il

CHAPTER IV

maharana sangram sinch

ALIAS SANGA

(1509 A.D. - 1523 A.D.)

Sangraa Singh alias Sanga, born to Jaivanta Bai

on Tuesday» April 14* 14^ A.B.^ » was the third son

of Hana Raiiaal* Nothing is known about his childhood

though i t is safe to presume that normal martial

training, a necessair equipaient of a prince-royal in

the mediaeval times, v/ould not hare been denied to him;

and that martial k skill which ch^terised all the sons 2 of Raimal , would have adorned the personality of young

Sanga as well. We first hear of him when Prithviraj and Jaimal challenged the(^verdicts )or the astrologer

and the priestess-oracle of Bhimal about the future

succession of Sanga to the throne of Ghittor after the

death of Raimal through their attempts on the life of

Sanga. The War of Succession (150$-6 A .D .) and the period following:, the return of Sanga to Mewar to administer the state on behalf of his father schooled him in the ytays of the world and statecraft. The period preceeding the death o f Raimal proved further fateful to him by manoeinrring events to bless the beginning of the reign of Sanga with a victory over the forces of

Sikandar Lodi.

Battle of Bakrol:-

The Vanshavalis evidence for a battle between Sher 3 4 Khan Pathan of Narwar and Maharana Sanga on the 19th day since his succession to the throne of Mewar ( i .e .,

Monday, June 11,1509 A .D ,), However, no reason for this clash is giren. Farishta^, Tabkat-i Akhari^, Tarikh-i I t o Daudi , Al Badaoni and Niaiaatullah^ refer to Sultan

Sikander's attack on Narwar through Jalal and

Sher Shah Fanouli in 1507 A.D. During the siege of the fort of Narwar these Imperial comrnanders fell under suspicion of collusion tdth the garrison and, on the

Sultanas having personally come to take the charge of siege operations, they were held in Haniaaantgadh, BThe siege of Narwar lasted for six months moref The shortage of supplies consequent upon a siege lasting for more than an year led to the c^^ture of the fort in 1508 A.D* rhe Muslim historians a-lee do not speak anything beyond this event. However, Khmian liaso says that Babfaar ^han

4ughal sou^t the hand of the beautiiUl dau^ter of tehim Shah, a Mahajan chief minister of the forraer Hindu ruler. **either could i^ahira Shah consent to this proposal

! iusto his religious scruples not. could he refuse due to safety considerations. So he made a false promise to the

Chan and soon escaped to Mewar. The extradiction request

>f the imperialists was turned down by Sanga. This preci­ pitated a war in which the army o f the Sultan of Delhi fas defeated and the imperialj^band was wrested . The

>ossibility of Sher toiah*s leading the forces of Delhi

>ultan against Sanga in the Battle of Bakrol is enhanced jy the fact that Jalal, a fellow-prisoner along vdth lim in Hanumantgadh, was freed by 1$08 A.D. as his issignment to protect and aid Mhomed of Malwa suggests Gk>paldas,the great grandson of Chunda, was killed In this 12 battle • Soon after this victory, Naacrwar fell in the hands of Sanga.^^

Conquest a of A.imer and Toda:-

The conquest of Narwar was followed by the conquest of Ajmer^^ and the bestowai of Badnor on Kararachand 15 Pawar . /in attack on Toda was also made. Sanga was opposed here by Udai Karan, the younger brother of Rao Surtan. ajr It appears ■ that ati the approach of the Sisodia army the

Solankis left Toda. The battle took place beyond the skirts of the other side of the city. The Solankis were defeated^

Sanga*8 Help to Kaimal s/o Kao Sura.imal of Idar:- 17 Rao Bhana of Idar had two sons -> Surajmal and 1B Bhira • Rao Bhim, who had usurped the throne of Idar^^ ?0 died in 1514& A«D. , leaving his son Bhannal to succeed him^^* Raimal s/o Surajmal sought help from Sangaf his 23 father-in-law, who came to Idar in Nov,-Dec, 1 5 H A.D, 20 was 2L The fort of Idar was captured Bhannal/expelled and 25 the country was handed over to icaimal • Muzaffar Shah, the Sultan of Gujarat, was at tiiat time ^ Dhar in Malwa^^.

On learning about these develoj^nts he was much surprised at the audacity of the Uana to aid Raimal and oust 27 Bharmal , as Idar was regarded by the Sultan as falling 2B within the orbit of the authority of Gujarat • So

Muzaffar returned to Gujarat.29 Meanwhile in 1515 A.D.

Bharmal sought the help of the Sultan against the Rana^^*

Muzaffar Shah deputed Nizamulinulk, the fief-holder of

Ahmadnagar, to reinstate Bhannal in his father's place . ^4

On his way tD Idar, N^zamulmulk met Bharmal and both 32 retiomed to Ahmodabad • Probably, Bharml explained the situation to the commander who seems to have realized that there was no chance of success with the help of the 33 forces at his disposal • So both returned to tdie court*

They accompanied the Sultan upto Pattan, >^ere N^zaraul- mUlk got leave for the second tiine to proceed against 33 Idar , possibly with a bigger army* Nizamulmulk captured 34 Idar and placed Bharmal on the throne • Eaiiaal betook hiniself to tlie hills of Bijayanagar , the place where his ancestor Punja had sougli^ refuge against 35 36 ^hmad Shah * Niaamulmulk at his own initiative pursued 37 him there and in an action both the parties suffered 3d heavily • Many best emirs and a l>iuslim general lost 39 their lives in this battle • Though it is claimed by

Tabkat-i Akbari^^ that this battle was indecisive^ Fariah- ta^^ flrankly admits the defeat of the Gujaratis* Muzaffar

Shah disapproved this precipitate action^\ which, according to the Sultan, was unnecessary after the 42 43 recovery of Idar • Hizamulmulk was recalled on that 44 , e very day for having exceeded his instructions • On 46 his return Muzaffar scolded him severely for the 4^ lumecessary loss of a nun^er of Muslim soldiers . The clashes between the forces of Gujarat and Raimal continued till 1517 A*D* with varying fortunes and Muzaffar Shah 49 failed in dislodging Kai°>al the country. Even the personal visit of Muzaffar Shah to Idar on the plea of a 5© hunting expedition failed to improve the situation • In 1517 A«D. on account of Illness of Nizamulmulk, Nasiur^ud* mulk was appointed to relieve the former^\ However,

N^zamulmulk left Idar before the arrival o f his successor

by leaving the charge in the hands of^ahirulmulk with

a small army under his command^\ Eaimal swooped upon 52 Idar and cub off Jahiruliaulk along with 209 nen • The 53 Gujaratis were beaten • This defeat led Muzaffar Shah

to order Naj^rulniulk to devastate the area of Idar as 1- 54 far as Bija^agar, the nest &f t}^ rebels • Tl^ fighting

went on^^« In 151^ A«li« EaLaal attacked Gilwara and the

country of Fattan. Nasaratulmulk, though siiccessful in 56 repelling the enemy, failed to crush him • In 1519 A*i)*

Musaffar proceeded Against i.aiml^s protecgor^ iiawal

Udai Singh Sisodia of Wagad and devastated his country^^*

and then proceeded to Idar^but returned without any 59 substantial results against Kalnal . So Nizam Khan, the

Rustam of the age, was appointed as thanedar of Idar,

much against the wishes of the ministers of the state^.

Defeat of Antl«Mewar Ra.jput Confederacyi-

The conquest of Sambhar^^ by Sanga from Sultan 62 Mahmud Khilji of M^du , possibly, offended the

Rat>ors of Marwar. This coupled with the defeat of the

Solankis of Toda, provoked the other rulers of Kajjputana

into hostilities with ^'%war, Consequraitly, Bharmal of

Idar, Prithviraj of Dtingarpur, Jaimal of Banswada, Suraj- 7 mal of Deolia aiid either m± Rao Gana or his grandfather ^ ^ *^uja of Marwar63 formed a confederacy aagainst AiSwar,

Sanga faced them in ^ battlel^ield and defeated them. The 64 vanquished were restored to their respective thrones •

Though the exact year of this battle cannot be ascertained At can be said that it occurred after the partition of

Wagad into Banswada and Pungarpur,-4T?»y^ between 1514-13 65 A.D.

Conquest of Mandu by Muzaffar Shahi»

Duri:;ng these days Medini iiai made himself the de 66 facto 80V€ireign of ^ialwa • bo Kabib Khan of Ashtanagar, Shaikh Hamid of Bhilsa and many others fled ^’^andu to the

court of Sultan Muzaffar* These rei'Uci;ees appealled to the

Sultan in the name of Islam to put to an end the excesses ( 67 of theiniidels on the faitiifuls in Malwa . They suggest-

-ed that there was a great possibility of the impriaoiuoent SB or blinding or assassination of Sultan Malimud Khilji w

wlto was tlien completely in the hands of his povjerf\il 69 Rajput minister, ^^edini Kai • Muzaffar Shah promised to 70 march against the infidels at the endcf the monsoons •

Meanwhile, Inahmud Hhilji made good his escape from ^^andu 71 to Gujarat with the aid of a u«^yut Krishna of Kharad 72 but not without the connivance of ^’^dini ftai . Muzaffar

sent royal peraphernalia for the use of Ma*}ffliud along 73 with Qaiser Khan, Taj Khan and Wawsuiiulmulk on No t .16, 74 1517 A,D. and himself left Ahmedabad on N^v.lS with 75 30,U(X) soldiers and 50 war-elephunts to wage a religioiis 7§ war on the infidels of ■^'’^alwa • a aaecting between Mahmud 77 73 and t^uzaffar took place at Devlah on Dec.29 in which

the latter reiterated his promise to v^ipe off the Purbias

from Kalwa and reinstate Maiimud on his ancestral throne ^JBoth the Sultans marched togetk.r u|>to Dhar ji^The report of tliis meeting and about the military prepared-

ness of Muzaffar on reaching x'iedini BLai through hisspies 81 - unnerved him* He was already kept posted with a H the developments since the welcome of Sultan Mahmiui by Qalser 8 2 Khan etc., on behalf of Muzaffar Shah • So i4edini Ral

left Ral Plthora, Bhlm Karan, Said Khan, Budhan, Ganga S and Ugrasen to defenti the fort of Mandu 3 , and himself left for Dhar with 20,U00 strong and some elephants for &L. strengthening its fortifications as well as to oppose dc the invaders When the Gujaratis were near Dhar (about

Jan,1,15lS ) the personal observation and the

account of the invading forces by the spies further

discoui'afed *’%dini Eai • So just beforethe arrival of ^9 ' 90 the Muslim arniy near Dhar , he burnt his camp and 91 91 along with Silhadi and some thousand itajputs , ha left 92 93 Dhar fbr Jaipur to secure aid from the Eana; but not without sending 5,000 cavalry and 10,000 foot consisting 94 of bowen, musketeers and artillerymen to i&andu and

committing the defence of Dhar to the remaining 95 forces • The garrison of Dhar let the fort fall into the hands of tiie invaders^* On Jan.2,151^ A*D. Muzaffar 97 react.ed Mandu • After several bloodly and costly 98 99 initial skirmishes , duriiig tlie fdrst two days , the

Sultan proceeded to prepare his batteries for investing 100 ^ 01 the fort • The siege of Islandu began on >^an.6,151^ A*D. 102 The fall of Dhar had already detioralized the defenders and the artillery of Gujarat on the first day of the 103 siege appreciably v«eakened tlie walls , if nut breached them*

At this moment Medini liai sent a word to his son 104 Bhao Aao, one of tl^e leaders of the garrison of Mandu , to negotiate and obtain a month^s delay to enable him to f-

105 bring succour from ^lewar to the aid of the defenders •

On Jan.^,151^ A.D. &«• Bhao Rao and others opened

negotiations through Uaiser Khan and Khudawand Khan 106 • 107 The terms offered were to surrender the fort after 10^ evaciiating it in a month's tisie and to enter into the 109 ' 110 service of the Sultan in exchange for 14 paraganas and

an a m assurance of their personal safety"*It was

emphasised that during the period of suspension of the

hostilities the siege Has to be raised for facilitating 112 the evacuation of their families from the fort •

Muaaffar, in spite of the knowledge of the treacherous

infeexitions of the garrison to play for time through these 113 faked talks , consented to these terms due to his kind-

heartedness^^^ and solicitude fca* the safety of the family I “5" and relatives of Sultan I'iahmud in thefort o f f'landu* ^ 1 l6 Suspension of lK>8tilities for one mc»ith #as granted • Medini Kal was informed and requested to expedite the aldj

As the deadline of the month's tiiae granted for handing

over the fort over to Hussaffar Shah arrived, Bhao Hao

requested for an extension of the time-limit which was

granted. The garrison further requeeted for the withdrawal

of the Muslim array to some distance from the fort which

also the Sultan accepted in the midst of the protests lid 119 of the nobles • The besiegers fell back by 6 miles • D\«*ing these days the Sultan suspected some foul play on

the part of the garrison due to the frequent entries of 120 *7 elephcJits into the fort which did not return • About

this tijne Adil Shah Asiri arrived with reinforcements.

Meanwhile reports reached the Sultan about the ap>^roach of 0

121 the Rana • On the advice of Medini Aai, the garrison

solicited the Sultan for a sligiit extension in the time­ limit of surrendering the fort, v/bich Muzaffar Shah not

only refuted but also ordered for the resuraption oftJie 122 ' 123 hostilities • The reinforcements under iidil Shah Asiri

Iiad already enhanced the offensive power of the invaders. 124 So 20 days aftertheir withdrawal from tlie fort , the

invaders retumed to the base of the fort of ^l^du and 125 re-besieged it •

i^adiiii Rai and Silhadi had fledto the Rana and solicited I ' U- him to help them against the-^usliid^^acbeing the natural leader of the Hindus; Medini iiai also offered to pay

several elephants and Viiluable jems of the Sultans of

Mandu to the Rana in lieu for the aid against the Gujaratis•

Sanga siJiiply made arrangements to take delivery of these articles at Sarangp ;r (50 miles north--eaat of Devas) and 126 arrived there with a large aray for it • After present­ ing some elephants and much gold at Saqgangpur, and by a promise of many more £uch presents, ^ d i n i Rai induced the i^ana to proceed upto UJ 'ain along with all the 127 neighbouring zainindars with their anaies • Muzaffar, 128 who was then re-attacking Maidu , detached Azaa Huoayun,

Adil Kban asiri and Qawamulnulk Sarang to opr>oae Sanga 129 and exerted himself hard to reduce the fort . An order was Issued by the ;>ultan to the army to f i ^ t the infidels with all their heart and soul^^^. At raid-ni^t on the 131 25th Feb. , 1528 A .D ., the fifth day since the renewal of 132 hostilities , through the treachery of a local iaan‘*33. the Gujarat army succeeded in entering into the outtor fort

through a ruse. It being the day o f Holi festival, the

Hindus after hard fight through out the day and festivities

upto mid-nights, had retired thwroMghly exhausted by

mid-night leaving the walls open treachery. The

RajiHits performed ”Jauhar^?^Muzaffar Shah ordered a 136 general massacrei^« The number of Hajputs fallen in 137 this engagement is computed at either 40,000 pr 133 139 19,000 among whom were 59 ofileers of rank . A 140 tower of skull was built • A great nun^ber of prisoners

and untold wealth fell into the hands of the victors^ 142 Muzaffar Shah lost 10,000 soldiers in this siege which

Ifsted from Jan.6 to Feb.25,151^ A.D«,i.e., for 50 days.

The claim that Mahmud Khilji presented Musaffar Shah with

the belt and crown of Gujarat, brought to ^''lalwa by Qutubuddin Khilji (1451 A.D.)^^^, is wrong.

How is it that Sanga could not reach Mandu during these

50 days to relieve the garrison? % d i n i Rai was ac^^uainted with the possibility of Muoaffar's attack on Malwa since Nov. 1^,1517 A.D. He had left Dhar for Chittor about Jan.1, .1518 A .D ., nearly a week before the|beginning of the siege of Mandu (J'aB.6,1518 A .D .). Were not 58 days eiu>ugh to

bring Sanga from Chittor to ^'^andu, a distance of about

250 miles, on the average rate of about 4 miles a day? And 144 our suspicion deeppens w hen Fazdshta informs us that

''Sanga was not in Chittor during some of these days.

Battle of Ghatolii-

This question cannot be answered without tracing the events at Delhi following the death of Sultan Sikand^ Lodi

on Nov.21,1517 A.D. nobles of JDelhi conspired to put

Jalal on the throne of Jaunpur, which was opposed by

Sultan Ibrahiffl Lodi and Khan Jahan Luhani, A claahWtween

Ibrahim and c^alal being im inent, Ibrahim imprisoned his

remaining brothers in the fort of W^nsi on Jan,7,15l5 A*D.,

a day after the investment of the fort of Mandu by Muzaffar 145 Shah, and moved out of Delhi to f i ^ t out his rival •

Jalal moved against Agra, entered into barren negotiations

vdth its governor, Alam Khan, and fled to Gwalior when the

armies of Ibrahim returned to the capital after conquering

Kalpi* Ibrahim sent Sheikhzada Kuhaimnad Farmuli to ^handerl

to remain with Muhammad Khan Khilji Iraf Malwa, imprisoned

Mian Bhudat, a vazir of Sultan Sikandar Lodi for last 23

years,on the pretext of neglect of duties, and sent Aziz \

Shirwani to Gwaliot?* '-^he fort of tiwalir was besieged. Raja

Man Singh of Gwalior died during the siege and was

succeeded by his son Vikram^ditya* '^hree month*s siege could

not achieve anything more than the capture of the outer fort

of Badalgadh which rewarded the Mi^lims vdth a bronze bull,

which was brought to Agra and ultimately placed at bhe 145 Baghadad Gate in Delhi • V/here was Ibrahim Lodi at this

time?

mutual dissensions, feuds and fissip ar^s trends

in the polity of Delhi consequent upon the

dar offered a golden opportunity to Sanga* The despatch of

Muhammad Farmuli and Aziz Muhammad Shirwani to Chanderi and

Gwalior respectively, the unexpectedly and highly suspicious

removal of Mian Bhudat from ministership and blowing him 146 up with other nobles by exploding a house lead one to i i *7 suspect spipe conspiracy involving them and Sanga • Had they been pro-ialalites the Muslim historians wuld have adnitted it* Thus in all probability, about Jan.27 to Feb*

11|1513 A»D. Ibrahim and Sanga faced each other somewhere while the lieutenants of Ibrahim were active at Chanderi and CSwalior* The Battle of Ghatoli (in Hadauti) between -11 ft ^ 149 Ibrahim and Sanga*^®^took place about Feb. 15»151^ A.D.

The battle lasted for about 6 hours^^^ and crowned Sanga with success^Sanga is said to ^lave lost ^is one hand and received injury in one of his legs which left him a perpetual limper^^^. The view that Ibrahim fell captive in the hands of the Bana^ is as absurd as that which hoitlds that a Lodi prince was captured by the Eana in this 154 battle •

With the laurels of the victory of Qhatoli on his brows, Sanga turned towards Malwa. ’When he reached Satang- pur, Sultan Muzaffar Shah received the intelligence of his az*rival. iidil Shah Asiri and Azam Hurjiayun were detached by Muzai'far from M^ndu for oppesing Sanga* By the time

Sanga reached Ujjain the fort of ^^andu fell into the hands of Muzaffar Shah* 155 Hemkaran Piurbia and Budha escaped from Mandu 156 157 lilong with a son of Medini Rai by ropes and joined “ 15^ 159 Sanga near Ujjain • Budha related the whole accoimt of the 160 fall of Mandu to Medini Rai and died on the spot by the bursting of the wounds^^^ through over-excitement

Medini Rai lan»nted the captivity of his faraily-members and could be consoled with great difficulty by the Rana^^^. As there tremained nothing now to be done as regards the relief of Mandu, Sanga deemed it necessaiT. to return to 164 Chittor before Adil Khan Asiri, sent by Muzaffar to check the ftana, had goneijeyond Dipalpur Banharia or Walab- ^6 5 pur, 30 miles from Mandu » Medini Hal and Silhadi also 166 accompanied the Rana • Adil Khan could capture and kill some Rajput stragglers but the nain army could not be 167 overtaken • On the second day after the fall of Mandu, i . e . , Feb.25,151^ A .D ., Muzaffar Shah also marched oixt of oppose Mandu to/»y|iyenthe liana. When he reached Dhar, intelligence arrived at the royal camp frcMH Adil Khan,then at Dipa^-pur, that Sanga, on learning about the arrival of the Muslim array, had fled precipitately,covering 54 miles in the first nightAdil Khan requested the Sultan for per­ mission to pursue the flying HAjputs However, the 170 loss suffered by the Sultan in the siege of Mandu and the absence of any perceptible gain in the solicited 171 pursuit , caused the Sultan to order the return of Adil

Khan rotttrw to the royal camp vrith all his farces and 172 join him • Sanga returned to Chittor and proceeded 173 thence to Jaipur • On hearing this, ^^ahmud % i l j i returned to i'^andu along with Asaf Khan and oth»r amirs at the head of 10,000 cavalry, assigned by Muzaffar Shah to rehabitate him in i^lwa^*^^.

Defeat of the Forces of Delhi : Battle of Dholpur:-

Just about this time an army of 30,000 horse and 500 elephants, headed by Mian Makan, assisted by Hussain

Khan Zasbaksha, Mian Khan Khanan Farmuli and Mian Maruf was sont by Iferahim Lodi to attack ^'‘ewar 175 • kvhen this army 176 reached Dholpur, Sanga caiae forward to op.oose them ^ While encamped there Mian Makan received a confideaitial order from

Ibrahim to seise Mian Maruf and i^ian Hussain Khan and send 177 I them as pris

Finding himself in such a plight Mian %ssain Khan opened negotiations with Sanga, who, after tim dispelling his preliminary suspicions, entered into a compact which led to the desertion of Mian Hussain Khan to the Rajputs with

1,000 cavalry 179 • Sange sent hie nephrw ^o lead Mian Hussain *1 So Khan into the Rajput ranks • Mian Maruf refused to follow the example of Mi«an Hussain Khan. Meanwhile, Sanga advanced to give « battle to the imperialists. Mian Makan arrayed

Said Khan B\irat and Haji Khan with 7,P00 horse on the right,

Daud Khan, Alauddin Khan and Xusuf Khan on the left, and

Mian Maruf and h-imself in the centre for the battle. It is Hussain contended that Mian/Mzxxf not only remained neutral in this I 8O engagement due to his loyalty to Ibrahim but also became instBun»ntal in making Makan senfl a contingent of 6,000 cavalry to attack and put to flight the Rajputs in a mid- t 81 night attack when the latter were celebrating their victory • u The Rana, itj^claiined, was wounded, several of his followers wer« slaughtered and with great difficulty he escaped alive, leaving 15 elephants and 290 horse to the victors^This view is contradicted by Tarikh-i Daudi which vouchs for the fact that Mian Hussain led the troops 7

on behalf of Sanga and chased t)ie imperialists upto

Biiyana, a fact which even alanned -^brahim to such an

extent that he had personally to move forward upto felver

(Piliakhah?) to put courage into the heart of his troops^

Sanga captured Chanderi from the officers of iialwa and 1^4 Delhi by pressing on his advantage. The Rana bestowed l35 Chanderi on wedini. Rai , who, in his turn appears to

have left the command of the fort in the hands of Chakrasen 1^6 Khichi .

Defeat, Captivity and ilelease of Sultan ^lahmud Khil.H:-

Smarting under the lose of the fort of Chanderi and

Gagrun to Medini Kai, and of Bhilsa, ItAisin and Sarangpur 167 to Silhadi , Sultan ^ahmud Khilji, soon after his

entry in ^'^w a, summoned his nobles with their armies to

^andu • With "the concurrence and advice" of and "In 1^9 concert witih Aaaf Khan" , the Sultan, at the head of

his nobles and their artaies, attacked Gagrun, held by

Wemkaraii^^ on behalf of Medini Hai^^^* Item i^aran was 1 9 2 killed * On learning about the attack on Gagrun, Medini

Raiir«quested the Rana for aid against the Sultan, The

request was not unmixed with a pathetic retort suggesting that he had sought M the kin^jdoia of ^lalwa with the help of the Ee.na but was now reduced to the deapth whei*e his own possessions stood the danger of falling into the hands of the enemy 193 , He further informed Sanga thai all his wealth lay in the fort of Gagrun^Sanga marched out of Chittor with all his nobles^^^ and 50,000 soldiers^^^ to the relief of Gagrun 195 On learning about his arrival. Mahmud Khilji raised the siege and advanced to meet him.

After a tiresorae journey of one whole day the Sultan encamped about 14 miles off the Rajput The Hana availed of this situation and fell upon the I4alwa camp in night. Stupified by surprise and paralysed by fatigue the Musliins ran to arms in i,reat disorder* Tlie small parties in which they rode out to oppose the Eajputs were cut dovvTi almost to man. In this vetf great battle the 197 Muslins were completely defeated • 32 nobles of the court of ^Wdu, including Asaf Khan’s son^^^ and 50ti 199 horsemen, we re killed . Malunud, though wounded and Is ft 200 only with 10 follovrers , fought bravely and cheered hie soldiers to die a martyr»’ s death 201 • Enveloped with 202 50 wounds, he fell from his horse . He was surrounded 203 by a Rajpui? company and captured by Rao Narayandas of 2QJL 205 Bundi when the Sultan lay weltering in biood • The royal captive was carried to the Rana who removed him to 206 his 'yvm. tent where his wounds were nursed . The Hana 207 marched upon Mandu . On hearing about this defeat and captivity of his protigee Sultan IJaluiud, Muzaffar Shah 208 sent an army to defend the fort of ^’'^andu and himself proceeded to the frontiers of M alwa^^. On learning about 210 these develojanents the Hana turned back and taking the along with him 211 vfounded royal prisoner/returned to Cliittor • At Chittor the victorious liana held a raagnificent "darbar” on the banks of Ratanesar tank to celebrate this victory. Gifto were distributed. One Mahapa »^aitawat, the ancestor of

Kaviraja Shyamaldas, received the village of Dhokalta on this occasion 212 . The Rana was beside himself with joy 7 /

to auch an extent that he gifted away thekingdom of

Mewar to Charan Hardas, who politely declined the magni- 213 ficent offer in favour of 12 villa^s . Mahmud remained

captrive for some time in Chittor in Padmani*s palace^^^

in chainsMnzaffar wrote a letter to Sanga in protest*

This active step on behalf of i^iahmiid by Huzaffar com­

pelled the Rana to release the Sultan on his surrendering 217 the belt and the crown of the Sultans of Gujarat and

on leaving his son as hostage with the Rana for future

good beliaviour • It is not improbable that Mahmud had

also to surieiider sorae districts of ^^alwa to obtain his 219 release . At the time of his release he was dressed

/A n female attii;»s and made to wear bangles before his 220 departure • An army of 10,000 cavalry was sent along

with liim to ^'^andu, possibly, to expel the Gujarat army

fr«n Mandu by some strategum short of war,wMch did I not succeed* The nursing of the vrounded Sultan anc^is

return to Mandu (though not without insults and price) 222 have received a high praise even XVoia the Muslim I^istorians

It was not a piece of blind Rajput chivalry but a calcula­

ted /Political move. Had Hahmud been not restored to his

kingdom, there was a genuine fear of a coalition ftT

Gujarat, Delhi and other Muslim states of the aneighbour-

hood being formed teto reveige this national hijmiiliation 223 to the Muslim anas • Muzaffar, who had proceeded to the

Malwa borders, remained there for some tim eWll the year 224 ^ 1520 A.D. This is a sure clue to holding that the Battle

of Gagrun and the captivity o f fr^-ahmud took place about

the close of the second half of 1519 A.D* * r

Sanga*a Expedition into Cru.iarat:->

Sanga*s successful intervention in Idar on behalf of

Raimal in 1515 and 24uzaffar Shah’ s intervention in

Malvra on behalf of *‘‘ahmud1518 A.D. had already

strained the velations between Gujarat and Mewar. Muza-

ffar’ s protest to Sanga against the captivity of i'‘iahmud

in 1519 A.D. and lis garrisoning of ^andu to save it from

falling in the hands of Mewar had offended the Rana beyond measure. Kxpectii^ some trouble in Idar Sanga had

already sumiaoned Rao Ganga of l-larwar through Bhursi 22S ^ Balawat ^ % Meanvrhile in 1 5^ A.D. in an altercation with a Rajput bard for praising Sanga in the presence of Nizam

Khan, the ^han insulted Sanga and tied a cur to the gate 227 of Idar after chtistianing it Kana Sanga . The Rana was highly incensed on learning about it in Chittor from that 223 bard J, He left his capital and encamped outside the fort as a sign of his determination to avenge the insult as early as possible • It is not unlikely that Kiwamulmulk and ^%lik Gopi, the ministers of Muzaffar Shah, also 229 Intrigued w ith the Rana to attack Gujarat. The Rana 230 pillaged the area upto Siro^ii • The ministers, wishing to ruin Nizam Khan, did not let any aid to Idar on the 231 plea that Sanga had returned to Chittor . The Rana reappeared soon in -»agad^^^. Kawal ^dai Singh, sofiur sutenissive to Gujarat, accomj^uiiGd him and both descended 233 23^ into Idar via Dungarpur vith 40,000 cavalry • 235 Nizamulmulk was terrified • ” e informed the Sultan of these events^^^ and also of the inadequacy of his own forces as even the ordinairy strength o f his army of 5 ,OCX) strong was miich reduced because of several of the 237 soldiers having left fbr Ahmedabad ' d ^ to heavy rains that year ^ • Unfortunately, Muzaffar was tl»n on J*lalwa borders^^^ and the army of Gujarat was dispersed for p I ^ monsoon camping ^ • The ministers failed to forward the

application to Muzaffar^^^ and when finally they did it not without their adverse comments on his conduct in wontonly insulting the Rana and then coming crying for o! 9 243 help***’^ before the enemy actually appeared on the scene •

The scattered forces of Gujarat could not also be coUect- 244 ed im lediately ; so the despatch of relief to Idar was 245 postponed till the end of monsoor^ • Sanga was well 2^7 posted with these developments^^^. He advanced near Idar*

Nizam, though numerically weak, came forward to oppose him but was compelled to retire into the fort without any 24® fight • Next day he declared himself for an open engagement and ra^ide himself bold to die in the battlefield 249 sword in hand • However, the council of war consisting 250’ of his followers, knowin^^ well that 900 Gujarat army was no match to Rajputs 4 0 ,OCX) in number, after a futile attempt to convince Nizam took him away forcibly to 251 Ahroedanagar • Only Malik Sajan managed to remain behind 252 with a ffnall following • Next day the Rana reached 253 Idar *'• Sajan made an attack, fought bravely and was 254 cut off with all his followers •

On his way back to ^hmadnagar, Nizam met ^hizr Khan,

Asad Khan, Ghazi Khan, Shujaulmulk and Saifulmulk, who rebuked him for deserting Idar to the enemy for the safety of the walls of Ateaadnagar^^^* Sanga, on reaching Idar, learnt flrom the Grasias (i*e«, Rajput irregulars} in the

service of Kiwamulmulk that Nizami now Mubarisulmulk, was

W forcibly removed to Ahmadnagar and was awaiting reinforce- 256 ^ 257 ments there ^ . So the Rananarched on '^hm^nagar and

reached there one day after wubarizulniulk^^®. The above

referred to bard went to Mubariz and informed him of

Sanga's detenaination to water his horse in the ditch

below the fort of Ahmadnagar, "Jo^Mubariz cara© out to 259 oppose the Hajputs on the other bank of the moat 260 . 261 A great battle took place • The Gujarat army fought bravely26z but was defeated and put to fliglit^^^. Asad

Khan^^^i Ghazi Khan, Sultan Khan and Ibrahim Khan were 265 266 killed ; Safdar Khan and Nizam Khan and others were 2^7 26^ wounded • 3,000 soldiers lost their lives « Few 26Q escaped from being wounded The sux^ivors fled to the

fort which had already fallen into the hands of the 269 Rajputs , a fact which conclusively proves that the

Rana had attacked simultanesouly the fort also with 270 20,600 strong while engaging the army o f Mubaria.

Chauhan Dungassi Balawat's son Kanha, b|[ covering the red

hot spikes of the gate of the fort with his ovn person to

let the elephant act by its forehead, got the fca*t for 271 the Rana • The remnants of the Gujarat army finding the 272 fort in the enemy hands fled away . 7,000 Rajputs fell 273 in these engagements • Nizam Khan and Safdar Khan^led

to Parattij, 15 miles from Ahmadnagar, by a round about pnri route • Asadulmulk and otliers took the direct road, got

killed by the pursuing Rajputs and their baggage and 275 elephants were captured • The Rajputs looted the I

276 277 278 city^'^ and its enviorna • All the inhabitants, including the daughters and other female relatives of of Shaikhs and other respectable persons, were taken 279 captive • The advice to attack Ahaedabad, 100 miles from Ahmadnagar, was prudently rejected by the Rana • 281 The Rajputs stayed in Ahmadnagar for one day • Next day they proceeded against the merchants of Badnaga^^ at the instance of the Gujarati Grasias2^3, However, the entreaties of the Brahmins secured safety for the town from plunder in exchange for some tribute^^5, Besal- 286 nagar was next attacked • Though the officer in charge og the place fled away to the citadel, the garrison 287 defended the city well till evening • About this time 288 Malik Hakim, the thanedar, was killed , causing turmoil in the rank of the defenders, wnich offered an opportunity 289 to the Rajputs to plunder the town • However, in night

Ainulmulk and Fatah ^han, governor pf Pattan, were report- 290 ed approaching besalnagar • So Sanga kept his fiajputs under arms through out the night and in the early morning he withdrew and reached Chittor^^^ unopposed^^^ via 293 29L 295 Idar with all elephants horses and captives •

On the day of the Battle of Ahmadnagar, Kiwamulmulk, the governor of Ahmedabad^^^ andthe viceroy o f Gujarat during the absence of Muaaffar Shah^^^, ha:id started for 298 the aid of Mubarizulmulk • When he reached Walad, 14 milas from Ahmsdab^id, he learnt about the fall of Ahimd- 298 nagar • The rumour about the deaths of Mubarizulmulk and Safdar Khan, then very hot, were coraraunicated to 29^ the Sultan by the viceroy • On the third day the repprt CJ.. '/ of their having reached Rupal (District Kari) safely was receitved^^^. Before the plan that KiTtfajnulraulk and

Mubari zulmulk ehoiild p\ir»ue the Hana could maiierialise, the news of the safe-reaching of the Rqjput army to Chittof 298 was received • 299 On the loth day after the Battle of Ahmadnagar,

Hubarizulrau?^and the ahthor of Bahadur Shabi^®^ came to 302 that city with an army provided by K.iwaaiilinulk'^ , They buried the dea^^^stayed for one ni^it in the^cart^^^ and 305 ‘ returned to Parantij • The news of Siiltan*s sending a large anny mmder Imadulmulk and Kaiser Khan^^^ with

100 elephants^*^ reached them herc^^^. The army arrived oog 309 at Ahnedabad-' and proceeded to Parantij after join- 310 ing Kiwamulraulk at Walod • They sought the permission of the Sultan to attack Chittor^^^ to punish the RanJ^^,

The Sultan, not willing to abandon /ihmadnagar^^^, ordered them to stay there during the monsoonthen either at hand^^^ $or had already set in^^^^ at the end of which f he was himeelf to lead an attack on Mewar^^^* Orders to 3^3 summon Malik Ay«s from Sorath were also issued •

Siege of ^andsaur by Malik Ayazt-

After the end oi the monsoon Muzaffar called all his 319 irairs • The pay of the aray was increased and one year salary was paid in advance for helping soldiers in 321 their accoutrement • In Sept, 1520 A.D. Muzaffar left 322 Muharamadabad with the intention of marching upon 3 23 3 2/(- Chittor and reached Ahmedabad via ilalol^^^. At this time fialik Ayaz waited upon the Sxiltan with 20,000 sold- 3 26 y iers, several artillery-men and cannons* • ^e made a pointed reference to the impropriety of Sultan's personal

expedition against JJ'iewar^^^ and offered himself for it

but the request was not acceded In Dec, 1520 A.D.

when Muzaffar Shah was reviewing his army at Ahmaonagar, 329 Malik Ayaz repeated the request with an added pleasing 330 promise to either capture or kill the Hana • The 331 permission was granted • An anay consisting of a lakh k cavalry and a^undred elephants was placed under his charge

to which Kiwaimulmulk Joined latera on with 20,000 cavalry ’ 32 and 20 elephants • At Morasa tlie reinforcements under

Taj Khan and Niaamxilmulk tJultani joined them^^^* Due to 334 jealousy Ayaz returned most of tlje elephants and a great

• part of trie recent reinforcei;^nts^^^ and after plundering 336 the countxy of Morasa advcxuced ujx>n Dahal or Dhol'^'^'« 33d Foragintj parties ravaged Wagad • Safdar Khan brought

several Rajput prisoners after killing many at Lakiako^^^#

Banswa^a^^ana Dungar^^^* weru also plundered and bum^^^

for tlieir ruler’s complicity with oanga in the invasion 343 of Gujarat • An attempt at anibush by the Rajputs was 344 foiled and the country arouna was devasted in punishment by Kiwumulitiulk^^^# The Gujarat forces passed through Khar- chi Ghat ana by forced marches^^^ reacted Mandsaur^^^

and besieged it^^^. Rao Ashokalmal^^^(lawar), the ancestor of the iiouse of Bijolian^5l, was then the commandant of 352 tlandsaiir on behalf of Sanga •

Buil$ by Hushang Shah of x'iandu^^^, the then fort of

Man<^aur was one of the strongest forts o f liewar on the

Malwa bordei’s. On learning aboi^ t its siege by Malik Ayaz»

Sanga caine to oppose him with a large army and halted at Nftdisi, 20 miles from i^andsauiP^^, T^kat-1 Akbari^55 informs us that Sanga opened aegotiations with the Malik, informed him about the despatch of Rajput envoys to

Muzaffar Shah and begged him to raise the siege which the i ^ i k politely refused and went on with his operations till the undermining of the walls was almost complete^^* 356 Mirat->1 Sikandari says that Sanga promised Ayaz to return all the loot (wealth and animals) and captives obtained by him from Ahmadnagar ana other cities and offeredw^ sulHnission to the Sultan as ajprice for the rais- ' 357 ing of the siege* These tenas, according to Farishta » being too extravagant, were rejected. The Arhibic history of Gujarat^^®, on the other hand, accuses Ayaa of opening faked negotiations with Sanga to gain tinB to run mines under the walls of the fort. These negotiations, however, bene fitted Sanga whose position at this moment was not enviable, '^'here had been appreciable accretion to the stre gth o^ the army o f the h

However, the siege of '^^andsaior went on •

Kiwainulmulk succeeded in carrying Sabat, a covered-way 36/^- near the wall of the fort*^ and his battery m i^t Boave 365 \ireached the walls • According to Tabkat-i Akbari, he H

366 wished to enter into the fort but for the jealousy ^ 6 7 368 ^ of A y a z''^ , who, to dia^ippoint Kiwamulmulk , not only

not allow him to dslirer the attack^^^ but also with- ^ •570 drew the army^' • Aggrieved371 and offended 372 Mubarizul-

raulk and others took battle positions without any orders 37^ ) 374 from Ayaz ' but v/ere in&rmed by theftalik through ' 3 7 6 Malik Tughla^ Shah Fauladi 375 to withdraw ; and the

amirs obeyed due to the apprel^jnsion of the displeasure 377 37d of the iiultan • Later on i»yaa ignited a mine against 379 the advice oi' the amirs • However, the Rajputs had •3 *0 alreaay built up anotlier wall within • So the attack 3^1 3 ^ failed • Next aay, vtea. ^atiga made fresh propasals 3^3 for peace , Ayaz, on accoutrb ol the hostility of the 3 S4 junirs to his leasership and to disappoint Kiwamulmulk 385 and others , accepted the terms which stipulated for the 3 8 6 return of all elepliants and sending of a son by the

Rana tn the service of the Sultan^^?, One of the most

potent reason in forcing Ayaz to enter into this treaty

was the fact of the heavy losres suffered by the Gujarat army in the liajput night-aitcks^^^, 4 cease-fire was

agreed upon till the final ofders from the Sultan^

The anti-Ayaz party planned to attack Sariga under

Sultan '•‘ahBiud Khilji^^^, The? plan failed. The attaciiment 391 of to Ayaz , the release by Sanga of Ihe prince-

royal of ^'^alwa till far a hostage in i>>ewar^9l ^ andthe 392 / admonition of the fialik made sign a secret treaty

promising tribute to the itana^^^. On the day api^ointed

for the attack394^ i^^alik Ayaz made i>eace with the Rana^^^

and withdrew to ^hiljijfliur^^^, possibly, with the concurrence of Muzaffar Sbah^^*^. The other amirs, "vexed” and

"mortified” but helpless, returned to Ahraedabad^^®. There

is nothing on record to s Id w that the *^alik brought any

tribute from the Rana to the Sultan in pursuance of the

treaty referred to above,

V/hen Ayaa reached the court he was rewarded with a governorship title and the/*gv*«ie»«feif> of Sorath''^^, He was ordered

to return from his fief ater the monsoons with an a n a y ^^,

when Kussaffar was himself to lead an eaqiedition against 4pi 402 r Me\-?ar4*« to plunder Sanga*s territories • Ayaz informed

Sanga abou.t these plans^^^ secretly^^^ and advised him to / 405 send the stipulated tribute through a j>rince of ^''^v^ar •

In Dec. 1521 A.D, fluaaffar visited Ahmedabad to complete 407 his preparations for attacking Chittor and then moved

to Kankaria^^ • During his stay there for three d a y s^^

news was received that Sanga*s son, who had been sent with 410 some presents, elephants, horses and other tribute , 411 h§d arrived at iMorasa • The idea of invading Mewar had

to be given up^^^* The prince waited upon the Sultan^^^

at Ahiaedabad 413 , received a robe of honour 414 and succeeded

in his mission of achieving friendship between the two

sovereigns of l-iewar and ffujarat^^^* Muaaffar Shah forgave 416 Sanga • During M s brief stay upto the end of monsoons. 41S the prince accompanied the Sultan in hunting excursions* 41^ The prince again received a robe of lionour and leave

to depart to his father^^^ (about Oct.-Nov. 1522 A .D .).

It is a pity that the native chronicli^rs of *’^ewar are

completely silent about this expedition of Bialik Ayaz tnd

his siege of Mandsaur which in reality failed. Reading

between the lines of the Muslim accoulits we find thatt- t>)

(1) The negotiations were started by ^'^ik to get 421 time to run mines into the walls of the fort {

(2) These negotiations offered a welcome opportunity to 4 2 Sanga to consolidate his otherwise shaky position ;

(3) The assault of the Gujarat army on the fbrt c£ 423 Mandsaur failed ;

(4) Taking advantage of this disappointment Sanga made

overtures to Malik to conclude a p^kie, xK>t

much honourable to the invaders;

(5) The fear of defeat due to the non«>cooperation of his 425 colleagues and the heavy losses inflicted by the lUk^Rajputs by their night attacks^^^ compelled Ayaz to

accept these terms with full authorization fzx>ra,

and knowledge of, Muaaffar Shah^^*^}

(6) Sultan ^‘Whmud could escape to I4andu only after sign- 428 ing a treaty promising tribute to the Rana {

(7) The services of Ayaz in extricating the Gujaaat army

from this great crisis were reifarded with a title and 429 and governorship j

(8) After the end of the monsoons Muzaffar made fresh

preparations for attacking Mewar but, on being

informed secretly by ^^alik Ayaz, the Rana won over

Muzaffar Shah by friendly gestures^^^; and

(9) It is not unlikely that the Rana bribed Malik Ayaz.

Sanga and Malwa 4fter 1520 a .D. i -

In 1520 A.D. Sanga had returned Sultan Mahmud to ^landu after releasing him from the captivity in Chittor and had hia escorted to his capital with 10,000 Rajputs. Sultan Muzaffar had consoled Mahmud and sent a large reinforce*

ment to i'^landu for stabllzlng the lattef s position in

M«k«4u i'lalwa. Vihen his position appeared somewhat improved

Mahmud requested Muzaffar Shah to withdraw Gujarat troops 431 from Malwa • The return of these ibrces from made

the weakness of ^^ahmud patent to all* Sanga seized most

of theportion of his Jfiingdom* Silhadi carred out an ) independent estate which included Sarangpur, Raisin and

Bhilsa^^^ ^ ile Medini Rai retained Chanderi and Gagru/t^^,

Only one-tenth of Malwa was left under Mahmud andthe / rest was either in the hands of the Rajputs or other 434 Muslim nobles • Taking advantage of this situation, I ^ C Sanga captured Ranthambhor from the officers of J4alwa

between Sept, - Nov., 1521 However, inspite of increase of this great/influence iocxd power in Malwa, Sanga again

refrained from annexing the entire kingdom due to the fear 437 of the possible intervention of Muzaffar Shah •

Arrival m»lip4ur Khan s/o Muzaffar Shah In Mewar:- A * [rhe request for an increase in jagir equal to his

half brother Sikandar Khan^^^ add the denunciation of the

ill-treatment received by him at the hands of his father 439 Muzaffar Shah created a suspicion about the safety of

Bahadur Khan.) So he fled,Gujarat with the help of his 440 JUL1 friends and well-wishers • He left for Dungarpur in

second or third week of May 1525 where Kawal 443 Udai Singh of '^agad welcomed him • Thence Bahadur

proceeded^ to Chit tor (via Banswada^^) where Sanga 445 treated him well • Bahadur stayed in Chittor for some 446 time • There was some trouble during a dance-party by a beauty originally a daughter of some Sheikh of AhaadnagaT| whom Sanga had brought to Chittor during his invasion of

Gujarat* A rude reference to h*r parentage by a nephev/ of the Rana excited Bahadur to cut him into two. The fugitive

prince would have been sliced into bits bub for the intervention of Rani Dhan Bai Hathor, the mother of Ratan 447 Singh , who shielded Bahadur by threatening to lodge a dagger into her heart if her *son^ Bahadur was in any way 448 hurt • The Rana also excused the imoderate behaviour of Bahadia*, Bahadur left Chittor and via Ajmer and ^%wat reached Delhi some time before the Battle of Panipat^^^#

Sanga*a ^^elp to Bahadur Khan in Getting the Throne of Gu.1arat:-

Soon after the departure of Bahadur from Gujarat, 450 Muzaffar Shah died on Feb,24|1^26 A.D. The nobles ->

Imtdulmulk Sistani, Khudawand Khan and Fath Khan (s/o

Path Khan)-placed the heir-designate Sikandar Khan, the seventh son of Muzaffar Shah on the throneLatif Khan, his younger brother, rebelled and fled to Chittor^52^

I^alik I-atif who was sent with 3,000 cavalryW to pursue 453 him , without orders followed him into the jimgles of

Mewar^^^ and got killed^^^, along with 1,200 followers^^^, 457 including several noted chiefs of the state , in a narrow 45d 450 Pjl^ss by the Rajputs^''^^. The baggage o t this army was 4 ^ , 4^1 looted after this complete defeat of the Gujarar anas, 462 Sikandeir was soon murdered by Imadulnulk , who placed

Nasir Khan, a boy of six and the youngest son of Muzaffar Shah^^^, on the throne under the name of Sultan Mahmud 465 and himself became the de facto sovereign of Gujarat 4 ^ l 67 Taj Khan and Khudawand Khan at the instigation of the author of Bahadur Shahl , secretly wrote to Bahadur Khan to return to Gujarat to assume the Kingdom of his ancestors*

Imadulmiilk in despair soughb help of Imadulmulk of Elich- L.70 471 ^72 pur^' f Nisamulmulk Dekani , Rawal Udai Singh of l(agad|

Rana Sanga of Chittor^^"'473 and iimperor Babar of Delhi • 475 Many soldiers of Gujarat fledil to Chittor • When Bahadur reached tn the neighbourhood of Chittor they acquainted him with all the details of the assassination of Sikandar

Shah^^^, Thence Bahadur encanped at ChittorAli Sahir 477 ibn Muinuddin Afgan ^ Ibrahim and Chand Khan, the sons of

Muzaffar Shah, met him in Chittor^^® and confirmed these 479 details about the death o f Sikandar • Soon after his arrival in Chittor, Bahadur left for Gujarat with Ibrahim 4d0 4d1 Khan , while Chand Khan remained at Chittor • Bahadur 4^2 passed through Dungarpur due to the good will of Hawal 4S3 utb Udai Singh. The rei^isal o f heli» by Sanga to ^laadilmulk had already numbered the days of his predominance* Bahadtjr easi­ ly acquired the throne of Gujarat ^ t e r some preliminary 4^4 skirmishes * What could Sanga have not done for Imadulmulk, and what harm could the Ranaj^not jcid to Bahadur t ^ n on his way to Gujarat via Chittor had the Rana desired? So it is diflicult to deny the contribution of Sanga to Bahadur's acquisition of the throne of Gujarat, however imperceptible and indirect it may Joe* Possibly, Dhan Bai Rathor, the god­ mother of Bahadur in Chittor, might have had some say in inducing Sanga to help her *son* in acquiring the throne 4^5 1^86 of Gujarat. A^out April 1526 A.D, Sanga sent his son I go Vikramjit with presents to Bahadur Shah^ , possibly, to

oongratulacte him on his accession • The prince

had an audience with Bahadur Shah at Aluaedabad • Vikrajit

was well received by the Sultan during his stay in Guja- 490 rat • About Sept.-Oct* 1526 A*D, { i.e., after the 4nd

of the monsoons^^Ae got leave to depart^^^.

Other Conquests o..^ San/^:a:-

^ ®ensi speaks of the victory o f Rana Sanga over Baghela Raja ruler/Muchukund o f Bandhogadh iin Baghelkhand) in which 493 the RatJa lost the battle and elephants to the Rana •

It is elairned that Sanga also received obedience fzt>ra the 494 ruler of Gondwana , the country between i'^ewar and

Baghelkhand. Rarajjur, refen^d to in Amar K.av)sa^^^, i s not

Rarapura (ancient Antari of Chundawats) but Rampur in Qri- 496 ssa I which then formed a part of Gondwaona. Similarly, 497 Nagor of i\niar ^avya might be the city o£ this name on

24^33’ Lat. 80°37* Long. The rulers of Choragadh and Devagadh are also reported to have lost about 350 elephants 498 to Sanga . The loss of elephants by Muchukund and the

chieftains of Choragadh and Devagadh to Sanga can help

one to infer that the need of strong elephants , which 499 were bred in those days in the jungles of Gondwana

and Baghelakhknd, might have precipitated war betweena

Sanga and Muchukund.

The great eminence of Sanga in Malwa, Rajputana,

Gujarat and Delhi,possibly,led the rulers of Amrkot and

Kachch^ to propitiate his pleasure by presents and honeyed 'f I 500 words which Amftr ^avycu hai treated as taarks of submission •

However, it cannot be denied that Sanga had succeeded in

consolidating his position so strongly and soundly in and

about Rajputana that in one way or the other all the contem­

porary Rajput rulers accepted his leadership, thoagh it might fall very short of sutenission wifck whi ch iiaar Kavya

tries to make out of it. .

Poaition of Sanea on the Eve of the Battle of Panipatt-

The career of Sanga between 1509 - 1526 A.D. falls

between tv.’O well-defined periods of activity: (1) the

period of regional consolidation between 1509»1^ A.D. and

(2) the period of conflict with the nei^bouring Muslim

states between 1519-26 a .D ,« During the first period,

except hiswar with Sikandar Lodi on the issue of the marri­

age of the daughter of ^’^hlin Shah, Sanga was busy in

consolidating his position in Kajputana by bringing the neighbouring Rajput states under his hegemony. This period

again falls into two(coapartmontsr (l) the period of » A.D.) regional conquests (1509-14/ and (2) the period of Rajput

reaction against his policy of expansion {15H-1519 A .D .), which ultiiaately resulted in an amied confederacy against

Mewar leading to the defeat, sulxnission and reinstateiiient of the defeated confederates. During this period Sanga, possibly, aided the Purbia Rajputs in Malwa and established a pocket of ^ojar Influence by supporting Kairaal Rathor

In Idar. JJuring the second period (1519-26 A.D.J Sanga was engaged in fighting the rulers of Kalwa, Gujarat and Delhi*

He defeated the forces of Delhi, and acquired the^erritories f f.5

between Hadautl and Plllakhal* All these made the Rana

the most pre-eminent ruler of Indid on several grounds,

il^rstly, he ruled over an area which covered the region

from the borders of v;agad to Shadarl, Chanderi, Bhilsa

and Raisin, and from Ranthambhor and the borders of the

present-day Kishangadh state to Ein^iod, J

and the adjoining areas* Secondly, the rulers of Merta,

Bundi, Mkaner, Chanderi, N a ^ d , Marwar, liampura and

Bandhogadh acknowledged his leadership. Thirdly, the

rulers of Kutch, iiagalana and Gondwana accepted nominally

his suproiiacy through presents and protestations. Fourthj,^,

he had by that time defeated on several occasions the

armies of Sultan Sikandar Lodi, Ibrahim Lodi, Mahraxid led Khilji and Muzaffar Shah/eithar by these crown-heads

personally or by their generals. Fifthly, by keeping him­

self in secret touch with the influential officers and nobles of Mandu (of. ^'"^dini Rai, Silhadi, e t c .,} , Ahmeda- bad (cf. i^lalik A ^ z , i-’ialik Gopi, Kiwaroulmulk, e c t .,) and

Delhi (cf. Mian Maruf, Mian Hussain, etc.,) Sanga had

acquired a unique and legendary position in the politics of those days. The distruct of ibrahim in his nobles can

be mrtlv explained in the lif^ht of S a n g a s e c r e t contacts with the of fleers and nobles of tlie adjoining states. i\ll these made the name of Sanga a legend. The Rana supported his fame by 100,000 infantry,1^,000 cavalxT^ and 1,000 501 elephants . Some of the battles in which his axmy participated, except one in which he was opjjosed by the

Rajput confederacy, were fought at (l) Narwar in 1509 A .D .,

(2) Ajmer in 1510 A*D.,(3) Toda in 1510-11 A.i)., (4) Sambhar {?), (5) Ghatoli in Feb. 1$18 s4.D., (6) Dholpur

in 15 1S A.D,, (7) Chanderi and (S) tiogrun in 1518 A.D., (lo> (9) Ahmadnagar in 1520 A.D., ^Bisalnagar in 1520 a*D ., (11) CVt) Ranthambhor in 1521 A.D. and. Bandhogadh (? ). All these

greatly enhanced his prestige amonfcst his conteraporaries502

and led the later day historians into attributing him with

the aspiration of becoming the succeASSor to theg4»t

glory lost by the Hindus since the defeat of Prithvitaj 503 Chauhan •

F,stent of the kingdom of Sanga in 1526 A .D .:»

The soverei gnty of Sanga on the eve of the Battle

of Panipa t extended over the territory from Piliakhal in

the north to Gondwanci in the south-east, from R.Indus in

the east to Baghelkhand in theirest^®^. It included 200 ^ 505 cities and yielded a revenue of 10 crores , which greatly

increased the militaxr potential of the Rana. It is worth

noting that Biana, Narwar, Chanderi and Raisin were 5O6 elephant-breeding regions in those days'^ . This explains

not only the preponderance of the elephant corps in the

array of the Rana but also one 6 f the causes of the defeat

of the Rajput confederacy at the hands of Babar in the

, Battle of Kan^ah (as we ahull see belowJ. FOOTNarfc^

(1) Amar Kavya, leaf 28{a). ^he Shravan-be©»ining

Vaishakha Shukla 5,i53& Y,S, Is equivalent to Vai-

shakha Shukla 5,153$ (chaitra-beginning) V .S,

(2) Nensl 1/41

(3) Vanshavali ^2^, leaf 59(b); VanshavaU 372,p.124? k VanshaTali leaf (b}« Mewar j^e lianaun kl Pldhi-

yaun ki Khyat (leaf 16(a)) calls him "Padshah Babar

Shah” while Amar K^avya (leaf 29(a)) calls him Babliar

Sher Kahan* Bakrol is the old name of Kammirgadh,

20 miles north of Chittor (Ozat Hsij* Iti«, 11/565 n.l)»

(4) Mewar ke Eanaun kl Pidhiyaun ki Khyat, &eaf 16(a)*

(5) Farishta l/5dO-dl,

(6) Tab. l/3?d.

(7) Tarikh-i Daudi, Elliot IV/4i7.

(B) Muntakhabut Tawarikh (Ranking T r .), 1/422,

(9) Makhaen Afgani (Dom Tr,),l/63,

(10) Khunian Rcaso, leaves 125(a)-127(a)« ^he word

niiabbar” Khan in this book in this context should

not be confused with Eiaiperor ^abar because (l)

Babar had nothing to do with Karwar, and (2) it was

a comiion practice among the poets of those days to

use synonyms even for proper nouns, e .g ,, Surajmal

Hada is called ^Ravimall" in ^ansha Bhaskar (p .2127)*

Similarly, Rana Haimal is called "Rajniall" in Ekling

Temple (South Gate) Inscription (verse 75). ^he word

Mughal in connection with Babbar Khan should not also

confuse us because Mughal was a general terra for the

Muslims even upto Aurangzeb (Nensi I I /9 4 ) } and

secondly, for the Mughals the annalists of Mewar ^4 used the word "Chigata" (Vanshavali ^2^, leaf 60(b);

Vanshavali leaf 64(h )• No annalist of Mewar except Kavi Rao (Kavitta Sanga ra, verse d) refers to this victory of Sanga over the army of Sultan Sikandar Lodi.

For the text of this verse See Appendix G, Tod (op« cit«,

1/349) holds that this battle was fbught between

Sultan Ibrahim Lodi and Rana Sanga - a fact for wliich he h|s adduced no evidence. Oza, Kavi Raja Shyaaaldas, i>r. Ctopinath, Ramnarayan Duggad, Sarda ect., are all silent about this battle.

( 1 1 ) Tarikh-i Khan *Jahan Lodi, Elliot V/103* (12) jiensi 1/35. (1 3 ) Amar ^^avya, leaf 23(b) refers to th^onquest of the

tract between the kingdoms of Malwa and Delhi, which *4-. could not be else than Narwar (J[De Laet: The Empire

of the Great Mogol (Hoyland and ^anerjee Tr. ),p .3 5 ). In Raj Vilas (verse 34) and Kensi { I/46) the conquest of Narwar is referred to. ( 14 ) M a r Kavya, leaf 2d(a). ( 15 ) ^aval Rana ki Vat, leaf 6 1(a). (16 ) Amar Kavya, leaf 23(b). (17 ) Raval Rana ki Vat, leaf 54(a) j Mirat-i Sikandari,p.95 ( 18 ) Tab. m / 299-300. (19 ) Forbes: Rasraala (Ranchhod Das Udairam, Gujarati T r .), p .494. (20) Mirat-i Sikandari,p.97. (21) ibid, p.97; Farishta IV/33l|.Tab. {III/3OO) calls him ’-tiihariiaal*.

(22) Mirat.,p.97; Tab. IIl/299-300j Farishta IV/a3. (23) ffiab. n i / 300. ^ 7

(24) ibid, III/300; Farishta IV/S3; Mirat.,p.97.

(25) Tab. III/300; Farishta Il/aj. (26) Farishta IV /^2, (27) Mirat,,pp.97-9a

(2d) ibid,p«97* Haja Bhim was a vaasal of Gujarat (ibid, p*97)* For tho relations between itaja Bhiu and Muza- ffar Shah eee Mirat.,pp.95-96; Farishta IV/81-82;

Tab. 111/296-97.

(29) Farishta IV/Bz.

(30) ibid, IV/d3,

(31) ibid, lT/33i Mirat.,p.9S; Tab. 111/300. (32) Mirat.,p.9d{ Tab. III/ 3OG. (33) Tab. III/ 3OO. (34) ibid, 1 1 1 / 300; Farishta lV/a3. (35) Tab. III/210. (36) Farishta IH/d3. (37) ibid, IV/a3; Tab. I I I / 300. (3d) Tab. m / 300. (39) Farishta IV/d3. (40) ‘Xab. I I i / 300. (4 1) Farishta IV/d3. (42) Tab. 1 1 1 / 300.

(43) Farishta IV/d3. (44) Tab. III/ 3OO. (45) Farishta IV/83. (46) ibid, 17/33; Tab. III/ 3OO. (47) Farishta 17/33. (43) Tab. 1 1 1 / 300.

(49) Mirat-i Ahmadi (Bird T r .i,p .2 2 3 . (50) Tab, III/30*.

(51) ibid, 1 1 1 / 301* Tab.*s statement that only 100 persons were le ft with him is incorrect in the light o f

Fariehta IV/S3.

(52) ibid,IIl/301; Farishta IV/83. Tab. says that only 27 Gujarati soldiers were slain*

(53) Farishta IV/4^3*

(54) ibid, 17/^3-64.

(55) Mirat-i Sikandari, p .93. (56) Tab* I i l / 306; ^‘arishta IV/fi?. (57) Tab. III/ 306.

(53) ibid, 111/306} Mirat.,p*l07; Faridita IV/S7.

(59) Farishta IV/37*

(60) Mirat.,p.107. (6 1) i^mar Kavya, leaf 23(a). See also Mewar ke Eanaun ki Pidhiyaun ki Khyat, leaf l6(a).

(62) The colophon of the MS ^Holirenuka Charitra" by Jinadas (Jain Qranth Prashaati Sangrah, I/ 64-66) refers to Pisoshah (i.e., Firoz Bhah Nagori) along

with Shakambari (verse 29)* iifter Piroz Shah, Gayasa

Shah ( i .e ., Gayasuddin iChiljiil of ^'^ndu) is spoken

of (verse 23)* This means that after Firoz Shah,

Sambhar fell into hands of Siiltan Gayasuddin Khili^

whose son Nasir Shah (verse 33) and Mahmud ^hilji

(verse 39) are also referred to. So Sambhar was

conquered by Sanga from i‘iai^iiiiud ^hilji of Mandu.

(63) Rao G a n ^ succeelded Aao Suja, his grandfather on Thursday, Nov. 3,1515 A.B. (Rathoran ri Khyat, Vol. I , leaf 36(a))* (64) Amar Kavya, leaf 23(b). (65) Oza: Banswara ka Itihas, p.l4» On the strength of

Nutunpur ^ain Temple Inscription of 1 5 H A.D. (dated itcHP iiartika l^rishna 3*1571 V .S«, ibid,p. 14) aiui

Sunnadpur Inscription of 151^ A.D, (iated Poshya

Krishna 12,1575 V.S.il, ibid,p«54)> he concludes that

the division of Bagad should have taken place between

y'Prithviraj and Jagmal at the hands of their father

Rawal Udai Singh about 1514*1^ A*D, /C 6 ' "n (66) Since^he defeat of Sahib Khan in 1513 A,D. the

influence of ^'iedini Hai had increased greatly in

Malwa* He removed Muslim officers of the state eithvr

by death or by imprisonment and substituted his own

men in their places* So the remaining Muslim offi­

cers of Mandu lied Malvra with their families, and

all the posts, down to door-keepvrs and elephant-

keepers, went to his agents* Only 200 Muslims were

in the service of Malunud as his personal guards* The

puts also distributed amon£;st themselves the

wives and daughters of the Mussalmns* Even the

females of the seraglio of the late Sultan Nasiruddin

were not spared* Temples and idol-worship were

restored. One day ^''^ahmud sent a basket of bettle-

leaves as a token of dismissal of Medini Rai and his

40,000 followers through Araish Khan* The followers

of Medini Rai were incensed* They carae forward to

depose the Sultan and install Ray KaFan, s/o "^edini

Rai in his place* Medini Rai vetoed this proposal due

to the fear of possible intervention of Musaffar Shah

on l^ehalf of Mahmud* Mahmud agreed to retain the services of Medinl Rai pi'ovided the ousted Muslim

officers were reinstated and the Muslim ladies were

released from the Hajput harems. However, Mahmud, in complete breach of this oom3>romise, waylaid i'ledini Rai and Salivahan in which the latter lost his life

and ^^dini Rai escaped with aorne injuries* The Rajputs

collected in ^d in i Rai*s house to attack the palace

of Mahmud which the Rai again vetoed (Tab. IXl/596-99;

Farishta IV/257-59). The plea of Tab. (111/599-600)

and Farishta (IV/259) that ^^ahmud fou^t off and put to flight the Rajput army x^Tith only 16 horsemen is

too hard for anybody's s stomach, i^edini Rai remained M

entrenched in power even ^te r this event.

(67) Mirat.,p.9S; Tab. 111/301-2,596-7. Farishta (17/^4)

calls him Hamid Khan.

(6$^ Mirat.,p»98.

(69) Tab. III/302.

(70) Mirat.,p.9^.

(71) iWd,pp.98-99; Tab. 111/302,601; Farishta IV/a4. The

Arabic History of Gujarat (edi. Ross: 1/102) gives / 1515 A.D. as the year of this event.

(72) Farishta IV/d4.

(73) Tab. III/601. See also farishta IV/d4.

(74) Mirat.,p.99. See alxso Farishta IV/84* ^wever,

Tarikh-i Muataffar Shahi (Gujarati Tr. by Nadavi and

Naik,p.12) says that these amirs were* despatched on

l>ec. 11,1517 A.D.

(75) Muzaffur Shahi,p.10.

(76) Mirat.,p.99.

(77) ibid,p.100. m ) (7^) Ibid,• p .100; Muzaffar • Shahi, p,1&. (79) Tab, III/ 302. 3 . (ao) Mirat.,p.100.

(dl) Muzaffar Shahi,p• 17

(82) Mirat.,p,99. (^3) Tab. III/ 303. (d4) Farishta IV/26O, See also Tab, jjfj/3 0 3 and Mirat,|rJ»y

p .100,

(^5) Mirat,,p.lOO,

(^6) ibid,p,100; Muzaffar Shahi,p.1^,

(B7) Farishta IY/26O. [&B) Muzaffar Shahi,p«l3,

(d9) ibid,p,IS; Mirat.,p,100, {9 0 ) Muzaffar Shahi,p,lS,

(91) Tab. 111/602.

(92) Fatishta (Lithographic edi,),Il/3 *7»Xlc«-o (93) T ^ . 1 1 1 / 303, 602; Farishta (ftrlcg^ Kr.),IV/260;

M irat.,p,101. M irat., however, telds thAt i'^edini Rai

fled from Dhar to Ujjain,

(94) ^arishta lV/260. Mirat, (p.lOO) taht these

reinf orcements to the garrison «C Mandu were sent

from Ujjain,

(95) Muzaffar Shahi,p.22,

(96) Farishta IV/260,

(97) Muzaffar Shahi,p.19, (93) Farishta IV/S4, (99) *ab. III/ 303. (100) Mirat,,p.100, (10 1 ) ibid,p,l00; Muzaffar Shahi,p,23, ------U 7 ' (4024

102) Muzaffar Shahi, p.22. 103) ibid,pp.21-22. 10^) Farishta V i/Z 6 Q . "Rai Pithora” (Tab. III/303)

appears to be his title.

(106) ibid,IV/a4,26l; Mirat.,pp.10Q-1} Tab. IH/303.

(106) Mirat*,p.l0l| See also Muzaffar Shahi,p.23 and

Tab. III/303.

(107) ibid,p.101; Tab. III/303; Farishta IV/85; Muaaffar

Shahi,p.23.

(lOd) Tab. III/303; Farishta IV/84. See also Muzaffar

ohahi, p.23•

(109) Tab. I I I / 303. ^arishta (IV/35) calls it submitt­ ing to the king’ s mercg.

(110) Tab, III/602. See also Muaaffar Shahi,p.23.

(111) Tab. 111/602.

(112) Farishta IV/a4-5.

(1 1 3 ) ibid,IV/85; Tab. III/304* ( 114 ) Muzaffar Shahi,pp. 23-4* (115) Tab. III/3C4; Farishta IV/85. ( 116 ) Mirat.,p,101; See also Tab. 111/304,602.

(117) Mirat.,p.101. (118 ) Muzaffar Shahi,p.24* (119) Tab. 111/602; ^arishta IV/85. (120) Farishta IV/85. (12 1 ) ibid, IV/85.

(122) Muzaffar Shahi,pp.24-5.

( 123) Tab. III/304; Farishta IV/85. ( 124) Farishta IV/85. (125) ibid,IV/85; Tab. 111/304,602; Mirat.,p.101. Muza­ ffar SC:bahi (p .26) says that the Sultan proceeded to attack ^andu on Feb. 6,1518 A*D. after despatch- -ing an array to oppose the Hana on Feb.5*151^ A*D. This view is incorrect both from the points of view of chrono­ logy and facts* Adil Khan was sent when the socond siege of Mandu was already in progress (Tab* III/602)* The sane is true of f*arishta (IV /^5).

(126) Mirat.,p.101. See also Tab. III/602* (127) Tab. III/ 304, 602, See also Fariahta IV/85. (128) Tab. 111/602.

(129) ibid, III/ 3O4, 602-3; Hirat.,p.101. (130) Muzaffar Shahi, p.26. (131) Tab. m / 3 0 4 ; The Arabic ^^istory of Gujarat,I/l04.

Mirat. (p. 101), Mirat-i Ahmdi (p.225) and Muzaffar

Shahi (p.27) give Feb. 13,15lS A.D. for it. However, the da3’’ of Holi^t ae festivalfli did not

fall on this day, as it sho»ild, according to Tab.

and fhe Arabic History o f Gujarat. ( 132 ) Farishta IV/85. Mirat-i Sikandarijp.101) says that

the fort fell on the third day.

( 133 ) Tab. III/ 6O3. The /irabic History of Gujarat (I/ 104) says that Prophet Khizr advised Iinaduliaulk to attack

the fort on the day of the festival of Holi. For

the treachery of some dne in the fort see Mirat.

(p .102). (134) Tab. H I / 304; The Arabic History of Gujarat,I/i04. ( 135) Tab. H I / 304, 604; Farishta IV/BS. Muzaffar Shahi (p .32) says that two sons, two daughters and one wife of Medini Rai escaped from death. One of these

sons was carried out of the fort at the time of its

fall and all the rest were captured. h ^i

(136) Tab, III/304»604; The Arabic History of Gujarat, 1/ 105. Mirat. (p.lOl) simply says that a large

nuisber of Hindus were killed. (137 ) Muzaffar Shabi,p.2S. (13 S} Tab. 1 1 1 / 305, 604; The Arabic History of Gujarat,

1/104; Fariohta IV/a5; Mirat.,p.101.

( 13^9) Kirat-i Ahffladi,p,225« ( 140} Muzaffar £h&ihi,p.29* It was a custom amongst the prominent Muslijns that at soije/^'lace near the battlefield thay

cormieiaorated their victory by digging a pit, filling

it vj3.th t>ie Fkulls of the fallen enemie& and erect­

ing a tower thereon (Aaad: Darbar-i Akbari, Hindi Tr*

1/15 n .1 }. (14 1 ) Tab. III/604. ( 142) Mrat.,p.l 02. ( 143) ibid,p. 102; Muzaffar Shahi, In 1519 A.B. they were presented by Mahmud Khilji to Sanga t^iirat*

p .179; Memoirs of Babar, Srskine and Leydei Tr., 1 1 / 34 1) and were surrendered by Kana Vikrarajit to Baliadur Shah in 1533 A.D. {-^ab. I I I / 369). ( 144) Farislita (Lithographic e d i .) , 1 1 / 267. (145} Ahmad lad^jar; Tarikh-i Salatin-i Afgana, Elliot V/7-12; A1 Badaoni 1/430-33; Farishta W 0 . 1/590-9; Tab. 1 / 393-403. (146) Alimad ^adgar, op. cit.,Klliot ¥/l4. (147) cf. Banerjee: Rajput Studies, p.£i2. (145) Yanshavali Jeaf 6o(a); Vanshavali d72,p#125; Vanshavali leaf 64(a ). The place Ghatoli is called ^Hiatoli in Vanshavali ^72. f

(149) cf. O z&, Ha;3« It l. II/663 where it is held that

tl^ Battle o f Ghatoll took place soon after t he

accession of Ibrahim.

(15 0 ) Vir Vlnod 1/354$ Sarda: Maharana Sai^a {Hindi Text),

p»52{ Ramnarayan Duggad: Maharana Sanga, p.25« Oza (op, c it * ,1 1 / 663) holds that the Battle of Ghatoli

Igsted for 3 hours only« (1 5 1 ) Vanshavali 82B, leaf 60(a ); Vanshavali S72, p«125; Vanshavali leaf 64(a), ^(15 2 ) Vir Vinod X/354; Oza» op, cit., 11/6635 Sarda, op,

c i t .,p ,5 2 ; Eanmarayan Duggad, op, c i t ,,p .25*

( 15 3 ) same as note 151* (154) *^6 sane as note 152,

( 15 5 ) M irat,,p,l06; Huzaffar Shahi,p.32; The Arabic

History of Gujarat,l/l05, See also Tab, IIX/305

and Farishta IV/d6, ( 156 ) Muzaffar Shahi, p,32, ( 15 7 ) The Arabic History of Gujarat,jK/105, (158 ) Mirat,,p,l06j Tab, III/ 305, 6O4.

(159)9f. Tab. III/ 604. (160) ibid, III/ 305; Mirat,,p,106; Muzaffar Shahi,p,32. See also Farishta IV/S6,

(1 6 1 ) Farishta IV/d6, See also Muzaffar Shahi (p,32) and Mirat., (p.106). ( 16 2 ) Farishta V i/6 6 . (16 3 ) Mirat,,p,106, ( 164) ibid,p,106, Tab.(IIl/305) says, »towards Ghittor", See also Tab. I I I / 6O4, (16 5 ) Tab. 111/604} Mirat,,p.106; Farishta IV/261. (167) ^ariahta IV/86.

(l6d) Tab, XIl/604; Mirat«,p«106. See ai}so Muzaffar Shahl,

P*34* ( 169) Mirat.,p«106; Musaffar Sha^d,p•31|. ( 170 ) cf« Muzaffar Shahi,p.3|.

(1 7 1 ) Mirat.,p,106.

(172) ibid,p*106; Tab. III/605; Farishta IV/e6;

Muzaffar Shahi,p.34.

(173) Farisiita (Lithograi^.ic e\ii. },II/2 0 S .

( 174 ) Tab. III/ 306. ^’ariehta (Brigss Tr.,IV/262) gives

the number of horseuon as 3>000. Mirat. (p.106)

does not give any nunber. The Arabic ^iiatory of

Gujarat ( i /i 06} says that Shahs^ada Taj Khan was

^ also left in Mandu by Musaffar Shah.

/^(175) Ahmad ladgar, op. cit.,Elliot V/16 . (176) Oza, op. cit.,1 1 / 665. Aianad Yadgar (Elliot V /16 )

does not osntion the name of the place and simply calls ■ aU* it **Sanga's country” . (17 7 ) Ahiaad Tadgar, op. cit.,Elliot V/16 . (17 5) of. ¥akiyat-i Muahtaki: Elliot V /5 4 ^ 9 , #ierein a feast in vhich Mian Maruf and Mian Hussain Khan were

guests of the iiana is described.

(179) Ahmad Tadgar, Elliot V/l?-l3. ( 1 ^ ) ibid, Elliot V/18 . Hov/ever, he admits p. 19 that elephants of Mian Hussain were seen in the battle£|ii|d

(iai) ibid, Elliot V/19.

(1^2) ibid, V/20. It is fiirtiier claiinsd (ibid V/20) that

Bakshi of the army Mian Bayazid (s/o Ata Lodi) I infomed Ibrahim Lodi of this victory and sent the

Capttired elephants and horses to the court. The Sultan was exceedingly pleased with Mian l^iaruf and Mian Hussain Khan and sent em^khilats^, 2 elephants and U horses. In the

♦farmans* issued to proclaim this victory a special reference and high praise were given to them irn tliefcr namea»

(18 3 ) ibid, Elliot V/20 n.1. The river referred to here might be PUiakhal (i'^ensi I / 46). ( 184 ) The fort of Chanderi was in the hands of Bhijat Khan, t an officer of Mandu Sultan, and the districtaround / the fort was occupied by the officers of 3 elhi Sultan. Ibrahim Lodi sent Sheikzada MuhaotQad FarmuU

to Chanderi (Farishta 1/593-4; "J^ab. W $ $ . I / 4OO: Tab. gives the name of the officer as Sheik Hanju),

About til is time Muhammad Khilji had died and Ibrahim

had the son of the deceased « Ahmad Shah - conreyed

to the court, and the imperial officers were appoint#

ed to rule in his place. Whan the imperial anus

were defeated at J9holpur, the amirs of Ahaad Shah

z*evolted against Ibrahiin. Taking advantage of this

opportunity Sanga moved forward and captured Chanderi

{Memoirs of b^abar, Erskine and Leyden T r.,11/323)

forcibly (Vanshavali ^72,p«127)* Jagmal (s/o Karame

chand Pawar) performed prodigies of valoir in the

conquest of Chanderi and was awarded the title of ^

”Rao” by the iiana (Tod, op. c i t .,1/349)* The fief and

the fort of Chanderi were entrusted to Medini Rai

(Memoirs of Babor, Il/36a 323). See also Farishta (IV/262) where in 1518 A.D, % d i n i Rai is said to be in the poBsession of Chanderi and Gagrun which means that iiraaediately ater the Battle of Dholpur, first Chanderi « next Gagrun fell in the hands of Sanga. The Arabic History of Gujarat (1^1/945) also mentions Chanderi in the hands of Medini Rai in 1518 A.D. The view of Vlr Vinod (1/354) that the fort of Chanderi was captured from a Gaud Raja is incorrect*

(1^5) cf. Farishta IV/262 the Arabic History of

Gujarat, III/945. (1 ^ ) Kavi Rao: Kavitta Vikram^dit aur Udai Singh ra lC h*V m , Appendix T ),

(Id?) Farishta lV/262. (1 ^8 ) Tab. 111/605.

(189) ibid, 111/307I Farishta IV/87.

(190) Mirat.,J.106; Tab, IH/307>605. Tab. calls Hemkaran

as Bhim Karan.

(191) Tab. 111/605. (19 2 ) Mirat.,p.l06; The Arabic History of Gujarat,1/107.

(193) Tab. 111/606.

(194) Farishta IV/263. (195) ibid, IV/to62; Tab,111/307,606; Mirat.,p.106,

(196) Tab. 111/606.

(197) ib id ,IIi/6 0 6 . However, F a r i^ta ( M / 262-63) gives t an a^ogether different version. He says that when,

after a tiresome all day march, the ^alwa army en«

capped, the Sultan leam t that Sanga was near at

hand. So he ordered an attack. Asaf Khan pleaded

the fatigue and hunger of the soldiers and horses

for the postponement of tiie attack; but the Sultan was adamant. The Gujarat array headed by Mahmud personally commenced the attack. The result vras disastrDus.

(19^) ibid,111/307,606-7; Farishta IV/263. Tab. |Ill/607)

suggests that Asaf Khan himself was also killed.

(199) Tab. 1 1 1 / 607. Farishta lIV/263) says that almost the whole array was cut off. (Oza (op. cit.,11/666) gives the strength of this array as 30, 000. (200) Farishta IV/263. Tab. { I I I /607) gives the number af

these followers as 2-3* (201) farishta IV/263. (202) Tab. IIX/607; The Arabic History of Gujarat,I/1 07# (203) Farishta IV/263. (204) Nensi I/IO 8, The plea of Dr. Gopinath (op. cit.,p «

17 n .2 l) that Mahmud was captured by Haridas Charan

is wrong. The copper-plate dated Vaishakha Krishna 12 ,15 7 7 V .S . cited by him in its support does not refer to any such transaetion. For the text of this

copper-plate see Appendix E is C h .III.

(205) Farishta IV/263. (206) ibid, JV/2631 Mirat.,p.107} Tqb. 111/307,607; The

Arabic History of Gujarat, 1/107. The statement

that the Hana saluted the Siiltan (The Arabic History of Gujarat, I/ 10 7 ), stood before him with hands

croBf5ed or his breast, and attended personally on

the Sultan (Tab.IIl/607) are simply fantastic. (207) Farishta IW/ad. (20d) ibid,IV/S8; Mirat.,p.106.

(209) Farishta IV/38.

(210) Mrat.,p.106. n-

(211) Ibid, p .107* 7ab. (III/607)| however, holds that Mahmud

released from the captivity before the Hana returaed to Chittor,

(212) For the verse coiamemorating tliis event see

Vir Vinod I/35S,

(233) Vir Vinod 1 /3 7 1 .^

(214) ^ r Kavya, leaf 2^(]^).

(215) Davavet, leaf 4; Vanshavali 207, leaf 304* However, cf* Mirat,,p,107, (2 16 ) The Arabic History of Gujarat, l/l07*

(217) M irat,,p.179; Memoirs of Babar 11/341} Tab, 111/369-

De^ (Tanslator's notes Tab* II1/608 n.l) does not I approvethis pgeeeedtiiaB transaction* According to

him, it "marred his proceedings". This view is

unacceptable. Tod (op# c i t .,1/335) wrongly attributes

his event to the reign of Kumbha, ^'he story of the

return of the moiety of ^kingdom of Malwa to Mahmud

Khilji along with a bouquet (Oza, Raj. Iti,,II/667i|

Munshi Deviprashad: Maharana Sanga,pp.2^-29; ^arda,

op. cit.,p.73) is a mere gossip passing for a

historical fact.

(213) Mirat.,p.107.

(219) cf. Rampura ki Khyat (leaf 33(b)) iriiere some districts

of Malwa are said to be administered by Rao Achala, a

contemporary and a vassal of Sanga (Nensi I/llO ) whoq^

the Hana had helped in obtaining the throne of

Rampura (Raaapura ki Khyat, leaves 33(a)- (b)). For the

text of this Khyat about the territories of Malwa

under Achala see Appendix H. TTF

(220) Phutakar ¥atan ra Sangraha: Published by Tessitori

in "Bardic and Historical Survey of iiajasthan" -

Biblotheea Indica, no.1412,p.6l* The statements of

Nensi (1 / 46) and "Raj Katnankar” (leaf 32(a)) that Sanga captured and released ^4ahmud twice and thrice

^ ’^^s p e c tiv e ly , are unfounded* Similarly, the asser-

^ f tion of Mirat-i Sikandari (p.107) and Che Arabic

History of Gujarat (l/lO?) that the Rana accompanied

the Sultan for several sta ;es after his release, is

j also equally baseless* (221) Tab, III/607* Fariashta (IV/263) gives the number of these horsemen as 1,000 only* This cavalry contin*

gent vras, probably, c(»)jrxanded by Dhandharya Jagan (cf*

Kavi Rao: Kavitta Vikramadit aur Udai Singh ra (Ch*

V III, Appendix T ), verse 1)*

(222) Tab* III/ 6OS5 The Arabic History of ^ijarat,I/lO?* (223) Mirat*,p*l07* However, cf* Oza; Raj* ItL*,11/668* (224) Farislita IV/90* (225) Rathoran ri Khyat, V o l.I, leaf 39(a)* (226) Fariahta TV/&B, (227) Mirat*,p.107; Tab* 111/307} Farishta IV/Sa*

(228) Mirat*,p*107*

(229) ibid,p*131. (230) T a b .IIl/308; Farishta IV/88* See also Mirat.,p*107* (2 3 1 ) Mirat*,p.10 7 . (232) ibid,p.108; Tab. III/ 308* (2 33 ) Tab* I I I / 3O8J farishta IV/88-9. (234) Mirat*,p*108* On p*85, 100,000 cavalry and on p*109 MX.

20,ooo cavalry is mentioned by Mirat* as the strength

of this army* Both these figures are incorrect* Farishti

(IV/d9) gives the ratio between the armies o f Gujarat

and Mewar at Ahraadnagar as 1:10, Mirat* (109) saya

that about 3|500 Gujaratis had participated in this

battle* The 20,000 Rajimts who engaged them (ibid^p*

109) formed a pax-t of the Eajput array* ^‘he reraaining

part waE attacking the fort of Aiimadna^r (cf* Nensi

1/169).

(g35) Mirat.»p*10a; Tab* 111/303; Farishta IV/a9*

(236) Tab* 1 X1 / 30^1 Farishta IV/a9*

(237) M*rat*,p.l06, (238) Tab* I I I / 30S* (239) Farishta IV/90*

(240) Mirat*,p*^5. (24 1) ibid,p *10a* (242) Tab* 111/303; Faridita IV/39. (243) Farishta IV/39* (244) Mirat.,p*35. (245) Farishta IV/a9* (246) Tab* I I I / 309* (247) ib id,IIl/309} M irat., p .108* (24S) Tab. 1 1 1 / 309.

(249 24irat* ,p*1C3* (250 Farishta IV/39* (25» Mirat.,p*103* See also Tab*IIl/309 and Farishta IV/39* (252) Mirat.,p*103*

(253) Tab* I I I / 309. (254) Mirat*,p.103*

(255) ibid,p*109* >ij 1

(256) Tab. III/309; Farishta IV/^9. Klwamulmulk of Mirat. (p. 110) is spelled as 'siawamulinulk by Tab, '(257) Mirat.,p.a5. (25S) Ibid, p.109. (259) Tab. IIl/309j Fariehta IV/a9, (260) Farishta IV/S9.

(26 1) Tab. III/309; Mirai;.,p.l09. (262) Farishta IV/S9; M r a t .,p ,1 0 9 . (263) Mirat,,p,l09. (26&) Tab. III/ 309; Farishta IV/a9. (265} Mirat.,p,l09,

(266) ib id ,p .l09; Tab. I I I / 309J Farishta IV/g9, (267) Mirat.,pp.35,109. (263) ibid,p,35. Tab, (111/309-10) simply says that aJmost the wtiole anny was cut off. (269) Mirat.,p.109.

(270) However,cf.Kaviraja Shyamaldas (Vir Vinod I/ 309) and Sarda (op, cit.,p.iJO). For the^^participants in this attack see note 234 above, (2 7 1) Nensi 1 / 169. (272) Mirat,,p.iQ9,

(273) ibid,p.^5.

(274) ibid,p p.109-10. Tab, ( I l i /3 10 ) and Farishta (IV/90) hold t^iat they returned to Aliraedabad, (275) ibid,p,110, (276) ibid,p.110; Tab. 111/310. (277) Faiishta IV/90. (27S) M irat.,p.1lO.

(279) Mirat.4^1.Ahmadi (SuppleuBnt: H a w a i i and Seddon T r .), p .56. i.lUI (2^0) M^rat-l. Sikandiri,p.110.

(2dl) Tab. III/310.

(2^2) ib id,m /310; Mirat. ,p.110.

(2^9) Mirat.,p.110«

(2^4) ibid,p.110; Tab. III/310; Farishta IV/90.

(265) Mirat.,p.110. (2^) ibid^p.llO; Tab.IIl/310; Farishta IV/90.

(2d7) Mirat,,p*1lO,

{ZBB) Tab# III/310; Farishta IV/90. Farishta calls Malik

Hakim, the governor of that place.

(2^9) Mirat,,p.1tO; Farishta IV/90.

(290) Mirat.,p.110.

(291) ibid,p.110.

(292) Farishta IV/9C.

(293) Mirat.,p.110. (294) cf. Tab.111/ 3 16 and Farishta IV/93.

(295) cf. Mirat.,p.110. (296) ib id ,p .1 lO. (297) Farishta IV/90. (296) Mirat.,p.1l0-1.

(299) ibid,p.111. (300) ibid,p.111; Tab.IIl/3 1 1 ; Farishta IV/90. (3 0 1) Mirat.,p.111. (302) Tab. III/ 3 1 I; Farishta IV/90. (303) Mirat|,p.111} Tab. III/311. (304) Mirat.,p.111. (305) Tab. III/ 3 1 I; Farishta IV/90. Mirat.(p.lll) gives the name of the place as Burhani. (306) M>at.,p.111; Tab. III/3H; Farishta IV/90. \ '

(307) Tab.

(30d) ibid.IIl/311; Mirat.,p.11U

(309) Tab. III/311.

(310) Mirat.,p.111.

(311) ibid.,p.111; Tab. III/311-12.

(312) Mirat.,p.111.

(313) Farishta IV/90.

(314) ibl

(315) Mirat.,p.111.

(316) lab. ni/312.

(317) ibid.,IIl/312; M^rat.,p.111; Farishta IV/90.

(31^) cf. Mirat.,p.^5. The viev/ of Mirat. (p.d6)that the

Malik pursued the Rana out of Gujarat "as far as

Mandsaur" is contradicted by its own statemtnt on

p . m .

(319) The Arabic History of Gujarat, 1/112.

(320) Hirat.,p.111; Tab, I1I/3U. (321) Mirat.,p.m.

(322) ibid,p.Ill,

(323) Tab. III/312.

(324) Ibid, 111/312; Mirat.,p.111.

(325) Mirat.,p.m.

(326) ib id ,p .111. See also Tab. III/3 1 2 .

(327) Tab. 111/312-3; Farishta IV/91.

(323) Farishta IV/91.

(329) ibid, IV/91; Mirat.,p.lllj Tab. III/312.

(330)Mirat.,p.111.

(331) ibid.,p.111. See also Tab.III/312; Farishta IV/91. ------r ~

(332 ) farikh-i Bahadur Shahi (quoted by Mirat*,p»112);

Tab. III/313; Farishta IV/91.

(333) Tab.ni/313j Farishta IV/91.

(334) cf. Tab. IH/313.

(335) ibid,m / 3 13 . Farishta (IV/91) says , 'left behind*. (336 ) Farishta IV/91. (337) Tab. IH/313. M^rat. (p.112) says that from M»rasa

the prmy proceeded to Kahmulah in Bagad. Bagad is

situated on 23*2»N arad 73‘’37*E. (338) Tab.IIl/3 13 . (339) ibid 1 1 1 / 3 13 * See also i’he Arabic History of Gujarat (1 / 1 1 3 ) and Mj[rat-i Ahamadi (p .226). Lakiakot is situated on 23*^21 and 74 1*E. Its present name is

is Galiakot {Tab.IIl/313 n.4). (340) 23’ 33* and 7k 27E. (341) 23 50 1 and 73'43»E. (342) Mirat.,p.112; Tab.Ill/313j Farishta IV/91. (343) M^rat.,p.112.

(344) ibid,p.112; Tab.111/313-14; Farishta IV/91-2.

(345) Farishta IV/92. (346) Mirat.,p.112.

(347) ibid,p.113.

(348) Tab.HI/314; Farishta IV/92. The claim of Mirat.

(p .86) that the Malik reached Mandsaur in pursuit of

Sanga iidien the latter was retiuming from his Gujarat

expedition is incox*rect.

(349) Mirat.,/.I13; Tab.IIl/314. (350) Mirat.,p.113; The Arabic History of Gujarat,I/II4. (3 5 1 ) Oza: Raj. Iti.,II/iil7 (352) Mirat.,p.113. See also Tab. (III/3 14 ) , An insci’i- ption dated Poshya Shukla 5,1576 V.S. (Dec,26,1519 A .D .) from Mandsaur refers to tiao UiM Ashokaioal as

”Uianedar'* of that place. For the text of the

inscription see Appendix I ( I I ) .

(353) M irat.,p.113; Tha Arabic *^istory of Uujarat,1/114*

(354) Mirat.,p.113. Tab. (III/314i and Farishta (JV/92)

hold that Sanga halted at a place (najse not given), r' 24 miles from Mandsaur# 355) Tab. 1 1 1 / 3 15 . 356 Mirat.,p.1l3. 35^ Farisl'ita IV/92.

(35$) The Arabic history of Unjarat l/l14» See also pp.226,

239. (359) Tab.Hl/315; Mirat.,p.113j Farishta IV/92; The Arabic History of Gujarat, I / I I 5. (360) of. Mirat.,p.113 and Tab. III/3 1 5 . A daughter of Sanga was given in marriage to Bhupat, the eldest

eon of Silhadi (The Arabic History of Gujarat,l/227li#

(36 1) Mrat.,p.1l3. (362) cf. Tab.III/315. (363) Farishta IV/92. (364) T a b . , m / 3 15 . (365) Farishta IV/92. {366) Tab. 1 1 1 / 316 . (367) i b i d .,1 1 1 / 3 16 ; Farishta lV/92-3. (368) Mirat.,p.113. (369) Tab. 1 1 1 / 316 . (370) Farishta IV/93. (371) Tab. m / 3 16 . (372) Farishta IV/93*

(373) lbid.IV/93; Tab.Hl/3l6.

(374) cf. Fariehta IV/93.

(375) Tab. 111/316.

(376) ibid,IIl/3l6j Farishta IV/93.

(377) Tab.111/316. (37^) Farishta IV/93. Tab. (III/3 16 ) uses plural in

in connection for tbese mines. (379) Tab. III/ 3 16 . (3^0) ibid,II1/316 ; Farishta IV/93.

(3^1) Farishta IV/93.

(3^2) Tab.m /316. (3^3) ibid,111/3 16 5 Farishta IV/93. (384) Farishta IV/93.

(3^5) i'iirst. jp. 113• (3&6) Tab,1 1 1 / 3 16 ; Parishta IV/93.

(3^7) Tab. 111/316.

(3^d) Mirat.,,p.36.

(3^9) Farishta IV/93. (390) ib id.,IV /93l T ab.IIl/3l6; fhe Arabic History of Gujarat,1 / 1 15. (3 9 1) Mirat.,p.113. (392) Tab.1 1 1 / 3 16 ; Earishta IV/93.

(393) i-iirat.,p.113.

(394) Tab. 11I/31«.

(395) Mirat.,p.113.

(396) ibid,p.113; Tab.III/317; Farishta IV/94.

(397) cf. The message of Sultan on the eve of the departure

ofor Mandu to Kiwamulraulk (Mirat. ,pp.113-4). (39S) Mirat,,p.114.

(399) Farishta IV/94. The view of Tab. {111/317) and

M rat* (p«114) that Musiaffar scolded him is unaeeepa-

l3le in the light of the fact that the treaty was

approved by the Sultan (j[Mirat.,p, 113),

(400 Tbb.III/317,

(401 ibid,,IIl/317; Mirat,,p.114; Farishta IV/94. (402 cf* Farishta IV/94*

(403 ibid.,IV/94i Tab.m/317,

(404 Farishta IV/94.

(405 ibid, IV/94-5J Tab.III/317. (406 Farishta IV/94.

(407 ibid,,IV/95| Tab.m/317. (4oa Tab,111/31 a; Farishta IV/95.

(409 Tab.III/3ld.

(410 i b i d ,m /3 l S j M r a t .,p .1 1 4 ; Farishirta IV/9|^.

(411 Tab.ni/3ia} Farishta IV/95.

(412 Tab.111/313; Farishta IV/95; Mirat.,p.114.

(413 Mirat,,p.114.

(414 Tab.111/31d; Farishta IV/95.

(415 farishta IV/9a.

(416 Tab. 111/31 a.

(417 M ira t.jp .l14.

(41S ibid,p.1141 Tab.111/31 a.

(419 Tab. m /3 IS (420 ib id ,l Il /3 lS; Mirat.,p.114. (421 Tte Arabic % sto ry of Gujarat,I/i 14 (422 Mirat.,p.113, lit..

(423) Farishta IV/93. (424) Malik Ayaz did m>t bring any tribute or present

from the Ran a to the Sultan. 425 Fariahta IV/93. 425 Mirat.,p.a6.

(42$) ef. Mirat.,pp,113-4. (428) ibid*,p.113.

(429) Farishta IV/94. (430) ibid.,IV/95| Tab.IIl/317; I4irat.,p.114. (431) Tab,III/607-8.

(432) ibid.,#Il/608j Farishta IV/264-

(433) Fari^ta IV/264.

(434) Tab*III/6oa.

(435) Rantharabhor was under the Sultans of Maz»iu. Its

governor Daulat Khan, under inducenent from Ali Khan

Nagori, offered to surrender it to Sultan Sikandar

Lodi in 1516 A«D. but for the vileness of Ali Khan Nagori himself Sikandar vould have t>.cquired this

fort (A1 Badaoni 1/425; Tab.1/382-^3; Farishta

1/ 584*85 )•' Sanga conquered it ( i ^ r K^i^a, leaf 28(b ); Kavi Raoi K^vitta Kana Sanga ra, Appendix G, verse 2; ^ensi 1/49) from some coHmande«r Ali

by an escalcade (Kavi Hao: Kavitta Vikramadit asr Udai Singh ra (Ch.VIII, Appendix T ), verse 1 ). (436) Kavi Hao: Kavitta Sanga ra, App^dix G, verse 4*

This gives the year (1578 V.S.) and Kartika month

and tithi (lOth day) but not the fortnight of the date when Ranthambh6r was captured by Sanga. There

were two Kartikas in 1578 V.S« So the time of the

fall of this fort in the hands of the Eana should n i

be sofflevrhere in Sept. to Nov. 1521 A.D.

(437) Tab.III/609.

(43d) Mirat.,p.H5; Tab.111/320; Farishta IV/96.

(439) The Arabic History of Gujarat,1/121, See also

Memoirs of Babar 11/261,

(440) Mirat.,p.139.

(441) ibid.,p.115. See also Tab.IIl/321j Farishta IV/96.

(442) Mirat.,p.11S.

(443) Tab.IIl/320-1. Mirat.-Js Rai Singh (p. 115) is a

corruption of Udai Singh.

(4U ) Mirat,,p.140. (445) ibid.,pp.115,14 0 5 Tab.111/321^ Farishta IV/96. y ( 446) M irat.,p.140. The Arabic History of Gujarat (1/121) describes the victim as the son of Sanga, which

^ is incorrect,

(447) Vanshavali 32^, leaf 63(b); Vanshavali 372,p .132; Vanshavali leaf 6d(a). Mirat. (p.liiX)) calls this lady ”the mother of the Rana" which Vir Vinod ( I /3 6 1)

and Munahi Devi Prashad (Maharana Sangram S in ^ ,p *3 6 )

» have accepted. Munshi Deviprashad has farther gone

out to add that she was the dau/'hterof Raja Rana

Rajdhar of *^alwad, whose nanie, according Badawa

Devidan (Mewar ki Raniyaun ki Pidhiyaim ki Khyat, leaf 1 (b)) was Ratan Kutmar, ^ence she cannot be the

lady in question whose name is unmistably and specifi­

cally given in all the Vanshavalis as Dhanbai ffathor,

(440) Mirat.,p.140, (450) ib id ,p .1 14 , 140-15 T a b .III/3 2 1 ; Farishta IV/96. (451) Tab, m /32 31 The Arabic tiistory o f Gujarat, I / 1 3 1 , (452) Tab.IIl/325; Farishta IV/99. (453) Mirat.,p.141. (454) Tab.IIl/325. (455) ibid,IIl/325; Mirat.,p.142. (456) Mirat*,p«142* Tab,(III/325) saysthat 700 and Farishta (IV/99) says that 1,700 followers of Malik latif «I44 4a died in this battle,

(457) Tab.IIl/325. (45s) ^lirat.,p.142. (459) ibid.,p,142; Tab.IIl/325. (460} Hirat. ,p.142. (4 6 1) I’arishta IV/99. (462) ibid.,IV/99-100} Mirat.,pp.143-44J Tab.IIl/327-28. For the different dates of this event see T a b .Ill/

32a n .2 . (463) Mirat.,p.l44* (464) ibid.jp.U^i Tub.111/323; Farishta lV/4ftll0t. (465) Mirat.,p.149. (466) ibid.,p.l50; Tab.ni/33O; i^arishta IV/lOl. (467) Tab.IIl/330; Farishta IV/10 1 . (463) cf. Mirat.,pp.149-50. (469) Ibid.,p. 150; Tab.ni/33O; Farishta IV/10 1 . The Arabic History of Gujarat (1/133) says that Taj

Khan )>imself went and m^t Bahadur.

(470) Mirat.,p.149. (471) Tab.IIl/329; Farishta IV/102. (472) Tab.IIl/329. (473) Kirat.,p.l49. (474) ibid.,p.150; Tab.IIl/329-30. (475) cf. Tab.IIl/330.

(476) ibid.,II1/330j Mirat,,p.150; Fariehta IV/102.

(477) Mirat.,p.150.

(47^) Tab.IIl/330; Farishta IV/l02*

(479) cf. Mirat.,p.150i Farishta IV/102.

(480) Mirat.,p.l50; Tab.IIl/330; Farishta IV/102*

(481) Tab.III/330.

(482) Mirat.,p,150, Se© also Farishta IV/103. (483) T a b .III/330. (484) i b i d . , m / 3 31-3; M irat., p. 1 5 1 ; Farishta IV/102. (485) After Vikramjit*s arrival, Bahadur Shah stayed for one month at Ahmedabad (Mirat., p. 158 ) and then went to Cambay, Kadod, Surat and Raander (ibid,pp.158-591

and finally spent the rainy season at Champaner. All («A4> this itinerary would have required ;,a period of one

month. So tvro months after the arrival Vikramjit

monsoons set in. As aonsoons start in Gujarat in the

middle of June, ao about the middle of April, Vikram-

Jit n m U would have come to Gujarat.

(486) Mirat.,p.158 ; Tab.IIl/343. (487) Mirat.,p.158. (488) {fell- In the characteristic hypocritical manner Tab. (III/343) calls the purpose of this mission as "rendering homage" to Bahadur Shah vMch is absurd. (489) Mirat.,p.158.

(490) Tab.IIl/343, (491) Mirat.,p.159 . (492) ibid.,p.159; Tab.IIl/343. Tab. says that Vikram|it stayed "for some days" which is an inaccurate \ T s r ~

description of 5 months*

(493) *^ensi I / 46. In the verse quoted by ftensi of tke

name of this ruler Is given as ^'^‘ukund,

(494) Kavya, leaf 23(bP. See also Vanshavali leaf 60(a); Vanshavali leaf 64(b).

(495) Mar Kavya, leaf 23(b), (496) 21* 5 *N & 34“ 22»E, (497) Amar Kavya, leaf 2S (^ ), (49^) ibid, leaf 2S(b).

(499) Kirat.,p.177. (500) M ar Kavya, leaf 2^(b), (5 0 1) Vanshavali 328,leaf 59(b). (502) Memoirs of Bebar,J;^9Sj II/292, (503) Tod.,op. cit.,l/349|s A.C.Banerji:Sajput Studies,

pp.94-5. (504) Khusian Raso, 126 (b), verses 49-50, (505) ^'^moirs of Babar, 11/292.

(506) Ain-i Akbari (Blochman T r ,),1/129,635. trfrfyTsg (|)

RFTTT^uT rrrr rr 3 0ttpT(T^5trT tt^tt ^:)

^ m m

^ «cT IR?T ?rnr RcTT

F T R HT7 ^fqtrr

gjT vigsf ^fr irrf? tprrc?

arr^^ff 9f?f srrf^ trr^ fc?FT? n u ¥ 5 §q? 1,11

RT T^IT *Tt3T f^c^l

^ tfTcf; Tpftr

TTStT 3?T ^STTfl ^nrmTT

V T ^ Jl^ r^f^r^^ TTTr?f '4T ¥f? cT^

T R ^f\ qcTT I I ^ I I

^jj-fr ^cfr rrrgr^ nrr?^

irr:=:?ttrfcT eft ^ m 3T-cT STrR;^

^?<^? J1T=T JrrTTT^

ijfs ^nj-R ^ f2;^3V

TPT tfr?5F ^ ^ f^FiT^r ??=f

^TrjTiT 7T^ ^TrTf? -f^--rRr ^fTTTI 1^11

^Tf TfTTtr ?r^ vfuo y m ^ ? -g^w^ie*^ipr

ijn^r3>r ?ift? ^sifl' 9c5T

TTJT ^T3T f-^:^

to 5ctt ^Tf^n tmc^ ijg

■^^■^ ftcfr^ <^1 tj^T? c5f^ ft5i7

^rr TTf c^rq ^ Ivl I fq.IT ^ trPTTcl

IT? ^Sirrr rrq^T fjfcT T?f rf^T arrr <3^753 t«7 i m ^Sfff,

fH7 g-5 ftP"T ^ss ^ fft tr;=^qg7 517757? ^??5? ^ 7T'7nr?5 ^ J IT 3 f r r f ? ^ § cfr^ ^?T1 Is I I

^ ^*Jn q?cf^ rrfy

Wt rpRT?r TT fr CTTTf ^Tp nt? fSrc^f c^lfr tw ^717 ^ irr^7 F?f^-’ S (^ 7 Ti:=^Tr err'?? cTTTt

TFT ^ ^7

7T^ giT f^=f ^1^7 r^ ^TTF ^ %l u I I

3'vf^7ftr JTT3KIT f^ctt 0f=f ^T=r tTcH ift-7 ’^TTf^R ^ITffc'c? 9t'qtXT,Wr^-^mfWl^i5BWnrr rfq ^ ^iTfH TTri'7q7 ^-ssmr? m :"^tcT7 crrf7 r\T3T 7T^^ ?7 7*R ftrf?T Rr«? ^ ^ f 7 HTl? 9T^cT ^7*rr «T7T»7 7TH 75! ^rq Hen f5T ^f7*rri lol I

T T ^ 7 VT^F7

6ZT ?c??TT^ *TR rffn VTttt

^^ijrr ^ ^tfTTT 3nrf7 <¥t3T 5crr tl7^?r J^Tc? fc^^ t\^ 7 m nps»?r ?rrf? tT f7

^f«JT*7 citj n? 9'^ ^^^ ^>T.?-i^ 1 I I I ^jJT3r

«ljfT fiTr^ »rfcT t7JT ^TrTrT tf'15 rf-!^ TJTTft

T^cf ar^cT cT^fT ^‘JT HT

‘*sVTt fcTffi^? ^qfcT f

Ity-R ?-R rfJT TTIT JTTF I I < 1 I

'i qs rf?JT §?5vTr-^ f^fcT ==rA* ^T^ft t f^?rf-g RfrTJ; fc5^3r

■f^^* frTeT)* grrr ^cKR f^^3T'

Hf=T TTt? Ef?c5f 3cT-=f wf^ f^T^rr^ ffJJTiT TT^ ^ v m ^-TV Jt^ I I 091 I

5l^T<-fl 4fTJT «f^*l >-T-^ rJT TU i^>tT??rr=T *rfT ^<'fir

^ 5f1Z 2 if==57-?

^TT rr??T ^r?

»rf^ 77TT ?frT I^rc^? grT^ cfY&T<5j“T

TT^ 1^ rr-^jn-f tr# ufti I ??i i

<4Tf^ trfrt^ ?Hrr^ orf? iTfcrs^rr fR3 W^.A T ^ c1?T ^fr^TT^ g?cT?l fyT ?JT5f-‘47

^ ^ T T cTSc! ^ qcT *rf?cT Tnr-^fe? rriT^T r r f ? ^j; f^*T TT qri m i 1 ?Tfc5 ^ wfj

^-vT^ ^1* i(^''YcT *ym trfT

5f^-n^ ^?i ttt'^

3jt ^*fq vt'^ BT? rrtJ

Vlf^ j m ?q1cf ^r6^ 3Tt^:^fT ^

R?3^ f3f? ??rf? ^wi i ?311 w T fF ;f«rfq 5'rfTT -:TsrfTT T r f i ;?n fq ^ « t

3Tf? ^ m $-7 ^rf^ S^TT-l ^»T t^JT riY*Tl> m ^T7 o^T^^?^

(TTf^T r^rrf?!? m-^^^tnrr

^f^r jjn gqfcT q?r^? 3?r rfrf nf>^“ 1'Rrf>^J:rJT

rftR ?nrR f^irrri | ?y| |

: vrriTrTT:

^■cfT r-TR:

■T

Extent of the fief of Rao Aofaalakaran :

STHRniff ^ - U

3TTW. i|n5W, w r, TPijrr, ^rrctreSt-, «Vcif^, 4sftci. 4e?^i y i, •«Tnt, yj^nr ^ - <•

Hnrfh, ifrqsSh, ^mrr, ^g=nr y^FTT y

HTS^msr ^ - u

ar^ *rm^. 4mgr, ifrtr, wgr, gnregfr, armtr, ?rr^, 4c;^i ^

vr^^TTTr^rtnT, orjmar, ^rrw4r, t r ^ t , or®, s^mr^rr, s^hrm^r, w f ^ , (fh?@r, spRfrr, t?%r

3ff«H - M

cfrr%, «r*rr,5sEff*rmr5, TnftTrr^^rsr^,

fTcTRj. 2 | | ^ . §q?sr src m . =^ttr

(■*nr) iOTT ^ - tvj

f*rh5i^, ^ r t r . g^crniljr. ffwr F ^ s g r , 5fhrrm, 4nR5gr, w ^ rg,g«T. w r ^ . e n w .

ifMqAT ^ w r a ^ ( obtained by the courtesy of Rao 3hri Motl Slnghji Chandawat, Haapura, M.3. ) ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 (ft)

?l^''fTf5rcT

Cl; iTiTT,

?, v\co 4^-f >j.Trr

I tfrrajj^ff rrc^r^

; 9, T f 1 1 RFTTTTT f>.TrT'-^ rrrrrnPT

S TT^^r 11 «fr Ttfrpfr^T ttpct- OT M t trrai ^ffr ^ T rrf^

\Zj I i Ilf^FcT I I STT^f ^VV?

#irr^ Ti rrrr"rR7t>-TTT5r ^ m rr ^rii

5^ cT^q ¥ T^I TT^ ^

irai ^rr> J^TTTTTfcTI I I rr? ^^ti m - ^ i I trr?5 f 7 ?rr?s ^ 11

0 ^ ^ ^rrft a-qr^

C, ^ ^1 ^ THT ^ rfR? TTcfr cfj^

^ fTcTT^I ^ ^ ^ H^rrr^T ^fr?i ^ n f ?o^ ^ RFTtrr

??, cfr ^ Tm 4\\ frT c ^

ri, EfTTETT tr-R ^T>ri TT^? TT^I 'TF^T^l I u, ■n^« ^ H fftiTTrTl ^5fF