I. GUJARAT
Sikandar and Mahmud II (1526)
It has been noted in the previous volume that Sultan Muzaffar died on 5 April, 1526, and was succeeded by his eldest son, Sikandar. After a reign of six weeks, Sikandar was assassinated by one of his disgruntled nobles and an infant son of Muzaffar was raised to the throne under the name of Mahmud II (26 May, 1526). Taking ad¬ vantage of the situation Bahadur, the fugitive son of Muzaffar, re¬ turned to Gujarat.
Bahadur (1526-1537)
Bahadur had quarrelled with his father, Muzaffar, a few years before the latter’s death, and had first taken refuge at Chitor and then with Ibrahim Lodi. He was present at the battle of Panlpat but did not take part in fighting. After the battle, Bahadur is said to have been invited by some local nobles to fill the throne of Jaun pur, and on his way thither news reached him of the happening in Gujarat. So Bahadur returned, and almost all the nobles except the murderers of Sikandar joined him. Their opposition was easily overcome and they were executed. After this, Bahadur turned against his brothers, and his closest rival Latif was severely wounded in an action, taken prisoner and died. The boy Mahmud II and three other princes were poisoned by Bahadur, whom the humane Babur rightly castigated as a “bloodthirsty and ungovernable young man”. Only his brother Chand Khan was left. This prince had taken refuge at the Malwa court, and Sultan Mahmud II of Malwa refused to surrender him, which caused a rupture of good relations between Gujarat and Mialwa and ultimately led Bahadur to conquer Malwa.
War in the Deccan and Malwa (1528-1531)
Khandesh, which had for a long time acknowledged the supre¬ macy of Gujarat, was during this period ruled by Muhammad I, the son of Bahadur’s sister. This prince and his ally, ‘Ala-ud-dln Tmad Shah of Berar, appealed to Bahadur after being severely defeated by Burhan Nizam Shah of Ahmadnagar and ‘Amir ‘All! Barld of Bldar.
So in 1528, Bahadur and his allies advanced against the Nizam Shah and invested the fort of Daulatabad. But the NiZam Shah put up a stiff resistance and cut off the supplies of the invading army, forcing Bahadur to retire. But Bahadur reopened the campaign after the rainy season of 1529 and, overcoming a stiff opposition, again be¬ sieged Daulatabad. While the operations were progressing satis¬ factorily, Bahadur was betrayed by his ally, ‘Ala-ud-din ‘Imad Shah, who, suspecting that Bahadur had designs on the Deccan, retired to Bldar. Negotiations for peace then began and finally both Burhan Nizam Shah and ‘Alia-ud-din Shah were forced to sign humiliating treaties.
Bahadur next turned his attention to Malwa. Mahmud II of Malwa, as has already been noted, had estranged Bahadur, by grant¬ ing asylum to Bahadur’s younger brother, Chand Khan, and refused to surrender him. Mahmud made his position worse by invading those portions of Malwa which Mahdrdnd Sanga had annexed to Mewar. He thus forced Mew^ar to join Bahadur, who regarded Mah¬ mud II as a vassal of Gujarat, since he was restored on the throne by Muzaffar II. Bahadur wanted Mahmud to come and meet him, but as the latter persistently failed to do so, invaded Malwa. Mah¬ mud literally made no resistance, and on 28 March, 1531, Mandu fell to the invaders. The khutba was read in Bahadur’s name and the portion of Malwa which still belonged to Mahmud was annexed to Gujarat.1
Bahadur and the Portuguese (1)
In 1528, Nuno da Cunha was appointed the governor of Portu¬ guese India, with instructions to capture Diu. He arrived in India in October, 1529 and, while Bahadur was engaged in the siege of Mandu, a strong Portuguese fleet sailed from Bombay. It first cap¬ tured Daman and then proceeded towards its main objective, namely, Diu. On 7 February, 1531, the fleet appeared near Shial Bet island, eight leagues to the west of Diu, which they captured after over¬ coming a stiff resistance. The bombardment of Diu began on 16 February, but no appreciable damage was done to the fortifications. So Nuno da Cunha, who was in charge of the expedition, left for Goa on 1 March, 1531, leaving a subordinate officer to cruise the gulf of Cambay. This officer systematically destroyed Mahuwa, Gogo, Bulsar, Tarapur, Mahim, Kelva, Agashi and Surat. la
Bahadur and Silahdi
Now that the Portuguese menace was over, Bahadur turned to complete the conquest of Malwa, parts of which like Gagraun and Mandasor were occupied by the Mahdrdna of Chitor and other parts like Raisen and Bhilsa by a Hindu noble called Silahdi, both of whom had unwittingly helped Bahadur in conquering Malwa. In¬ deed, Bahadur had, after the fall of Mandu, granted Ujjain, Bhilsa and Ashta to Silahdi and graciously given him leave to depart after giving him three lacs of rupees and a large number of horses and ele¬ phants. But Bahadur now decided to crush Silahdi; the turn of Mewar would come later.
Apparently Silahdi was too strong to be attacked, so Bahadur managed to allay his suspicion and bring him to his court where he was given the alternative of embracing Islam or death on the ground of his having a number of Muslim women in his seraglio. As Silahdi temporized, he was thrown into prison and Ujjain and Ashta were conquered from his son. Bahadur then conquered Bhilsa which having been under Silahdi for about two decades, had several tem¬ ples which were destroyed by Bahadur, who next besieged Raisen. Silahdi, alarmed at the turn of events, at last became a convert to Islam, but his brother Lakshman held out against the invading army and his son Bhupat went to bring help from Mewar.
Unfortunately the help from Mewar was not effective, and in the skirmishes that took place the Hindus were worsted. Ultimately, on the pretext that the fort would be delivered if Silahdi came in and managed to persuade his queen, he was brought inside. Silahdi’s relatives then asked him “what the Sultan had given him in ex¬ change for his own honourable position,” and he told them “the sarkar of Barodah.” They said, “Silahdi, your life is drawing near its end, you have not long to live. Why should you wish to live, and through fear of death, cast your honour to the winds? Death is thousand times better than this. We have thus resolved. We men will perish by the sword, and our women by the jauliar, that is, in the flames. Do you also, if you have the spirit, join us in this resolution.” To this Silahdi yielded, and the women died in flames and the men sword in hand (10 May, 1532).2
First siege of Chitor, 1533
After the defeat of Silahdi, Bahadur turned against Mewar and, as a preliminary, sent his officers to capture Gagraun and Mandasor, which had formed a part of Mewar since the time of Mahdrdna Sanga. They also conquered Islamabad, Hushangabad and other dependen¬ cies of Malwa, which had fallen in the hands of “zemindars”, that is Hindu chieftains.3
His ostensible reason for attacking the country, which had shel¬ tered him during his exile, was to punish Mewar for having attempted to help Silahdi. It should be recalled, however, that some time in 1531 or 1532 Bahadur received an embassy from Sultan Nusrat Shah of Bengal, probably proposing some sort of alliance between Gujarat and Bengal against the Mughuls. Bahadur gave a warm reception to the Bengali envoys, but nothing came out of this as Nusrat Shah died soon after.4 It is likely, however, that this possibility of an alliance with the Afghans against the Mughuls, encouraged Bahadur to envisage an extensive empire, the preliminary to the building of which should be the complete control over Rajasthan that controlled the routes from Delhi and Agra to Gujarat. As we shall see, this ambitious policy led to his doom.
Bahadur’s Chitor campaigns have already been described in some detail.5 As a result of his first invasion of Mewar, which came to an end on 24 March, 1533, he gained, besides the indemnities, those territories of Malwa which still appertained to Mewar. Besides this, Bahadur conquered Ranthambhor, Ajmer and Nagar.
One of the reasons which probably prompted Bahadur to retire from Chitor was the activities of Burhan Nizam Shah and Amir ‘All Barid of Bldar, who had advanced up to Bir6 (22° N. 76° 5' E.). Bahadur sent an army under Muhammad Shah of Khandesh to co¬ operate with ‘Imad Shah of Berar, and joined him later. The Nizam Shah was defeated, but Bahadur, it seems, was content to drive him out on these terms. He then returned to Mandu, and as Sikandar says, “the ambition of conquering Chitor again took possession of him”.
Bahadur and the Portuguese (II)
But Bahadur’s ambition was thwarted by the Portuguese inva¬ sion of Gujarat coast.
In 1534, heavy reinforcements arrived from Lisbon and the Por¬ tuguese again advanced towards Diu. They opened their attack by capturing Daman, upon which, Bahadur concluded peace with them on the most humiliating terms “to secure the friendship of the Por¬ tuguese against the Mughuls”. The conditions of the treaty, which was signed in December, 1534, were “that Bassein with all its depen¬ dencies by sea and land, should be made over to the King of Portugual for ever; that all ships bound for the Red Sea from the Kingdom of Cambay, should set out from Bassein, and return thither to pay duties; that no vessels should go to other ports without leave from the Portuguese; that no ships of war should be built in any ports belonging to the king of Cambay; and that he should no more give assistance to the Rumes.”7
Bahadur and Humayun
The Mughul menace undoubtedly refers to Humayun, whom Bahadur had affronted in various ways. For several years Gujarat had become the asylum for the rebel Afghans whom Bahadur used to receive cordially. Thus, after the defeat of Silahdi, he conferred the fiefs of Bhilsa and Chanderi on ‘Ala-ud-din Alam Khan, Humayun’s rebel governor of Kalpi, and received very cordially ‘Ala-ud-dln Alam Khan Loch, a son of Buhlul, who had managed to escape from Bada khshan where Babur had imprisoned him. Soon he, and particularly his ambitious son, Tatar Khan, rose high in Bahadur’s council and urged him to invade the Mughul dominions, to which, for the pre¬ sent, Bahadur prudently paid no attention.8
Bahadur’s relation with Humayun up to this period was quite cordial and he had sent an embassy to the Mughul court in 940 A.H. (1533-34), though he had also sent some money to Sher Shah, pre¬ sumably to aid him; but while the wily Afghan accepted the much needed money, no help came from him when Bahadur was in dis¬ tress.
Matters however reached a climax when Muhammad Zaman Mirza, who had twice rebelled against Humayun, escaped from pri¬ son and was granted asylum at Gujarat (1534). Bahadur was pro¬ bably at this time in Diu, where he might have gone to arrange a naval expedition against the Portuguese, when Humayun wrote to him either to hand over Muhammad Zaman Mirza to him or to expel the Mirza from Gujarat. Bahadur took this as a challenge to his sovereignty, and hastily concluded the treaty with the Portuguese mentioned above, in order to be free to meet the Mughuls.
Humayun might or might not have known of Bahadur’s help to Sher Shah, but like all weak men who suddenly become resolute, was inexorable in his demand that Muhammad Zaman Mlirza be at least turned out of Gujarat. The correspondence began with a letter from Humayun in which he urged Bahadur to act in a friendly spirit, and was followed by another in which Humayun expressed surprise at Sultan Bahadur’s unfriendly conduct.9 Apparently these mild re¬ monstrances failed to elicit a favourable reply, so Humayun sent another letter, more peremptory in tone, making it clear that failure to comply with his demand must lead to war. Bahadur in his reply refused to satisfy Humayun, and charged him with bad intentions for having marched to Gwalior while he (Bahadur) was busy with the Portuguese, which undoubtedly refers to the Portuguese inva¬ sion mentioned above.
It seems that Bahadur had agreed to the humiliating peace terms of the Portuguese in order to be free to meet the Mughul menace. So he seized the opportunity afforded by Humayun’s temporary ab¬ sence from the capital to put down some disturbances in the eastern region,10, and sent Tatar Khan with a large army from Ranthambhor to harass the Agra region, and two smaller forces under ‘Ala-ud-dln and Burhan-ul-mulk to harass the Kalinjar and the Nagar regions. Bahadur then advanced to Chitor, determined to conquer it. With Ranthambhor and Chitor in his hands, it would be impossible for a Mughul army from Agra to invade Gujarat, while the Marwar route would also be safe so long as he had Nagar and Ajmer under him. He would also be in a position to help Tatar Khan when the conquest of Chitor was accomplished, and his instructions to Tatar was not to engage in a general action till he came with the main army.
But Humayun took very quick and resolute action. He sent 18,000 horse under ‘Askari, Hindal and several veteran generals against Tatar, who in disregard of Bahadur’s instructions engaged the Mughuls and died fighting; the other two raiding parties, under ‘Ala-ud-dln and Burhan-ul-mulk, also seem to have been thoroughly defeated. Humayun now seized the opportunity which Bahadur pro¬ vided him. Bahadur’s subsidiary armies were gone, while his main army was immobilized around Chitor; so Humayun set out from Agra probably on 18 February, 153511 and, subduing Raisen quickly reached Sarangpur in Malwa. As soon as news of his advance reach¬ ed Bahadur, he decided to finish the siege of Chitor before fighting Humayun.
In this connection, two interesting anecdotes are related, one by the Muslim and the other by the Rajasthan chroniclers. According to the first, Bahadur’s decision to continue the siege of Chitor instead of fighting Humayun was influenced by his conviction that Humayun would not attack him while he was fighting the Hindus, and this pro¬ gnostication came true. According to the Rajput chronicles, Rani Karmavatl, the mother of the reigning Mahclrdna, appealed to Huma¬ yun to come to her son’s aid and sent him a rdkhi (ritualistic wrist¬ band or thread which binds a man and a woman as brother and sister); but Humayun, though inclined to help her at first, ultimately did nothing.
It is difficult to judge the historical value of these two interest¬ ing stories, but it is evident that Humayun did not afford any relief to the besieged garrison at Chitor, nor did he have any compunc¬ tion about invading Malwa while Bahadur was fighting the Hindus. Indeed, Humayun followed consistently the policy which was of the
greatest benefit to him, and seems to have been all along dictated by self-interest rather than calls of chivalry or religious brotherhood. Thus while Bahadur was tied up in Chitor, Humayun proceeded to Ujjain and easily captured this important city. However, Chitor fell on 8 March, 1535, and as Bahadur took the road to Malwa, Humayun also marched north, and the two armies met at Mandasor.
Here Bahadur committed the fatal mistake of entrenching him¬ self behind a barricade on the advice of his Turkish gunner, Rumi Khan, who, unknown to him, had turned a traitor for not receiving Chitor as his fief as originally promised by Bahadur. The result of this defensive tactics was disastrous. Soon, food became so scarce that the Gujarat army practically ceased to be a fighting unit, and one night Bahadur secretly left it to its fate (25 April, 1535)112 and fled to Mandu, pursued by Humayun, who was now joined by the traitor Rumi Khan. Rumi Khan seduced Silahdi’s son, Bhupat, who opened a gate to the Mughuls, and Mandu fell to Humayun. Baha¬ dur fled again, this time to Champaner, but having placed it under trusty generals he took refuge at Diu.
End of Bahadur
At Diu, Bahadur found himself completely destitute; so he had to turn to the Portuguese once more, and on 25 October, 1535, a treaty was concluded at Diu13, under which the Portuguese promised to help Bahadur by land and sea in exchange for permission to erect a fort at Diu, but the latter retained the right of collecting revenues of that port. The Portuguese help amounted to very little and the Portuguese utilized this opportunity to complete their fortification. It is possible that Bahadur granted this important concession to the Portuguese with the hope that he might escape with their help if Humayun followed him to Diu.
This contingency, however, did not arise and taking advantage of popular support and collecting soldiers from Chitor, Ranthambhor and Ajmer14 Bahadur managed to drive the Mughuls out of Gujarat by the beginning of 1536. Circumstances forced Humayun to leave Mandu for Agra in May, 1536, and though Bahadur was never des¬ tined to recover Malwa, the Mughul menace was gone.
Bahadur immediately turned towards Diu, and began negotia¬ tions with Turkey for a naval expedition. The help came after his death. For the incidents that followed Bahadur’s visit to Diu the Muslim and the Portuguese chronicles give different versions. The fact, however, is that while negotiations were proceeding, Bahadur was induced to come and meet the Portuguese governor on board a Portuguese vessel. What happened thereafter is not very clear; apparently the Portuguese wanted to capture him, and as he tried to escape, his barge was attacked by the Portuguese and he jumped into the sea. As he called out for help and tried to swim, a Portu¬ guese sailor struck him with a halbert, as did others, till he was killed (February, 1537).15
Successors of Bahadur
Bahadur left no son, hence there was some uncertainty regarding succession after his death, which was increased by the frivolous claim to the Gujarat throne made by Muhammad Zaman Mirza, the fugitive Mughul prince, on the ground that Bahadur’s mother had adopted him as her son. But the nobles wisely selected Miran Muhammad Shah of Khandesh, the nephew and constant ally of Bahadur, but that prince died on his way to Gujarat. Hence the nobles selected eleven-year-old Prince Mahmud Khan, son of Baha¬ dur’s brother Latif Khan, who had been brought up under surveil¬ lance. He was enthroned on 10 May, 1538, as Mahmud Shah III.16
Mahmud III (1538-1554)
Mahmud, being a boy, the government was conducted by three nobles, namely, Imad-ul-mulk, Darya Khan and ‘Alam Khan Lodi. Soon after, Darya Khan managed to assume complete power and drove Imad-ul-mulk out of Gujarat (1538).
Though the Muslim chroniclers describe these court intrigues in great detail they are completely silent about the most important event of the first year of Mahmud’s reign, namely, the Turko-Gujarat attempt to drive the Portuguese from Diu, which is described by Portuguese and Turkish historians.17 It has been related above that before his death Sultan Bahadur had sent an appeal for help to Sulaiman, the Magnificent, of Turkey (1520-1568), in response to which a Turkish fleet, and considerable number of soldiers arrived at Diu some time after the death of Bahadur. Sulaiman Pasha’s in¬ struction was to destroy the Portuguese fleet but he engaged the Turkish troops in a siege of Diu. The siege continued for several months, and though the fort was severely damaged and its defenders practically exhausted, yet Sulaiman Pasha failed to capture the fort and sailed away. One of the reasons for failure was undoubtedly the gallant resistance of the Portuguese, but the main reason seems to be the character of Sulaiman Pasha, who even in that age was noted for his cruelty, and treated the Gujaratis like defeated ene¬ mies. As a result, the joint venture, which had great prospect of success, failed to accomplish any of its objects, namely, the destruc¬ tion of the Portuguese fleet and recovery of Diu.
End of Darya Khan and 4Alam Khan
Darya Khan remained in power for about five years, at the end of which period the Sultan, unable to tolerate his overbearing man¬ ners, one night fled to Dhandhuka, where he was cordially received by its fief-holder, ‘Alam Khan. Darya Khan raised a boy of obscure origin to the throne, and advanced with a huge army to meet Mah¬ mud and ‘Alam Khan, and though he defeated them, his troops gra¬ dually deserted him and he was forced to flee to Burhanpur (1543).
Soon, however, ‘Alam Khan became so powerful that Mahmud found that by driving away Darya Khan he had merely changed masters. ‘Alam Khan and other nobles also were disgusted by Mah¬ mud’s profligate habits and lowly friends, and having confined him to a citadel conspired to blind him and divide the kingdom among them¬ selves. But Mahmud forestalled their design by a daring coup and was at last able to have the reins of government in his own hand (1545).
Epic of Diu
In 1546 Mahmud again attempted to recover Diu, and this event has been characterized by the Portuguese historians as the “Epic of Diu”18 on account of the severity of the contest. It seems, how¬ ever, that before the siege of Diu began, a strong fort was built at Surat to save it from Portuguese depredation, and it is from this time that the importance of Surat as a port begins.
The siege of Diu began on 20 April, 1546, and continued till 11 November, 1546, when the Gujarat army was decisively defeated by a comparatively small Portuguese force. The Portuguese governor then rebuilt the battered fort and left for Goa which he entered in a triumphal procession reminiscent of the Roman days, while the Portuguese navy cruising along the Gulf of Cambay set about des¬ troying the peaceful coastal towns including the ancient port of Broach. “This action”, says one Portuguese historian, “being so fa¬ mous amongst our soldiers as to give him who was called Menezes (the captain of the fleet) the surname of Baroche, as the ruins of Carthage gave Seipio the name of Africanus.”19' The unfortunate soil of India has had to suffer many depredations by foreign invaders and by native rulers, but nothing comparable to the cruel barbarism of the Portuguese vandals possibly ever happened before or since.
In 1548, Mahmud III again began to make preparations for in¬ vesting Diu, and the Portuguese made adequate arrangements for defence. But nothing came out of it.
Internal administration and death
The administration had been decaying since the time of Bahadur and Mahmud did nothing to improve it. He was a profligate young man and, as if to atone for his vices, took stern measures against the Hindus. The Hindus had been enjoying inalienable right over a considerable part of Gujarat by virtue of a settlement made during
the reign of Mahmud’s ancestor, Sultan Ahmad I (1411-1443), who found that this was the only way of maintaining peace with the war¬ like chieftains. Mahmud resumed these lands,20 by what tyrannical methods we do not know. But immediately the frontier chiefs of idar, Sirohi, Dungarpur, Banswar'a, Lonawarah, Rajpipla and the chiefs on the banks of the Mahindri, Halod “and other strongholds on the frontier” broke into rebellion. The Muslim historians claim that these disturbances were put down and that “no Rajput or Koli was left who did not devote himself to agriculture. .. Every one of them was branded on the arm, and if any Rajput or Koli was found without the brand he was put to death.”21 But this seems more like a pious wish than a statement of fact, for these States continued to flourish long after Mahmud’s dynasty had passed into oblivion. In¬ deed, this Hindu rebellion may have been one of the main causes for the rapid downfall of the Gujarat Sultanate.
Resumption of the Wanta grant was not the only tyranny prac¬ tised against the Hindus. As Sikandar puts it: “In the reign of Mahmud, Muhammadan law and rule was so stringently enforced that no Hindu could ride on horseback in any city, nor dare enter a bazar without a patch of red on the back of a white garment, or a patch of white on red one, or to wear a dress all of one colour. In¬ fidel observances, such as the indecencies of the Holi, the orgies of the Diwali, and the practice of idol worship, and the ringing of bells were not allowed in public, and those who practised them in private did so with fear and trembling.”22
Sikandar was born (1553-54) during Mahmud’s reign and pre¬ sumably heard these stories from his father and brothers. The stories apparently are exaggerated, and there is no reason to assume that Mahmud had such an efficient administration that he could carry out these measures in a country which was predominantly Hindu. But the rules were issued and Hindus were subjected to petty tyranny wherever possible, so that Mahmud, who treated the Muslim divines with great respect and benevolence, could claim to be the champion of Islam, and thereby possibly induce foreign Mus¬ lims to join his service. The result was that his instruments of oppression, the Muslim nobles, concentrated power in their hands, while Mahmud gave himself up to voluptuous pleasure. He was poisoned by his cup-bearer in 1554.
Mahmud had a horror of providing an heir who might contest the throne and therefore used to procure an abortion whenever a woman in his seraglio became pregnant. Hence a distant kinsman of Mahmud was raised to the throne as Ahmad III.
Ahmad III (1554-1561)
For seven years Ahmad III was the nominal ruler of Gujarat, while the nobles divided the kingdom among themselves into prac¬ tically independent principalities. The shifting combination of the greedy nobles started the country on the road to speedy disintegra¬ tion, and the confusion was increased by the influx of groups of Afghans.
After about five years of tutelage under 1‘timad Khan, the noble who had raised him to the throne, Ahmad fled, but was captured by rtirnad who kept him under surveillance as before. Ahmad later foolishly attempted to hatch a plot against 1‘timad who had him assassinated in April, 1561.
Muzaffar III (1561-1572)
The death of Ahmad posed another problem of succession but I‘timad produced a child called Nathu and swore that he was a son of Mahmud III. Though this does not seem to be probable, Ttimad’s story was accepted by the nobles and the child ascended the throne under the title of Muzaffar III. The history of Muzaffar’s reign is a record of continuous strife among the nobles in the midst of which rtirnad managed to retain his regency until he was driven away by a Gujarat noble called Chingiz Khan and some Mirzas, that is, fugi¬ tive Mughul princes. 1‘timad Khan thereupon fled to Durgapur, and sent a message to Akbar, who was then besieging Chitor, to come and occupy Gujarat. Akbar, however, could not respond to this in¬ vitation immediately.
Chingiz Khan’s power was short-lived and he was murdered by one of his Abyssinian officers. The result was Ttimad’s return to power, and the occupation by the Mirzas of Broach, Surat, Baroda and Champaner; Hindu feudatories began to assert their power and the Riao of Cutch and the Jam of Nawanagar began to issue coins.23 We need not trace the dreary history of Gujarat for the next few years till 1‘timad again invited Akbar to invade Gujarat. Akbar marched from Fathpur Sikri on 2 July, 1572, and when he approach¬ ed Ahmadabad unopposed in the following November, Muzaffar was found hiding in a corn field and brought in. He duly made his sub¬ mission (November, 1572) and was granted a small allowance.24
II. KASHMIR25
Muhammad
We have noticed in the previous volume that Muhammad Shah ascended the throne for the fourth and last time in A.D. 1530.25a Next year KajI Chak advanced with an army, while Kamran sent an¬ other under Mahram Beg to conquer Kashmir. In this predicament KajI Chak responded to the call of Abdal Makri, who was in virtual control of affairs, and their combined forces met the Mughuls. At first the Mughuls carried everything before them, and occupied the capital, but later the Kashmiri resistance was more successful; the Mughuls were forced to negotiate peace and after receiving a few presents were allowed to depart peacefully.
Kashmir was then divided among the five great nobles, who suffered Muhammad to retain the crown lands, but soon after Mlrza Haidar invaded Kashmir.
Mlrza Haidar, born in the Dughlat tribe, a branch of the Chagtiai Mughuls, was Babur’s cousin. Mlrza Haidar was at that time serv¬ ing under Sultan Sa‘Id Khan of Mughulistan and, along with Sa‘Id Khan’s son, Mlrza Sikandar, invaded Kashmir in 1532. Like Kam¬ ran, Mlrza Haidar at first was quite successful, but later dissension arose amongst his home-sick officers, and he had to retire from Kashmir by the middle of 1533, after concluding peace with Mlrza Muhammad who gave his daughter in marriage to Mlrza Sikandar.
The only other notable incident in the reign of Muhammad was a severe famine graphically described by Prajyabhatta who adds that Abdal Makri and other nobles relieved the distress of the people by feeding them.26
Shams-ud-dln to Mlrza Haidar’s second invasion
Muhammad died in the middle of 1537, and was succeeded by his son Shams-ud-dln. The hostility amongst the powerful nobles flared up and Kashmir again had to suffer prolonged civil war, as a result of which KajI Chak managed to secure control of the government.
Shams-ud-dln died after a reign of about three years and was succeeded by Nazuk Shah.27
The year of Nazuk Shah’s accession (1540) saw Humayun’s de¬ feat at the battle of Kanauj. This was followed by a precipitate flight of the Mughuls as described above.28 All the principal Mughul leaders assembled at Lahore, and there Mlrza Haidar suggested that Kashmir should be conquered. This plan had the merit of giving the Mughuls a base in India which could be easily defended against Sher Shah; also Mirza Haidar had been approached by Abdal Makri and Regi Chak to invade Kashmir. But, for various reasons Huma yun did not accept the Mirza’s plan, though he allowed him to de¬ part for Kashmir and gave him four hundred soldiers.
Kaji Chak on hearing of Mlrza Haidar’s invasion defended only one route, but Mirza avoided that route and entered Kashmir by the Punch pass on 2 December, 1540. Possibly the Mirza received adequate support within the country, for Kaji Chak, without any further attempt to oppose the Mughul invader, hastened to Sher Shah for help. Mirza Haidar thus conquered Kashmir without practically having to fight for it.
Mirza Haidar allowed Nazuk Shah to continue as king with Abdal Makri as the wazir, and after the latter’s death, his son Hassan Makri was appointed as the wazir. Meanwhile Kaji Chak had been cordially received by Sher Shah, who gave him 5000 horse under the command of Afghan officers. With this force Kaji en¬ tered Kashmir in the spring of 1541. An indecisive battle was followed by a stalemate, but ultimately a decisive battle was fought in August 1541, in which the Mirza with inferior numbers defeated the Afghans, and forced them and their protege, Kaji Chak and Daulat Chak, to flee to India. The Chaks thereafter made a few more unsuccessful attempts to regain their power, but the death of Kaji Chak due to fever in 1544, and of Regi Chak in action two years later, relieved Mirza Haidar temporarily of any danger from that side.
These victories made the Mirza master of Kashmir. Now he attempted to conquer the semi-independent provinces of the king¬ dom, such as Kishtwar as well as Baltistan and Ladakh. These adventures met with varying degrees of success, but resulted in the dispersal of his forces. The weakness of the Mirza’s position be¬ came apparent in 1549, when Haibat Khan Niyazi, Islam Shah’s rebel governor of Lahore, being defeated moved towards Kashmir. While on the way he met Daulat Chak and Ghazi Chak who pro¬ posed a joint invasion of Kashmir, but Haibat, instead of falling in with the proposal sent an envoy to Mirza Haidar who sent a large amount of money to induce Haibat to leave Kashmir. Thereupon the frustrated Chaks went to Islam Shah, and Mirza Haidar coun¬ tered their move by sending a present of saffron to Islam Shah. Islam later sent an envoy with rich presents to Kashmir, and Haidar gave him suitable presents.
Mirza Haidar, like other Mughul princes, was a great patron of art and literature. His description of the Hindu temples is delight ful reading, so that in contrast his religious orthodoxy comes as a surprise. He was a bigoted Sunni, and as soon as he felt secure, began to persecute the Nurbakshiya sect, who at that time had an influential following in Kashmir. Abu-1-Fazl also charges him with misgovernment.29 Possibly the Mirza was a good soldier, lacking in administrative ability. To this was added his religious fanaticism and he further alienated the Kashmiris by transferring his allegi¬ ance to Humayun after the latter conquered Kabul and Qandahiar in 1545.
Trouble broke out in 1551 and the Mirza sent a force towards Punch under his cousin Qara Bahadur but he was disastrously de¬ feated and imprisoned by the Kashmiris under Husain Makri and Idi Raina, who were soon after joined by Daulat Chak, and their combined force marched towards Srinagar. As Mirza Haidar pre¬ pared to proceed against them, serious rebellions broke out in Baltis tan, Ladakh and other places and everywhere his small garrisons were overpowered and either driven off or destroyed. Still the Mirza set out to oppose the main Kashmiri army who had fortified themselves at Manar near Khianpur. As he had a small force, the Mirza decided to risk the hazard of a night attack, during which he died of a chance arrow (October, 1551).30
End of the Shah Mirl dynasty
The history of the decade following the death of Mirza Haidar, ending in the assumption of sovereignty by the Chaks, is rather confusing. At first the nobles accepted Nazuk Shah as Sultan, a roi faineant, the real power being in the hands of Idi Raina, the prime minister, who had taken a prominent part in the actions against Mirza Haidar. Idi Raina, however, was able at the begin¬ ning to gain the support of the powerful houses of the Chaks and Makris by judicious distribution of favour. Thus when in 1552 Haibat Khan Niyazi again invaded Kashmir, an army under Idi Raina, Daulat Chak and Husain Makri, successfully opposed him. In the action that followed, Haibat Khan and his wife Bibi Rabi‘a, who displayed great courage fighting by her husband’s side, lost their lives, and the Afghans were routed.
Soon after the defeat of the Afghans, civil war broke out in Kashmir between Idi Raina, supported mainly by the Makris, and the Chaks led by Daulat Chak in which Idi Raina was defeated and, while flying, died accidentally. Daulat Chak thereupon assumed the office of the prime minister, deposed Nazuk Shiah, and set up Ibrahim, the son of Muhammad, on the throne (1552). From this time the ascendancy of the Chaks was complete though the Shah Mlrl kings were allowed to rule for another de¬ cade. Dissension, however, broke out among the Chaks a few years later when Daulat Chak married his aunt, the widowed mother of Ghazi Chak. Ghazi Chak managed to capture Daulat Chak, and after blinding him, became the prime minister. He immediately deposed Ibrahim and crowned his brother Ismail, and on his death in 1557, Ghazi set up on the throne his nephew and Isma‘lTs son, Habib. Four years later (1561) Ghazi set aside Habib on the ground of incompetence and ascended the throne himself. But, as has been noted above, Ghazi had been the virtual ruler of Kashmir from the time he became the prime minister.
The period of Ghazl’s prime ministership was disturbed by local rebellions which he was able to crush. Some of the rebels, how¬ ever, sought the help of Abu-’1-Ma‘all, the disgraced noble of Akbar’s court, who collected some Mughul and Kashmiri soldiers and invad¬ ed Kashmir in 1558, but was disastrously defeated. The disgrunt¬ led nobles then sought the help of Qara Bahadur, one of Mlrza Haidar’s lieutenants, but his expedition, too, met the same fate, and he escaped to Akbar. There were other disturbances which Ghazi managed to quell, but the expedition which he sent to Ladakh was a failure.
In his old age Ghazi was attacked with leprosy and entrusted his brother Husain Khan with the task of government. Soon cer¬ tain incidents antagonized the two brothers, and Husain usurped the throne in 1563 after deposing Ghazi and blinding his son Ahmad.
Husain’s reign also witnessed the usual civil wars, but the most important incident of his reign was an apparently trivial affair which first interested Akbar in the fate of Kashmir. Two intemperate Mullas, one a Shiah and the other a Sunni, began by abusing each other and ended with the Shiah Yusuf wounding the Sunni Habib, and a special tribunal composed of Sunnis condemned Yusuf to death. It was at this time that Mlrza Muqim, Akbar’s envoy, came to Kashmir. Muqim was welcomed with great respect by Husain, who now referred the dispute to the Mughul plenipotentiary and a case was started against the Sunni divines for having executed Yusuf when he had merely wounded the Sunni qazl. As a result of this enquiry a few Sunnis were executed. Soon Muqim left Kashmir, laden with rich presents and Husain’s daughter to be married to Akbar.31 But the disreputable conduct of Husain and his advisers so angered Akbar, that he declined to accept the pre¬ sents and Husain’s daughter had to return to Kashmir. Muqim was in his turn judged by ‘Abdun-Nabi and others and on their advice put to death by Akbar. On hearing this Husain fell seriously ill; his nobles deserted him and joined his brother, ‘All Khan, who soon forced Husain to abdicate in his favour (1569).
‘Ali Shah’s reign was as disturbed by civil disturbances as that of his predecessors. In 1571, ‘All Khan Chak attempted to seize the throne but was ultimately defeated and captured. Next, ‘All Shah’s son and successor Yusuf, murdered Ghazi Shah’s surviving son, so that there might be no rival claimant to the throne. ‘Ali Shiah then sent a force against his son and it seemed that a war between father and son was inevitable, but the wazir intervened and effected a re¬ conciliation. A few years later two princes of the Shah Miri dynasty, who had taken refuge in Hindusthan, attempted to capture Kashmir, but were defeated. One of the princes died fighting while the other managed to escape.
The most important event in ‘Ali Shah’s reign was his accept¬ ance of Mughul suzerainty. In the middle of 1578, Akbar sent two envoys, namely, Mulla ‘Ishqi’ and Qazi Sadr-ud-dm to Kashmir, as Abu-’l-Fazl says, “in order that they might guide that sitter in the hills (‘Ali Shah) to obedience.”32 The result was that ‘All Shah had the khutba recited and coins issued in the name of Akbar. Why ‘Ali Shah performed these acts is not known, but he undoubtedly provided Akbar the pretext for considering Kashmir as a vassal State.
In 1579 ‘All Shah died of an accident while playing polo, and though most of the nobles were in favour of his son Yusuf, ‘All Shah’s brother, Abdal, decided to contest the throne. Abdal, how¬ ever, was defeated and killed in battle. Yusuf ascended the throne, but within two months the nobles drove him away and raised Sayyid Mubarak, the wazir, to the throne. Within a few months, however, the nobles imprisoned Mubarak and set up one Lohar Chak on the throne.
In the meantime, Yusuf Shah, despairing of success, came to Lahore to seek Mughul help from Man Singh who brought him to the court at Agra where he was received by Atkbar in January, 1580.33 Akbar promised Yusuf the necessary help and deputed Man Singh and another officer for the purpose, with whom Yusuf left in August, 1580. But by the time he arrived at Lahore some Kashmiri nobles, afraid of the Mughul troops, opened negotiations, and Yusuf managed, though it is not clear how, to detach himself from the Mughuls and raising a small force of Kashmiris entered his kingdom. This time fortune favoured Yusuf and he was able to defeat his enemies. Lohar Chak was captured and blinded. Resistance to Yusuf however continued though he managed to overcome all opposition. But in 1581 envoys came from Akbar and Yusuf hastened to welcome them at Baramula. He then sent his third son Haidar to the imperial court with rich presents. He was allowed to depart after a year, and this time Akbar demanded that Yusuf himself should come and wait on him. This Yusuf was not prepared to do and he sent his eldest son Ya'qub to the imperial court in 1585. Shortly afterwards, while Ya'qub was still there Akbar decided to invade Kashmir.
Some modern historians have condemned Akbar for his un¬ provoked aggression. It is, therefore, necessary to remember that Akbar could justifiably have looked upon Kashmir as a feudatory State on the basis of 'All Shah’s reciting the khutba and striking coins in his name. This relation became even more pronounced when Yusuf came to him for support to win his throne; Yusuf then dispensed with Mughul support, but that would hardly change his status in Akbar’s view. Moreover, when Akbar demanded Yusuf’s presence at the imperial court, the latter, instead of an unequivocal refusal, prevaricated by sending his sons. Akbar alleged in one of his letters that Yusuf’s son Haidar was not fit for service, and Ya'qub was 'somewhat mad.’34 There can hardly be any doubt that diplomatically Akbar’s conduct was correct, and that Yusuf had put himself in an indefensible position by failing to assert his inde¬ pendence at the proper time. It is also extremely doubtful if Yusuf had ever sustained any idea of independence as we understand it today. When the Mughul army under Bhagwan Das began to en¬ ter Kashmir the nobles counselled resistance, but Yusuf decided otherwise and surrendered at the earliest possible opportunity (about 24 February, 1586).35
Yusufs surrender did not stop fighting. His son Ya'qub crown¬ ed himself and carried on the struggle against the Mughuls. At first the Kashmiri resistance halted the Mughul advance, but ulti¬ mately some landlords let the Mughuls pass through their villages, whereupon the Kashmiris came with proposals of peace. It was agreed that Akbar’s name should be mentioned in the khutba, coins struck in his name, and revenues from the mint, saffron, shawl, etc., should be collected by imperial superintendents and paid to the imperial treasury.
It is difficult to determine, who entered into this treaty-relation with Akbar. Abu-’l-Fazl says: “As the army had been harassed, these proposals were accepted by the endeavours of Yusuf, the ruler of Kashmir.”36 But Yusuf was at this time in the Mughul camp, so he seems to have acted as an intermediary between his son Ya'qub and the Mughuls. This conclusion is to some extent supported by Prajyabhatta who states that after Yusuf’s surrender Ya'qub be¬ came the king.37 On 7 April, 1586, Yusuf was presented at the court. As mentioned above (p. 148) Yusuf was imprisoned.
According to Abu-’l-Fazl, Akbar "had resolved upon restoring Kashmir to him (Yusuf) but the imperial servants represented that he ought to have some punishment for his backslidings, and that Kashmir should first be conquered and afterwards restored to him. H.M. accepted this view, and made him over to Raja Todar Mai.”38 A year later Yusuf was released and given a fief in Bihar.39
Akbar has been severely criticised by some modern historians for his treatment of Yusuf. It is no doubt impossible to justify Yusuf’s imprisonment, but the statement that it led Bhagwan Das to commit suicide seems to be absurd.410
The terms of the treaty, as might be foreseen, were not honour¬ ed by Ya'qub. Had he, however, administered the country well, he might have defied the mighty Mughul, secured as he was behind the formidable mountain passes. But Ya'qub, instead of rallying the country around his throne, divided his supporters by his anti-Sunni policy. He could not expect any support from the Hindus either, for the Chaks had alienated them by imposing the jizya41 Rebellion broke out which he suppressed, but some disgruntled nobles approach¬ ed Akbar for help, and the emperor, who had been dissatisfied with the treaty negotiated by Bhagwan Das, seized this opportunity to send an army under Qasim Khan to conquer Kashmir (8 July, 1586) 42
The difficult terrain and inclement weather helped the Kash¬ miris, though Qasim Khan overawed a section of the Kashmiri army, and a large number of officers capitulated.43 But the resistance led by Ya'qub persisted till Qasim Khan was replaced by Mirza Yusuf Khan.44 Mirza Yusuf seems to have been able to cope with the situation successfully so that it was possible for Akbar to visit Kashmir. He left Lahore on the eve of 7 May, 1589, the day after the death of Miyan Tansen, and reached Srinagar on 15 June, 1589.45 On 21 July, 1589, Ya'qub opened negotiations for his surrender through his brother Abiya and on 7 August offered his formal sub¬ mission.46
Reference
1. For the annexation of Malwa, see above, Vol. VI, p. 186.
la. Danvers, F.C.: The Portuguese in India (London, 1894), pp. 395-401. 2. Mirat-i-Sikandari, tr. Bayley (MSB), p. 364; Nizam-ud-din gives a slightly different version of this speech, TA. tr. Ill, pt. i, 366. The date of the fall of Raisen is given in MSB, p. 365.
3. MSB, pp. 367-68. Bahadur also invaded Gondwana and captured a fort called Kanur.
4. History of Bengal, II, ed. by Sir Jadunath Sarkar, p. 157. 5. Above, p. 329.
6. MSB, p. 373.
7. Danvers, op. cit., pp. 405-06; 416.
8. Abu-’I-Fazl relates that Bahadur who was present in the first battle of Panlpat was extremely impressed by the fighting auality of the Mughuls, A.JV. tr. I3 294.
9. Dr< S. K. Bannerji has given translation of the earlier letters from the Arabic History of Gujarat, (S. K. Bannerji, Hvnnayun Badshah, pp. 99-111). Sikan dar says that only Humayun’s third and last letter and Bahadur’s reply to the same have been preserved which he quotes, MSB, 375-380. Bahadur’s last reply to Humayun was quite frank and outspoken and, he accepted Humayun’s challenge. The story given by Sikandar and other historians is that Bahadur, who was illiterate, had this letter drafted by a man who had a grouse against Humayun, and gave orders for its despatch while under in¬ fluence of drink without consulting his ministers. Next morning when the Ministers learnt about it, Bahadur agreed to change it but the messenger had already departed and in spite of best efforts could not be recalled. This story appears to be apocryphal; Bahadur was justified in asserting his right to grant asylum to Muhammad Zaman Mirza.
10. Dr. S. K. Bannerji, on the authority of the Ain (II, 184), states that Humayun had gone to Kanar in the Kalpi district (Bannerji, op. cit. 73). Dr. Iswari Prasad, who does not give any reference, states that Humayun had proceeded up to Kanauj on his way to Bengal. (Iswari Prasad, Life and Times of Humayun, p. 68).
11. For Bahadur’s plan of campaign and Humayun’s activities See A.N. I, pp. 293 ff. According to Abu-’l-Fazl, Humayun advanced from Agra on 9 November, 1534. But this date seems to be too early. I have therefore followed the date given by Gulbadan Begam, Humayun-ndma, tr. pp. 131-32.
12. A.N. tr. I, p. 303. Sikandar gives the date as 3rd Ramazan 941 A.H., 25 March, 1535; MSB gives the date as 20th Ramazan 941 A.H. which Bailey converts into 25 March, 1535, which seems to be a mistake.
13. Danvers, op. cit., 417.
14. For the defeat of the Mughuls in Gujarat, see above pp. 47-50. Sikandar states that the troops which helped Bahadur to defeat Yadgar Nasir Mirza came from the garrison of Chitor, Ajmer and Ranthambor, MSB, 393.
15. The Portuguese historians accuse Bahadur of having intended to capture the Portuguese Governor treacherously. Erskine went into the problem thoroughly and put the entire blame on the Portuguese (W. Erskine, History of India, Babur and Humayun, II, 95, f.n.). But Bahadur either intended to play some trick after allaying the suspicion of the Portuguese or was biding his time for the Turkish fleet’s arrival, MSB, pp. 395, 327; Danvers, op. cit., 425.
16. MSB does not give the date but states that Mahmud ascended the throne in 943 A.H. (A.D. 1536-1537).
17. Both Sikandar and Haji-ud-dabir completely ignore this event, though the latter describes Gujarat’s attempt to recover Diu in 1546. For this encounter see M.L. Dames: “The Portuguese and Turks in the Indian Ocean in the sixteenth century,” JRAS, January, 1921, 15-20; E. Denison Ross, “The Portu¬ guese in India and Arabia”, JRAS, January 1922, 13 ff. R.S. Whiteway, The Rise of the Portuguese Poiver in India, 244-60, Danvers, op. cit., 425-39.
18. For details see M.S. Commissariat: Studies in the History of Gujarat, pp. 7 ff. and History of Gujarat, pp. 436-57.
19. Quoted by Commissariat, History of Gujarat, p. 451.
20. “A fourth part of Gujarat, called Banth (Wanta), was in the hands of Rajputs and Grassiah” MSB 439. Wanta meant the enjoyment by the landlord of one fourth of a village. Forbes, Rds-mala, II, 270-71.
21. MSB, 439.
22. MSB, 439-40.
23. A few copper coins bearing the name of Mahmud-bin-Latif in Persian and the name of the Rao of Cutch in Nagari have been found, from which Hodivala concluded that the Hindu princes were minting coins during the reign of Mahmud III. S. H. Hodivala: “The unpublished coins of Gujarat Sultanate” JBBRAS 1926, 32-33. But minting copper coins was of little importance.
24. For details of Akbar’s Gujarat campaign, see above pp. 125, 133, 145. Though Muzaffar did not take any part in the Gujarat rebellion of 1573 he escaped from surveillance in 1578, and took refuge in Junagad, where he collected sufficient men to start a rebellion, and in 1583, captured Ahmadabad and declared him¬ self King. He defeated several imperial officers, but was severely defeated by ‘Abdur-Rahim, who got his title of Khan Khanan for his action against Muzaffar. Muzaffar then took refuge in Cutch, where the historian Nizam-ud din pursued him. Muzaffar continued to give trouble till 1591-92 when he was captured and is reported to have committed suicide.
25. The proper name is Kasmlra. But as it is also a modern name it is usually written without any diacritical mark or as Kashmir or Kashmir (as in this book). The form Kashmir used in CHI seems to be erroneous. (Ed.).
25a. Vol. VI, 386. In an article published in 1956 I had shown that possibly Muhammad’s restoration in 1530 was the beginning of his fifth reign (A. K. Majumdar: ‘A note on the chronology of the Sultans of Kashmir in the Aln-i-AkbarV, JASBL, XXII, 92), but as all the authoritative texts assigned him only four reigns, I did the same. Dr. M. Husain in his Kashmir under the Sultans p. 296 (1959) has assigned five reigns to Muhammad; though he has noticed my article he has not taken into consideration the objections which prompted me to assign four reigns to Muhammad instead of five. I am there¬ fore following the chronology proposed in my article mentioned above.
26. Rdjatarangini, (RT. Peterson’s ed.) pp. 351-52, vv. 347-361.
27. For the relationship between Nazuk and Muhammad, see Vol. VI, 385. M. Husain states that Shams-ud-dln was succeeded by his brother Isma‘11. Fsom the RT, p. 355, v. 399 ff., however, it seems that Nazuk succeeded Shams-ud din. Abu-’l-Fazl’s testimony is conflicting. In the Am (II, p. 375, 2nd ed.) Abu-’l-Fazl has given a list of kings from which it would appear that at the time of Mlrza Haidar’s invasion Isma‘Il was reigning, while in the Akbar-ndma, he States that “At that time (i.e. during Mlrza Haidar’s second invasion) a person called Nazuk Shah—having a name that was no name—was the reported sovereign”. AN, I, 402. Unfortunately M. Husain does not discuss this pro¬ blem at all and does not give any reference for his statement (p. 130) that Isma‘11 succeeded Shams-ud-dln, and that Mlrza Haidar set up Nazuk Shah on the throne (p. 133). We have therefore followed the statement of RT which is corroborated by the AN.
28. See above pp. 55 ff.
29. AN, I, 405. For Mirza Haidar’s appreciation of Hindu temples see Tdrikh-i Rashidi tr. by Elias and Ross, p. 427. 30. M. Husain, Kashmir under the Sultans, p. 140.
31. M. Husain (op. cit., p. 156) writes that Husain’s daughter was intended to be married to prince Salim. But these incidents happened in A.H. 977 (A.D. 1569-70), the year in which Jahangir was born; therefore the girl must have been intended for Akbar.
32. A.N., III, 356.
33. Ibid., 409; Yusuf’s surrender to Akbar is graphically described by Prajya bhatta. Samasta-prithivi-pdla-Jaldladlna-bhupateh I
Charano,m sarani-kartum yayau Yusuba-bhupatih II
RT (Peterson’s ed.) p. 376, v. 637.
Of Yusuf’s return it is stated:—
Jaldladina-bhupdla-pdda-darsana-harshitah I
Ayayau vatsare yate Srimdn-Yusuba-bhupatih II
Ibid., p. 377, v.' 643.
34. Haidar Malik: IOMS, p. 185< quoted by Beveridge, AN, III, 550, f.n.
35. TA, II, 760-61, AN, III, 724; these incidents are quite graphically described in the RT. pp. 679-82, vv. 661-695.
36. AN, III, 725.
37. Pancha-varsha=sritdn=bhogdn-bhuktvd Yusuba-bhupatih I Jallaladina-bhupala-sevanartham atha—gamat II
Gate tasmin mahlpdle Bhagavad=dasa-sainikam I
Yakuba nama tat-putrah prdjyam rdjyam=athd-grahit II
RT (Peterson’s ed.) p. 382, vv. 694-95.
Prajyabhatta then relates in some detail Ya'qub’s attempt to defend Kashmir against the next Mughul invasion under Qasim Khan, but never mentions Yusuf. That is, so far as Kashmir was concerned Yusuf’s reign came to an end with his surrender.
38. AN, III, 738-39.
39. AN, III, 801.
40. “.Akbar refused to ratify the treaty which Bhagwan Das had made, and broke faith with Yusuf by detaining him as a prisoner. The raja, sensitive on a point of honour, committed suicide”. (W. Haig, CHI, III, 293). Haig as usual does not give any reference but the only authority for this statement can be BadaunI, who states that Bhagwan Das had given safe conduct to Yusuf and when Akbar imprisoned him, the raja struck himself with a dagger, but recovered soon after (BadaunI, II, 364). But, as V. Smith pointed out, BadaunI was singularly misinformed about the fate of Yusuf, and his state¬ ment may therefore be rejected. V. Smith, Akbar the Great Moghul, 240. M. Husain (op. cit. 178) seems to reject Smith’s contention but does not give any reason for doing so. [It is noteworthy that even CHI, IV, p. 136 differs from what is Stated in CHI, III as quoted above, Editor!.
41. Pura-chakka-kulo-tpannair-bhupair—jati-virodhatah I
Brahmanebhyas—tada dahdo grihltah kila varshikah II
RT, p. 400 v. 885.
The persecution of the Brahmins seems to have been quite severe and there were some forced conversions too, for Prajyabhatta adds:
Uttamo Bdhmano desam tatydja mlechhadushitam I
Tatyaja madhyamo lajjdm jdtim tatydja chd—dhamah II
(ibid v. 888).
Akbar remitted the jizya.
Tadrsan Brahmandn jnatva Jallaladlna-bhupatih /
Chakka-vamsa-krama-ydtam vipra-dandam nyavarayat /
The Chaks were religious fanatics and there can be no doubt that they were persecuting the Hindus. Akbar’s conquest must have come to them as a liberation and that is probably the reason why Prajyabhatta refers to him in very flattering terms.
42. Mlrza Shah Rukh was Sent first, but was recalled as “his heart was not in the work.” AN, III, 747. It appears that the conquest of Kashmir was under¬ taken somewhat light-heartedly. Several officers gave their opinion as to the strategy which should be adopted in conquering that hilly country and Abu-’l-Fazl naively adds* “Though the writer of the noble volume fre¬
quently pointed out excellent methods for conquest, there was no good result,” that is, Akbar did not accept his historian’s plan for a difficult campaign. Pre¬ sumably he had become cautious after BIrbal’s death. However, Akbar called a meeting of astrologers, who predicted “that if some energy were exerted the conquest would be quickly made”. This excellent advice was accepted and Qasim Khan was selected for the command. AN, III, 752.
43. AN, III, 787.
44. Qasim Khan had probably become tired of the constant fight. From what Abu-’l-Fazl says (AN, III, 786) it may appear that Qasim Khan was recalled for his high-handedness but later (p. 798) Abu-’l-Fazl states that “Qasim Khan too got disgusted and petitioned for recall”. He reached the court in February, 1588 (ibid, 805).
45. AN, III, 817, 827. 46. AN, III, 839, 846. 411