History of the Qaraunah Turks in India c6.137
History of the Qaraunah Turks in India c6.137
- Language
- English
c6.137
3. When the Sultan led his expedition to Lakhnauti, he summoned 'Ulugh Khan from Warangal, appointed him naib and left the capital in his charge. Now, if the Prince had been guilty of sedition on a former occasion, the Sultan would have hesitated to entrust the capital to him particularly when he had other sons living at the time. Mubarak Khan, the eldest, who afterwards occupied the office of *Mir-dād* might have been chosen to act as *naib* at the capital. Sir Wolseley is alive to the difficulty, but he gets rid of it by an assumption to support which there is nothing either in Barani or Ibn Batūṭah. Obviously the Sultan called the Prince back because Telingana had been subdued, and there was nothing for him to do there. The Rai had been sent as a prisoner to the court. If the Mughal danger menaced the empire, it was right that he should have left the Prince in charge of Dihli. The Prince was a brave man, and he would have been far more useful in Dihli than in Telingana at such a time. Even if we suppose, as Sir Wolseley does, that Barani suppressed the truth to please Firuz Shah, it is not clear why the Sultan should immediately afterwards act as he did. It cannot be believed, as has been remarked, that the Sultan was unaware of the Prince's hostile designs particularly in view of the fact that a Darbar was held at Siri to discuss the fate of the culprits arrested for sedition before the execution of sentences. Instead of showing want of faith the whole chain of circumstances proves that the Prince enjoyed the confidence of the Sultan. Hajji-ad-Dabir writes that the Sultan sent an umbrella for ‘Ulugh Khan and conferred upon him independent authority while he was at Devagir. He was invested with the sovereign command of the maliks and troops under him so that no trouble might arise in the future in consequence of such a rumour. Hajji-ad-Dabir does not slavishly copy Barani and his statement regarding the Sultan's treatment of the Prince disproves the theory of sedition:
Cites (1)
- Tārīkh-i Fīrūzshāhī — Shams-i Sirāj ʿAfīf