E.
BENGAL
1.
THE INDEPENDENT SULTANS
The administration of Bengal had always been a serious problem of the Delhi Sultanate. Taking advantage of its remoteness from the capital and facilities for naval warfare, with which the Turks of upper India were unfamiliar, the governors of Bengal frequent- ly behaved as independent rulers, and not seldom openly defied the authority of Delhi. The last serious rebellion, that of Tughril, was sternly repressed by Balban,1 but the events following the death of that Sultan once more made Bengal an independent kingdom under his son Bughra Khan, who ruled at Lakhnäwati (Muslim capital, Maldah district) under the style of Sultan Nasir-ud-din. After the historic interview of Nasir-ud-din and his son, Sultan Kaiqubad, mentioned above,2 the independence of Bengal was tacitly recognized by the Delhi Sultanate. But the news of the tragic end of the House of Balban at Delhi gave a rude shock to the ease-loving Nasir-ud-din who abdicated in favour of his son Rukn-ud-din Kaikāūs in A.D. 1291.3 The boy-king Kaikāūs ruled over Bengal and Bihār and issued coins and inscriptions till at least A.D. 1298. He was succeeded, probably about A.D. 1301, by Shams- ud-din Firüz Shah who had wielded great power and authority during the reign of the ease-loving Bughra Khan, and after his death became the governor of Bihär. According to Ibn Batutah, Firūz Shāh belonged to the House of Balban, and was the son of Nasir-ud-dīn; but the absence of the usual phrase 'Sultan bin (son of) Sultan' on the coins of Firuz throws grave doubts on this claim. Nor is it known whether he peacefully occupied the throne after the death of Kaikāūs, or secured it by violent means.4
During
the reign of Rukn-ud-dīn Kaikāūs and Shams-ud-din Firūz, Muslim rule was
extended to South and East Bengal, and important centres were established at
Satgaon (Hughli district) and Sonärgäon (Dacca district). Firüz extended his
conquests across the Brahmaputra into the Sylhet district of Assam (now in
Eastern Pakistan) and probably founded the city of Firūzābād-Panduã, the future
capital of Bengal.4 The reign of Shams-ud-din Firuz was disturbed by the
rebellion of his sons, Shihab-ud-din Bughdah and Ghiyäs-ud-din Bahadur, who
supplanted respectively the authority of their father at Lakhnawati and Sonärgãon
during the period 710-714 A.H. (A.D. 1310-14). Firüz recovered Lakhnawati in
A.D. 1315 but Shihāb-ud-din was ruling there in A.D. 1317-18 while
Ghiyäs-ud-din disputed its sovereignty with his father during A.D. 1320-22. On
the death of the latter in or shortly after A.D. 1322, Ghiyas-ud-din Bahadur
Shāh probably murdered all his brothers save Nasir-ud-din Ibrahim and
Shihab-ud-din, and ruled both in Lakhnäwati and Sonargaon.
According
to Ibn Batutah, some of the amirs who rebelled against Prince Jauna (Muhammad
bin Tughluq) during the siege of Warangal took shelter with Shams-ud-din Firüz
Shah. After his death his son Shihab-ud-din succeeded him but his youngest
brother Ghiyas-ud-din Bahadur Bura (black) defeated him, seized the throne and
killed most of his brothers. Two of these, Shihab-ud-din and Nasir-ud-din, fled
to the Emperor Ghiyas-ud-din Tughluq who marched with them against the usurper
Ghiyās-ud-din. How far this account is true, cannot be determined, as it is not
corroborated by any other source. According to Barani, "certain noblemen
came from Lakhnāwati complaining of the oppressive laws under which they were
suffering, and informed the Sultan of the distress and tyranny under which they
and other Musulmans laboured." So Sultan Ghiyās-ud-din Tughluq resolved to
march against Lakhnāwatī.
In
any event, Sultān Ghiyās-ud-din Tughluq now decided to re- assert his authority
over Bengal. He left Delhi at the beginning of A.D. 1324 and was joined at
Tirhut by Nasir-ud-din Ibrahim, son of Shams-ud-din Firuz Shah. Ibrahim is
referred to as the "ruler of Lakhnawati", both by Barani and 'Isāmī,
but whether he was ever actually in possession of the capital city or was a
mere rival claimant to the throne, it is not easy to determine. In any case
Lakhnäwatī was not under his control at the time. The Sultan sent Nasir-ud-din
with his adopted son and best general Bahram Khan, alias Tatār Khan, at the
head of a select body of troops. When the imperial troops reached the
neighbourhood of Lakhnawati, Bahadur came out of the town and a severe fight
ensued. Bahadur, being defeated, fled away, but was taken prisoner. Tughluq
Shah confirined Sultan Nasir-ud-din in the government of North Bengal with its
capital at Lakhnawati. Eastern Bengal and Southern Bengal, with capitals
respectively at Sonārgāon and Sätgãon, were annexed to the empire and Bahrām
Khan was appointed to govern them. Bahadur was taken captive to Delhi.
The
tragic death of Emperor Ghiyās-ud-din at the end of his return journey from
Bengal and the accession of Muhammad bin Tughluq have been mentioned above.
Sultan Nasir-ud-din Ibrahim, as a loyal vassal of Delhi, issued coins in the
names of himself and the Emperor of Delhi till 726 A.H. (A.D. 1325-26), when
Muhammad Tughluq appointed Qadr Khan feudatory of Lakhnawati." Though
nominally subordinate to Sultan Nasir-ud-din, Qadr was the de facto ruler,
directly responsible to the Emperor. This policy of "checks and
balances" was also adopted in Eastern Bengal by
Muhammad
bin Tughluq. He released Bahadur and sent him back to Sonārgāon as its vassal
king, to rule the country in co-operation with Bahrām Khan as the Emperor's own
representative. Sātgäon was placed under 'Izz-ud-din Yahya who was created
A'zam-ul- Mulk.
Sultan
Nasir-ud-din Ibrahim is known to have accompanied Muhammad bin Tughluq when the
latter proceeded against the rebel Kishlu Khän. But Nasir-ud-din's name was
omitted from the coins after A.H. 726 (A.D. 1325-26). This was virtually a
deposi- tion, but Nasir-ud-din was allowed to retain his title of Sultan.
The
other nominal Sultan, Ghiyās-ud-din Bahadur Shāh of Sonargaon, played a more
important role. For about three years, until 728 A.H. (A.D. 1327-28), he issued
coins in the joint names of himself and Muhammad bin Tughluq and pulled on well
with the imperial general Bahram Khan. It was during this period that the
Muslim empire was extended beyond the Meghna river and the territory
represented by modern Tripura state (Tipperā) and Chittagong district was
conquered and annexed to the Delhi Sultanate.
But
Sultan Ghiyäs-ud-din Bahadur Shah was evidently made of sterner stuff than his
brother Nasir-ud-din, and was unwilling to play the second fiddle like him. The
virtual deposition of the latter probably also urged him to make a bold bid for
independence. According to 'Isāmi, he rebelled, but was defeated by Bahram Khan
and fell a captive in his hands. Bahram killed him, flayed his skin and sent it
to the Emperor, Muhammad bin Tughluq, who received it shortly after the
suppression of the revolt of Kishlu Khăn. According to Ibn Batutah,
Ghiyäs-ud-din was released by Muhammad bin Tughluq on certain conditions, one
of which was that Ghiyās-ud- din's son should be sent as hostage to the
Emperor. As this promise was not fulfilled, the Emperor sent troops against
him. This took place, according to Ibn Batutah, before Kishlu's rebellion.R
For
ten years after the death of Bahadur, Bengal remained a quiet province under
the Delhi Sultanate, its three well-defined regions of Lakhnawati, Sonargaon
and Sätgãon being ruled respectively by Qadr Khan, Bahram Khan, alias Tätär
Khăn, and "Izz-ud-din Yahya.
2.
FAKHR-UD-DİN MUBARAK SHAH
On the death of Bahram Khan, the governor of Sonärgãon, in 738 A.H. (A.D. 1337-8) his siläh-där (armour-bearer) and right-hand man, Fakhr-ud-din, assumed the government. But before any new governor was appointed by the Sultan, he rebelled and declared himself king under the title of Sultan Fakhr-ud-din Mubarak Shāh (738 A.H.). IIe signified his independence by assuming royal titles and such boastful epithets as "Yamin-Khalifa-i-Allah" (Right- hand of the Vicegerent of God) and "Nasir-i-Amir-ul-Mu'minın” (Assistant of the Commander of the Faithful). This bold assumption of independence could not be ignored by Sultan Muhammad bin Tughluq who directed the governors of Karā, Lakhnawati and Sāt- gaon to undertake a joint campaign against the rebel Fakhr-ud-din, The combined army marched to Sonärgaon and expelled Fakhr-ud- din. Shortly after, the governors of Kara and Sätgãon went to their headquarters, leaving Qadr Khän, the governor of Lakhnāwatī, in possession of the capital city of Sonargaon. Qadr Khan's refusal to share the captured booty with his soldiers by giving them their legitimate share created great disaffection among them. The fugi- tive Fkhr-ud-din had in the meantime gathered round him a large number of soldiers. He carried on secret negotiations with the dis- contented soldiers of Qadr Khan who openly rebelled and murdered him. Thereupon Fakhr-ud-din recovered Sonargaon without any difficulty.
Sultan
Muhammad bin Tughluq was now fully occupied with the numerous rebellions that
had broken out in various parts of the empire. Fakhr-ud-din took full advantage
of this opportunity and sent an army under a ghulam of his, Mukhlis, to occupy
Lakhna- wati. But 'Ali Mubarak, the paymaster of Qadr Khan's army, killed
Mukhlis and established his authority at Lakhnāwatī. Although he was not
formally appointed governor by the Sultan, he kept up for some time the
pretence of vassalage to the court of Delhi by making humble representations.
But as soon as he felt secure of his position, he threw away the mask and
asserted his independence. He ascended the throne about A.D. 1340 under the
title of 'Ala-ud-dîn 'Ali Shah and ruled till A.D. 1345 when he was overthrown
by Shams-ud-din Ilyas Shah.
Fakhr-ud-din
carried on intermittent fights with the ruler of Lakhnawati, but could not
achieve any success. But this failure did not in any way affect his position in
Eastern Bengal. Here he ruled in peace and set up a stable administration, to
which reference is made by Ibn Batutah who visited his kingdom in A.D. 1346 and
has left a glowing account of its prosperity.
Fakhr-ud-din
died in 750 A.H. (A.D. 1349-50) and was succeed- ed most probably by his son
Ikhtiyar-ud-din Ghäzī Shäh. He reigned for three years when East Bengal was
conquered by Shams-ud-din Ilyas Shah.10
3.
ILYAS SHAH (A.D. 1339-1359)
While
Fakhr-ud-din and 'Ala-ud-din 'Ali Shah were ruling res- pectively at Sonärgãon
and Lakhnawati, a new figure appeared on the political stage. This was Ilyas,
an officer (but according to the Riyaz, the foster-brother) of 'Ali Shāh,
Nothing is known of his early career save that he was a servant of Qadr Khan
who address- ed him as brother, 10a but he issued coins in 740 A.H. (A.D. 1339-
40). As 'Ala-ud-din 'Ali Shah of Lakhnawati issued coins till 743 A.H. and
Fakhr-ud-din and his son ruled in Sonargaon from A.D. 1339 to 1352, it is very
likely that Ilyas Shāh first established his authority at Satgaon12 (753 A.H.).
In any case Ilyas made himself master of Lakhnawatī some time about 746 A.H.
(A.D. 1345-6), and assumed the title of Shams-ud-din Ilyäs Shāh.
The
accession of Shams-ud-din Ilyas Shah to the throne of Lakhnāwatī opened a new
chapter in the history of Bengal. He founded a dynasty of able and vigorous
kings who won military glory and revived Bengal's contact with the outside
world. He achieved the political unity of Bengal and carried his victorious
arms far outside the boundaries of Bengal. He overran Tirhut and made a bold
thrust across the inhospitable region of Terai into the fastness of Nepal,
which was yet untrodden by Muslim soldiers. He advanced as far as the capital
Kathmandu, destroyed the holy temple of Svayambhunatha and returned with a rich
booty. The invasion, which was of the nature of a plundering raid, took place
in A.D. 1350 and the Nepālis claim to have defeated the Muslim invader. 13
The
Sultan next turned his attention to Orissa. The Ganga kings had often invaded
Bengal during the preceding century and were still in possession of a part of
Western Bengal. But the ruling king of Orissa, Bhānudeva II, was weak, and
Ilyas advanced through Jāj- pur and Katak as far as the Chilka lake. He
despoiled the temples of Orissa and returned with a rich booty including 44
elephants. Finally he led a campaign against Eastern Bengal. He defeated
Ikhtiyar-ud-din Ghäzĩ Shäh, the ruler of Sonargaon, and annexed his dominions
in 753 A.H. (A.D. 1352-3), as mentioned above,
But the Sultan was soon to meet a formidable enemy. Sultān Firüz Shãh, who had succeeded Muhammad Tughluq on the throne of Delhi in A.D. 1351, naturally viewed with great concern the rise of a powerful independent kingdom in Bengal and decided to over- throw it. Within a year or two of his accession he equipped a powerful army and led it in person against Bengal,14 He marched through Awadh and took with him a number of boats to facilitate the crossing of the many streams that lay on the way. Sultān Ilyās boldly faced the danger. His flotilla disputed the passage of the imperial army at important ferries across the Sarayu and the Gandak and retreated according to plan to the junction of the Kusi and the Gangă. Firuz was unable to cross the rivers in the face of the re- solute stand made by the Bengal flotilla, and therefore made an out- flanking movement. He marched northward along the Kusi as far as the foothills to a place called Jiaran. With the help of the local Rājā he could easily ford the Kusi which was very narrow at this point. The imperial army then marched direct to Pandua (or Firūzābād), the capital city, about eleven miles from the modern English Bazar (Maldah District). Ilyas, unable to resist the enemy in the open field, evacuated Pandua and took shelter in the fortress city of Ekdālā. Sultān Firüz occupied Panduă without any oppo- sition and then attempted to win the sympathy of the local people by issuing a proclamation. 144 He promised complete security of life and property to the inhabitants of Pänduā, and having declared Ilyas Shāh a rebel and an impious Muslim called upon the people to disown him as their Sultan. He made very tempting offers to those who would desert the cause of Ilyas. To the captains of paiks (in- fantry) he promised double their allowance on joining with their full quota of contingents; to the land-owners, remission of the cur- rent year's revenue and other pecuniary advantages; and to the Mus- lim theologians, increased land-grants and stipends. But this appeal having produced no effect, Sultan Firüz marched to Ekdälä. This city, of which no vestiges remain today, was situated in a loop formed by the rivers Baliya and Chiramati, two tributaries of the Maha- nandā, in the Dhanjar pargana of the Dinajpur District. 15 Inside this watery barrier were built a cantonment and a royal villa with space for large settlements. The whole area was girt by a massive rampart made of adhesive clay, peculiar to the locality, surrounded by a moat, sixty feet wide. 'Afif calls it an island (jazira-i- Ekdälä) on account of its being surrounded by water on all sides.
Unable
to take the fort by assault, Sultan Firüz completely blockaded it in order to
starve Ilyas to submission. There were sporadic fighting and skirmishes without
any effect on either party. After the siege had continued for about two months,
there were indi- cations of the approach of the rainy season, and Sultan Firüz
decided to raise the siege and return to Delhi. But before doing so he sent
some spies disguised as Qalandar monks into the fort of Ekdälä who assured
Ilyas Shah that the besieging army was in acute distress. So when one day
Sultan Firüz raised the siege and his army began to march away, Ilyas threw off
all caution and pursued the imperial troops with his entire army.
Sultan
Firüz, however, was marching in perfect order in antici- pation of the enemy
and as they came in sight, he swung round, with his army drawn up in good
battle order. Thus Ilyas Shāh could not avoid an engagement and a violent
contest followed. The imperial troops hurled back the Bengalis repeatedly as
they surged forward, and before the sun had set, the Bengalis were seen fleeing
away from the battlefield in confusion and disorder. The battle thus ended in
the discomfiture of the Bengalis. 44
The
court-historians, as usual, magnify the success of imperial arms. According to
'Afif, "after much fighting and slaughter, Shams- ud-din retreated and
fled towards his own city..
Forty-
cight elephants were taken, and three were slain. The king of Bengal, out of
all his enormous force, fled with only seven horsemen, and his whole army was
scattered". According to Yahya, Ilyas Лled without any fight and a large
number of his soldiers was killed. Later writers have followed suit. But such a
view is hardly compatible with the events that followed. According to 'Afif,
Firūz proceeded after his victory to Ekdālā and again besieged the town.
Thereupon "all the ladies and respectable women went to the top of the
fort, and when they saw him they uncovered their heads, and in their distress
made great lamentation". Firüz, moved by this spectacle, decided not
"to storm the fort, put more Musulmans to the sword, and ex- pose
honorable women to ignominy". "Tätär Khan repeatedly urged the Sultan
to retain the territory he had conquered, but the Sultan was averse to
annexation". Having decided to quit Bengal, the Sultan gave an order
"for collecting the heads of the slain Ben- galis, and a silver tanka was
offered for every head
The
heads were counted and amounted to rather more than 180,000 for the battle had
raged for a whole day over an extent of seven kos.. .The Sultan then turned
with his army and march- ed quickly towards Delhi." 'Afif further
observes: "The rains having commenced, Firüz Shah had to abandon the
investment, came to terms with Ilyas and retired towards his own dominions by
the Manikpur ferry". This is repeated by Nizam-ud-din and Badāūni. Yahya
simply says that "the Sultan halted there (battlefield) for two days, and
on the third day he made his way to Delhi."16
The
terms of the peace are not stated, but it is obvious that Shams-ud-din
continued to rule as an independent king, even though the court historians
refer to him as paying tribute. The true posi- tion may be gathered from the
following statement of Nizam-ud-dīn: "The same year (757 A.H.) Ilyas Hājī
sent fitting tribute, and became the recipient of imperial favour. At this time
the entire country of Hindustan was in the possession of the Sultan except
Lakhnāuti and the Dakhin; since the death of Sultan Muhammad Tughluq Shāh,
Sultan Shams-ud-din Ilyas Hāji was in possession of the former....." As a
matter of fact, almost every year after the return of Firüz from Bengal,
"plenipotentiaries from Ilyas Haji of Lakhnawati with valuable
presents" came to Delhi. "They became recipient of ex- cessive
favours and endless affections". Such exchanges of presents and tokens of
goodwill, as obtain only between two sovereigns, con- tinued till the death of
Shams-ud-din Ilyās, and leave no doubt that the ruler of Bengal was recognized
by Firuz as an independent sove- reign. They also indirectly prove that the
campaign of Firuz in Bengal, which probably lasted for about two years from
November 1353 to September 1355, was a failure. The thinly veiled pictext of
the court historians to explain the retreat of the Sultan is not likely to
deceive anybody.
Ilyas
Shah's successful challenge to the authority of the Sultan of Delhi sheds
lustre on his reign. As soon as Fīrūz turned his back he re-occupied his
capital city Panduã and re-established his autho- rity as far as the banks of
the Kusi. Ile may justly be said to have inaugurated a glorious period in the
history of Bengal. Towards the close of his reign he added one more laurel to
his crown by lead- ing a successful campaign against Kamrup to which a detailed
refer- ence will be made in Chapter XIII-D.
Hardly
anything is known of the character and personality of Ilyas Shah. The Riyaz
calls him Bhangra i.c. a smoker of Bhặng, a popular narcotic generally indulged
in by lower classes in Bengal, It is, however, diffcult to accept the casual
opinion expressed by such a late authority. According to 'Afif, Ilyas suffered
from leprosy for which he visited the tomb of Salar Mas'ud Ghāzï and rubbed the
dust of the place on his body. 'Afif was not very kindly disposed towards the
enemy of his patron, and his statement is therefore not above suspicion. The
death of Sultan Shams-ud-din Ilyas Shäb probably took place in 760 A.H. (A.D.
1358-9).
Ziya-ud-din
Barani has painted the personal character and ad- ministration of Ilyas in the
blackest hue. It is obvious that he has taken his cue from, and sometimes even
reproduced verbatim, the proclamation issued by Sultān Firüz to justify his
campaign against Ilyas. According to this proclamation, Ilyas was guilty of
oppression and highhandedness upon the people of Lakhnawati and Tirhut (Barani
adds: both Hindus and Muslims), shed unnecessary blood, even of women, levied
illegal cesses etc., so much so that there was no security of life and
property, no safety for honour and chastity. Barani repeats all this and adds
that Ilyas brought ruin upon Bengal and destroyed many Muslim cities; he was
both tyrannical and treacherous, 17
These
views were undoubtedly propagated by the Delhi court in order to justify the
invasion of a Muslim kingdom by Firüz. But war propaganda cannot be regarded as
historical truth without corroboration from independent sources. Such
corroboration is, how- ever, entirely lacking. On the other hand, the
proclamation, which held out tempting rewards to those Bengalis who would
desert the cause of Ilyas and join the Sultan, fell flat upon the people of
Bengal who were undoubtedly the worst sufferers from the lyranny of Ilyas if
the allegations against him had any basis in fact. It is there- fore
unreasonable to accept the accusation against Ilyas, although it has the
authority of the great historian of the period.
4.
SULTAN SIKANDAR
Ilyas Shah was succeeded by his son Sikandar. The most memorable event of his reign was another invasion of Bengal by Sultan Firüz. The first campaign of the Sultan was a failure, for though he gained possession of Bihar he had to acknowledge by a treaty the right of the Sultan of Bengal to rule independently the rest of his possessions. It is very uncertain whether, left to him- self, he would have sought to disturb this arrangement for he maintained very cordial relations with Ilyas as mentioned above, But an unexpected event in A.D. 1357 induced him to make one further attempt to re-establish the authority of Delhi over Bengal. Zafar Khan Färs, a Persian nobleman and son-in-law of Sultän Fakhr-ud-din Mubarak Shah of Sonargaon, left that place after its conquest by Ilyas Shah, and having reached Tattah in Sind by a voy- age round the coast, ultimately went overland to Delhi. Sultan Firuz received him cordially and assigned him a palace and a suitable allowance for his stay in Delhi. He is also said to have been appoint- ed nāib-wazir.. Either at his instigation, or encouraged by the pros- pect of help which could be rendered by a member of the old ruling family, Firuz conceived the idea of recovering Bengal. The death of Ilyas Shāh appeared to him to be a suitable opportunity to carry out his plan. He repudiated the treaty with Ilyas Shah on the ground that Sikandar was disloyal and had violated the treaty con- cluded by his father, declared Zafar Khan as the legitimate ruler of Bengal, and once more personally led a military expedition to Bengal,18
With
a mighty army consisting of 80,000 cavalry, 470 elephants and a large body of
infantry, Sultān Firuz marched through U. P. and, after considerable delay on
the way, reached Bengal in A.D. 1359. Sikandar followed the strategy of his
father, and having avoided an open engagement took shelter in the island fort-
ress of Ekdālā. Firüz besieged the place and, as before, there were light actions
and skirmishes with no decisive result. On one occa- sion, one of the principal
bastions of the fort of Ekdälä crashed down under the weight of the men
assembled on it, and the generals of the imperial army urged their master to
make an immediate assault upon the fort through the breach. Firüz, however,
over- ruled the suggestion, and the court-historian 'Afif, as usual, attri-
butes this forbearance on the part of the Sultan to a chivalrous consideration
for the honour of the Muslim women inside the fort.10 It appears, however, to
be more likely that faced with the deter- mined courage of the enemy and the
skilful leadership of Sikandar, Firüz decided to pull his army out of Bengal.
The disagreeable climate of Bengal and its mosquitoes, and the approach of
monsoon must have also influenced his decision. So he brought the cam- paign to
a close by concluding a treaty with the Sultan of Bengal.
It
is worthy of note that it was Sultan Firuz who took the initiative in opening
overtures for peace. He chose as his envoy one of his Bengali officials named
Haibat Khān two of whose sons were employed under the Sultan of Bengal. Haibat
ably conduct- ed the negotiations and a treaty was concluded on the basis of
political status quo. Sikandar acknowledged the cession of the country to the
west of the Kusĩ to Sultan Firüz, who in his turn waived the claim of Zafar
Khan to Sonargaon, and sealed the treaty by conferring upon Sikandar a golden
crown valued at 80,000 tankas in a formal ceremony of investiture. According to
'Afif, Firuz had demanded and Sultan Sikandar readily agreed to assign
Sonärgãon to Zafar Khan, but the scheme fell through as Zafar Khan declined the
offer on the ground that "he and his family were so happy and secure under
the government of Delhi." This can only be taken as an ill-concealed
attempt to save the face of Sultan Firüz.20 Nobody can fail to perceive that
this second invasion of Bengal by Firüz, like the first, was a failure, as he
could not achieve the object for which he had undertaken the expedition. The
formal recognition of Sikandar as an independent ruler by Sultan Firuz marks
the last attempt by the Sultans of Delhi to re- assert suzerainty over that
province, and for nearly two centuries Bengal was left in peace without any
interference from the imperial court.
The
prosperity of Sikandar's reign is evidenced by the many architectural remains
of his age, such as the mosque at Adina, built by the Sultan in A.D. 1368,
which ranks as one of the most famous monuments of the Muslim rule in India.
But the last years of Sikandar's life were embittered by palace intrigues. He
had seventeen sons by his first wife and only one by the second. The latter,
suspecting that his father's ears were poisoned against him by his step-mother,
fled to Sonärgãon and openly revolted against his father in A.D. 1388. He
conquered Sonargaon and Sät- gaon and the long-drawn contest was finally
decided in his favour in a pitched battle near the capital city in which
Sikandar was defeated and killed.
5.
THE SUCCESSORS OF SIKANDAR
(i)
Ghiyas-ud-din A'zam Shah.
The
successful rebel prince ascended the throne under the title of Ghiyas-ud-din
A'zam Shah. The date of his accession is not definitely known. The last known
date of Sikandar is A.D. 1389 and A'zam Shah issued coins from 795 A.H. (A.D.
1392-3) to 813 A.H. (1410-11). A'zam, therefore, must have ascended the throne
some- time between A.D. 1389 and 1393.21
According
to the Assam Buranjis, A'zam Shah led a military campaign against Kāmatā when
its king was engaged in hostilities with the neighbouring Ahom king. In the
face of the Muslim invasion the two Hindu kings made up their quarrel and drove
the Bengali army beyond the Karatoyä.
Meng-tsau-mwun
(Naraimekhala), the king of Arakan, being expelled from his kingdom took
shelter in the court of A'zam who made an unsuccessful effort to restore him to
his throne. A'zam main- tained friendly relations with Khväja Jahan, who
founded the in- dependent kingdom of Jaunpur. According to the Arakanese chro-
nicle, the next king of Jaunpur, Ibrāhīm, invaded Bengal. The attack was,
however, successfully repulsed with the new tactical methods of war introduced
by the fugitive king of Arakan who lived in the court of Pandua at that time.
To
A'zam Shah belongs the credit of having opened up the old contact between India
and China. A friendly correspondence with the Celestial Emperor was followed by
the despatch of envoys from Bengal in A.D. 1405 and 1409. The Chinese Emperor
received the envoys cordially and sent presents for the Sultan and his wife. He
also sent his own envoy to India to take back with him Buddhist monks to China.
A Bhikshu named Mahāratna Dharmarāja travel- led to China in A.D. 1410-11 and
revived the ancient cultural ties between the two countries. Mahuan, the
interpreter attached to the Chinese embassy that visited Bengal in A.D. 1409,
has left a very interesting account of the people of Bengal, particularly their
dress, manufactures and pastimes, to which reference will be made later,22
Reference may be made to two anecdotes which throw interest- ing light on the
character and personality of Sultan Ghiyās-ud- din A'zam Shah. Once he
accidentally killed the son of a widow who complained to the qāzi. The Sultan,
being summoned to the court, humbly appeared and paid the penalty as decided by
the qāzi. At the end of the trial the Sultan told the qäzi that if he had
failed to do his duty he would have been beheaded.
The
găzi retorted with a smile that if IIis Majesty had not submitted to his orders
he would have scourged him. Another story runs to the effect that the Sultan
composed the first line of a verse in honour of his three favourite concubines,
but unable to complete it, appeal- ed to the famous poet Hafiz, who not only
supplied the second line to the distich but also sent another ghazal to the
Sultan.
According
to the very late authority, the Riyaz, Ghiyās-ud- din was murdered by Rājā Gaṇeśa,
to whom reference will be made later. But the earlier authorities like
Nizam-ud-din and Firishta do not refer to any such event, and we may well
believe that the Sultan died a natural death, after a long reign, in A D. 1410.
(ii)
Saif-ud-din Hamzah Shah (A.D. 1410-12)
Ghiyās-ud-din
Aʼzam Shäh was succeeded by his son Saif-ud-din Hamzah Shah whose coins are
dated 813 and 814 A.H.
He
therefore The Chinese sources, how- But, as the next three kings probably ruled
from A.D. 1410 to 1412. ever, suggest that he ruled till A.D. 1420. regularly
issued coins in 816, 817 and 818 A.H., it is difficult to accept the Chinese version,
unless we accept the suggestion that there were rival claimants ruling
simultaneously in different parts of the kingdom.23 But we have no evidence in
support of such an unusual state of things. The only fact known about
Saif-ud-din is that he continued the friendly relation with the Chinese court.
(iii)
Shihab-ud-din Bāyazid Shāh, (A.D. 1413-14)
Shihäb-ud-din
Bayazîd Shah, the son and successor of Saif-ud- din Hamzah Shah, continued the
friendly relation with China and once sent a giraffe to the Chinese Emperor
with a letter written on a golden leaf. The animal, unknown in China, aroused
great curiosity in the country.
(iv)
Ala-ud-din Fürüz Shah (A.D. 1414-15)
Shihab-ud-din
Bayazid Shah issued coins in 816 and 817 A.II. Coins were issued by his son
'Ala-ud-din Firuz Shah in 817 A.H. from Muʻazzamābād and Sätgäon. It is not
unlikely, therefore, that 'Ala-ud-din, exasperated with the ascendancy of Räjä
Ganesa at his father's court, set himself up as an independent monarch in East
and South Bengal. It is, of course, cqually, or even more, possible that the
death of the father and the accession of the son took place in course of the
year 817 A. H. In any case we find a new monarch, Jalāl-ud-din Muhammad,
issuing coins in 818 A.H. (A.D. 1415-16), bringing to an end, for the time
being, the rule of the Ilyas Shāhī dynasty. In order to understand the nature
of this revolution and the course of events which brought it about, it is
necessary to go back a little.
6.
RĀJĀ GANESA
During
the reigns of the successors of Sikandar Shah occurred an event, almost unique
in character in the annals of Muslim rule. in India, namely the successful
usurpation of royal authority by a Hindu chief. Unfortunately, though the main
fact is beyond all doubt, the details of this Hindu interregnum are not known
with any definiteness. The reconstruction of the history of the period also
offers many difficulties, and has consequently given rise to a number of
problems and theories.24 These need not be discussed here in detail, and only a
brief resumé of the main incidents must suffice.
The
name of the Hindu usurper is written by Muslim historians as Rājā Kans or
Kansi, but some Hindu sources give it as Gaṇeśa, and this is now regarded as
the real name. He was a local zamindar in North Bengal (of Dinajpur or Rajshahi
according to different traditions) and is probably referred to in a Muslim
source as a mem- ber of a very old family of 400 years' standing.
Ganesa
came into prominence during the reign of Ghiyäs-ud- din A'zam Shah. As noted
above, according to the Riyaz, a Muslim chronicle written in A.D. 1788, Sultan
A'zam Shah was treacher- ously killed by Gaṇeśa, but this is not corroborated
by any other source. In any case we know that the Sultan was succeeded by his
son, Saif-ud-din Hamzah Shah, and the latter by Shihāb-ud-din Bāyazid Shāh, as
mentioned above. But all our main sources indi- cate that Saif-ud-din was a
very weak ruler, and the real power was wielded by the nobles, generals, and
the influential members of the government. It appears that Ganesa became the
most power- ful among these nobles and played an important political role after
the death of Ghiyās-ud-din A'zam Shah. Firishta says that Ganesa "attained
to great power and predominance during Shihab-ud-din's reign and became the de
facto master of the treasury and kingdom". This is probably true, but we
possess different versions of the subse- quent course of events. According to
Firishta, on the death of Shihāb-ud-din, Ganesa usurped the throne, while the
Riyäz repre- sents Gaṇeśa as having attacked and killed Shihäb-ud-din and
seized the throne. On the other hand, according to the Tabaqāt-i- Akbari, Gaṇeśa's
power increased after Shihab-ud-din's death, but it was only after the short
rule of the latter's son 'Ala-ud-dîn Firuz that a son of Ganesa, converted to
Islam as Jalal-ud-din, occupied the throne. The plain implication is that
Ganesa was really a king-maker, and wielded the chief power, but did not crown
himself as king, and placed his own son on the throne after conver- sion to
Islām. Evidently he was the head of a strong political fac- tion at the court
consisting of both Hindus and Muslims, and he sought to placate the latter and
maintain his power by converting his son to Islām.
The
Riyaz, which represents Rājā Gaṇeśa as having crowned. himself king of Bengal
after killing Shihab-ud-din, gives a long and circumstantial narrative of his
reign which may be summed up as follows:
"Rajā
Gaṇeśa subjugated the whole kingdom of Bengal. He oppressed the Muslims, slew a
number of them, and his aim was to extirpate Islam from his dominions.
Thereupon the great saint Nur Qutb-ul-A'lam appealed to the Sharqi ruler,
Sultan Ibrahim, to save Islām. The Sultan accordingly invaded Bengal with an
army. Thereupon Räjä Gaṇeśa waited on the saint and asked for his forgiveness
and protection. The saint agreed to intercede for him provided he adopted
Islām. Rājā Gaṇeśa agreed, but his wife having objected to this course, his son
Jadu, a boy of twelve, was converted by the saint, re-named Jaläl-ud-din, and
placed on the throne. At the request of the saint, Sultan Ibrāhīm returned to
his kingdom and died shortly after. As soon as Gaṇeśa heard this news, he set
aside his son and himself ascended the throne a second time, He again began to
oppress the Muslims and even had the son of the saint murdered by his agent. At
that very moment Gaṇeśa also died 'and passed to hell'. Jalal-ud-din, who was
reconverted to Hinduism by his father, had refused to re-embrace Hinduism. Ac-
cording to some account, he was in prison but slew his father with the help of
some servants. The rule of Ganesa lasted for seven years."
A
manuscript, found by Buchanan Hamilton at Pändua, seems to echo the account in
the Riyaz, though there are very substantial differences between the two. Both
these accounts lay emphasis on the cruelty of Ganesa to the Muslims, but they
are flatly contra- dicted by an earlier writer, Firishta, who says that Ganesa
"main- tained cordial intercourse and friendship with the Musulmans, so
much so that some Muslims, declaring that he was a Muslim, wished to bury
him." Firishta refers to the good rule of Ganesa for a period of seven
years, and adds that "his son, gaining the honour of con- version to
Islam, ascended the royal throne". This earlier account of Firishta should
be regarded as more trustworthy than the later narrative of the Riyaz. In
particular there are good grounds to believe that although the Sharqi ruler
Ibrahim invaded Bengal, he was defeated, and that is probably the reason why no
Muslim chronicle other than the Riyāz makes any reference to it.
The
statement in the Riyaz, vouched for by Firishta, that Gaṇeśa actually ascended
the throne, is discredited by some modern historians on numismatic evidence.
For, while no coin of Rājā Gaṇeśa has actually come to light, we have coins of
the Muslim rulers, mentioned above, regularly issued up to 817 A.H. and also
those of Jalal-ud-din, the son of Gaṇeśa, dated 818 and 819 A.H. and again
regularly from 821 to 835 A.H.
So
far no coin of Jalal-ud-din of 820 A.H. has come to light, and this gap has
given rise to a very interesting theory. For two series of coins issued by a
king called Danujamardana-deva in Šaka 1339-40 and Mahendra-deva in Šaka 1340
(also probably 1341) have come to light. The following equivalents of dates
have been re- garded as of great significance in tracing the sequence of
events.
A.H.
820 (for which we have no coins of Jalal-ud-din)
February
18, 1417, to February 7, 1418,
Saka
1339 =
Šaka
1340 =
Saka
134 =
A.H. 821 (for which we have coins of Jalāl-ud-din)
February
8, 1418 to January 27, 1419.
On the basis of this sequence of coins Dr. N. K. Bhattasali25 formulated an ingenious theory about the history of Rājā Gaṇeśa mainly on the lines of the Riyāz's narrative. According to him Gaṇeśa assumed the title Danujamardana-deva on ascending the throne in A.D. 1417, and ruled for a short period of less than two years, after which his son again occupied the throne in A.D. 1419. This view is accepted by many scholars,26 but it is at variance with the explicit statement of Firishta that Gaṇeśa ruled for seven years.
Dr.
Bhattasali further held the view that Mahendra-deva was the title assumed by
the son of Ganesa after his reconversion to Hinduism and before his second
conversion to Islam (after his father's death) when he again took the name
Jalal-ud-din. This view is, however, not accepted even by those who favour the
identi- 'fication of Ganesa with Danujamardana-deva. Some of them hold that
after the death of Ganesa, the Hindu party in the court raised his second son
to the throne under the title Mahendra-deva, who "was soon ousted by his
renegade elder brother Jalal-ud-din,27
Recently
a writer28 has urged the view that Ganesa never actually ascended the throne,
but was the de facto ruler for seven years during the reigns of the puppet king
‘Alä-ud-din Firuz and his own son Jalāl-ud-din who succeeded ‘Alā-ud-dīn Fīrūz
immediately after his death. The same writer regards Danujamardana-deva and
Mahendra-deva as local chiefs in East and South Bengal who as- serted
independence during the troubles caused by the usurpation of Ganesa and the
invasions of Ibrahim Shah Sharqi. Although this view cannot be lightly set
aside, the theory that Gaṇeśa was identi- cal with Danujamardana-deva scems to
be the most satisfactory hypothesis offered so far, though it cannot claim to
be anything more in the present state of our knowledge.
But
whatever view one might take regarding the theory of Dr. Bhattasali, the fact
remains that Räjä Ganesa, a Hindu chief wielded royal authority either as a de
facto or de jure king for some time and succeeded in passing the inheritance to
his family. This reveals the strength of the Hindu chiefs at the time, a con-
clusion which gains additional force if Danujamardana-deva and Mahendra-deva
are regarded as local rulers of East and South Bengal, who asserted
independence and maintained it for more than two years. The revival of Hindu
monarchy was, of course, no more than a passing episode, but it gives us a
glimpse of the political situation in Bengal, of which we have no other
evidence or even any vague indication. Incidentally, the curious history of
Jalāl-ud- din illustrates the strong hold which Islam had on politics, and
further shows that the cleavage among the population in Bengal was more on
religious than on racial lines.
7.
THE HOUSE OF RAJĀ GAŅĒŠA
(i)
Jalal-ud-din Muhammad Shah (A.D. 1415-1431)
Though
we possess but a vague picture of Rājā Gaṇeśa as the ruler of Bengal, all authorities
agree that he was succeeded by his son who had assumed the title Jalal-ud-din
Muhammad Shah on his conversion to Islamic faith.
The
very fact that he ruled in peace for a long time after the troublesome period
extending over more than ten years shows that, though belonging to a Hindu
family which ousted the dynasty of Ilyas Shah, he enjoyed the confidence and
received the support of the clerical party and the Muslim nobility.
Jalal-ud-din ruled with absolute authority over the whole of Bengal from the
Kusī river in the north-west to Chittagong on the south-east, and from Fathabad
and Sätgäon in South Bengal to the border of the Karatoyä in the north-east.
Few facts of his reign are known from the Persian chronicles. Coins alone
indicate the extent of his dominion, and the monuments give us an idea of the
increased wealth and prosperity of the country under his sway.
His
coins issued in 821 A.H. (A.D. 1418) from Fathābād, gene- rally identified with
Faridpur town, show that this region was con- quered and brought under the
Muslim rule during his reign. If Cancśa alias Danujmardana-deva extended his
authority over Chittagong, Jalāl-ud-din Muhammad, as his successor,
consolidated his authority over it and annexed to it a portion of Tipperah. A
curious type of his coinage, having on the reverse the figure of a lion with
the forepaw raised, resembles the type that was prevailing in the contemporary
state of Hill Tipperah, and it has been rightly argued that this type was
adopted in order to make the currency acceptable to the people of a portion of
Tipperah conquered by the Sultan. But the issue of this type of coinage may not
unreasonably be taken as a clear indication of the temporary hold of the Bengal
Sultan over the whole state of Tipperah. Jalal-ud-din's contempo- raries Mukuṭa-Manikya
and Mahā-Māņikya on the throne of Tipperah, if the account of the Rājamālā is
to be believed, were feeble rulers, and the submission of any of these two
kings to the authority of the Bengal Sultāns is quite plausible. A coin issued
from a new mint-town read as 'Rotaspur' by Lane-Poole would favour the view of
Jalal-ud-din's extension of authority over Rhotasgarh in South Bihar. As Dr.
Dani has pointed out, such an assumption requires further proof. It may,
however, be said that Rohtasgarh in the 15th century lay within the sphere of
the autho- rity of the autochthonous Chero tribe. Though situated in South
Bihar it was an almost inaccessible place, and presumably beyond the sphere of
the Sharqi king's authority. Rhotasgarh, as attested by the Gaya inscription of
Aśokachalla-deva, was connected with Bengal as late as the 12th century A.D.,
and an extension of Jalal- ud-din's foothold over this strategic outpost to
counteract invading armies from the west was quite possible.
Firishta
applauds him by saying that "he upheld the principles of justice and
equity and became the Naushirwan of the age." This remark is corroborated
by the evidence of Sanskrit works, the Smriti-ralnahāra and the Pada-chandrika
and refutes Buchanan Hamillons' account of his having persecuted the Hindus.
According
to the Pada-chandrika, the commentary on the Amarakosa, he promoted a Brahman
named Brihaspati Miśra of Kulingram in the present Burdwan district to the
position of Särvabhauma-Pandita (Court-Pandita). This Sanskrit scholar wrote
commentaries on the Meghaduta, Kumāra-sambhava, Raghuvansa, Sisupālavadha, Amarakośa, and composed a
digest on Hindu rites and ceremonies called the Pada-chandrika. Whether he was
teacher of Jalal-ud-din in his boyhood or not, the Sultan lavished gifts and
honours on him. According to the interpretation of a Sanskrit sloka by D. C.
Bhattacharya, another Hindu, Sri Rajyadhara was raised to the position of an
army commander." Another Hindu, Viśvās Rai, son of Brihaspati, is
mentioned as having been a minister to Gaudeśvara who was no other than Sultan
Jalāl-ud-din.
Viśvās
Rai and others are described in a passage of the Padu- chandrika as so many
gems on the crest of king's (Jalal-ud-din's) minister. They had composed valuable
works on all the different branches of learning. Under Jalāl-ud-din Muhammad,
Firūzābād- Pänduä became a populous and flourishing town and it is recorded in
the Ming-she that a Chinese, bearing the name of Cheng-ho, visited this city
twice in his sailing craft, once in A.D. 1421-22 and again in A.D. 1431-33. The
city of Gaur, representing the old capital of Lakhnawati, began to be
repopulated in his time. Sultan Jalāl- ud-din himself contributed to its
development by constructing build- ings and sarāīs.
Originally
a Hindu, but converted into Islam, Jalāl-ud-din ruled Bengal roughly from A.D.
1415 to 1431. He extended the frontiers of the kingdom of Bengal, and kept up
overscas communication with China which perhaps stimulated the growth of
Chittagong as an entrepôt of trade. The coins issued from Mu'azzamābād, near
Sonārgāon, after the lapse of two decades, and the new mint-town of Fathābād
presumably indicate their growth as ports, consequent on the expansion of
river-borne trade.
The
singular fact about this monarch is that though a neo- Muslim, he was free from
bigotry, which is usually the characteristic of such persons. His mortal
remains
His
mortal remains are buried in the superb mausoleum, Ekläkhi tomb in Pändua,
which is regarded by Cunning- ham as a very fine specimen of Muslim
architectural style in Bengal in the pre-Mughul age.
(ii)
Shams-ud-din Ahmad Shah (A.D. 1431-35)
Jalal-ud-din
Muhammad was succeeded by his son, Shams-ud- din Ahmad Shah, who ruled for a
short period, from A.D. 1431 to 1435. According to Firishta, he followed the
liberal policy of his father and was renowned for justice and charity. The only
im- portant event that is known of his reign was the invasion of his kingdom by
Ibrahim Shah Sharqi of Jaunpur. Ahmad Shah, unable to withstand him in the
field, applied to Shah Rukh, the son of Timur, in Herat, seeking his
intervention. The Bengal envoys rounded the entire coast of India, in a
seafaring vessel, and Shaikh- ul-Islām Karim-ud-din Abu-'l Mukarim Jāmī was
sent by the king of Herat with a message to the Sharqi king, forbidding such an
aggression. 30 Ahmad Shah kept up the friendly intercourse with China and a
Chinese embassy visited Bengal in A.D. 1431-32.
Ahmad
Shah's reign was abruptly terminated by his assassi- nation at the hands of two
of his nobles, Shadi Khan and Nasïr Khan, in A.D. 1436. It has been surmised
that the Sultan's murder was precipitated by the outbreak of a "sort of
rivalry between the Hindu and the Muslim nobles",31 Such an inference is
far- fetched and rests on not very solid ground.
8.
THE RESTORATION OF THE ILYAS SHAHI DYNASTY
(i)
Nasir-ud-din Mahmud Shah (A.D. 1437-59)
After
the assassination of Shams-ud-din Ahmad Shah, Shädi Khan and Nasir Khan fell
out with each other and were overthrown one after the other. A member of the
Ilyas Shāhī dynasty now ascended the throne under the title of Nasir-ud-din
Mahmud in 841 A.H. (A.D. 1437-1438),32 A large number of inscriptions be-
longing to his reign refer to the construction of public works and generally
indicate an era of peace and prosperity. This was partly due to the fact that
he was freed from the menace of the Sharqi rulers on the western front on
account of their long-drawn struggle with the Lodi Sultāns. But there were
military campaigns on other fronts. The kings of Orissa held a large part of
Western Bengal, and probably extended their frontier to the Bhagirathi during
the troubles of the second decade of the fifteenth century. King Kapi-
lendra-deva of Orissa is referred to in an inscription, dated A.D. 1447. as Gauḍeśvara
(Lord of Gauḍa or West Bengal). He also claims to have defeated "Malika
Parisa". This has been taken by some to refer to the Muslim Sultan of
Bengal, and by others to Mallikarjuna, the king of Vijayanagara. Another
inscription of Orissa refers to the defeat of two Turushka kings, one of whom
has been identified with Nasir-ud-din Mahmud.33
There
was also fighting on the Arakan front during his reign. 'Ali Khan, the
successor of Meng-tsau-mwun (Naraimekhala) men- tioned above as having taken
shelter with Sultan Ghiyās-ud-din A'zam Shah, initiated the policy of pushing
his frontier towards the north. He annexed Sandowy and Ramu and his successor,
Baswpyu (Kalim Shah, A.D. 1459-82), took possession of Chittagong in 1459 which
remained usually in Arakanese hands until the Mughul con- quest and occupation
of the place in A.D. 1666. In one direction, however, the frontier of Bengal
was extended, for the Bagerhat region of the Khulna district was conquered by
Khan Jahan to whom the local tradition gives the credit of the first Muslim
colonization of this area.34 An inscription on his tomb at Bagerhat records his
death to have occurred in 863 A.H. (A.D. 1458-9).
The
transfer of the seat of royalty to Gaur probably took place during his reign
and it was perhaps necessitated by a change in the course of the river on which
the old capital Panduä stood. Mint- towns and inscriptions of his reign,
scattered all over the country from Bhagalpur to Bagerhat, testify to his
extensive sway lasting until A.D. 1459. As noted above, the Kusĩ had been the
frontier of the kingdom of Bengal under the early Ilyas Shāhis, but the
inclusion of Bhagalpur within Mahmud Shah's territory shows that the western
frontier had been advanced further west under him.
(ii)
Rulen-ud-din Bärbak Shah (A.D. 1459-74)
Rukn-ud-din
Bārbak Shah, who peacefully succeeded his father on the throne, was a powerful
ruler. During his reign the frontiers of Bengal were extended in different
directions for which popular tradition gives the credit to Shah Ismä'il Ghāzī,
a popular saint of North Bengal. He waged war with the Hindu kings of Kāmatā on
the north-eastern and Gajapati Kapilendra, king of Orissa, on the south-western
frontier. The career of this warrior saint is nar- rated in a work entitled the
Risalat-us-Shuhada compiled by Pir Muhammad Shattari in A.D. 1633,35 It appears
from this work as well as the Madläpañji, the chronicle of the temple of
Jagannatha at Puri, that he carried on his military operations against Orissa
from his base at Mandaran, near Arambagh in Hughli district and that he was the
master-spirit directing the operations of the Bengal army in the long-drawn
struggle against Orissa.36 Shah Ismä⭑il also distinguished himself in fighting
with the king of Kāmatā which was separated from Bengal by the Karatoyä. It is
stated that the Ghāzi contested the Kamatā army at Santosh in Dinajpur district
and sustained defeat.36 The account of his death in A. D. 1474, owing to the
intrigues of Bhandasi Rai, as given in the Risälat, is a fable, for the saint
lived long enough to wage war against Gajapati Prataparudra-deva in the first
quarter of the 16th century.
The
Surma valley (Sylhet) was first conquered in 703 A.H. (A.D. 1303-4) by Sikandar
Khan Ghāzĩ, but it appears to have slipped from Muslim control after the reign
of Fakhr-ud-din Mubarak Shah, some time about A.D. 1351. The Hatkhola inscrip-
tion of 863 A.H. (A.D. 1458-59) shows that Sylhet was reoccupied by the Muslims
under Rukn-ud-din Bärbak Shah. The Arakanesc had seized Chittagong during
Nasir-ud-din Mahmud's reign, but it was reconquered by Barbak, as he is
referred to as the reigning king in the Rāstī Khān inscription of 878 A.H.
(A.D. 1473-74).
Fathābād
(generally indentified with Faridpur town) had formed an integral part of
Jalal-ud-din Muhammad Shah's kingdom but the net-work of rivers and channels
still kept most of the Barisal district outside the pale of the kingdom of
Gaur. Military activity is indicated by the inscription of Ulugh-i-Igrār Khan,
mentioned as the shiqdar of Jor and Barur, in the Purnia district and West
Dinajpur. King Yakshamalla of Nepal is said to have conquered Mithila.37 If
this account be taken as correct, Iqrar Khan's activity might be due to a clash
with the Nepalese forces.
Bärbak
Shah's reign was remarkable in the history of medieval Bengal and the stir
caused in the dormant life of this country was reflected in the vernacular
work, Śrī-Krishna-vijaya, composed by Mälädhar Basu, who was awarded the title
of Guṇarāj Khan. The prosperity of the kingdom was evinced by additions to the
palace at Gaur, the digging of an underground channel for sup- ply of water
inside the palace, and many laudatory phrases about the Sultan's personality
and character.
(iii)
Shams-ud-din Yusuf Shah (A.D. 1474-81)
Rukn-ud-din
Bärbak was succeeded by his son Shams-ud-din Yusuf Shāh who ruled until A.D.
1481. He is described as a learned and virtuous man and an efficient
administrator, but hardly any- thing is known about his reign. His coins do not
bear the mint- names but the distribution of his inscriptions from Gangarampur
in Dinajpur district to Sylhet, and from Bandar town (opposite the port of
Nārāyanganj) and Mirpur, about seven miles north of Dacca, to Panduã in the
Hughli district, indicate the extent of his sway. Similarly the buildings
erected in his reign indicate the prosperity of the times. He was the builder
of the Jami' Mosque at Darrāsbari in A.D. 1479 and perhaps also the founder of
the col- lege which stamped its name upon the locality.38 Cunningham and
Creighton have also ascribed to him the erection of three other superb
buildings at Gaur, on the evidence of inscriptions, discover- ed in the
neighbourhood, bearing his royal title. These are (1) Chāmkātti mosque, so
called for its use by a body of monks who used to gash their skin (cham) with a
knife; (2) Lotton Masjid which, according to Francklin, "is unsurpassed
for elegance of style, lightness of construction and tasteful decoration in any
part of Upper Hindustan"; and (3) the Tantipära mosque, so called for its
situation in the weavers' quarter of Gaur.
(iv) Jalāl-ud-din Fath Shãh (A.D. 1481-87) and the End of the Ilyas Shahi Dynasty.
Yusuf
was succeeded by Sikandar, probably his son, but Jalāl- ud-din Fath Shah, a son
of Sultan Nasir-ud-din Mahmud, ascended the throne after deposing Sikandar Shah
on the ground that he was afflicted with lunacy. About this time the body of
Abyssinian slaves, first employed by Rukn-ud-din Barbak as palace guards, grew
very powerful and insolent. The Sultan took steps to curb their power and, as a
result, was assassinated by the commander of the palace-guards, Sultan
Shāhzāda, who ascended the throne under the title of Barbak Shah. Hardly had
six months elapsed when he was supplanted by the Abyssinian commander of the
army, Amir-ul-Umara' Malik Andil, who assumed the sceptre under the title of
Saif-ud-din Firüz in A.D. 1487. Thus ended the rule of the Ilyās Shāhī dynasty
which forms a brilliant chapter in the history of medieval Bengal.
9.
ABYSSINIAN RULE
The
accession of Saif-ud-din Firüz led to the rule of the Abyssi- nians at Gaur for
a period of six years. Saif-ud-din was an able ruler and the inscriptions
testify to his sway from Sherpur in Mymensing District in the north to Satgaon
in the south. According to Ghulam Husain Salim, he had great sympathy for the
poor and opened the treasury for them. The Firuz Minar at Gaur has been
attributed to him simply on the ground that it bears his name. But the
precarious nature of his position and the short tenure of his power are strong
arguments against this view.
Nasir-ud-din
Mahmud, who succeeded Firuz in A.D. 1490, is stated by Firishta to have been a
son of Jalal-ud-din Fath Shah. This is more likely than the description of him
by Nizam-ud-din as the son of Firuz, for the extant coins do not mention his
royal descent. He was very young and the administration was carried on by the
regent, Habash Khan, an Abyssinian, who was shortly killed by another
Abyssinian, named Sidi Badr. Sidi Badr, who assumed the regency, had the
boy-king killed with the help of the palace-guards and ascended the throne
under the title of Shams-ud-din Muzaffar Shah (A.D. 1491). He is described as a
tyrant whose violence and cruelty alienated the nobles as well as the common
people. It was mainly due to the ability and wisdom of his wazir, Sayyid
Husain, that he could maintain his rule for three years. But his ruthless
massacre of the nobility and his exhorbitant demands of re- venue precipitated
an armed rising which was aggravated by the disaffection of the soldiers caused
by the reduction of their pay.
The
wazir, Sayyid Husain, secretly sympathized with the rebels and ultimately put
himself openly at their head. The rebels be sieged the citadel where the Sultan
had shut himself with a few thousand mercenaries. The siege dragged on for four
months and, according to Firishta, the Sultan lost his life in course of a
desperate sally from the citadel. But according to Nizam-ud-din, he was
secretly assassinated by Sayyid Husain with the help of the paiks. Thus ended
the dark period of Abyssinian rule in Bengal.
It is worthy of note that while these phantom and tyrannical rulers succceded one another in quick succession, the people, both Hindu and Muslim, looked upon the palace intrigues and revolu- tions with complete indifference. Indeed the complacence with which the people submitted to the rule of the puppet Sultāns appeared so strange to the outsiders that Babur made the follow- ing comment in his Memoirs: "There is indeed this peculiarity of the royal office itself that any person who kills the ruler and occu- pies the throne becomes ruler himself. The amīrs, wazīrs, sol- diers, and peasants submit to him at once and obey him. The Bengalis say 'we are faithful to the throne, we loyally obey who- ever occupies it.'30 It was not till Sultan Muzaffar inaugurated a veritable reign of terror that the Bengalis cast off their lethargy and rose against the tyrant.
10.
‘ALĀ-UD-DĪN HUSAIN SHÄH (A.D. 1493-1519)
The
origin and early life of Sayyid Husain are involved in obscurity and have given
rise to many legends.40 According to some accounts, he was a born Arab who had
recently settled in Bengal. According to local traditions, he was a native of
the Rangpur district in north Bengal (now East Pakistan). Several stories,
however, associate him with a village named Chandpärä in Murshidabad district.
The
stages by which Husain came to occupy the post of chief minister of Muzaffar
Shah are not known to us. He showed re- markable wisdom and prudence in discharging
the duties of his high office, but as he could clearly apprchend the doom that
was sure to overwhelm the tyrannical ruler, he joined the rebels and led them
to victory. Thereupon the popular choice naturally fell upon him,41
particularly as no member of the House of Ilyās Shāh seems to have survived the
Abyssinian rule, and he ascended the throne under the title 'Ala-ud-din Husain
Shah, probably in A.D. 1493. His long reign of more than a quarter of a century
ushered in a new era of peace and prosperity which offered a strik- ing and
welcome contrast to the troublesome period that preceded it.
Husain gave evidence of his firmness inmediately on his acces- sion to the throne He issued strict orders to the victorious soldiers to desist from pillaging the capital city, but as they continued to plunder, he sternly put them down by having executed twelve thousand of them. The search for the pillaged articles led to the discovery, among other things, of 13,000 gold plates, which indirect- ly reflects the wealth of the country. It was a long-standing practice of the Bengali upper class to take their food in gold plates, and Firishta remarks that the greater the display of them by an individual on days of festivity, the greater was the esteem. 12 After the restoration of order in the capital, Sultan Husain took steps to consolidate his position. He disbanded the paiks who, by the strength of organization and solidarity in their ranks, had be- come, like the Turkish janissaries, the masters of the palace.12
He
next dismissed the large body of Abyssinians who had filled the high posts in
the administration, and expelled them from the country. He appointed Sayyids,
Afghans, Turks and, the scions of the old aristocracy of the land in their
place and, supported by them, restored order and security in the country.
'Ala-ud-din
Husain Shah's reign forms an epoch in the history of independent medieval
Bengal. It was a reign of long duration during which the Sultan, by his liberal
policy, administrative effi- ciency, and territorial conquests developed the
prosperity of the country, a fact amply attested by the monuments erected
during his time. The internal peace and security, the facilities for trade and
commerce, and the opportunities opened to the indigenous aristocracy for
military operation against the Mongoloid races living on the eastern frontier
of Bengal and the Gajapati king of Orissa, infused a new spirit among the
people of the province which was reflected in the contemporary vernacular
literature.
The
embarrassing pre-occupation of Sultan Husain was the adjustment of his relation
with the Sultans of Jaunpur and Delhi. About the time of Sultan 'Alä-ud-din
Ilusain's accession, inter- minable fighting between the Sultans of Jaunpur and
the Lodi overlords of Delhi had practically caused an eclipse of the Sharqi
power which was then confined only to Bihar. In A.D. 1495, Sultan Sikandar Lodi
led his army into this stronghold of the Sharqï king, who implored the
protection of the Bengal Sultan. 'Alä-ud-dîn Husain, who was watching this
development, promptly responded by deputing a force under his son Daniyal against
the Afghän army. The two forces met at Barh, about 30 miles east of Patna. It
is a testimony to Husain's armed strength that Sultan Sikandar halted the
advance of his army in the face of the Bengali opposition, and concluded a
treaty of friendship on terms of territorial status quo and guarantee of
non-aggression into each other's territory. Accord- ing to this arrangement,
the country to the west of Barh passed under Sultan Sikandar's authority, while
the country east of it, including Mungir and South Bihār, remained under Sultān
'Alā-ud- din Husain's occupation.
During
the period A.D. 1200-1493, the Muslim Sultanate of Bengal had gradually
extended up to the hill ranges on the eastern frontier. The annexation of a
large portion of Bihār and the influx of the disbanded Jaunpur soldiery that
followed the dissolution of the Sharqi kingdom, now infused a new vigour to the
Bengal Sultanate. Sultan Husain's first target of attack was the Kāmatā- Kamrup
kingdom which had long been a great bulwark against Muslim penetration in the
north-east. Nīlambara, the king of Kāmatā, fell out with his minister, who
thereupon came to the court of Gaur and incited the Sultan to a war against his
old master Husain fell in with this idea and, according to a popular tradition,
the war was carried into the Kāmatā territory by Shah Isma'il Ghāzi. The
capital city was well fortified, but the Muslim army gained admission into it
by a ruse, took king Nīlāmbara prisoner, and pillaged the city. This was
followed by the advance of the Muslim army, and the whole kingdom as far as
Hajo in the Kamrup district was permanently annexed. The whole operation lasted
presumably from A.D. 1499 to 1502 when the conquest of this large stretch of
territory was publicly recorded by Sultan Husain in an inscription at Malda.43
The
Kāmatā-Kamrup expedition was followed by that against Jäjnagar-Orissa whose
frontier extended as far as the river Saras- vati, embracing within its fold
practically the whole of Midnapore and part of the Hughli district. Gajapati
Kapilendra and his successor Prataparudra were mighty kings whose forces
constantly menaced the enemy and carried on intermittent skirmishes on the long
frontier along the river Sarasvati which, though now dried up, carried the
volume of the water of the Ganga in those days. According to the Madlāpañji,
the chronicle of the Jagannatha temple, Shah Isma'il Ghazi issued out of his
base at Mandaran in Arambagh district about 1508-9 and swept onward in a
lightning campaign to Puri, raiding Jäjpur and Katak on the way, and destroy-
ing many Hindu temples. The resounding victory was celebrated by the issue of
coins stamped in the name of Jajnagar-Orissa At the news of the sudden burst of
the Muslim army, Gajapati Pratapa- rudra returned from the campaign in the
south and drove back the invading force until he reached Mandaran near
Arambagh. The tortress was besieged by the exultant Oriya army, but they failed
lo take it owing to the treachery of an officer named Govinda Vidyadhara.
Sultan Husain's lightning raid was a brilliant success. His forces, however,
had to beat a hurried retreat from Orissa and any modification in the
Bengal-Orissa frontier proved to be a task beyond his strength, in spite of his
increased strength and resources. Hostilities were intermittent along the
border throughout the reign as would be borne out by the account of Chaitanya's
journey to Orissa, when he had to cross the Ganga at Sri Chhatrabhog with the
aid of the local frontier official, Ramachandra Khan, in A.D. 1509. On his return
journey four years later, Śrī Chaitanya found the frontier disturbed as before.
It appears that Sultan Husain's success here was limited to maintaining the
status quo against the great rival Prataparudra.
In
the segment of the eastern frontier abutting on Tippera, also, the Sultan
achieved very little success. A section of the Mongoloid people known by the
name of the Tiperais, who had originally dwelt in the recesses of the Agartala
hills, had spread across the alluvial plains along the bank of the Gumti until
the whole country from Agartala to the Meghna was dominated by them. These
people had been drawn into close contact with the Muslim power, immediately
after its establishment in Sonārgāon, and we may easily infer that the primary
need of defence induced Fakhr-ud-din to build the high- way from his capital to
Chandpur. During the 14th and 15th cen- turies hardly a glimpse of the Bengal
Sultan's relation with these people is available, excepting the casual indicae
Reference
1.
Above, Vol. V. 154-5.
2.
Ibid, 157.
3.
According to the Riyaz, the king discarded the insignias of royalty out of fear
of
the Khalji Sultan of Delhi (Ed).
4.
Cf. HBS, 77, and IHQ, XVIII, 65.
4a.
According to 'Afif the name was changed to Firūzābād by Sultan Firûz; HIED
III,
298 (Ed.),
5.
IBH, 50.
6.
HIED, III, 234. These noblemen from Lakhnawati, however, did not make any
specific allegation against Bahadur. It has been rightly observed: "There
is hardly any reason why the Muslims of Bengal should have suffered so much at
the hands of Muslim princes contending for the sovereignty of Lakhnawati as to
justify the pious Sultan's unprovoked attack on another Muslim State."
HBS, 84 (Ed.).
7.
According to the Riyaz, Qadr Khan was appointed governor of Lakhnawatî after
the death of Nasir-ud-din Ibrahim. But the contemporary 'Isämi says that the
latter accompanied Muhammad Tughluq in his expedition against Kishlu Khan,
which did not take place before 728 A.H. (A.D." 1327-8). (Ed.). 8. IBH,
95.
9.
Thomas read the date of a coin of Fakhr-ud-din as 737 A.H. and therefore placed
the death of Bahram Khan in that year. Nelson Wright places the revolt of
Fakhr-ud-din in or about A.D. 1338 (739 A.H.). The death of Bahram Khâu is
given in HBS as 738 A.H. in one place (p. 89), and 739 in another (p. 96).
(Ed.)
10.
According to 'Afif, Ilyas Shah defeated and killed Fakhr-ud-din after the first
invasion of Bengal by Sultan Firuz and conquered Sonargaon. He makes no
reference to Fakhr-ud-din's son and successor (HIED, III. 304). According to
the Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi, Muhammad Tughluq invaded Bengal in 741 ÂH. (A.D.
1340-1) and killed Fakhr-ud-din. Both these statements are proved to be wrong
by the fact that Fakhr-ud-din issued coins till 750 A.H, and Ikhtiyar- ud-din
Ghazi Shah issued coins from Sonārgãon in 750 and 753 A.H. The latter was
probably the son of the former though there is no definite proof of this.
(Ed.).
10a.
According to the Sirat-i-Firûz Shāhi, JBORS, XXVII, 92.
11.
The date usually assigned to Shams-ud-din Ilyas Shah, namely 743-758 A.H., has
been given up, as a closer examination of his coins in the Indian Museum
corroborates Mr. Shams-ud-din Ahmad's reading of the dates 740 and 760. The
reign of Ilyas Shāh therefore covers the period A.D. 1339 to 1358-9 (vide the
Supplementary Catalogue by Shams-ud-din Ahmad to Vol. II of the Ċata- logue of
Coins in the Indian Museum).
12.
As noted above, 'Izz-ud-din Yahya, the governor of Sätgãon, in south Bengal,
joined the governors of Karā and Lakhnawatī in an expedition against Fakhr-
ud-din of Sonārgāon in A.D. 1330. But after this Yahya passes from our view.
According to Ibn Batutah, Fakhr-ud-din fitted out ships from the port of
Sadkawan in his campaign against Lakhnawati (IBH, 235 ff.). Sadkawan has been
identified by some with Satgaon and by others with Chittagong (for the
controversy cf. HBS, 100, f.n. 1). In case we accept the first identification
we must presume that Fakhr-ud-din succeeded in annexing south Bengal and this
view is supported by the fact that nothing more is heard of Yahyä. On the other
hand, as "Alā-ud-din 'Ali Shāh of Lakhnawati issued coins till 743 A.H.
(A.D. 1342), and Fakhr-ud-din's succes- sor ruled in Sonārgāon till A.D. 1352,
it is most reasonable to hold that Ilyas Shah established his power in Satgaon
in 740 A.H. (A.D. 1339-40), the earliest date found on the coins issued by him.
(Ed).
13.
For full details cf. Ch. XIII-D, III.
14.
According to Barani, whose view has been adopted by later writers, Firuz left
Delhi on 10 Shawal, 754 A.H. (November 8, 1353) and returned to Delhi on 12
Shaban 755 A.H. (September 1, 1354). But the detailed accounts of Firüz's
march, given by 'Afif, makes it difficult to believe that the whole military
operation lasted only ten months. Accordingly it has been held by some that
Firuz spent about two years in this campaign (HBS, 105-6). ‘Afil alone gives
full details of both the campaigns of Firuz against Bengal, but his account is
obviously of a partisan character, and he tries to gloss over the discomfiture
of his patron and assigns specious grounds for discomfiture as will be noted
below. (Ed).
14a.
JASB, N.S., XIX, 279,
15.
For the identification of Ekdālā, which was for long a very controversial
issue,
cf.
HBS, 107, f.n. 1.
16.
For the account given in this and next para see:
1. Tarikh-i-Firüz
Shäht, HIED, III,
2. Sīrat-i-Firüz
Shahi, Tr. by K. K. Basu, JBORS, XXVII, 79 Æ.
3. Tārīkh-i-Mubārak
Shāhī, Tr. by K. K. Basu, 123-134. (The
translation of a passage of 'Afif, quoted above, is given on p. 129, f.n. 5 of
his work, but does not occur in HIED, III).
4. Firishta
(Briggs, I, 449-52; IV, 331-34).
5. TA.
I. 244–47.
6. Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh,
I, Tr. by Ranking, 324--29.
As
regards the date of the campaign ef. HBS, 105, f. (Ed.).
17.
For the text of the proclamation cf. JASB, N. S., XIX, 279. For Barani's
remark, not translated in HIED, see the text, p. 586, or the Hindi translation
in TKB by A. A. Rizvi, Part II, pp. 39-40. (Ed.).
18.
'Afif says that Zafar Khan was received with extraordinary honours. "On
the first day he received 30,000 tankas to get his clothes washed. His title,
Zafar Khan, was confirmed and a sum of 4 lacs of tankas granted to him and his
friends. One thousand horse and large numbers of footmen were assigned to him.
He was first appointed deputy-wazir, and subsequently became wazir”. 'Afif
distinctly says that Sultan Firüz undertook the expedition to Bengal "for
avenging the claims of Zafar Khan", 'Afif further adds that preparations
for this campaign were begun even during the lifetime of Ilyas, who out of
fear, retreated to Sonargaon, and then we are told that "the inhabitants
of that place were instant (sic) in their supplications to Sultan Firoz Shāh
for relief from the tyrant"; (HIED, III, 304-5). (Ed.)
19.
HIED, III. 308. As mentioned above, the same motive, according to 'Afif, per-
suaded Firüz not to storm the citadel of Ekdala in the first expedition (Ibid,
296-7). It could not have been unknown to Firüz that the ignominy of Muslim
women was an inevitable consequence of military campaigns, and if therefore
this consideration weighed with him in not pressing the campaign to a
victorious conclusion, he should not have undertaken the campaign at all. At
least after his experience of the first campaign, he should not have undertaken
the second. The same argument applies to the aversion of Firuz to the
annexation of Bengal, as mentioned by 'Afif. (Ed.)
20.
If the argument advanced by Zalar was sincere, why, one night pertinently ask,
was the campaign undertaken at all? What about avenging the claims of Zafar
Khan, which, according to 'Afif, was the sole motive of Firuz in under- taking
this campaign? (Ed.)
21.
The date of A'zam Shah's accession is given as A.D. 1389, and again some time
between 793 and 795 A.H. (A.D. 1390 and 1393) in HBS, pp. 114 and 116. (Ed.)
22.
The accounts of Mahuan and other Chinese envoys of this period have been translated by Dr. P. C. Bagchi in the
Visvabharati Annals, I. 101 fr.
23.
This was the theory of Dr. Bagchi (op. cit. 108-9). He held that while Ghiyās-
ud-din (died A.D. 1411) and his son Saif-ud-dīn (A.D. 1412-21) ruled in one
part of the kingdom, Shihab-ud-din (A.D. 1409-14) and Jalāl-ud-din (1414-31)
ruled in another part. He further identified Shihāb-ud-din with Rājā Gaṇeśa, to
whom reference will be made later.
24.
These have been very fully discussed, with reference to authorities, by Dr. A.
H. Dani in JRASBL., XVIII (1952), 121 ff. The account given in the text is
mainly based on his learned article. For earlier discussion of the subject cl.
The Coins and Chronology of the Independent Sultans of Bengal by N. K. Bhat-
tasali, and HBS, 120 ff.
25.
op. cit.
26.
HBS, 121, 125 ff.
27.
This is the view of Jadu Nath Sarkar and Stapleton, HBS, 121.
28.
Dani, op. cit.
29.
IHQ, XVII, 465-6 which quotes references to the king in Sanskrit books.
30. Matla -us-Sadain, edited by Md. Shafi,
Vol. II, Part II, 782-3. Also cf. India in the Fifteenth Century by Major.
31.
Dani, op. cit.
32.
This date is obtained from a coin in the Rajshahi Museum (JNS, IX, 1947, pp.
45-48). The date, usually given as A.D. 1442 (HBS, 130), must therefore be
rejected.
33.
R. D. Banerji, Ifistory of Orissa, I. 289 ff., 301-2. HBS, 132.
34.
JASB, 1867, p. 135. Also cf. O'Malley-Khulna Gazetteer, pp. 26-7.
35.
The text of this manuscript, found in the shrine of the saint at Kantaduar in
the Rangpur District, was published, with an abridged translation, by G. H.
Damant in JASB, 1874 pp. 216-39.
36.
The Portuguese writer De Barros refers to the employment of Arab soldiers by a
king of Gaur for the conquest of Orissa (JASB, 1873, p. 287.). As this happened
about a hundred years before the arrival of the Portuguese in Chifta- gong, the
reference may be to the campaign of Ismā'il. (Ed.)
36a.
A full account is given in Ch. XII-D.
37.
Levi, Le Nepal, II, 238.
38.
Stapleton and Abid Ali-Memoirs of Gaur and Pundua, p. 77.
39.
Beveridge, Memoirs of Babur, II, 482-3.
40.
Cf. HBS, 142-3.
41.
The Riyaz gives a full account.
42.
Firishta, Lith. Ed., p. 301-2.
43.
The Kamrup campaign, concluded in 1501-2, as well as the question whether
Husain Shah followed it up by invading the Ahom Kingdom, has been fully
discussed in Ch. XIII-D.
44.
HBS, 149.
45.
Some hold that the commander of the expedition was possibly Nusrat Khăn, the
crown-prince, to whom local traditions of Chittagong ascribe the first Muslim
conquest of the district (HBS, 149-50). (Ed.)
Post a Comment