Keywords: Khilji rule end, Delhi history, historical decline, medieval India, Khalji dynasty downfall, Alauddin Khilji, Delhi Sultanate, historical transitions, medieval rulers, India political history.
كشف الستار:
انحلال وسقوط سلطنة خلجي في دلهي
الكلمات الرئيسية:
نهاية حكم الخلجي، تاريخ دلهي، انحدار تاريخي، الهند الوسطى، سقوط سلالة خلجي، علاء
الدين الخلجي، سلطنة دلهي، انتقالات تاريخية، حكام العصور الوسطى، تاريخ سياسي هندي.
1. Mubarak Shah
Malik Näib Käfür, who had possibly hastened the death of ‘Alä- ud-din,41 produced to the nobles his master's will, which he manag- ed to exact, disinheriting Khizr Khan and nominating Shihab-ud- din 'Umar, a child of five or six, as his successor. The child was raised to the throne and Malik Käfür acted as regent. He married the infant king's mother, who was a daughter of Ramachandra of Devagiri. He caused Khizr Khan and Shadi Khan to be blinded, and imprisoned all the other sons of 'Alä-ud-din. He thought of destroying the entire family of the late king and the partisans of Khizr Khân, and of ascending the throne himself. The fateful hour arrived when the regent sent some foot soldiers to blind Mubarak Khan, 'Ala-ud-din's third son. As they approached the prince, he bribed them with his jewelled necklace and reminded them of their duty to the sons of the late king. Moved by gold and sentiment, they came back; four of them rushed to the apartment of Malik Kafür and slew him just thirty-five days after the death of 'Ala-ud-din.
The
nobles then released Mubarak from prison and appointed him regent. For two
months he acted as such, but when he felt his position secure, he blinded
Shihab-ud-din 'Umar, and on April 19, 1316, 2 ascended the throne as
Qutb-ud-din Mubārak Shāh, The foot soldiers, who brought about the murder of
Malik Naib Käfūr and the consequent accession of Mubarak to power, now aspired
to the position of Praetorian guards. Two of their leaders, Mubshar and Bashir,
were executed and they were dispersed and sent to different garrisons.
Otherwise Mubarak began his reign with a policy of extreme moderation and
leniency. Immediately after his accession he ordered a general amnesty,
releasing all prisoners and permitting the return of all exiled for offences.
He amply reward- ed the soldiers and officers, gave back the jāgirs and
endowments that had been resumed, withdrew the market regulations and re- laxed
the rigour in the administration. Prices of commodities rose high, but people
who had suffered so much in 'Ala-ud-din's regime obtained relief; specially the
landowners and peasants, who bene- fited by the reduction in the
revenue-demand. The charming and popular king was, however, immersed in
drinking, debauchery and pleasure, and the capital, following his example and
due to his policy of relaxation, indulged in an excess of wanton sensuality. As
Barani says, 'every house became a tavern'. Bribery, corruption and
malversation ate into the vitals of administration, which was para- lysed.
Mubarak's right-hand man was Hasan, an unknown slave from Gujarat, whom he
entitled Khusrav Khan and raised to the position of chief minister (wazir).
In
the first year of his reign Mubarak appointed 'Ain-ul-Mulk and Ghāzi Malik
Tughlug to suppress the revolt of Alp Khan's fol- lowers in Gujarat,
'Ain-ul-Mulk, who had already been summoned from Devagiri and deputed for this
work by Malik Kafür, had ad- vanced as far as Rajputana. The royal force
encountered the rebel leader at Palan. 'Ain-ul-Mulk won over some of the rebel
officers to his side and thus by diplomacy divided the rebel force and easily
defeated it. Malik Dinär, Mubarak's father-in-law, who had recent- ly been awarded
the title of Zafar Khan, was appointed governor
of Gujarät. Zafar Khan proved an able administrator and restored order
throughout the province within a few months.
In
1318, leaving Delhi in charge of Shahin, on whom he con- ferred the title of
Vafa Malik, Mubarak marched towards the Deccan at the head of a large army with
a view to recovering Devagiri and securing treasures from the Deccan princes.
At the approach of the army Harapaladeva fled to the hills. Khusrav tracked
Harapala- deva to his mountain retreat and had to fight two or three battles.
In the final encounter Harapaladeva was severely wounded, taken prisoner, and
put to death by royal order (flayed alive according to Barani). Khusrav Khan
was appointed to lead an expedition to Telingana and the King left for Delhi.
A
plot was formed by Asad-ud-din, son of Yaghrush Khän, 'Alā-ud-din's uncle, to
assassinate Mubarak on the way, but it fail- ed and all the conspirators were
arrested and forthwith executed. Following the policy of his father, Mubarak
caused all the twenty- nine members of the family of Yaghrush Khan to be put to
death, though some of them were mere children and could have no hand in the
plot. The coins struck at Delhi in 718 A.H. (A.D. 1318-19) in the name of
Shams-ud-din Mahmud Shah prove the existence of a pretender at the capital,
though it is difficult to say whether Asad- ud-din or the regent Vafa Malik
intended to assume this title, or a ten-year old son of Khizr Khan was the
object of this conspiracy, as Ibn Batutah asserts. Mubarak now became bitterly
suspicious. From Jhain he sent an officer to Gwalior to put to death all the
three sons of 'Alā-ud-dîn.
On
his return to Delhi, Mubarak grew very high-handed and cruel. He summoned Zafar
Khan from Gujarat and executed him; Hicām-ud-din, half-brother of Khusrav Khän,
was appointed governor in his place. The regent Malik Shahin was also executed
on suspi- cion of complicity in the recent conspiracy against the king. Mubă-
rak now immersed himself in debauchery and appeared at the court in female
attire with finery and jewels. The palace was full of women and buffoons, who
did not hesitate to insult the highest digni- taries with indecent gestures and
filthy abuses.
Hisäm-ud-din,
the successor of Zafar Khän, collected his kins- men and followers and raised
the standard of revolt in Gujarat. The nobles and officers of Gujarat captured
him and sent him to Delhi; but Mubarak ignored his crime and restored him to
favour, as he was the brother of Khusrav Khän. Wahid-ud-din Quraishi was
awarded the title of Sadr-ul-Mulk and sent as the next governor of Gujarat. He
proved an efficient and worthy administrator, under whom the province remained
quiet.
Close
on the heels of the revolt in Gujarat came the report of the rebellion of Malik
Yaklakhi, governor of Devagiri, who asserted independence under the title of
Shams-ud-din and began to mint coins in his own name. A large force was sent
against him and he was easily defeated, as his officers and army deserted him.
He and his associates were captured and sent to Delhi, where his ears and nose
were chopped off and his followers were severely punished. 'Ain-ul-Mulk was
sent as the governor of Devagiri.
Meanwhile
Khusrav Khän was operating in the South. When he approached the vicinity of
Warangal, he was opposed by Pratāpa- rudra's force consisting of 10,000 horse
and innumerable foot- soldiers; but they were defeated. Khusrav Khan then
attacked the outer wall of the fortress and, defeating the garrison and killing
the chief commandant, invested the inner fortress. Pratäparudra was alarmed and
made peace with him by agreeing to cede the strategic fort of Badrkot and pay a
tribute of 100 elephants, 12,000 horses, and gold, jewels and gems beyond
compute.43
From
Warangal Khusrav Khan turned towards Ma'bar. As he entered Ma'bar, the princes
and the people adopted the old tactics of evading battle and carrying away all
their treasures. He now thought of establishing himself independently in
Ma'bar. Probably, as Barani says, he was maturing his plans to achieve his
ultimate object of usurping the throne. But Malik Talbagha, Malik Tamar, and
other loyal officers of the State gave a mild warning to Khusrav and acquainted
the King with his evil designs.
Khusrav
was recalled to Delhi, but Mubarak was so much in- fatuated with him that, far
from taking him to task or asking any explanation for his evil designs, he
punished those well-wishers whom he held responsible for Khusrav's failure in
Ma'bar. Tal- bagha was blinded, beaten and thrown into prison, and the jägīrs
of both Tamar and Talbagha were seized. Khusrav now became supreme; no one
dared to speak against him and some nobles join- ed him on selfish grounds.
Khusrav's growing influence enabled him to secure royal permission to bring his
friends and kinsmen from Gujarat and raise a corps of 40,000 horse, composed
entirely of men of his own tribe and loyal to him. Thus reinforced, he form- ed
a plot to assassinate the King in his palace. To further his design he got
possession of the palace, securing the king's permission for his men to enter
at night on the ground that he could not meet them at daytime due to his
preoccupation. One of these, Jäharya, advanced towards the King's apartment,
and as he killed the chief guards, Mubarak rushed towards the harem. But
Khusrav seized him by the hair and, during the scuffle that followed, Jaharya
cut off the head of the King and threw it down into the courtyard (April 15,
1320).
Mubarak
was an unworthy successor of his father. Frivolous and depraved, cruel and
arrogant, Mubarak lacked his father's abi- lity and vigour as well as his
genius for organization and leadership. In him the vices of 'Ala-ud-din were
magnificd, but his virtues were lacking. Though he did not observe fasts and
say prayers, he as- sumed the title of Comander of the Faithful and Vicegerent
of God as well as Imām, and thereby made the kingdom of Delhi inde- pendent of
the Caliphate. His predecessors, including the lordly Balban and the mighty
'Ala-ud-din Sikandar Sani, had all acknow- ledged the legal sovereignty of the
Caliph.46 Mubarak also dis- played hatred and animosity against the saint
Nizam-ud-din Auliya,46
2.
Khusrav
At
midnight, after the murder of Mubarak Shah, Khusrav Khản summoned the prominent
nobles like 'Ain-ul-Mulk, Wahid-ud-din Quraishi, Fakhr-ud-din Jauna,
Baha-ud-din Dabir and others, and detained them in the palace till the next
morning, when he ascended the throne under the title of Näsir-ud-din Khusrav
Shāh. Mean- while his followers removed all possible claimants to the throne by
killing two and blinding three of the sons of 'Ala-ud-din, and per- petrated
abominable crimes in the harem. Thus the Khalji dynasty came to an ignoble end.
Barani,
who gives the above account, is very hard on Khusrav Khän, and treats him with
supreme contempt, as he was a Ilindu convert. It is not unlikely, however, that
Khusrav has been more sinned against than sinning. Truc, he was ignoble, cruel,
and treacherous; but possibly he was not worse than either Mubarak or
'Ala-ud-din in this respect. He had been converted to Islam in childhood, when
he was given the name of Hasan; and along with his brother fell into the hands
of 'Ain-ul-Mulk during his invasion of Malwa in 1305. Hasan was attached to the
body of the personal slaves of 'Alä-ud-din and brought up at the royal palace.
Muslim chroniclers, in their contempt for the crowned convert, describe Khusrav
as an outcaste and low-born. It is not possible to deter- mine the real name of
the tribe or caste to which Khusrav belonged on account of the variants in the
chronicles (Parwar, Barwār, Barāv, etc.), and there is very little evidence to
show that he belonged to a low caste.47 Nor is there sufficient evidence to
prove the conten- tion of Barani that Khusrav Khan's coup de main was the
conse- quence of a Hindu revolution, and his accession ushered in a period of
the triumph of Hinduism and the downfall of Islām A consider- able number of
his followers, members of his tribe from Gujarat, were Hindu, and after his
accession, they might have oppressed those Muslims who were opposed to their
leader. Probably some of them practised Hindu religious rites in the palace,
and this offend- cd Muslim sentiments. But Khusrav Khan never aimed at the
restoration of a Hindu monarchy; nor did he champion the cause of Hinduism. On
the contrary, he had shown the iconoclastic zeal of a Muslim during his
campaigns in the south. Khusrav regarded himself as a Muslim; the khutba was recited
in his name, and his coins bear the title of Commander of the Faithful.
After
his accession Khusrav Khãn executed some of the nobles hostile to him. He
married a wife of Mubarak Shah and conferred titles and positions on those who
had helped him. Randhol, his main prop in the conspiracy, was given the title
of Rai-i-Rāyān; and his brother Hisäm-ud-din was given the hand of a daughter
of 'Ala-ud-din and the title of Khan Khanan. He did not fail to placate those
who might prove hostile. On 'Ain-ul-Mulk was conferred the title of 'Alam Khan,
and Malik Fakhr-ud-din Jauna, son Ghāzi Malik, who wielded great influence
among the nobility, was appointed master of the horse. Wahid-ud-din Quraishi
was ap- pointed chief minister. With certain exceptions, he retained the
services of old officers of the State and he was anxious to secure the support
of the nobility. Both Amir Khusrav and Ibn Batutah state that he did obtain the
support and homage of the nobles and governors.
It was only a small section of the nobility which was opposed to him. The murder of the late king with the consequent orgy of bloodshed alienated some, while there were others, orthodox Muslims, who saw in the accession of Khusrav the triumph of heathenism and great danger to Islam. They, however, formed a small minority; for there was no great sympathy for the Khaljis who had fallen. The spokesman of the opposition was Ghāzi Tugh- luq, governor of Dipalpur, whose son Malik Jauna was at the court. The astute warden of the marches raised the slogan of Islām in danger, which has always proved so effective a weapon in Muslim history. The first step he took was to instruct his son Malik Jauna to join him at Dipalpur. The master of the horse one day slipped away from Delhi, and the die was cast. Eluding the army sent by Khusrav Khän in pursuit of him, he safely reached Sarsuti (Sirsä), which had already been garrisoned by his father. Ghāzi Malik then sent appeals to the governors of Uch, Multan, Siwastän (Sehwan), Sämäna, and Jalor as well as to 'Ain-ul-Mulk who was at Delhi. Of these the governor of Uch, Bahram Aiba, alone responded to the call of Ghazi Tughluq. On the refusal of Malik Mughultãi, gov- ernor of Multan, to join him, Ghāzi Malik incited the people of Multan to rise against their governor, and the rebels killed him. Malik Yaklakhi, governor of Sāmāna, who was loyal to Khusrav, marched against Ghazi Tughluq, but was killed by his own men. Muhaminad Shah, governor of Siwastän, who had been imprisoned by his mutinous soldiers, was released, when the appeal for help came; but he made a half-hearted response. Similar was the res- ponse of Muhammad Hushang, governor of Jalor. 'Ain-ul-Mulk maintained his neutrality, though he assured Ghāzi Malik of his secret help. It is significant that Ghāzi Malik's appeal was mainly to the governors of the western frontier and even there he found little response. He also failed to obtain the moral support of the great saint Nizām-ud-din Auliyā. All this reveals the true nature of the Tughluq revolution which overthrew Khusrav Khan, and the motive of its author. The cry of Islam in danger was merely a pretext.
Khusrav
Khan sent a force, 40,000 strong, under his brother to check the advance of
Ghāzi Malik. The army marched to Sarsuti, but the Khan Khänän failed to capture
it, and proceeded towards Dipalpur to meet the enemy. On the way the royal
force encounter- ed Ghäzi Malik and was totally defeated; the Khän Khānān flcd,
leaving elephants and treasures to the victors. Ghāzi Malik, by forced marches,
arrived at the vicinity of Delhi, and Khusrav Khân made desperate and frantic
preparations to oppose him. Ile ad- vanced two and a half months' pay to the
soldiers and emptied his treasury to please his followers. Having organized his
forces, he marched from Delhi at the head of a big army with a large number of
elephants. At this critical juncture, just on the eve of the battle,
'Ain-ul-Mulk deserted Khusrav and left for Malwa.
On
September 6, 1320, the battle for Delhi was fought near Indar- pat. Khusrav
Khan fought valiantly and desperately till the even- ing, when a sudden attack
of Ghazi Malik upon his soldiers, who had dispersed for plundering, turned the
tide of the battle. Khusrav's army was totally defeated and fled in confusion.
Khusrav Khan fled from the battlefield and took shelter in the garden of Shädĩ
Khân at Tilpat. Next day he was seized and beheaded. Ghazi Malik rode in state
to the Palace of the Thousand Pillars and, after studied hesitation and with
the consent of the nobles, who pointed to him that there was no surviving
prince of the royal family, ascended the throne on September 8, 1320, under the
title of Ghiyās- ud-din Tughluq Shah.48
APPENDIX
A
The
date of Ala-ud-din's first expedition to Devagiri
All
modern writers except K. S. Lal give A.D. 1294 as the date. of 'Ala-ud-din's
invasion of Devagiri. Their authority is Fishta who gives the date of this
expedition as 694 A.H. which commenced. on November 21, 1294. The only
contemporary authority, who gives the date of this invasion, is Amir Khusrav,
who says that 'Ala- ud-din left Kara on 19 Rabi'-ul-akhir, 695, which
corresponds to February 26, 1296 (Khazäin-ul-Futuh, Calcutta text, p.8). Elliot
is wrong when he states that 19 Rabi'-ul-akhir, 695 corresponds to February,
1295.
According to Barani, Jalāl-ud-din marched to Gwalior in 695 A.H., which commenced on November 10, 1295, and at Gwalior he received the report that 'Ala-ud-din had plundered Devagiri and was returning with an immense booty (Tārīkh-i-Fīrūz Shāhī, p. 223). Now, we have from the Khazain-ul-Futuh the date of 'Alä-ud-din's return to Kară as well: 28 Rajab, 695, which corresponds to June 3, 1296. So it was obviously in May 1296 that Jalal-ud-din got the news.
If
'Ala-ud-din had started in December 1294, he would have spent altogether one
year and a half in the Devagiri expedition. This would be too long, for
according to Firishta (I, p. 96: Kanpur text) 'Ala-ud-din remained at Devagiri
only for twenty-five days: he could not have taken seventeen months in marching
to Devagiri and returning from there to Karā.
'Isāmi (Madras text, pp. 228-9) says that 'Ala-ud-din's plan was to return within two months, and from the accounts of the other chroniclers as well it appears obvious that 'Ala-ud-din planned a rapid campaign. We learn from Barani (p. 222) that already dur- ing his Bhilsa campaign, 'Ala-ud-din had gathered information about the roads to Devagiri. A long period would defeat the very objec- tive of the campaign. It was undertaken without Jalal-ud-din's leave and it was a means to an end: through it he would attempt a coup de main against the King. Eighteen months would be too long a period for the purpose, as it would be difficult to prevent leakage of information. It appears obvious from all authorities that 'Ala-ud-din was in a hurry. It was improbable that Jalal-ud- din should not have heard of 'Ala-ud-din's activities in the south for a comparatively long period of one year and a half, Barani, as already noted, was not very precise in his chrono- logy, and his statement that 'Ala-ud-din spent more than a year in the expedition seems incorrect. On the whole it seems more rea- sonable to accept the date of Amir Khusrav, viz., A.D. 1296, be- cause he gives the exact date of 'Ala-ud-din's departure from Karā and return to that place.
[The
date usually given for this expedition, A.D. 1294, was adopted in Vol. V, p.
195. But although no definite conclusion is possible, the date A.D. 1296, given
by a contemporary authority, seems preferable, and has been adopted in this
Volume, Ed.),
APPENDIX
B
The
name of Rämachandra's son
The
son and successor of Ramachandra, the Yadava king, dur- ing whose reign the
first Muslim invasion of the South took place, has been named Sankara by almost
all modern writers, from Flect to Haig. Fleet, in his Dynasties of the Kanarese
Districts (pp. 71- 78) and in the Bombay Gazetteer (I, p. 530), has Sankara.
Sewell in his work, A sketch of the dynasties of Southern India, (Madras, 1883,
p. 114), has Samkara (1309-13) and he himself says that his source of
information is Fleet. R. G. Bhandarkar has the same in his Early History of the
Dekkan (Bombay, 1885, p. 119). All subse- quent writers have generally followed
them.
Now, the name of Sankara does not occur in any Hindu or Indian source. Fleet himself has made this point clear in the fol- lowing remark about the sources for the history of the Yadava dynasty: "For the period after 1298, no epigraphical records, throw- ing any light on the history of this dynasty, have as yet come to notice. Our knowledge of what occurred then, and of the leading incidents during the previous few years, which led up to it, is derived only from the pages of the Mussalman chronicler Ferishta." (Bombay Gazetteer, I. p. 130). In the footnote the translation of Briggs is referred to. Sewell also (op. cit., p. 115, f.n.) says that his authority is Firishta,
Firishta
(Kanpur text, I. p. 117 and Bombay text, I, pp. 204-5) has Sankaldev. Sankaldev
is, of course, Sankara. But in the 'Ashiqa of Amir Khusrav we have Sinkhan Dev
(Devalräni wa Khizr Khan, Aligarh ed., p. 85). In his translation from the
'Ashiqa, Elliot (III, p. 551) has Sankh Deo'. The Aligarh edition is a collated
text, based on several MSS. It seems that in Elliot's MS. the letter N (nun)
has been dropped and it has been read as Sankh Deo. In manuscripts G (gaf) is
often confounded with K (kaf) and vice versa (Steingass: Persian Dictionary,
pp. 999 and 1971). Sinkhan Dev is, therefore, nothing but Singhana Deva.
Venkataramanayya has incorrectly read the name in the 'Ashiqu as Sangama Dev
(Early Muslim expansion in South India, p. 17 £.n. 10) and K. A. N. Sastri has
adopted this reading (History of South India, p. 217). As Hodivala (Studies in
Indo-Muslim History, p. 373) has pointed out, the name Singhana is to be found
in the dynastic list of the Yadavas of Devagiri. Further, as between Firishta,
who composed his work early in the seventeenth century, and Amir Khusrav, who
was a contemporary writer, the authority of Amir Khusrav should be given more
weight. In view of all these reasons it appears that the name of Ramachandra's
son and successor was Singhana and not Sankara, as given by Firishta and
accepted by modern writers.
(Prof.
Abdur Rashid reads the name, in the Aligarh text of the 'Ashiqa, as Sanghan Deo
or Sankun Deo, but prefers the former. Thus the second letter is read by him as
'gh', and this supports the above contention. In view of the fact that the name
Singhana was borne by the greatest ruler of the dynasty, it is preferable to
take the name of the crown-prince as Singhana. The 'Ashiqa also gives the name
of his brother as Bhillam, another familiar name in the family. As Prof. Rashid
has pointed out, the author of the Futuh-us-Salatin speaks of Bhillam as a son
of Ram Deo, but not as the only son, as is supposed by Venkataramanayya (op.
cit.). We must therefore conclude that the Yadava king Ramachandra had two sons
Singhana and Bhillama. In Vol. V, pp. 195-6, the name of the former has been
given as Sankara, following the usual prac- tice. But even though it is of long
standing, the weighty arguments given above seem to be strongly in favour of
the change, and hence the name Singhana has been adopted in this Volume. I am
indebted to Prof. Abdur Rashid for the valuable information supplied by him.
Ed.)
1.
The date is given as June 13 in Vol. V (p. 158). The actual date is 3 Jumādī-
us-sānī, 689 A.H. As the Muslim day begins at sunset, 3 Jumādī-us-sānī, 689,
begins at sunset of June 13, 1290, and ends in the afternoon of 14, and con-
sequently the major portion of it covers June 14. The system of giving such
dates as June 14 has been followed in converting Hijra dates into their corres-
ponding dates in the Christian Era.
2.
A different view has been expressed by Pande (PIHC, X. 310), but his argu-
ments
are not convincing.
3.
In Jodhpur State, 26° 21' N., 73° 5′ E. (cf. above,
has
Mandor, and 'Isami, p. 215, has Mandowar. 4. 19 Rabi'-ul-ākhir, 695,
Khazüin-ul-Futüh, p. 8.
See
Appendix A.
5.
See Appendix B.
Vol.
III, p. 65). Barani, p. 220, CHI, III, p. 95, has Mandāwar. Firishta has 693
A.H./A.D. 1294.
5a.
According to 'Isami it consisted of 500,000 foot and 10,000 horse (Futūh-us-
Salātin, Madras Text, p. 234), He, however, calls the son of Ramadeva,
Bhillama. 6. See Hodivala, Studies in Indo-Muslim Ilistory, p. 246.
7.
See Hodivala, op. cit., pp. 248-49; A. K. Majumdar, Chaulukyas of Gujarat,
p.
470, f.n, 7.
8.
Recently some scholars have questioned the historicity of Kamala Devi and
Devala Devi and regard the entire episode relating to them as pure fiction. See
G. H. Ojha, Gujarati: Annual Number, 1933; K. M. Munshi, The Glory that was
Gurjaradesa, Pt. III, pp. 225-226 (Bombay, 1944) and Pt. II, pp. 431-54 of
revised edition, Bombay 1955; A. K. Majumdar, Chaulukyas of Gujarat, p. 192. 9.
Siwastän or Sehwan in Barani, p. 253, and Firishta, Vol. I, p. 103. 'Isämi, p.
251, has Sistan which is obviously a slip for Siwastan. CHI, III, p. 101, has
Sibi. 9a. Firishta puts these reasons somewhat differently (Briggs, I, p. 344),
10. Tripathi, Some Aspects of Muslim Administration, pp. 255-6. As pointed out
by him, and by Moreland, 'Ala-ud-din could not altogether abolish the system of
grants, but he made them very sparingly.
11.
According to Tripathi (op. cit., 256) these Hindu chiefs held lands from the
State on condition of paying a stipulated amount of revenue and are to be diş-
tinguished from autonomous rulers who were allowed to rule over their terri-
tories on condition of payment of fixed amount to the Delhi King as tribute.
For Khüt cf. also Moreland, The Agrarian system of Moslem India, pp. 224-25.
12. The passage, dealing with these ordinances in Barani, pp. 287-88, is
defective, and consequently it is difficult to understand what Barani means.
See Moreland, op. cit., pp. 224-27 and Tripathi, op. cit., pp. 256-62.
13.
Tripathi, op. cit., 258.
14.
Moreland, op. cit., 224.
15.
Ibid, 32,
16.
HIED, III, pp. 183-5. [The Editor is responsible for this paragraph.]
16a.
P. Hardy has recently pointed out by a comparison of the Tarikh-i-Firuz Shāhi
with the Fatāwā-i-Jahändärî that Barani put his own ideas into the mouths of
the personages in his Tärikh (BSOS, 1957, XX, pp. 315-21). But this is too
complicated a question to be discussed here.
17. The future Muhammad bin Tughluq. Barani refers to Fakhr-ud-din Jauna as holding the office of Dadhak in 1302-3. 'Ala-ud-din would hardly have en- trusted such a responsible office to Jauna or appointed him to the command of the Warangal expedition, if he were a boy of twelve or thirteen. The year 1290 as the date of his birth, suggested by Agha Mahdi Husain (MTMII, 22,), does not fit in with the above facts.
18.
See Venkatai amanayya, The Early Muslim Expansion in South India, pp. 24-25.
19. Nensi, Khyut, Vol. I, p. 21; Tod, Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, Vol.
I, p. 311. In Tod the name of the Rana is Bhim Singh. 'Isāmī, p. 281, gives the
name of the Rānā as Sonarsia.
20.
See G. H. Ojha, Udaipur Rājya ka Itihās, Vol. 1, pp. 191-202, 233-34. 21. See
Ojha, op. cit., pp. 183-191; Habib, Khazain-ul-Futuh, p. 48; and Wahid Mirza,
text, pp. 162-63. K. R. Qanungo, Prabāsi (in Bengali), 1337 B. S. and Nopani
Lectures, Calcutta University (1956); R. R. Halder, Indian Antiquary, Vol. LIX,
pp. 235-37; S. C. Datta, IHQ, VII, 296-298, and K. S. Lal, History of the
Khaljis, pp. 120-130. It should be noted that both Abu-'l-Fazl and
Haji-ud-Dabîr use Padmini not as a name, but as a woman possessing special
attributes (Âîn-i- Akbari, Nawal Kishore Text, Vol. II, p. 258 and
Hāji-ud-Dabīr, pp. 787-88). In Hindi, Padmini is the name of a woman of the
most excellent of the four classes in which women are divided. It is in this
sense that they use the word, For the story of Solomon and Bilgis, the
beautiful Queen of Sheba, see Hughes, A Dictionary of Islam, pp. 601-604,
London 1885. Amir Khusrav compares 'Ala- ud-din with Solomon and himself with
his lapwing hudhud, which brought the news of the Queen of Sheba to Solomon.
22.
Koka seems to be a mistranscription for Goga, whose identification presents
some difficulty. According to an inscription of V.S. 1354 (Buddhiprakas,
Gujarati, 1910, p. 77, AŠI, 1935-36, p. 98) Sarangadeva, the king of Gujarat
(A.D. 1274-1296), defeated one Goga, and another inscription of A.D. 1439
praises Lakshmasimha, the Guhilot prince of Mewar for having defeated Gogadeva,
the King of Malwa ASI, 1907-08, 214). Firishta also calls Koka the Raja of
Malwa (Briggs, p. 361), but Amir Khusrav calls Koka the Pardhan of Rai Mahalak
Deo, King of Malwa, and adds that "Koka, the Wazir, commanded the army and
he was stronger in the country of Malwa than the Rai." (Khazain-ul-Futūh,
HIED, II, p. 76. Tr. by M. Habib. JIH, VIJI, 365: ‘'Ashiqa, HIED, III, 544-45).
According to Wassaf, about the year A.D. 1270, a king of Malwa died, and
dissension broke out bet- ween his son and minister as a result of which Malwa
was divided between the two (HIED, III, 31). It is possible, therefore, that
Koka or Goga was the minis- ter referred to by Wassaf who made common cause
with his erstwhile king when the country was threatened with a Muslim invasion.
See A. K. Majumdar: Chaulukyas of Gujarat, p. 182. (Ed.)
23.
Barani, p. 320, has Nayak; Amir Khusrav, Khazain-ul-Futüh, p, 38, Mänik:
‘Isâmî, p. 301-2, Nanak. The name was either Nayak or Mänik and the leader of
the campaign was a Hindu as Khusrav states in the Ashiqa, p. 61. He is possibly
the Manik, who saved 'Ala-ud-din from Akat Khan's assault referred to by
Barani, p. 273. According to Firishta, Malik Naib and Ghazi Malik Tughluq were
leaders of the campaign.
24. The account of the Mongol invasion of 1306 given by the chroniclers, particular- ly that of Barani, is confusing. The above account is based on the Khazain-ul- Futh and the 'Ashiqa as well as the Futüh-us-Salâtin of Isami, who agrees with Amir Khusrav in treating the campaign under Kabak as the last Mongol invasion. Barani speaks of three campaigns in three different years; the first under Kabak; the commander of the second is not named; and the third under Iqbalmandah. Firishta plays havoc with facts and names. Sec Khazain-ul- Futüh, pp. 41-46 and Habib, English translation, pp. 29-34; 'Ashiqa, pp. 62-63; Isami, pp. 317-22; and JASB, 1870, pp. 43-47.
25.
'Isami, p. 283.
26.
Different dates are given for this compaign in different chronicles. The date
in
the text is given on the authority of Amir Khusrav.
27.
A. K. Majumdar, Chaulukyas of Gujarat, pp. 189-192.
28.
For a different version see 'Isämi, pp. 286-87. Isämi and Amir Khusrav (in the
'Ashiqa, pp. 85-87) make it a separate campaign. The account in the text is
based on Firishta, who gives a detailed and systematic account of Devalä Devi.
Karna could not obtain asylum in Devagiri, obviously due to Malik Naib's
invasion, and fled to Telingana.
29.
This question of Devala Devi has been discussed by K. M. Munshi and Dr. B.
Prasad in The Glory That Was Gurjaradesa, II, by K. M. Munshi, pp. 431 ff. and
by A. K. Majumdar, op. cit. pp. 194 fl. See also Qanoo: The historicity of the
love romance, 'Deval Rani wa Khizr Khan', in PIHC, III, pp. 877-79. For a
different view see A. L. Srivastava: Historicity of 'Deval Räni-Khizr Khan' in
the Is.C. 1956. He holds that there is little that is impossible in the basic
theme of the 'Ashiga, which stands the test of historical criticism and is
substantially true,
30. A. K. Majumdar, op. cit. pp. 194 ff. [The Editor is responsible for this para-graph and the account of Devala Devī.]
31.
13 Muharram, 708 A.H. (July 4, 1308), Khazain-ul-Futih, B.I. text, p. 69. 32.
We have no contemporary account of the Khalji conquest of Jalor and have to
rely on the later authorities like Tirishta and Nensi. It seems Jälor was
raided by Muslim troops in A.D. 1299 on their way back from Gujarat, though
'Ala-ud-lin could not have personally undertaken it as Nensi would have us believe.
On the second occasion Jalor was invaded by Alp Khăn and 'Am- ul-Mulk, while
they were returning from Mälwa; and Raja Kanhar Deva, alarmed at the success of
Muslim arms in Malwa, offered his submission to ‘Alā-ud-dîn. Kanhar Deva,
however, revised his policy, asserted indepen- dence, and defied the authority
of Delhi, which necessitated the third and final invasion of the territory.
Firishta places the subjugation of Jālor about the time of the expedition
against Siwana, while Nensi places it in A.D. 1311 (Khyāt, I. p. 163). As the
Khalji army was engaged in Siwana in 1308, a cam- paign after its fall against
Jalor, which was in the vicinity, was quite probable. But Nensi's date is to a
certain extent corroborated by Jinaprabha Suri who, in the Tirthakalpa, refers
to 'Alā-ud-din's destruction of the temple of Mahavia at Sanchor in the
vicinity of Jalor in A.D. 1310; and modern scholars like Ojha, Reu and others
accept it.
32a.
ASI, 1909-10, p. 131.
32b.
Tod, Annals, Ed. by Crooke, I, 312.
33.
HIED, III, 202.
33a.
'Isāmi, Futūh-us-Salātīn, Madras Text, p. 294.
34.
See The Imperial and Asiatic Quarterly Review, April, 1899, pp. 370-389, 35.
Birdhûl or Viradhavalam has been identified with Uyyakkondän Tirumalai, two
miles
from Uraiyur (EI, XXVII, 311).
36.
For a different identification see Journal of the Andhra Historical Research
Society, April, 1941, p. 4 and The Early Muslim Expansion in South India, p. 63
n, where Dr. Venkataramanayya identifies the place with Kanchi. 37. See
Venkataramanayya, The Early Muelim Expansion in South India, pp. 66-67, 38. See
Firishta, Bombay edition, Vol. 1, pp. 210, 567, and 570; Lucknow edition, Vol.
I, pp. 119, and 297-299. Sit Band Ramesar on the coast of the Arabian Sea is
possibly Cape Rāmas south of Goa, as Briggs suggests (1, 374). 39. See Ashiqa,
pp. 70-71; Hājī-ud-Dabir, p. 156; S. K. Aiyangar, South Ind'o and her
Muhammadan Invaders, pp. 100-101, 118; and Introduction to Habib's English
translation of the Khazain-ul-Futuh, pp. XXVII-XXIX; Venkata- ramanayya, op.
cit., pp. 68-69 and K. S. Lal, op. cit., pp. 369-371. In the 'Ashiya, p. 72,
Amir Khusrav refers to Malik Naib's attack on Patan which Dr. Aiyangar
identifies with one of the Pattinams: Rameswarapattinam which is also called
Pattinam merely, or Periapattinam or another Pattinam on the opposite coast of
India. Patan is described as the scat of Vīrā Pandya's residence and a care-
ful comparison of the Ma'bar campaign in the Khazain-ul-Fatih and the 'Ashiqa
would lead to the conclusion that Patan of the latter and Birdhül of the former
are the same place and the headquarters of Vira Pandya; but we do not know if
Rameswaram was so. In fact these places cannot be properly identified.
40. Barani writes the same as Kampila (HIED III, 236) and Firishta, as Kumpila (Briggs, I, 418).
40a.
The date is given as January 2 in CHI, III, 119.
41. Both Barani (HIED, III, 208) and Firishta (Briggs, T, 381) refer to the suspi-cion to this effect.
42.
24 Muharram, 716, Nuh Sipihr, p. 51.
43.
'Isami, pp. 361-363. gives a different account of the expedition; he does not
refer to any hostilities. According to him Prataparudra agreed to pay the
arrears without any resistance.
44. Briggs, I, 395. According to Barani the headless trunk of the Sultan was casi, into the courtyard (HIED, III, 223).
45. See T. W. Arnold, The Caliphate, pp. 116-117; Tripathi, Some Aspects of Muslim Administration, pp. 52-53.
46.
For an interesting account of the relation between the two, cf. Is. C. XX,
137-8. 47. See Hodivala, op. cit., 369-371. There is, of course, considerable
fores in the suggestion of A. L. Srivastava that the word is Barwär le. Bharwar
or Bharvad, which in Gujarati means a shepherd; and Khusrav came of this
shepherd caste, which is neither high nor low. See PIHC, 1953, 173-177.
48.
According to the Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shāhā, Ghivās-ud-din's arcossion took place
in 721. A.H. (A.D. 1321-22). Barani gives the date as 720 A.F. (A.D. 1320-21).
Post a Comment