غزو
تيمور وسقوط سلالة تغلق في دلهي
في عام
1398، شهدت جنوب آسيا حدثاً هائلاً قلب المشهد السياسي - غزو تيمور، المحتل الوحشي
القادم من آسيا الوسطى. كان هذا الغزو له عواقب عميقة، مما أدى في النهاية إلى سقوط
سلالة تغلق في دلهي.
الخلفية
كانت سلالة تغلق، التي حكمت شمال الهند لقرون، بالفعل تكافح مع الصراع الداخلي والتهديدات الخارجية عندما حدد تيمور نظره نحو المدينة الغنية دلهي. وكان حكام تغلق يواجهون تحديات في الحفاظ على الاستقرار وفقدوا السيطرة على مناطق مختلفة.
حملة تيمور
تيمور، المعروف أيضًا باسم تامرلان، كان قائدًا عسكريًا قويًا من آسيا الوسطى. في عام 1398، شن حملة عسكرية وحشية في الهند، بهدف نهب ثرواتها. كانت حملته مميزة بتكتيكاته القاسية، بما في ذلك مذابح المدنيين وتدمير المدن.
نهب دلهي
كان ذروة حملة تيمور هو نهب دلهي. سقطت المدينة، المشهورة برفاهيتها، عرضة لقوات تيمور، مما أدى إلى نهب واسع النطاق ودمار هائل. خلف الغزو دلهي في أشلاء وسكانها في حالة ارتباك.
تأثيره على
سلالة تغلق
كان الغزو ضربة قوية لسلالة تغلق المضطربة بالفعل. انهارت هيكل السلطة الحاكمة، وفقد حكام تغلق قبضتهم على السلطة. سقطت السلالة التي كانت في يوم من الأيام قوية أمام التشققات الداخلية والضغط الخارجي، مما أسرع بانحدارها.
الآثار
شهد ما بعد غزو تيمور فراغ سلطوي في دلهي. واجهت المدينة الغنية مرحلة من الفوضى وعدم اليقين حيث تنافست القوى الإقليمية المختلفة على السيطرة. وشكل هذا تحولا في تاريخ الهند، ووضع المسرح لظهور سلاسل حاكمة جديدة وإعادة هيكلة السلطة السياسية.
التأريخ
ترك غزو تيمور وسقوط سلالة تغلق أثرًا دائمًا على النسيج الثقافي والسياسي لشمال الهند. أبرزت هشاشة السلطات المستقرة أمام التهديدات الخارجية وساهمت في ديناميات الجيوسياسية الإقليمية.
في الختام، يظل غزو تيمور في عام 1398 حدثًا حاسمًا في تاريخ الهند، يشكل منعطفًا في مصير سلالة تغلق ويترك بصمة لا تنسى على مسار التطور السياسي للمنطقة.
Abstract
In
1398, the Indian subcontinent witnessed a tumultuous event that would reshape
its political landscape—the invasion of Timur, a formidable Central Asian
conqueror. This invasion had profound consequences, ultimately leading to the
downfall of the Tughlaq Dynasty in Delhi.
Background
The
Tughlaq Dynasty, which had ruled over Northern India for centuries, was already
grappling with internal strife and external threats when Timur set his sights
on the wealthy city of Delhi. The Tughlaq rulers were facing challenges in
maintaining stability and had lost control over various regions.
Timur's
Campaign
Timur,
also known as Tamerlane, was a fierce military commander from Central Asia. In
1398, he launched a brutal campaign into India, seeking to plunder its riches.
His invasion was marked by ruthless tactics, including the massacre of
civilians and the destruction of cities.
Sacking
of Delhi
The
climax of Timur's campaign was the sacking of Delhi. The city, known for its
opulence, fell prey to Timur's forces, leading to widespread looting and
devastation. The invasion left Delhi in ruins and its population in disarray.
Impact
on the Tughlaq Dynasty
The
invasion dealt a severe blow to the already weakened Tughlaq Dynasty. The
ruling power structure crumbled, and the Tughlaq rulers lost their grip on
authority. The once-mighty dynasty succumbed to internal dissension and
external pressure, hastening its decline.
Aftermath
The
aftermath of Timur's invasion witnessed a power vacuum in Delhi. The
once-prosperous city faced a period of chaos and uncertainty as various
regional powers vied for control. This marked a turning point in Indian history,
setting the stage for the rise of new dynasties and the restructuring of
political power.
Legacy
Timur's invasion and the subsequent fall of the Tughlaq Dynasty left an enduring impact on the cultural and political fabric of Northern India. It highlighted the vulnerability of established powers in the face of external threats and contributed to the dynamics of regional geopolitics.
In
conclusion, Timur's invasion of 1398 stands as a pivotal event in Indian
history, shaping the fate of the Tughlaq Dynasty and leaving an indelible mark
on the trajectory of the subcontinent's political evolution
Detailed Study
Timur was born in the year A.D. 1336 at the town called Kech or Shahr-i-sabz (green town) to the south of Samarqand in Transoxiana, that is, the territory between the rivers Oxus and Jaxartes. He belonged to a noble Turk family of the Barlas clan which ruled a small principality round the town of his birth. His original name was Timur, but once, in the course of a fight, he was wounded by an arrow in the leg and he limped for the rest of his life. Hence his Turkish enemies styled him "Aksak-Timūr" (limp- ing Timur), and the Persians, "Timür-i-lang" (Timür the lame), corrupted by Europeans into Tamerlane.
It
is not necessary for our present purpose to relate the long life of warfare,
led by Tamerlane, by which he rose from a humble position to be the ruler of a
vast empire embracing in addition to Transoxiana and a part of Turkistan, the
whole of Afghanistan, Persia, Syria, Qurdistan, and the major part of Asia
Minor. To- wards the end of his career, he decided to undertake an expedition
against India. He repeatedly declares in his autobiography that his object in
the invasion of Hindusthan was to lead an expedition against the infidels, and
thereby become a Ghāzî, or a martyr.2 But in one or two places, he refers to
the twofold objects of his expe- dition: "The first was to war with the
infidels," and thereby ac- quire "some claim to reward in the life to
come". The other was "that the army of Islam might gain something by
plundering the wealth and valuables of the infidels".3 There can be no
doubt that both the religious and the material aspects of the expedition were
always present in his mind. As a matter of fact, he combined in himself the
savage ferocity of Chinghiz Khan and the fanaticism of Sultan Mahmüd.
Before
he launched his Indian expedition, information reached him that his grandson
Pir Muhammad, the governor of Kabul, Qandahar, Ghaznī and other neighbouring
regions, had already sent an expedition against India, which crossed the river
Sindhu, cap- tured Uch, and besieged Multan. Timür, on his part, started from
Samarqand early in A.D. 1398 (March or April). When he reached Afghanistan, a
large number of Muslims, both high and low, complained to him of the
ill-treatment which they constantly received at the hands of the infidels of
Kator and the Siyah-poshes, and asked for his protection, which was readily
assured. Timur him- self proceeded against Kator, which denoted the region
between Kashmir and Käbul, and sent a detachment against the Siyah-poshes. The
fort of Kator, deserted by the people, was levelled with the ground and the
houses of the city were burnt. The infidels, who took refuge on the top of a
hill, were defeated, and many of them put to death. Some of the infidels held
out for three days, and Timur offered them the usual alternatives of 'death' or
'Islam'. They chose the latter, but soon recanted, and attacked a regiment of
Muslim soldiers during the night. But the latter were on their guard and killed
a number of infidels and took 150 of them as prisoners "who were
afterwards put to death by the enraged soldiery". As soon as it was day,
Timur ordered his troops to ad- vance on all four sides, "to kill all the
men, to make prisoners the women and children, and to plunder and lay waste all
their property". When this order was faithfully executed, he
"directed towers to be built on the mountain of the skulls of those
obstinate unbelievers". In order to let posterity know of this expedition
"in the auspicious month of Ramazan, A.H. 800" (A.D. 1398), Timūr
engraved an account of it on a neighbouring hill and then proceeded to retrieve
the disaster that had befallen the other part of his army which had been sent
against the Siyah-poshes.
Burhan
Aglan, who was sent against them with 10,000 men, "was routed by, and fled
from, a small number of infidels". A small detachment of 400 men under
Muhammad Azad, sent to his help, was attacked by the infidels, but he fought
gallantly and after hav- ing recovered the horses and armour lost by Aglan,
returned home- wards. Timur then advanced in person and captured some places
but, as nothing more is said, presumably, after this, the Siyah- poshes were
left alone 5
Timur
then exterminated the "rebellious predatory tribes of the Aghanis❞ and crossed the Sindhu
river in September, 1398. He marched along the Jhelum and defeated several
local chiefs, crossed this river below its junction with the Chenab, and
reached Tulamba, which submitted without any fight. Here news reached him that
Pir Muhammad had captured Multan. The two armies then joined, and after sending
a part of his force by way of Dipalpur and Sāmāna, Timur himself proceeded to
Bhatnir, a strong fortified place occu- pied by Dul Chand, a Hindu chief,
"famous throughout the whole country".
The
casus belli was furnished by the conduct of the chiefs and nobles of the city
of Dipalpur who had tendered allegiance to Pir Muhammad, but later turned
rebels and killed Musafir Kabuli, the governor appointed by him. On hearing of
the approach of Timür the rebels took refuge in Bhatnir. What part, if any, the
Hindu chief of Bhatnir played in the whole affair is not stated, but Timur
invaded and easily conquered the city. The fort was guarded by a body of
Rajputs who offered a stout resistance, but ultimately Dul Chänd surrendered
and presented himself to Timur. Timur then punished various refractory chiefs,
specially the 500 refugees from Dipalpur, and "their wives and children
were made slaves". This fearful retribution filled Dul Chand's brother and
son with dismay, and they fled to the fort and closed its gate. But though they
again submitted and were granted pardon, a dispute arose about the collection
of ransom money "between the collectors and the evil-minded rais". So
Tīmür directed his "brave fellows to punish the infidels", and what
followed is described by him as follows:- "In a short space of time all
the people in the fort were put to the sword, and in the course of one hour the
heads of 10,000 infidels were cut off. The sword of Islām was washed in the
blood of the infidels, and all the goods and effects, the treasure and the
grain which for many a long year had been stored in the fort became the spoil
of my soldiers. They set fire to the houses and reduced them to ashes, and they
razed the buildings and the fort to the ground".6
Timur
then captured the city of Sarsuti and the fearful scene was repeated. "All
these infidel Hindus were slain, their wives and children were made prisoners,
and their property and goods be- came the spoil of the victors". Several
thousand Hindu women and children, who
were brought captive, became Muhammedans.7
Timur
then proceeded against the Jats. Although they fled into the jungles, Timur
pursued them there. He killed 2,000 Jats, cap- tured their wives and children,
and plundered their cattle and pro- perty.8 About this time, another part of
Timür's army which was following a more northerly route, joined him near
Samāna, and Timür marched via Panipat towards Delhi. After reaching the
neighbourhood of Delhi, he sent a force of cavalry in advance, with orders
"to plunder and destroy and to kill every one whom they met". They
literally carried out this order, and reached the Jahan- numā palace, having,
as they proceeded, 'plundered every village, killed the men, and carried a
number of Hindu prisoners, both male and female'.9 Next day Timür crossed the
river Yamuna and captured Loni on the other bank of the river. The people here
were mostly Hindus. "Many of the Rajputs placed their wives and children
in their houses and burned them, then they rushed to the battle and were
killed". After this fort was captured, Timur gave orders "that the
Musulman prisoners should be separated and saved, but that the infidels should
all be despatched to hell with the proselyting sword".10 Sultan Mahmud of
Delhi had hitherto taken no steps to oppose the invader, but now advanced with
Mallu, and a battle was fought with a detachment of Timur near the Palace of
Jahānnumā (December 12, 1398). The Sultan was defeated and fled with his army.
A grim tragedy, perhaps unparalleled in the history of the world, was an indirect consequence of this battle. There were at this time about 100,000 Hindu prisoners in the camp of Timur, Two amirs reported to Timur that "on the previous day, when the enemy's forces made the attack upon us, the prisoners made signs of rejoicing, uttered imprecations against us, and were ready, as soon as they heard of the enemy's success, to form themselves into a body, break their bonds, plunder our tents, and then to go and join the enemy, and so increase his numbers and strength". Timür having asked their advice, "they said that on the great day of battle these 100,000 prisoners could not be left with the baggage, and that it would be entirely opposed to the rules of war to set these idolaters and foes of Islām at liberty. In fact, no other course remained but that of making them all food for the sword". Timur thereupon resolved to put them all to death. He proclaimed "throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners was to put them to death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be exc- cuted and his property given to the informer. When this order be- came known to the ghazis of Islām, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death. 100,000 infidels, impious idolaters, were on that day slain. Maulana Nasir-ud-din 'Umar, a counsellor and man of learning, who, in all his life, had never killed a sparrow, now, in execution of my order, slew with his sword fifteen ido- latrous Hindus, who were his captives".11
On
December 17, there was a pitched battle outside Delhi. Timür defeated Sultan
Mahmud and entered the city (December 18, 1398). Both the Sultan and his
minister Mallü fled, but a terrible fate was reserved for the people of Delhi.
On learning "that great numbers of Hindus and gabrs, with their wives and
children, and goods, and valuables had come into the city from all the country
round", Timür sent a force to seize them. But "many of them drew
their swords and offered resistance.” "The flames of strife were thus
lighted and spread through the whole city from Jahänpanāh and Siri to Old
Dehli, burning up all it reached. The savage Turks fell to killing and
plundering. The Hindus set fire to their houses with their own hands, burned
their wives and children in them, and rushed into the fight and were
killed." The carnage, which continued, is thus described in the autobiography
of Timur:---
"On
that day, Thursday, and all the night of Friday, nearly 15,000 Turks were
engaged in slaying, plundering, and destroying. When morning broke on the
Friday, all my army, no longer under control went off to the city and thought
of nothing but killing, plundering, and making prisoners. All that day the sack
was general. The following day, Saturday, the 17th, all passed in the same way,
and the spoil was so great that each man secured from fifty to a hundred
prisoners, men, women, and children. There was no man who took less than
twenty. The other booty was immense in rubies, diamonds, garnets, pearls, and
other gems; jewels of gold and silver; ashrafis, tankas of gold and silver of
the celebrated 'Alai coinage; vessels of gold and silver; and brocades and
silks of great value. Gold and silver ornaments of the Hindu women were
obtained in such quantities as to exceed all account. Excepting the quarter of
the saiyids, the 'ulama, and the other Musulmans, the whole city was
sacked."12
Timur
disowns all responsibility for the terrible outrage and attributes it to the
"spirit of resistance" displayed by the infidel inhabitants, and so,
he exclaims: "By the will of God, and by no wish or direction of mine, all
the three cities of Delhi... had been plundered."13
After
the sack of Delhi, Timür proceeded to the north (January 1, 1399, and sent
several contingents to kill the infidels on the Yamuna and the Ganga. It is
needless to add details which would be mere repetitions. The progress of his
armies was mark- ed by rapine, massacre, and plunder of the Hindus;-the adult
males were slain; the children and women were taken prisoners, and were either
converted into Islam or kept as slaves. After proceeding up to Siwalik Hills in
the north, and devastating the countryside both on the right and the left,
Timur turned to the west and captured and plundered Nagarkot and Jammu. He then
proceeded homewards and re-crossed the Sindhu on March 19, 1399.
On
the eve of his departure from India, Timur held a court on March 6, and
appointed Khizr Khan governor of Multan, Lahore, and Dipalpur. 14 It is
mentioned by some contemporary historians that Khizr was also nominated by him
as his viceroy in Delhi.
A
historian has very correctly observed that Timur had inflict- ed "on India
more misery than had ever before been inflicted by any conqueror in a single
invasion."15 Although his avowed object was to destroy the infidel Hindus
and plunder their pro- perty 16 and this 'pious' task he did to the best of his
ability- it is hard to believe that he did not inflict miseries also on the
Muslims in India. Reference may be made, for example, to Sultan Mahmud, Mallu,
and their families and followers. On the whole, it is difficult to avoid the
conclusion that his professed zeal for the cause of Islam could not always get
better of his lust for plunder and massacre, and that although he might not
have deli- berately harmed the Muslims, as he did in the case of the Hindus, he
would not scruple to do so whenever it was necessary in the course of his
campaign, marked throughout by indiscriminate loot and plunder.
After
the departure of Timur, chaos and confusion prevailed over a large part of
northern India. Delhi was almost depopulated and the few that remained were
severely affected by famine and pestilence. "Many died of sickness and
many of hunger. For a couple of months Delhi presented a scene of desolation
and woe. This miserable lot of the proud imperial city of the Muslim Sultāns
was brought about by one who regarded himself as the champion of that faith.
The
Empire also perished. Bengal, Deccan and Vijayanagara had already become
independent before Timur's invasion. Now Gujarāt, Mālwa and Jaunpur became
powerful independent princi- palities, while Lahore, Dipalpur Multan, and parts
of Sind were held by Khizr Khan on behalf of Timür. A large number of smaller
independent principalities grew on all sides, such as Sāmāna, Bayāna, Kälpī,
and Mahoba.18
As
mentioned above, both Sultan Mahmud Shah as well as his minister Mallu had fled
from Delhi after their defeat in the hands of Timür. As soon as Timür left,
Nusrat Shah, a pretender to the throne, who was once driven by Mallü, 19
occupied Delhi and declared himself as Sultan. Being, however, defeated and
driven away by Mallü he proceeded to Mewat where he breathed his last. Mallu
now administered Delhi and recovered control over some parts of the Doab. But
as most of the provinces had now declared independence, the sovereignty
exercised by Mallu was limited to a very narrow region round about Delhi. When
Khvāja Jahän, ruler of Jaunpur, died and was succeeded by his adopted son,
Mubarak Shah, Mallu made an attempt to recover Jaunpur, but failed,
In
A.D. 1401, Mallü invited the fugitive Sultan Mahmud Shah to Delhi, The Sultan
had at first taken refuge with Muzaffar Shāh, who was practically independent
in Gujarāt. The position of the Sultan at his court was anomalous for though
Muzaffar received him. warmly, he did not accord to him the treatment and
respect due to a sovereign. Mahmud therefore left Gujarat in disgust and
proceeded to Malwa where Dilavar Khan treated him with respect. On receiving
the invitation of Mallu, the Sultan returned to Delhi, but was virtually a
pensioner of Mallü who administered the government in his name Mallu once more
tried to re-assert the authority of Delhi over Jaunpur and, accom- panied by
the Sultan, proceeded towards Kanauj, where Ibrahim Shah, who had succeeded his
brother Mubarak Shah, opposed him. with a great force. The Sultan, chafing at
the control of Mallu, fled to Ibrāhīm, but was very coldly received there.
Thereupon he occupied Kanauj and resided there with a few attendants. Ibrāhīm
allowed him to live in Kanauj, and Mallu returned discomfited to Delhi.
Mallu
made several attempts to recover some of the territories in the neighbourhood
of Delhi, such as Gwalior and Etawa, but did not meet with much success. He
then advanced against the Sultan, who shut himself up at Kanauj. Unable to
reduce it, Mallu, along with the chief of Sämäna, marched towards Multan
against Khizr Khan. An engagement took place near Ajudhan, and Khizr Khān
defeated and killed Mallu.
On Mallu's death Mahmud Shāh returned to Delhi, and Dau- lat Khan Lodi, an Afghan noble, was appointed military governor of the Doab. Actually Daulat Khan was the man who ruled the king- dom, and gained some success in re-asserting the authority of the Sultan over the neighbouring States. But Khizr Khan proved a powerful adversary, and annexed Samana, Sirhind, Sunām and Hissar. Mahmud Shah exercised authority only over the Doab, Rohtak and Sambal. In A.D. 1408 Mahmud Shah re-conquered Hissar, but next year Khizr Khän besieged Firüzäbäd, a few miles to the north of Delhi. Though he had to retire for want of provi- sions, he reduced Rohtak and ravaged the Doab. In A.D. 1410, he besieged Mahmud Shäh in his capital city and captured Firūzābād. Once again, Khizr Khan was compelled to retire as the devastated country could not furnish enough supply for his army. At last, in A.D. 1412,20 Sultan Mahmud Shah died. Thus ended his inglori- ous reign of about eighteen years, during which he was a fugitive more than once, and never exercised any real authority or power. The royal dynasty founded by Ghiyas-ud-din Tughluq as well as the rule of the Turks in India ended with him. On his death, the nobles of the court offered the throne to Daulat Khan Lodi, and he ascended the throne in A.D. 1413. Some of the chiefs who had joined Khizr Khan now took the side of Daulat Khan. Khizr Khân, who was supported by the amirs of Hissar Firūza, besieged Rohtak, and laid waste Sambal. He then proceeded to Delhi and invested the city. After a siege of four months Daulat Khan surrendered and was kept a prisoner at Hissar. Khizr Khan took possession of Delhi and founded the so-called Sayyid Dynasty (A.D. 1414).
Foot
Notes
1.
The account of Timur is based principally on his autobiographical memoir,
entitled Malfūzāt-i-Tīmūrī or Tūzak-i-Timūrī, translated in HIED, III. 389-477.
The figures in the footnotes, unless otherwise stated, refer to the pages of
this work. 2. Pp. 394-5. He refers to the following verse of the Quran as his
guide: "O Pro- phet, make war upon infidels and unbelievers, and treat
them with severity." Elsewhere he says: "My great object in invading
Hindustan had been to wage a religious war against the infidel Hindus" (p.
429).
3.
P. 461.
4.
"The infidel Kators and the Siyah-poshes exact tribute and blackmail every
year from us who are true believers, and if we fail in the least of our settled
amount, they slay our men and carry our women and children into slavery".
It appears that the Muslim complaints practically amounted to the system of
dis- traint for realising the arrears in rent or tribute (settled amount). The
degree of severity was naturally exaggerated by them, particularly as it was
imposed by the infidels on the true believers. This aspect of the case clearly
emerges bott from the address of the Muslims and the reply of Timur: "On
hearing these words the flame of my zeal for Islam, and my affection for my
religion, began to blaze"
(p.
400).
5.
For a detailed account of the expedition, cf. pp. 401-408.
6.
Pp. 420-427.
7.
Pp. 427-8.
8.
P. 429.
9.
P. 432.
10.
P. 433.
11.
Pp. 435-6. How far such a monstrous cruelty can be justified on grounds of
military necessity, urged by Timur's advisers, is an intriguing problem. A
parallel, though on a very small scale, may be found in Napoleon's action after
the capture of Jaffa (March, 1799). Napoleon reluctantly issued orders to shoot
2,500 or 3,000 prisoners, who were promised quarters without his knowledge and
consent. As he ran short of provisions, and his soldiers refused to share the
scanty supply with the Turks and Albanians, he could not keep them, nor could
he send them to Egypt, there to spread discontent. Besides, the latter course
would mean detaching a French battalion from his small army to escort the
prisoners to Egypt. In spite of some apologists, who have made a halting
defence on these and other grounds (Rose, The Life of Napoleon, Ch. IX, p.
204), Napo- leon's conduct has been condemned by many. It cannot be determined
whether Timür's difficulties were as serious as those of Napoleon. But Tîmūr's
action differs from Napoleon's in one important respect. Apart from the fact
that the charge of treason was at best doubtful and contingent in character
there is no doubt that religious bigotry played an important part. The Muslim
prisoners were more likely to be sympathetic to the Muslim rulers with whom
Timür fought. But yet only the Hindu prisoners were killed. If it is argued
that there were no Muslim prisoners, then it would follow that throughout his
long march, Timür either did not fight with any Muslims--which is absurd on the
face of it- or did not make Muslims prisoners, following a discriminating
policy against the Hindus even in this respect.
12.
Pp. 445-46.
13.
P. 447. Although Timur declares that he earnestly wished that "no evil
might happen to the people of the place," and apparently holds his
soldiers responsible for the outrage, it must be remembered that it was he who
had sent the soldiers to seize the Hindu fugitives, and this led to the
conflagration. It is also difficult to believe that Timur could not restrain
his soldiers during the three days of their orgy of murder and plunder.
14
According to Firishta (Briggs, I, 497). Only Multan is mentioned in Timur's
autobiography (p. 475) and Zafar-nāma (p. 521), and Multan and Dipalpur in TM
(TMB, 173).
15
CHI, III, 200.
16.
P. 461. The passage has been partially quoted above on p. 116.
17.
TMB, 173.
18
Briggs, I. 498.
19.
See above, p. 114.
20.
According to Firishta (Briggs, I. 504) and Yahya, TMB, 185. The date is given
as
February, 1413, in CHI, III. 204.
Post a Comment