed to infuse hope and enthusiasm into the army. The soldiers openly said that to fight Ghazi Malik was to fight against the army of Islam, and they were troubled by no scruples in deserting a cause which was foredoomed to failure.

c6.55

Having summoned his nobles and allies, Khusrau left Siri and encamped on the ground near the Hauz ‘Alai not far from Indarpat. He occupied a position of great advantage, well fortified on all sides; in front of him were groves and walled gardens to shield him from the enemy’s attack, and in the rear was the citadel of old Dihli, where he could find a ready shelter and supply of provisions in the event of danger. When all preparations had been made, news was brought to Khusrau, on the eve of the day of battle, of the defection of ‘Ain-al-Mulk Multani who had secretly left for Ujjain and Dhar. Khusrau’s courage failed him, and his heart sank as he surveyed the prospect that lay before him. Ghazi Malik set his forces in order and with his army advanced to the plain of Lohrawat³⁰ to meet the army of Dihli. The Parwaris with those Musalmans, who preferred wealth and position to honour and conscience, had repaired to this place with their elephants and horses. A sharp engagement followed in which Khusrau’s men were defeated. Malik Talbagha Nagori, whose constant fidelity to the parvenu had led him to brave great risks, was completely overpowered, and his head was brought to Ghazi Malik. The son of Qara Qimar who enjoyed the title of Shaysta Khan, when he saw the day going against his party, withdrew from the army and decided to flee from the field of battle. On his way to Indarpat, he fell upon the army of Ghazi Malik and plundered its baggage. But the battle raged fiercely, and the Dihlwis in spite of the treachery of Shaysta fought with great gallantry till evening. This heroic effort put the old warrior on his mettle; he gathered his followers and comrades and appealed to them to fight with all their strength. Loyally assisted by the officers and the rank and file, who looked upon this war as a Jihad, he dashed in full vigour and charged the centre of the army of Dihli. Driven to extremities, Khusrau and his men fought with desperate courage and for a short while successfully withstood the attacks of their valiant foes. Barani like an orthodox Muslim gives a highly disparaging account of Khusrau’s conduct in battle, but the author of the *Tughluq-namah* gives him credit for bravery. Nizam-al-Din, unlike Barani, gives his due even to an unclean Parwari. Even Badaoni, a man of strong clerical bias, admires the gallantry with which Khusrau and his men fought in battle. Firishta joins in the praise and says, Khusrau’s army opposed the confederates with great bravery. Ibn Batūṭah says, Khusrau was a brave and spirited man and fought with great courage against his enemies. He goes so far as to say that before his assault Tughluq’s army fled, and his camp was plundered, and he is substantially corroborated by the *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi* which is an earlier authority than the *Tabqāt*. The forlorn hope of the Dihli army, despite the heavy odds arrayed against them, continued to fight with stubborn courage, but when Ghazi Malik at the head of his brave 300 fell like a solid rock upon them, their strength was exhausted, and their defeat was easily turned into a miserable rout. Khusrau made his escape from the field of battle and arrived at Tilpat³¹, all his followers having been wounded or killed. Barani writes that he concealed himself in the garden of Malik Shadi, an ‘Alai noble, a former patron of his and there he lay crouching in abject fear. The *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi* and the *Tabqāt* support Barani, though Hajji-ad-Dabīr writes tomb instead of garden.

c6.56

³⁰ This village cannot be traced. But Lohrawat of Barani was situated between the Hauz Khas and Dihli.

c6.57

³¹ Tilpat is mentioned in the Ain-i-Akbari in the Sarkar of Dihli. It still survives about 10 miles S. E. of the Qutb Minar. Ibn Batutah mentions it as a village seven or eight miles from Dihli on the Dihli-Mathura road. Jarrett II, p. 104.

c6.58

Ibn Batūṭah writes that the fugitive concealed himself in a garden, but he does not mention the name of Malik Shādi. Ghazi Malik’s victory was decisive. It was a victory of the supremely able man over the discordant and helpless many. The Parwarīs were slain in the markets and streets of the city wherever they were found, and the victorious army seized their horses and arms from them. Most of them fled towards Gujarat and many of them were put to

c6.59

Tieffenthaler, I, p. 132.

c6.60

Ibn Batutah, IV, p. 5.

c6.61

Beam’s Edition of Elliot’s Glossary, II, p. 123.

c6.62

death by Ghazi Malik’s excited soldiery on the road. Next day Khusrau was discovered in the garden where he had concealed himself and by the order of Ghazi Malik he was beheaded.32 His supporters were diligently traced out and met the fate which, according to Barani, they so richly merited. The Khan-i-Khanan, the commandant of the forces of Dihli, lay crouching in a garden to save his life, but he was caught by Fakhr-al-Din and was ordered to be mutilated and paraded through the streets of Dihli. The contemporary historian writes with great exultation: “Islam was rejuvenated and a new life came into it. The clamour of infidelity sank to the ground. Men’s minds were satisfied and their hearts felt contented.33 The chiefs and nobles of the empire greeted Ghazi Malik and tendered their fealty to him.34 Master of the situation, he did not find much difficulty in making short work of his enemies and proceeded from Indarpat to Siri and seated himself in the palace

c6.63

32 Barani simply says (Text, pp. 420-21) Khusrau was killed. The T. M. says, Khusrau fled with a few officers. The text had been the weakness of the next are:—

c6.64

خسرو خاں منہزم شدہ بگریخت خود سر در کم رفته و هما نجـا تلف شده - غازی ملک مظفر و منصور در پرده خویش فرود آمد

c6.65

Nizam-al-Din, Badaoni, Firishta and Hajji all agree in saying that he was captured, brought before Ghazi Malik and ordered to be beheaded.

c6.66

Ibn Batūṭah has given a different account of Khusrau’s death which seems to have based entirely upon hearsay. According to him, Khusrau remained concealed tormented by hunger. He gave a ring of his to the gardener to fetch something from the market to eat. When the garden-people saw a precious ring in the possession of a gardener, their suspicion was roused. They took him to the Kotwal and the latter took him to Tughluq. Fakhr-al-Din was sent to arrest him. When he was brought before Ghazi Malik, he said that he was hungry whereupon the latter ordered his men to supply drink and food for him. When he had taken his food he asked Tughluq to treat him as became a king on which the old warrior ordered him to be decapitated. Ibn Batutah’s account savours of a myth, and it is quite probable that he may have found this popular explanation of Khusrau’s death current in Hindustan on his arrival.

c6.67

33 Barani, Calcutta text, p. 423.

c6.68

34 Ibn Batūṭah relates that Ghazi Malik asked Kishlu Khan to accept the crown, but he refused. When Ghazi Malik thus expressed his unwillingness, Kishlu Khan told him that if he persisted in his refusal, they would place upon the throne his son Muhammad,—a thing which was unacceptable to Ghazi Malik. This account, if correct will explain the motive of Prince Juna in bringing about the death of the old Emperor.

c6.69

of the Hazarsitun which had been profaned by the Bacchanalian revels of Mubarak and his hench-men. He received the felicitations of the assembled nobles who offered him the keys of the palace and the insignia of sovereignty. The date 1st Sha'ban, 721 A.H. given by Yahyā and copied by Firishta is incorrect as has been previously explained. Though de facto master of the Sultanate of Dihli, Ghazi Malik shrank from the burden of the kingly office. He did not behave like a rapacious condottiere and had no desire to grasp the power which he had acquired by the force of his arms. To mark his respect for the family of 'Ala-al-Din he performed the obsequies of the scions of the royal house, who had perished at the hands of the usurpers, and with a full sense of his obligations and responsibilities he addressed the assembled nobles in these words: "I am one of those who have been brought up under Sultans . . .

c6.70

'Ala-al-Din and Qutb-al-Din, and it is the sentiment of loyalty which is ingrained in my nature, that has prompted me to wash my life, and to strike my sword at the enemies and exterminators of my patrons to the best of my power."

c6.71

"Ye are the distinguished nobles of the empire. If there is any survivor of the stock of my patrons, living at this time, bring him forth immediately so that I may instal him on the throne and tender to him my devotion and fealty. But if the line of 'Ala-al-Din and Qutb-al-Din has been completely extinguished by the enemies, ye, who are the elders of the past as well as the present regime, place on the throne some one whom you consider worthy of the honours of royalty. I will render unto him my loyal obeisance."

c6.72

"I have drawn my sword to avenge the death of my patrons and not to gain power and kingdom. I have not imperilled my life and property, my wife, and children for the acquisition of the throne. What I have done, I have done with the motive of avenging the murderers of my patrons."

c6.73

The nobles informed him that no scion of Ala-al-Din's house had been left alive by the usurpers, and they dwelt upon the confusion and disorder that prevailed in the empire owing to the strife stirred up everywhere by the murder of the king and the ascendancy of the Hindus. With one voice they appealed to him in these words:

c6.74

"O Ghazi Malik! for years past thou hast shielded us against the attacks of the Mughals, and effectively put an end to their incursions in our country. By these

c6.75

meritorious services thou hast established a claim upon our loyalty. This memorable deed of yours will be recorded in History; thou hast emancipated the faithful form the galling yoke of the Hindus and the Parwaris; thou hast avenged the death of thy patrons and benefactors, and for this great service the nobles as well as the commonalty of the realm are deeply beholden to thee. We know none who is better fitted to assume sovereignty than thyself.'

c6.76

Taking Ghazi Malik by the hand, they placed him upon the throne, and in response to the united prayer of the well-wishers of the empire, he assumed the sceptre under the title of Ghiyas-al-Din Tughluq Shah, and received the homage of all parties. The election of a plebeian to the imperial office demonstrated in an unmistakable manner the democratic spirit of Islam and reaffirmed the principle of the survival of the fittest, which dominated and controlled the Muslim state in India in the 13th and 14th centuries.

c6.77

The vast empire of 'Ala-al-Din had been reduced to small dimensions owing to the weakness of the central power. The provincial satraps and the half-subdued Hindu Rajas and chieftains had begun to assert their independence. The Doab was under the authority of the Dihli Sultanate, but during the period of confusion which lasted from the death of Qutb-al-Din Mubarak Shah to the assumption of royal power by Ghazi Malik, a tendency to shake off the yoke of Dihli was clearly discernible. Khusrau's usurpation of royal authority was a revival of Hindu ascendancy, but his regime was too short to allow full scope to Hindu ambitions. Besides, the 'Alai nobles kept watch and ward over the territories that lay near the capital of the empire in the Gangetic valley and held in check the forces of disruption. But in the outlying provinces of the empire the reactionary forces had strengthened the hands of local despots and seriously diminished the authority of the Central Government.

c6.78

The Punjab had always been the most vulnerable part of the empire of Dihli. The Mughals had harried its plains again and again and inflicted untold misery upon the people. Every year at the head of myriad hosts they poured into that unfortunate country and caused enormous loss of life and property.. Balban and 'Ala-al-Din had strained every nerve to create an effective barrier against their recurring raids. The two outposts of Multan and Depalpur were maintained to guard the frontier, and the present ruler had held the post of the Lord of the Marches at Depalpur for a long time. But the Punjab as a whole was not yet definitely included in the empire of Dihli, for the Mughals, who had settled there, had a tendency to look back to their ancestral homes. Revolts and intrigues were too common amongst them, and vigorous measures were needed to keep in check their turbulent spirit. Besides, the Khokhars³⁵ and other tribes who had not emerged out of their primitive state were always ready to stir up strife and insurrection. Sindh had been conquered by ‘Ala-al-Din and soon after his accession he had placed Nusrat Khan in charge of Ucch, Bhakkar, Siwistan and Thatta with ten thousand horse with a view to establish order in the province. The province was afterwards given to Ghazi Malik along with Multan and Ucch as a jagir with ten thousand horses under his command. As long as ‘Ala-al-Din lived, he held the local tribes in check, and the sovereignty of Dihli was in the south of Sindh more real and effective than before. When the Sumrah chief Amar, son of Rai Dūdā, called ‘Umar by Muhammadan writers, carried off the wife of an Arab Chief Umar the Tammimi, the injured husband appealed to 'Ala-al-Din for redress. The emperor summoned Amar Sumrah and the latter, knowing full well the consequences of disobedience, obeyed the imperial mandate. He was cast in prison and it was long afterwards through the intercession of powerful friends that he regained his liberty in 1305-06 A.D. 'Ala-al-Din's death seriously affected the unity of the empire, but Ghazi Malik successfully contended against the forces of reaction. When he left Depalpur to fight against Khusrau in 720 A.H. (1320 A.D.) the tribe of Sumrah got their long-desired opportunity and their chief Amar recovered possession of lower Sindh.³⁶ He seized Thatta and declared his independence. Ghiyās-al-Din placed Multan in charge of Taj-al-Din, Bhakkar under Khwajah Khatīr and Siwistan under Malik 'Ali Sher, but it does not appear that the Sumrahs were dislodged from the position they had occupied, and though Sindh was treated as a part of the empire, the imperial authority had suffered a collapse at least in the southern part of the province.

c6.79

³⁵ The Khokhars are distinct from the Gakkars. They are a tribe found among Jats, Rajputs, Arians and Chuhres. As a tribe of varying Rajput and Jat status, the Khokhars are most numerous along the valleys of the Jhelum and the Chenab, and especially in the Jhang and Shahpur districts. They are also found on the lower Indus and the Sutlej, especially in Lahore and also all along the foot of the hill from the Jhelum to the Sutlej. The Khokhars were originally Hindus and many Hindu customs are still preserved among them. Mr. J. G. Delmerick in an article contributed to the Journal, Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1871 confounded the Khokhars with the Gakkars. Firishta invariably makes the same confusion. Major Raverty writes in a note in his translation of the Tabqat-i-Nasiri that there are still some 20,000 families of Khokhars in the Punjab. They are found in the Multan district and districts further to the north-west, towards the Indus in the Sind Sagar Doab. The Gakkars are still further northwards. Mr. Denzil Ibbetson writes in his ‘Punjab Castes’ that the Khokhars are ordinarily considered a Rajput tribe though some of them call themselves Jats also. The Gakkars according to him are the ancient rulers of the northern portion of the Cis-Indus Salt range tract, just as are the Awans and Janjuas of the southern portion of the same tract and it appears probable that at one time they overran Kashmir. For a detailed account of the Khokhars and Gakkars see the following. A glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab compiled by H. A. Rose, Vol. II, pp. 539—549. (For a History of Gakkars, pp. 274—77.) Raverty, Tabqat-i-Nasiri, Translated, I, p. 455. Denzil Ibbetson, Punjab Castes, pp. 165—69, 172-73. J. Delmerick’s article in the J. A. S. B., 1871, pp. 67—107.

c6.80

³⁶ Malet, History of Sindh, A translation of the Tarikh-i-Masumi, p. 32. Tuhfat-al-Kiram, Elliot I, p. 341. Gazetteer of Sind, p. 95. Gazetteer of the Province of Sind, p. 96. The origin of the Sumrahs has been ably and exhaustively discussed by Elliot in a long note. The Sumrahs were originally Hindus as the names of most of them signify. The title of Jam adopted by them is further evidence of their Hindu origin. This is the view accepted by Elliot and Elphinstone Elliot I, pp. 483—94, Jarett, Ain-i-Akbari, II, pp. 341—345. Elphinstone, History of India, pp. 304, 749, edited by Cowell.

c6.81

'Ala-al-Din's sway had been confined to the principal towns from Jalor and Patan in the north to Broach and Surat in the south, Gujarat. and at times owing to the determined opposition of the Hindu chiefs, the Musalmans "possessed little more than the encamping ground of their armies." After the fall of the Baghela Rajputs, Gujarat continued to be a fief of the empire of Dihli for a little more than a century and Patan and Anhilwad became the seat of the imperial government. Far away from the headquarters, the imperial governors did what they pleased and made a discretionary use of the civil and military authority entrusted to them. They seized the property of Hindu and Jain temples, destroyed their shrines, and built mosques in their places.³⁷ Muslim domination galled the pride of the Rajputs who carried on a desperate struggle for their liberation. The descendants of Khengar in Surashtra, the Rathors of Idar, and the Gohils of Champanir in the East kept up a heroic struggle for their independence, and in the central region a large tract of land was occupied by the descendants of Karan, the last of the Baghelas. During the reign of Qutb-al-Din Mubarak Shah, Zafar Khan, who was an able and experienced man, brought about the complete subjugation of the country; the revenue was properly realised and the rais and muqaddams were made to yield obedience. But Mubarak, whimsical as he was, determined to take the life of Zafar Khan, ‘who had committed no offence’ and this wanton murder caused disturbances in the whole province.³⁸ The governorship of Gujarat was, after his death, conferred upon Hisām-al-Din, Khusrau's half-brother, but he was soon removed owing to his unpopularity, and his place was taken by Malik Wahīd-al-din Quraishi. When Mubarak met his death at the hands of Khusrau, Gujarat was in a neglected condition. Naturally, the Dihli politics absorbed the attention of the distinguished generals and statesmen of the realm, and Khusrau was too busy with measures to buttress up his tottering power to turn his attention to the affairs of Gujarat. The usual laxity of administration prevailed, and the governors and the people of Gujarat seem to have been left pretty much to themselves.

c6.82

³⁷ Burgess, Archæological Survey of Western India, IX, p. 18.

c6.83

³⁸ Barani, p. 395. Mirat-i-Ahmadi, Bayley's Local Muhammadan Dynasties of Gujarat, p. 40.

c6.84

The province of Bengal like the Deccan, had a tendency to revolt against the authority of Dihli. It was far from being a loyal appanage of the empire, and the governors of Bengal always tried to shake off the yoke of Dihli and set up their own independent power. The history of Bengal during the period is shrouded in obscurity, and out of the fragmentary materials available to us, it is difficult to construct a complete and connected account of the rulers of that province in the 14th century. The Muhammadan historians were so imperialistic in their outlook that they paid but scant regard to the annals of a dependent province. Balban had entrusted Bengal, after the revolt of Tughril Beg in 1283 A.D., to his son Mahmud surnamed Baghra Khan who was succeeded by his younger son Rukn-al-Din Kaikaus who assumed the position of a local Sultan in 697 A.H. although he still professed allegiance to Dihli.³⁹ Shams-al-din Firuz, younger brother of Kaikaus, established himself as Sultan of Bengal, and issued coins from Lakhnauti and Sonargaon.⁴⁰ He was more ambitious than his predecessors and, unlike the other rulers of his house, he does not expressly mention the fact of his descent from Balban on his coins. It seems, Bengal shared in the general confusion that followed the death of 'Ala-al-Din and practically cut itself off from Dihli thus enabling Shams-al-Din Firuz to exercise

First 86 of 243 passages. Read on

Linked texts (12)