The Mughal Era in India

Locked
habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6919
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by habal »

Virendra wrote:
habal wrote:Maharana Pratap's forefather Rana Hamir and Bappa Rawal etc had many mughal wives in their harem. Hamir had just one IIRC, and Bappa Rawal had quite a few. Pathans of Nowshera were children of Bappa Rawal and his arab/tatar/tajik consorts. Turks who lived in Afghanistan also were descended from Rajputs on one side and tatar/tajik on another. I am reading this book on Maharana Pratap where the author talks about Rana Hamir Dev's muslim wife.
I'd like to know your sources on all this. Please enlighten.
I have the Maharana Pratap book by Bhawar Singh Rana as source for Hamir. A net source for Bappa Rawal.

Knew you would ask. The book is at my house, and I think the author is Bhawar Singh Rana.
Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1211
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Virendra »

subhamoy.das wrote:How long did muslim rule lasted in India? NAMO was claiing 1200 years of total foreign rule out of which 200 years of British. How long did Mughlas ruled India ( 400 years? )?
Absurd generalities like "Ruling India" are favorites tools of the History Manipulators.
There is a difference between ruling entire India and ruling parts of it. Big difference.
And by using phrases like 'ruling India' all that is subtly bye-passed.
Worth mentioning is 200 years of effective north India wide Mughal rule and 150 years of British rule. On basis of these two, figures are extrapolated into 1000 years of Islamic rule and 300 years of British rule on India.
Lets take the Arabs first. They started trying to get in here in the 7th century, got a foothold in the 8th and were gone by the 10th.
And all this time, what did they rule? one piece called Sindh. Ok, did they rule all Sindh? No, not even that. For most of their stay, they only controlled two principalities - Multan and Mansurah.
They were defeated north in Kangra by Lalitaditya Muktipada, defeated east by Gurjara-Pratiharas (Nagabhatta) and defeated south by Chalukyas (Pulakesin).

Now we come to the Turks. Shahis were ruling the frontier regions between Turks and mainland India.
It took them half a century to get rid of Shahis, who were worn out by constant fighting with Arabs and Karkotas on two fronts for more than two centuries and didn't have well developed clan hierarchies to sustain losses, reversal in the long term.
As late as 10th century, Shahis were still fighting with Turks and Kabul was still in Indian fold for a few decades from 915 A.D.
Then Mahmud of Ghazni also, could capture only Punjab. All they did in the rest was raid and plunder. No standing armies or garrisons to claim territory.
Before 1206 A.D. the Turks didn't have access to Indo-Gangetic plains that constitute the cream pie of north India.
Now, after 1206, Turks are still a regional power. They never got to rule even the whole north India, let alone the question of ruling entire India.
Even after settling well into the best possible parts of north India, they could not penetrate into Kashmir till 1354 A.D. and Hilly regions of Himachal were even more tougher to crack. Hell they could not even subdue their neighbors in Rajputana, what to speak of the far flung areas that include north east as well.
Later their power disintegrated into multiple mediocre Sultanates. Then they suffered even more humiliating defeats.
Kumbha decimated Nagaur Sultanate, Jaunpur met a similar fate later.
By the time Mughals came in form of Babur in 16th century; Delhi the most powerful Turk Sultanate of north India was teetering in front of Rana Sanga, as Peela Khal near Agra (capital) was the border between Sultanate and the Mewar confederacy. So lets not waste time on the other tiny Sultanates practically hole up in forts/towns amidst the sea of natives in the country side.

Lastly, the Mughals. They suffered a reversal right after Babur's death in 1530. The least said about Humayun the better.
Akbar brought the Mughals back in the game in 1560s, riding on his alliances.
From then on, to Aurangzeb's times in 1660s is one century of Mughal rule that was almost pan India. Before and after this century, even the Mughal rule is regional or north India wide, at best.

After the final weakening of Mughal power with Aurangzeb's death in 1707 AD starts another disoriented wrestling of regional powers in India, where after a glimmer of hope from Marathas, the British snatch the baton and firm themselves here by a few decades into the 19th century. They left from here by mid 20th century.

Now anyone can look up once again do the math easily. How wide the rule, for how long and how effective.

Regards,
Virendra
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by brihaspati »

Sanku wrote: I some what disagree, for example, Jai Singh II of Amber did a lot to clean the stains which were put by Bharmal et al. When we consider the full picture, we should certainly see the aspects of the same body which are not all "black".

I prefer to see them in shades of grey. The current behaviour is what matters most to me, how much of the previous compromises have been rejected, and how deep the current loyalty is (or do strains of compromising behaviour continue)
Onlee Mewar. But that too might have been a personal thing with IG and fallout. The rest has compromised to various extents. But not daughter giving at least as far as I know. Many have died off with infertility.
Shanmukh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3042
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Shanmukh »

Virendra wrote: They were defeated north in Kangra by Lalitaditya Muktipada, defeated east by Gurjara-Pratiharas (Nagabhatta) and defeated south by Chalukyas (Pulakesin).
Virendra
Virendra-ji,
I think the defeat of two separate invasions of the south were by Vikramaditya II of the Chalukyas (for the first) and the Rashtrakutas under Dantidurga (for the second). At least, from the accounts it leads me to believe there were two separate invasions. The Rashtrakutas won at Navsari and the victory is recorded in an inscription, I think. Vikramaditya II's victory (unless this is a mistake by sources attributing it to the wrong king) is less clearly mentioned.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Singha »

Most of the broken down north indian royals post independence seem to be with congress now after a detour through swatantra party?
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Sanku »

Singha wrote:Most of the broken down north indian royals post independence seem to be with congress now after a detour through swatantra party?
I dont think that is the case, most have stayed away from politics since then, of the remaining they are mostly with BJP, some with congress, or both.
devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5129
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by devesh »

doesn't Maneka Gandhi also hail from a royal background?
niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5535
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by niran »

Singha wrote:Most of the broken down north indian royals post independence seem to be with congress now after a detour through swatantra party?
it is wee bit convulsed, e.g. lets say rajah of somewherepur have 5 brothers(usually more than that) the eldest or the strongest would inherit the crown at least one birader usually the weakest or dumbest will act as Lakshman of Shree Ram these two would rajpat katow
(enjoy life) rest would be left to fend for themselves at the most given some useless piece of land, these left overs post independence were the ones who agitated with kangrez and all most all studied Kanoon(Law) post independence at the rate of thousands they got themselves a sarkari vakeel job positions in different courts, but almost all rajpat katow group got themselves into bizniss(hotelerring came much later) most of them bought few coal mines and better enjoyed life, then Indera Ghandhi nationalized all Coal mines
in a stroke of pen these small group lost all and everything and they still hate all things that is kangrez hence asli royaal are Jansanghi
nakli rayaals are kongrezi hence you will find two in the same family(after all they are same family wise)
Vikas
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6828
Joined: 03 Dec 2005 02:40
Location: Where DST doesn't bother me
Contact:

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Vikas »

Need to learn more about Lalitaditya Muktipada, Emperor of Kashmir who like so many son of the soil kings have been kept out of History books while Jehadi Akbar and Tipu are flouted as great Kings.
Shanmukh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3042
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Shanmukh »

VikasRaina wrote:Need to learn more about Lalitaditya Muktipada, Emperor of Kashmir who like so many son of the soil kings have been kept out of History books while Jehadi Akbar and Tipu are flouted as great Kings.
Kalhana's Rajatarangini has a lot of material on him. If people are interested, I could translate it and post it, I suppose.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Singha »

also the confederacy of small post-gupta kings (baladitya and yashodharman?) who routed and turned back the hephthalite huns led by mihirakula is given short shrift.
Atri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4152
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 21:07

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Atri »

Six glorious pages of Indian History by Savarkar. All six pages are not given any space. This is except Ramayana and Mahabharata which should be taught to every kid.

1. Chandragupta Maurya defeating Seleucus. Entire movement of Chanakya to bring India under one political rule.

2. Defeat of greeks (the bactrian greeks) by Saatavahanas and Kharvela and
Sungas.

3. Sefeat of kushans and Scythians by Vikramaditya in his glorious central Asian conquest. Elaborately described in Raghuvamsha.

4. Defeat of Huns first by Skandagupta and then by Yashodharman of Malwa.

5. Defeat of muslims and mughals by Rajputs, vijaynagar, marathas and sikhs.

6. Role of revolutionaries in freedom struggle against British and partition of India.
Vikas
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6828
Joined: 03 Dec 2005 02:40
Location: Where DST doesn't bother me
Contact:

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Vikas »

Thank-You Nageshks if you could do it for all of us.

Atri Ji, The history we have read sounds like History of some other nation. Thats why most of us during our school days had no interest with History as a subject nor there was any correlation with what family stories told us about these Historical stories.
Shanmukh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3042
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Shanmukh »

Atri wrote:Six glorious pages of Indian History by Savarkar. All six pages are not given any space. This is except Ramayana and Mahabharata which should be taught to every kid.

1. Chandragupta Maurya defeating Seleucus. Entire movement of Chanakya to bring India under one political rule.

2. Defeat of greeks (the bactrian greeks) by Saatavahanas and Kharvela and
Sungas.

3. Sefeat of kushans and Scythians by Vikramaditya in his glorious central Asian conquest. Elaborately described in Raghuvamsha.

4. Defeat of Huns first by Skandagupta and then by Yashodharman of Malwa.

5. Defeat of muslims and mughals by Rajputs, vijaynagar, marathas and sikhs.

6. Role of revolutionaries in freedom struggle against British and partition of India.
Atri-ji,
These would the chapters of history that would be taught by a nationalist government. When have we had any nationalist government to teach us that? Except for a short period during 1998 and 2004, when we have had a nationalist government (which was also compromised due to the presence of `allies', we have been under true Sickular governments onlee.....

I have a question for those that know though. Do RSS run schools teach these bits of history?

About the bit about Vikramaditya's victory against the Sakas and the Kushanas, can someone refer me to the exact chapter/verses where this is referred to? I read Raghuvamsha a very long time ago (and only as a literary work), but if there is historical material in it, I will read it again, paying a bit more attention .....
Atri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4152
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 21:07

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Atri »

Last edited by Atri on 09 Sep 2013 17:20, edited 1 time in total.
Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1211
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Virendra »

Singha wrote:Most of the broken down north indian royals post independence seem to be with congress now after a detour through swatantra party?
No specific pattern IMO. I can say for Rajasthan atleast, that the upper caste vote has traditionally been with BJP and the royals are found in almost all the major parties.
Adrija
BRFite
Posts: 419
Joined: 13 Mar 2007 19:42

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Adrija »

Need to learn more about Lalitaditya Muktipada, Emperor of Kashmir who like so many son of the soil kings have been kept out of History books while Jehadi Akbar and Tipu are flouted as great Kings.
Post Posted: 09 Sep 2013 04:04 am
here you go.......pasting it in full as I unfortunately don't remember where I downloaded it from......makes it a long ish post, sorry for that
Lalitaditya Muktapida appertained to the Karkota dynasty of the kings of Kashmir. The Karkota dynasty was started by Durlabhavardhana. During that period, it was proclaimed that Durlabhavardhana had descended from the Karkota Naga (a snake deity who was worshipped in Kashmir and in other parts of India). In reality, Durlabhavardhana was of a modest background, he was originally in charge of the fodder for horses (asvaghasakayastha). Lalitaditya was the youngest of the three sons of Durlabhaka (Pratapaditya 2), who was the son of Durlabhavardhana.
Lalitaditya's reign began in 699 AD and in no way is it a hyperbole to mention that this king was not only the greatest conqueror from Kashmir but probably from the whole of India. All evidence including numismatic supports this view. The credible and brilliant Kashmiri historian Kalhana, in his classic history of Kashmir, the `Rajataringini' (written in the 12th century AD), describes Lalitaditya as such, "The king, who carried his prowess, abandoned his (war-like) fury (only) when the (opposing) kings discretely folded their palms at his victorious onset. At the sound of his drums (beaten) in attack, the dwellings of his enemies were diverted by the (frightened) inhabitants and thus resembled women dropping in fright the burden of their wombs.” Besides Kalhana, the Chinese, Turkish and Tibetan legends also refer to him as a great conqueror.
Kalhana has described many of the conquests of this king in detail, particularly the triumph of Muktapida over the mighty Yasovarman, the King of Kanauj. According to Kalhana, Yasovarman initially submitted to Lalitaditya. However, soon after, a dispute erupted between these two kings as the treaty was being finalized. Yasovarman wanted his name to be given precedence over Lalitaditya's in this treaty. However, Mitrasarman, the clever foreign minister of Lalitaditya, objected to this treaty. Following this dispute, the war between these two kings resumed. Eventually, Yasovarman (who was then at the peak of his power), was defeated. Prior to his defeat, Yasovarman had established himself as the ruler of a substantial part of India. Following his victory, Lalitaditya was able to annex the kingdom of Yasovarman, which included Vanga (Bengal). However, it is not clear as to whether Yasovarman was slain in the battle; but what is clear is that, after his defeat, Yasovarman disappeared from the political scene.
Lalitaditya also defeated many other rulers following this victory. The famous Ratta (from the Rastrakuta dynasty of Maharashtra), the queen of Karnata (Canarese country), also submitted to this king. The numerous conquests of Lalitaditya are also mentioned by the brilliant Alberuni of Khiva (b. 973 AD, d. 1048 AD). Alberuni, for example, informs us of the triumph of the Kashmiri King Mutthai (Lalitaditya Muktapida) over the Turks. According to Alberuni, a festival was held on the second day of Chaita (March) every year for centuries to celebrate the victory of King Mutthai over the Turks. An eighth century inscription in Sharda script found in Kabul refers to the defeat of the Turks by a conquering monarch. During this period, only Muktapida had this capability. Alberuni mentions that this king's territory also included most of the Indian subcontinent. In fact, the colourful seventeenth century Kashmiri adventurer and historian Haider Malik Chadurah describes the conquests of Lalitaditya as such, "Finally, when he was satisfied with (the conquest) of India, he headed towards Turkestan via Kabul. Mumin, the ruler of Bukhara, fought against him four times, but when he had no strength or resistance left, he solicited for safety (of his life) and met the raja and agreed to pay tribute and taxes to him. Thus, all the rulers of Mawara-al-Nahr and Turkestan submitted to him. Then he went to China via Kasgar and conquered the lands there and, after a fierce battle, subjugated Khita. Finally, he returned to Kashmir via Tibet.”

The conquest of Tibet by Lalitaditya receives confirmation from the Chinese Tang Annals. By the period of the Tibetan king Khri-lde-btsug-brtan-mes-ag-tshoms, the Chinese provinces of Yunnan, Szechan, Kansu and Sinkiang had been annexed by the Tibetans. Hence, Lalitaditya was able to obtain a large territory from the Tibetans.
Lalitaditya maintained a close contact with the Taklamakan region, which served as his Central Asian base. There is also strong evidence to suggest that Lalitaditya was responsible for defeating the Arabs when they were at the zenith of their power. This is also a view entertained by the noted historian Romila Thapar. It is well known that, during the reign of Caliph Hisham (724-743 AD), one Junaid was deputed as the governor of Sindh. Junaid is supposed to have made an attempt to invade the rest of the Indian subcontinent. However, Lalitaditya soundly defeated him and saved the whole of India from Arab conquest. Also, in the Persian Chronicle `Chachanamah', the history of Sind translated into Persian from Arabic by the Arab Ali of Kufah in 1216 AD, it is mentioned that the king of Sind, Dahar, had earlier warned Mahamed-bin-Qassim (the Arab conqueror of Sind), "If I had sent against you Rai Jaisiah who is the most victorious of all the rulers on the face of the earth and who can wreck vengeance on the strongest men of age, or the king of Kashmir who is the mighty possessor of a crown, kettle drums and standards, on whose royal threshold the rulers of Hind and even the country of Makran and Turan, whose chains a great many noblemen and grandees have willingly placed on their knees...".
Due to his numerous conquests, Lalitaditya was able to enrich Kashmir. He constructed several temples and utilities and built the present town of Latipur in Kashmir. Kalhana describes the construction (in reality the enlargement) of the famous Martand Temple as such, "This liberal (king) built the wonderful (shrine) of Martand with its massive walls of stone within a lofty enclosure (prasadantar) and its town swelling with grapes.”
Muktapida was a liberal king. Though he was a Hindu, he had equal respect for all faiths. Kalhana also informs us that he was a compassionate ruler who was well versed in the Sastras.
Lalitaditya also was a good administrator and an efficient king. Being a cautious person, he was fully aware of the problems that could arise if the powerful classes of the landed oligarchy (Damaras) rebelled. According to Muktapida, "If they should keep more wealth, they would become in a single year very formidable and strong enough to neglect the commands of the king.” This king instructed his ministers to be very careful in recruiting people for the two wings of the army, namely the cavalry and the infantry. Orders were sent out that no two persons from the same place were to be put in the same company.
In the year 736 AD, the reign of this great king came to an end. According to Kalhana, there were two versions relating to the death of Lalitaditya. One version states that this king perished during a military campaign in Aryanaka (Eastern Iran) due to heavy snowfall which occurred out of season. According to the other version, Lalitaditya, faced with a critical situation, burnt himself.




Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1211
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Virendra »

nageshks wrote:
Virendra wrote: They were defeated north in Kangra by Lalitaditya Muktipada, defeated east by Gurjara-Pratiharas (Nagabhatta) and defeated south by Chalukyas (Pulakesin).
Virendra
Virendra-ji,
I think the defeat of two separate invasions of the south were by Vikramaditya II of the Chalukyas (for the first) and the Rashtrakutas under Dantidurga (for the second). At least, from the accounts it leads me to believe there were two separate invasions. The Rashtrakutas won at Navsari and the victory is recorded in an inscription, I think. Vikramaditya II's victory (unless this is a mistake by sources attributing it to the wrong king) is less clearly mentioned.
Navasari talks of Chalukyas not Rashtrakutas.
Qasim's successor Junaid broke his armies into two. One went south via Gurjaratra into Lata (south Gujarat).
The Navasari inscription (A.D. 738) records that the prince 'Avanijanashraya Pulakesi' defeated this Arab army.
The Prince was representing (his father) the Lata Governor under the King Vikramaditya II Chalukya. There is no mention of Rashktrakutas, atleast in this inscription.
The second part went east till Avanti (in Malwa) and here the Gurjara Pratihara King Nagabhatta defeated them.

In the aftermath of the battle of Rajasthan around 730 AD, the new Arab General Tamim (succeeding Junaid) tried two other routes for invasions - Rajasthan ruote and the Indus-Punjab route. He didn't succeeed in either of them.
For Rajasthan, forces of Nagabhatta and Bappa Rawal defeated those advances again.

For Indus-Punjab side, the Kashmir Kakotiyas' Lalitaditya Muktapida and the Kannauj ruler Yasovarman were the allied powers who drove the Arabs past Indus. This happened between 730 AD and 740 AD; as Yasovarman died soon after 740 AD when his alliance with Muktapida broken down.

Pratihara-Chalukya alliance and Kakotiya-Yasovarman alliance are both well recorded.

If Rawalpindi was named after Bappa Rawal, it is not impossible to deduce that Rawal also might have driven away the Arabs and established the city as a front base/outpost.

In all this I don't see the Rashtrakutas anywhere. Rashtrakutas became prominent via their Manyakheta based Kingdom only 753 AD onwards; more than 20 years after the battle of Rajasthan.

Regards,
Virendra
Last edited by Virendra on 09 Sep 2013 15:45, edited 1 time in total.
Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1211
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Virendra »

nageshks wrote:Kalhana's Rajatarangini has a lot of material on him. If people are interested, I could translate it and post it, I suppose.
Please save the effort. Rajatarangini is already translated in English and available for free.
However if you're proficient in Sanskrit and think that a better translation could be made than the ones present; by all means, go on and do so.

Regards,
Virendra
Last edited by Virendra on 09 Sep 2013 15:45, edited 1 time in total.
Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1211
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Virendra »

VikasRaina wrote:Thank-You Nageshks if you could do it for all of us.

Atri Ji, The history we have read sounds like History of some other nation. Thats why most of us during our school days had no interest with History as a subject nor there was any correlation with what family stories told us about these Historical stories.
+108 .. couldn't agree more !!
I think that lately all limits of distortion have been crossed. The bollywood and history have mated :x
What is bollywood or TV soap drama is gulped by mango kids as 'History'. And what is read in school text books in the name of history is worse tan bollywood dramas. We have a saying in IT - 'Garbage in Garbage out'. It is a brainwashing of unique kind.

Regards,
Virendra
Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1211
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Virendra »

Adrija wrote:In the year 736 AD, the reign of this great king came to an end. According to Kalhana, there were two versions relating to the death of Lalitaditya. One version states that this king perished during a military campaign in Aryanaka (Eastern Iran) due to heavy snowfall which occurred out of season. According to the other version, Lalitaditya, faced with a critical situation, burnt himself.
From what I've read Lalitaditya came to throne in 724 AD and died only in 760 AD. Reign of 36 years. For a man of his kind of achievements and conquests, a reign of more than 10-15 years is essential IMO.
Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1211
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Virendra »

habal wrote:
Virendra wrote:I'd like to know your sources on all this. Please enlighten.
I have the Maharana Pratap book by Bhawar Singh Rana as source for Hamir. A net source for Bappa Rawal.
Knew you would ask. The book is at my house, and I think the author is Bhawar Singh Rana.
I'm unable to google this author. If possible, please share more information like publisher or how to buy etc.
Also, share the net source on Bappa Rawal. I'll see if I could backtrace it to a primary source.
Thanks a lot.
Atri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4152
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 21:07

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Atri »

You are correct about Chalukyas and Rashtrakutas, Virendra ji.. I checked. It was my mistake, and I stand corrected.
Shanmukh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3042
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Shanmukh »

Virendra wrote: Navasari talks of Chalukyas not Rashtrakutas.
Qasim's successor Junaid broke his armies into two. One went south via Gurjaratra into Lata (south Gujarat).
The Navasari inscription (A.D. 738) records that the prince 'Avanijanashraya Pulakesi' defeated this Arab army.
The Prince was representing (his father) the Lata Governor under the King Vikramaditya II Chalukya. There is no mention of Rashktrakutas, atleast in this inscription.
You are right, Virendra-ji. My mistake. I confused the Navsari inscription for the Rashtrakutas.
member_20036
BRFite
Posts: 140
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by member_20036 »

There is one vikramaditya of Ujjain who defeated Shakas and started vikram samvat era.
Please tell anything about him
Shanmukh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3042
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Shanmukh »

Virendra wrote:
nageshks wrote:Kalhana's Rajatarangini has a lot of material on him. If people are interested, I could translate it and post it, I suppose.
Please save the effort. Rajatarangini is already translated in English and available for free.
However if you're proficient in Sanskrit and think that a better translation could be made than the ones present; by all means, go on and do so.

Regards,
Virendra
I think this is the translation you were talking about. There is plenty of information about the Karkota dynasty mentioned by Kalhana.

http://pahar.in/mountains/1900-kalhanas ... ein-s-pdf/

http://pahar.in/mountains/1900-kalhanas ... ein-s-pdf/
Shanmukh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3042
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Shanmukh »

Vikas
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6828
Joined: 03 Dec 2005 02:40
Location: Where DST doesn't bother me
Contact:

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Vikas »

I hope all this chat about Pre Mughal Indian Kings and empires is not OT for this thread else we can start a new thread or use some other existing thread (To save us from next sighting of the Breaper bird).
Shanmukh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3042
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Shanmukh »

The things that interests me most are the revolts during the Delhi Sultanate period, where verifiable information is scarce. We know that there was an effort to establish a fully independent Hindu kingdom in Bengal under Raja Ganesh early in the fifteenth century (this was destroyed by the Sharqi sultanate of Jaunpur, which was invited by Muslim preachers (or one preacher, according to some sources)). The Raja of Mithila, Shivasimha, was also part of this attempt to establish the Hindu kingdom of Bengal (what happened to him?).

Exactly what primary source info do we have about this revolt?
Last edited by Shanmukh on 10 Sep 2013 08:00, edited 3 times in total.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by brihaspati »

^^^Riaz-us-Salatin and Minhajuddin Siraj. Ganesh was apparently shunned by his wife [his original base was Satgara or sapta-garh] and expelled or banned from his own castle which the community also supported - because Ganesh had supposedly taken over the widow of the previous Sultan, in whose court Ganesh had worked. Ganesh issued coins in his own name - which is the only hard archeological proof of his departure from the sultanate line.

He was sabotaged by his son, Jadu - who fell in love with a blue-eyed Muslim girl in Gaur, Asmani or Asman-tara. The Gaur maulanas insisted on Jadu's conversion. I suspect that it was also about military and political loyalty of the Muslim component of the Gaur army that forced Jadu to compromise. They were already isolated perhaps from their base Hindu community. He converted and took the name of Jalaluddin, married the girl and ruled most "Islamically" for quite some time.
Shanmukh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3042
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Shanmukh »

brihaspati wrote:^^^Riaz-us-Salatin and Minhajuddin Siraj. Ganesh was apparently shunned by his wife [his original base was Satgara or sapta-garh] and expelled or banned from his own castle which the community also supported - because Ganesh had supposedly taken over the widow of the previous Sultan, in whose court Ganesh had worked. Ganesh issued coins in his own name - which is the only hard archeological proof of his departure from the sultanate line.

He was sabotaged by his son, Jadu - who fell in love with a blue-eyed Muslim girl in Gaur, Asmani or Asman-tara. The Gaur maulanas insisted on Jadu's conversion. I suspect that it was also about military and political loyalty of the Muslim component of the Gaur army that forced Jadu to compromise. They were already isolated perhaps from their base Hindu community. He converted and took the name of Jalaluddin, married the girl and ruled most "Islamically" for quite some time.
Thanks very much, B-ji, for the original sources. I will go through them.

I had not heard about Jadu's sabotage. About the rule and fall of Ganesh - I read somewhere that Ganesh was forced to abdicate in favour of his son, Jadu, by the Sharqi sultanate of Jaunpur (which was invited in by the Islamic preacher). Was Ganesh in an alliance with Shivasimha of Mithila? Or was the revolt of Shivasimha a separate event?
habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6919
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by habal »

Virendra wrote:
habal wrote: I have the Maharana Pratap book by Bhawar Singh Rana as source for Hamir. A net source for Bappa Rawal.
Knew you would ask. The book is at my house, and I think the author is Bhawar Singh Rana.
I'm unable to google this author. If possible, please share more information like publisher or how to buy etc.
Also, share the net source on Bappa Rawal. I'll see if I could backtrace it to a primary source.
Thanks a lot.
this book
http://www.amazon.com/Maharana-Pratap-B ... 8128808257
for Bappa Rawal fathering Naushera Pathan theory
James Todd's annals and antiquities
http://archive.org/stream/annalsantiqui ... j_djvu.txt
Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1211
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Virendra »

nageshks wrote:The things that interests me most are the revolts during the Delhi Sultanate period, where verifiable information is scarce. We know that there was an effort to establish a fully independent Hindu kingdom in Bengal under Raja Ganesh early in the fifteenth century (this was destroyed by the Sharqi sultanate of Jaunpur, which was invited by Muslim preachers (or one preacher, according to some sources)). The Raja of Mithila, Shivasimha, was also part of this attempt to establish the Hindu kingdom of Bengal (what happened to him?).
Exactly what primary source info do we have about this revolt?
I don't have anything ready for this revolt in Bengal. But revolts against Delhi Sultanate were basically a series of co-ordinated efforts between village mandals and traditional organized native armies, to divide the Turks power and fight them in segments.
Mandals were a group of villages that worked together as a unit to stop taxes and raid the leftover Turk garrisons, whenever the bulk of the army was out fighting against a regular native power.
I think we'll be able to find some references in historical manuscripts of islamic chroniclers, biographies of Turkish rulers etc. Though I would expect the least acknowledgment from them, about the efforts of natives and their success, if and when. I'll try to find some references.
As far as Indian source are concerned, a lot was lost in the medieval savagery; such as a huge, centuries old library in Chittor, during Akbar's siege.

Regards,
Virendra
Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1211
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Virendra »

habal wrote:this book
http://www.amazon.com/Maharana-Pratap-B ... 8128808257
for Bappa Rawal fathering Naushera Pathan theory
James Todd's annals and antiquities
http://archive.org/stream/annalsantiqui ... j_djvu.txt
Thank you so much habal ji.
Atri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4152
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 21:07

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Atri »

nageshks wrote:The things that interests me most are the revolts during the Delhi Sultanate period, where verifiable information is scarce. We know that there was an effort to establish a fully independent Hindu kingdom in Bengal under Raja Ganesh early in the fifteenth century (this was destroyed by the Sharqi sultanate of Jaunpur, which was invited by Muslim preachers (or one preacher, according to some sources)). The Raja of Mithila, Shivasimha, was also part of this attempt to establish the Hindu kingdom of Bengal (what happened to him?).

Exactly what primary source info do we have about this revolt?
Search for Khushru khan and deval devi. Their rebellion against 13th century khilji dynasty is part of folklore. Although crushed after few years by tughlaqs, it is first of its kind. Khushrukhan formally denounced his religion and declared his state as hindu state. Interesting history.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by brihaspati »

nageshks wrote:
brihaspati wrote:^^^Riaz-us-Salatin and Minhajuddin Siraj. Ganesh was apparently shunned by his wife [his original base was Satgara or sapta-garh] and expelled or banned from his own castle which the community also supported - because Ganesh had supposedly taken over the widow of the previous Sultan, in whose court Ganesh had worked. Ganesh issued coins in his own name - which is the only hard archeological proof of his departure from the sultanate line.

He was sabotaged by his son, Jadu - who fell in love with a blue-eyed Muslim girl in Gaur, Asmani or Asman-tara. The Gaur maulanas insisted on Jadu's conversion. I suspect that it was also about military and political loyalty of the Muslim component of the Gaur army that forced Jadu to compromise. They were already isolated perhaps from their base Hindu community. He converted and took the name of Jalaluddin, married the girl and ruled most "Islamically" for quite some time.
Thanks very much, B-ji, for the original sources. I will go through them.

I had not heard about Jadu's sabotage. About the rule and fall of Ganesh - I read somewhere that Ganesh was forced to abdicate in favour of his son, Jadu, by the Sharqi sultanate of Jaunpur (which was invited in by the Islamic preacher). Was Ganesh in an alliance with Shivasimha of Mithila? Or was the revolt of Shivasimha a separate event?
The islamist source is silent on this. However itd oes not rule out the possibility.
Shanmukh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3042
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Shanmukh »

brihaspati wrote: The islamist source is silent on this. However itd oes not rule out the possibility.
I found a slightly different version from what you suggested in Richard Eaton's history of Bengal, B-ji. It is available for free in the Google books,

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=gKhC ... &q&f=false
See pages 50-56

Please note - Eaton is also a very anti-Hindu (self confessed Marxist) interpreter of sources (He was part of an exercise to show that Islam had just 80 instances of temple destruction in India. His modus operandi was to count all the temples destroyed under a ruler as `one instance of iconoclasm'. On the other hand, in his Hindu iconoclasm == Muslim iconoclasm attempts, he passed off even translocation of Hindu murthies as `iconoclasm' - like when Govinda III took away some vigrahas from Kanchi to install in his own temples.) So, I would take his claims with a large dose of salt.

The wiki link about Raja Ganesha is also very confused.

Regarding Shivasimha, the source about him (Shivasimha is confusingly referred to sometimes as a governor and sometimes as a `king') is one Mulla Taqyya - a courtier of Akbar and Jahangir. R C Majumdar also makes a mention of this in his edited volume about the history of India. But, the best Indian contemporary source we can expect to have about Shivasimha is Vidyapathi, the famous Maithili poet, who was in his court. I am not very familiar with the works of Vidyapathi. Does anyone know if he says nothing at all about this fight with the Sharqi sultanate?
Last edited by Shanmukh on 11 Sep 2013 08:50, edited 2 times in total.
Shanmukh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3042
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Shanmukh »

Atri wrote:
nageshks wrote:The things that interests me most are the revolts during the Delhi Sultanate period, where verifiable information is scarce. We know that there was an effort to establish a fully independent Hindu kingdom in Bengal under Raja Ganesh early in the fifteenth century (this was destroyed by the Sharqi sultanate of Jaunpur, which was invited by Muslim preachers (or one preacher, according to some sources)). The Raja of Mithila, Shivasimha, was also part of this attempt to establish the Hindu kingdom of Bengal (what happened to him?).

Exactly what primary source info do we have about this revolt?
Search for Khushru khan and deval devi. Their rebellion against 13th century khilji dynasty is part of folklore. Although crushed after few years by tughlaqs, it is first of its kind. Khushrukhan formally denounced his religion and declared his state as hindu state. Interesting history.
Thanks very much, Atri-ji. I am collecting all instances of Hindu revolt against the Muslims during the Delhi sultanate period, and your suggestions are greatly appreciated. The story of Devala Rani and Khusru Khan makes for an important item in my collection. In one way, it is depressing to read about repeated failures (interspersed with the occasional success). But, in another way, it tells me of the genuine vitality and remarkable resilience that Bharat has always had. Gives some hope for the future ......
Shanmukh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3042
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by Shanmukh »

Virendra wrote:
nageshks wrote:The things that interests me most are the revolts during the Delhi Sultanate period, where verifiable information is scarce. We know that there was an effort to establish a fully independent Hindu kingdom in Bengal under Raja Ganesh early in the fifteenth century (this was destroyed by the Sharqi sultanate of Jaunpur, which was invited by Muslim preachers (or one preacher, according to some sources)). The Raja of Mithila, Shivasimha, was also part of this attempt to establish the Hindu kingdom of Bengal (what happened to him?).
Exactly what primary source info do we have about this revolt?
I don't have anything ready for this revolt in Bengal. But revolts against Delhi Sultanate were basically a series of co-ordinated efforts between village mandals and traditional organized native armies, to divide the Turks power and fight them in segments.
Mandals were a group of villages that worked together as a unit to stop taxes and raid the leftover Turk garrisons, whenever the bulk of the army was out fighting against a regular native power.
I think we'll be able to find some references in historical manuscripts of islamic chroniclers, biographies of Turkish rulers etc. Though I would expect the least acknowledgment from them, about the efforts of natives and their success, if and when. I'll try to find some references.
As far as Indian source are concerned, a lot was lost in the medieval savagery; such as a huge, centuries old library in Chittor, during Akbar's siege.

Regards,
Virendra
Thanks for the info, Virendra-ji. I am, as I mentioned in my post to Atri-ji, collecting all Hindu revolts against the Delhi sultanate rule (well, all revolts during the Delhi sultanate period).

And thanks for the info about Chittor - I did not know about that.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: The Mughal Era in India

Post by brihaspati »

From Riazu-s-salatin:

End of Bakhtyar.
In the year 599 A.H. when Sultān Qutbu-d-dīn after conquest of the fort of Kālinjar,* proceeded to the town of Mahūbah* which is below Kālpī* and conquered it, Malik Muhammad Bakhtiār going from Behar to wait on him, met the Sultān, at the time, when the latter was proceeding from Mahūbah towards Badāun.* He presented jewelleries and divers valuables of Bengal and a large amount in cash. And for a time remaining in the company of the Sultān, he took permission to return, and came back to Bengal, and for a period ruling over Bengal he engaged in demolishing the temples and in building mosques. After this, he planned an expedition towards the Kingdoms of Khata* and Tibbat, with a force of ten or twelve thousand select cavalry,* through the passes of the north-eastern moun­tains of Bengal. Guided by one of the Chiefs of Koch, named ‘Ali Mich, who had been converted to Muhammadan faith by Muhammad Bakhtiār, he reached towards those mountains. ‘Alī Mīch led Bakhtiār’s forces to a country, the town whereof is called Abardhan.* and also Barahmangadī. It is said that this town was founded by Emperor Garshāsp.* Facing that town, flows a river called Namakdi,* which in its depth and breadth, is thrice as much as the river Ganges. Since that river was tumultous, broad, and deep, and fordable with difficulty, marching along the banks of the river for ten days,* he reached a place where existed a large bridge* made of stone, and extending over twenty-nine arches, erected by the ancients. It is said that Emperor Garshāsp, at the time of invading Hindūstān, constructed that bridge, and came to the country of Kāmrūp. In short, Muhammad Bakhtiār sending across his forces by that bridge, and posting two commandants for its protection, planned to advance. The Rājah of Kāmrup, dissuading him from an advance, said that if he (Muhammad Bakhtiār) would postpone his march to Tibbat that year, and next year collecting an adequate force would advance towards it in full strength “I too would be the pioneer of the Moslem force, and would tighten up the waist of self-sacri­fice.” Muhammad Bakhtiār absolutely unheeding this advice, advanced, and after sixteen days,* reached the country of Tibbat. The battle commenced with an attack on a fort which had been built by king Garshāsp, and was very strong. Many of the Moslem force tasted the lotion of death, and nothing was gained. And from the people of that place who had been taken prisoners, it was ascertained that at a distance of five farsang from that fort, was a large and populous city.* Fifty thousand Mongolian cavalry thirsty for blood and archers were assembled in that city. Every day in the market of that city, nearly a thousand or five hundred Mongolian horses sold, and were sent thence to Lakhnautī.* And they said “you have an impracticable scheme in your head with this small force.” Muhammad Bakhtiār, becoming apprised of this state of affairs, became ashamed of his plan, and, without attaining his end, retreated. And since the inhabitants of those environs, setting fire to the fodder and food-grains, had removed their chattels to the ambuscades of the rocks, at the time of this retreat,* for fifteen days, the soldiers did not see a handful of food-grains, nor did the cattle see one bushel of fodder.

Neither human beings saw any bread except the circular disc of the sun.
Nor did the cattle see any fodder except the rainbow!

From excessive hunger the soldiers devoured flesh of horses and horses preferring death to life placed their necks under their daggers. In short, in this straitened condition, they reached the bridge. Since those two commandants quarrelling with each other had deserted their posts at the head of the bridge, the people of that country had destroyed the bridge. At the sight of this destruction, the heart of the high and the low suddenly broke, like the Chinese cup. Muhammad Bakhtiār engulphed in the sea of confusion and perplexity, despaired of every resource. After much striving, he got news that in the neighbourhood there was a very large temple,* and that idols of gold and silver were placed there in great pomp. It is said that there was an idol in the temple which weighed a thousand maunds. In short, Muhammad Bakhtiār with his force took refuge in this temple, and was busy improvising means for crossing the river. The Rājah of Kām­rūp* had ordered all his troops and subjects of that country to commit depredations. The people of that country, sending out force after force, engaged in besieging the temple, and from all sides posting in the ground bamboo-made lances, and tying one to the other, turned them into the shape of walls. Muhammad Bakhtiíār saw that all chance of escape was slipping out of his hands, and that the knife was reaching the bone, so at once with his force issuing out of the temple and making a sortie, he broke through the stockade of bamboos, and cutting through his way, rescued himself from the hard-pressed siege. The infidels of that country pursued him to the banks of the river, and stretched their hands to plunder and slaughter, so that some by the sharpness of the sword and others by the inundation of water, were engulphed in the sea of destruction. The Musalman soldiers on reaching the river-banks stood perplexed. Suddenly, one of the soldiers plunged with his horse into the river, and went about one arrow-shot, when another soldier seeing this, plunged similarly into the river. As the river had a sandy bed, with a little movement, all were drowned. Only Muhammad Bakhtiār with one thousand cavalry (and according to another account, with three hundred cavalry) succeeded in crossing over;* the rest met with a watery grave. After Muhammad Bakhtiār had crossed safely over the tumultous river with a small force, from excessive rage and humiliation, in that the females and the children of the slaughtered and the drowned from alleys and terraces abused and cursed him, he got an attack of consumption, and reaching Deokot* died. And according to other accounts, ‘Ali Mardān Khiljī, who was one of his officers, during that illness, slew Bakhtiār, and raised the staudard of sovereignty over the kingdom of Lakhnauti. The period of Malik Ikhtiāru-d-dīn Muhammad Bakhtiār’s rule over Bengal was twelve years. When Muhammad Bakhtiār passed* from the rule of this transitory world into the eternal world, Malik* ‘Azu-d-dīn Khiljī succeeded to the rule over Bengal. Eight months had not passed, when ‘Alī Mardān Khiljī slew him.

Ganesh
At length, in the year 775 A.H., by the stratagems of Rajah Kāns who was a zemindar in that part, the king was treacherously killed. The reign of Ghiāsu-d-dīn lasted seven years and some months, and according to another account, it lasted sixteen years, five months and three days.*

REIGN OF SAIFU-D-DĪN STYLED SULTĀNU-S-SALATĪN.*

When Sultān Ghiāsu-d-dīn passed from the narrow human frame into the wide space of the soul, the nobles and the generals of the army placed his son, Saifu-d-dīn, on the paternal throne styling him Sultān-u-s-Salatin.
One goes out, and another comes in in his place:
The world is never left without a master.

He was sober in character, and generous and brave. He reigned over Bengal for ten years, and in the year 785 A.H. he died, and according to another account, he reigned three years and seven months and five days. God knows the truth.
REIGN OF SHAMSU-D-DĪN,* SON OF SULTĀNU-S-SALĀTĪN.

After the death of Sultānu-s-Salātīn, his son, Shamsu-d-dīn, with the consent of the councillors and members of Government, ascended the throne, and according to ancient usages he observed the ceremonies attendant on assumption of sovereignty, and for a period was at ease and comfort. In the year 788 A.H. either by some natural disease, or by the stratagem of Rajah Kāns, who at that time had become very powerful, he died. Some have written that this Shamsu-d-dīn was not an actual but adopted son of Sultānu-s-Salātīn, and that his name was Shahābu-d-din. Either way, he reigned for three years, four months, and six days. And the true account is, that Rajah Kāns who was zamindār of Bathuriah* attacking him, slew him, and usurped the throne.
USURPATION OF RAJAH KĀNS* ZAMINDAR.

When Sultān Shamsu-d-dīn died, Rajah Kāns a Hindū Zamindar, subjugating the whole kingdom of Bengal, seated him­self on the throne, and commenced oppressions, and seeking to destroy the Musalmans, slew many of their learned and holy men. His aim was to extirpate Islām from his dominions. It is said one day Shaikh Badrul Islām, father of Shaikh Muinu-d-dīn ‘Abbas, sat down before that wretch, without saluting him. Thereupon he said: “Shaikh, why did you not salute me?” The Shaikh said: “It is not becoming for the learned to salute infidels, especially a cruel and blood-shedding infidel, like thee, who has shed the blood of Musalmans.” On hearing this, that unholy infidel kept silent, and, coiling like the serpent, aimed at killing him. One day he sat in a house which had a low and narrow entrance, and summoned in the Shaikh. When the Shaikh arrived, he guessed the Rajah’s object, so he first put out his legs inside, and afterwards not bending the head, entered. That infidel flew into rage, and ordered that the Shaikh should be placed in a line with his brothers. Immediately, the Shaikh was killed, and the rest of the learned that very day were placed on a boat and drowned in the river. The Saint Nūr Qutbu-l-‘Alam becoming impatient by reason of the oppressions of that infidel and his slaughter of the Musalmans, wrote as follows to Sultān Ibrahīm Sharqī* who ruled at that time up to the limits of Behār: “The ruler of this country, named Kāns, is an infidel. He is committing oppressions, and shedding blood. He has killed many of the learned and holy men, and destroyed them. At present, he is aiming to kill the remainder of the Musalmans, and to extir­pate Islām from this country. Since to help and protect Musal­mans, is a duty incumbent on Musalman sovereigns, accordinly I intrude on your valuable time with these few lines. I pray for your auspicious arrival here, for the sake of the residents of this country, and also in order to oblige me, so that Musalmans may be rescued from the oppressive load of this tyrant. Peace be on you.” When this letter reached Sultān Ibrahim, the latter opened it with great respect, and read it. Qāzī Shahābu-d-dīn* Jaunpurī who was one of the scholars of the time, and the chief of the body of the learned men, and who was highly respected by Sultān Ibrahīm who used to seat him on a silver chair on auspi­cious occasions, also used his great persuasions and said: “You ought to set out quickly; for in this invasion both worldly and religious benefits are to be obtained, namely the country of Bengal will be subjugated, and you would also meet the Saint Shaikh Nūr Qutbu-l-‘Alam, who is the fountain-head of both worldly and eternal boons, and you would also be doing a pious deed by avenging the oppression of Muhammadans.” Sultān Ibrāhim pitching out his tents struck the kettle-drum of march, and making forced marches, in a short time, with a powerful army reached Bengal, and encamped at Firuzpur.* Rajah Kāns, on hearing this news, was confounded, and hastened to wait on the Saint Qutbu-l-‘Alam. Showing submissiveness and humility, and weeping, the Rajah said: “Pray, draw the pen of forgiveness across the page of the offences of this sinner, and dissuade Sultān Ibrāhim from subjugating this country.” The Saint replied: “In order to intercede on behalf of an oppressive infidel, I cannot stand in the way of a Musalman sovereign, especially of one who has come out at my desire and request.” In despair, Kāns pros­trated his head on the feet of the Saint, and added, “Whatever the Saint may bid, I am willing to submit thereto.” The Saint said: “So long as thou dost not embrace the Musalman religion, I cannot intercede for thee.” Kāns assented to this condition, but his wife casting that misguided man into the well of misguidance, prevented his conversion to Islām. At length, Kāns brought to the presence of the Saint his son named Jadū who was twelve years old, and said: “I have become old, and desire to retire from the world. You may convert to Islām this son of mine, and then bestow on him the kingdom of Bengal.” The saint Qutbu-l-‘Alam taking out from his own mouth some chewed betel, put it into Jadū’s mouth, and making him pronounce the creed of the Musalman faith, converted him to Islām, and naming him Jalālu-d-din, had the fact proclaimed in the city, and caused the Khutba of the kingdom to be recited after his name The ordinances of the sacred Muhammadan law from that day were again put in force. After this, the saint Qutbu-l-‘Alam went to meet Sultān Ibrāhim, and after making apologies, prayed that the latter might withdraw. The Sultān was annoyed at this request, and turned his face towards Qazī Shahābu-d-dīn. The Qazī said: “Saint, the king has come here at your requisition; and now you yourself siding with Kāns, appear as his agent; what is your aim?” The Saint said: “At that time (when I made the requisition) an oppressive ruler was tyrannising over the Musal­mans; now owing to the auspicious arrival of the Sultān, he has embraced the Muhammadan faith. The Jihād (or holy war) is enjoined against infidels, not against Musalmans.” The Qāzī, finding no answer, kept quiet. But as the Sultān’s temper was irritated, in order to soothe the Sultān, the Qāzī commenced testing the learning and miracles of the saint, and was discomfit­ted. After much questions and answers, the Saint said: “To view with contempt saints and to try to test them, ends in nothing but discomfiture. Before long, thou shalt die in a wretched plight.” And the saint at the same time cast an angry glance towards the Sultān. In short, the Sultān, annoyed and vexed, returned to Jaunpūr. It is said that shortly after Sultān Ibrāhim and Qāzī Shahābu-d-dīn Jaunpurī died.
‘Whoever quarrels with saints, suffers.’

Rajah Kāns hearing that Sultān Ibrāhim had died, displaced Sultan Jalālu-d-dīn, and himself re-ascended the throne. According to the injunctions of his false creed, the Rajah prepared several gold-figures of cows, shoved in Jalālu-d-dīn through their mouths, and pulled him out from their buttock-sides, and then distributed the gold of those cow-figures among the Brahmans, and thus re-perverted his son to his own creed. As Jalālu-d-dīn, however, had been converted by the Saint Qutbu-l-‘Alam, he did not abandon his faith in Islām, and the persuasions of the infidels had no effect on his heart. And Rajah Kāns again unfurling the standard of misbehaviour, attempted to destroy and extirpate Muhammadans. When his cruelties passed all bounds, one day Shaikh Anwār, son of the Saint Qutbu-l-‘Alam, complained to his father of the oppressions of that tyrant, and said: “It is a matter of regret that in spite of such a holy saint of the time as yourself, Musalmans should be oppressed and ground down by the hand of this infidel.” The saint at that time was absorbed in prayer and devotion. On hearing this utterance of his son, the saint was enraged, and replied: “This tyranny shall cease only, when thy blood shall be shed on the earth.” Shaikh Anwār knew full well that whatever fell from the lips of his holy father, was sure to come to pass, and so after a moment, said: “What you have said about me, is meet and proper; but in respect of my nephew, Shaikh Zāhid, what is your will?” The saint said: “The drum of the virtues of Zāhid shall resound till resurrection-day.” In short, Rajah Kāns extend­ing more than before his oppressions and cruelties, gradually oppressed the servants and dependants of the saint himself, plundered their effects and chattels, imprisoned Shaikh Anwār and Shaikh Zāhid. As he had heard the Saints’ prophecy about Shaikh Zahid, not daring to kill him, he banished both to Sunār­gāon, and sent orders to his agents there, that after ascertaining from them the whereabouts of the hidden treasures of their fathers and grandfathers, they should slay both. And on the Shaikh’s arrival at Sunārgāon, they perpetrated many cruelties, yet not finding any clue to the hidden treasures which did not exist, first they murdered Shaikh Anwār, and when they attempted to take the life of Shaikh Zāhid, the latter stated that in a certain village a large cauldrou was hidden. When they dug it up, they found a large chatty, but did not find more than one gold coin in it. They enquired, “What has become of the rest?” Zāhid said: “Apparently some one has stolen it.” And this affair was the outcome of a miracle. It is said that on the very day and at the very moment when Anwār was murdered at Sunārgāon, and his sacred blood shed on the carth, Rajah Kāns passed away from his sovereignty to hell. According to some accounts, his son, Jalālu-d-dīn, who was in prison leagued with his father’s servants, and slew him. The rule and tyranny of that heathen lasted seven years.
Locked