Relations Bet\A/een the Sultanates of Malwa and Gujarat
DISSERTATION SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE C Master of Philosophy IN HISTORY
By FAIZA SIMIN
Under the Supervision of Mr. Iqtidar Alam Khan
CENTRE OF /\DVAMCED STUDY Departmant of History Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh 1982 as 3
* MNi vi.Ro
DS322 It is to certify that Miss Fai2» Sljniii*8 M.Phil, dissertation "Relations Between th» Sultanates of Malwa and Gu.1arat" is based on her original research and it is ready for submission for the a\iard of M.Phil, degree.
(IQTIDAII KUM KHUI) Reader, Deoartonent of History, AMU, Aligarh.
20.5.1982 £1 Ji J Jiii
ACKNOyLeOGCMCMTS 1
ITROOUCTION 2
1. Thfl Coininon Boundary of tha Kingdona of Gujarat and Maltuat 1407-1526 19 A • Map of the Boundariaa of Halvua and Gujarat (1407-U83). B * Map of tha Boundariaa of Maluia and Gujarat (1484-1513) C - Map of the Boundariaa of Maluia and Gujarat (1514-1526) 2. Natra of frequant conflicto batu/een Gujarat and Mai'uta) An aaaeaanant of tha oontaaiporary clalMa and eharactarlzatlona* 44
?• Role of 2iaai"dar« in tha mutual ralationa of Gujarat anci Malwa 63 A - Map of the zamindaria of Gujarat and Maltua
4, The role of ule«a and waehaikh in Mflwa - Gujarat ralatlono SB
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 102
BIBLIOGRAPHY 111 1
i£JSii£^iiJfi£il!JIJiI
It la ny plaaaant duty to Bnptmna my gratitude toiuarda thoaa froM u/hon I have rscelvad help and moral encouragnaant in turlting thia diaaertatlon.
My sense of obligation tou/ards my si^arvisor, Hr.Iqtidar Alam Khan, is beyond any expression, My parents have been a constant source of inspiration and moral support. I am especially grateful to my grandfather for taking the trouble of procuring books for me from the Maulana Azad Library, I am extremely thankful to my esteemed teacher, Profaasor Irfan Habib, for hia unfailing help and to Or(Mlss) Shireen Mooawi and Or(Mrs,) Puahpa Prasad for thair raady support. All ny reaaaroh colleaguea and friends have asaisted me in innumerable luays in the course ef my urark and though I feel aiukiuard in naming them indiwi- dually, I am moat deeply grateful to each one of them,
Mr, Zahoor A,Khan, nr.Faiz Habib, and Mr.Aftab Aziz have very kindly draum the maps, I have received much help from the stafj of the Seminar Library, Department of History, and the staff of Maulana Azad Library(manu«cript division), Mr, S.A,A, Rizvi haa typed the dissertation with care and accuracy, I am thankful to all of than. /« * *
May, 1982 ''^*^« S^"^" IltII££iiCIJ£N_
The disintegration of the Delhi Sultanate under the Tughlaq dynaaty brought in ita tuake a number of regional potuera. Such ivara tha origins of the regional kingdoMS that roae-up in tha adjacent, but geographically demarcated* territories of Malufa and Gujarat. Thia aituation had a long hiatorical tradition going as far back aa the 4th century B,C, t A atrong, central authority, based in the Plains of Northern India, and having the capacity to hold together vast territories, mould alao rule over both these regions - but only so long as it could subdue the turbulent chieftaina in these territories.
The Mauryan Capire (400 B.C. - 165 B.C.) uues perhaps (1) the first pouter to achieve this position. A sinilar position obtained under the Guptas (395 A.O. • 470 A.D.)^?>. — The only instance luhen e regionel power, not hauing at its disposal the vast reaouroes of northern India, sinultanaously controlled both
(1) For Hauryan hold over Gujarat and Halwa, aee M.S. Coamiiaaa- riet, A History of Gularat. vol. I, Bombay, 1938,pp.XXy, XXVI. The edicts of Ashoka, found at Girnar and Sopara, are cited by him in thia connexion.
(2) Cf. the ooina of Samudra Gupta and tha Girnar Inscription of Skanda Gupta, dated 456 A.O., and inciaed on Asokan rock edict (n.3. Commissariat^ op.clt.. p. XUII)} 3os«ph Schwartjtberg, A Historical Atlas of South Asia. Chicago Ik London, 1978, Plate XIV, 1, p. 145. Gujarat and Maltua is of tha Kahatr^ja during tha 2nd century (1) A»D, an axoaptlon only proving the rule that, in tha abaanoa of a atrong eentral pouiar, Gujarat and Haliua had the tendency to allp under the control of independent authoritiea whieh itfould be confined to their natural boundaries. As a matter of fact, for the major part of the period intervening bettuean tha fall of tha Gupta Cisplra and the establiahnent of the Delhi Sultanate there flaouriahed in Haluia and Gujarat
a number of regional pouiars that u^ere resistant of integration under a central potuar. During thia period several minor
dynasties, notably, the Vakatakas, the Hunas, the later Guptas and tha early Kalschuris} the Paramaraa, the GurJara«43ratiharas, the Rashtrakutas, tha Chavadas (also called Chalukyas or Solankis) and the Vaghelas, etc, separately held these rich and fertile (2) plains under their sovereignty*
Alauddin Khalji conquered Gujarat in 1298-99 A.D. (3) (4) (698 M.H.) and than Maluia in 1304-5 A,D. (704 A.H.) and
(1) M.S. Commiasariat, op«cit..pp. XXXII-XX-XXXW. Refers to Chastana*s coins and Rudraaan 1st*a rock edict inscription of Girnar near Dunagarh, dated 150 A.O, (2) For details regarding all these local dynasties, see M.S. Cotiifflissariat.op.cit..PP.IV.VI.XXXWIII-XXXIX. IXXVII-IXXlXi also J.K.Farbss.^as Mala. OUP ,Vol.I,pp.252,257-8; V.i.Mishra The Gurlara-Pratiharas and Their Times.Nem Delhi, 1966 ^p ,52| 3oseph Schtu8rtzberg,jB£.jg|J^.,Plates XlV,liios.I-Zn,pp.l45-47. (3) Yahya airhindi.Tarikh-i Mubarak Shahi.Bibliotheca Indkea Series,Calcutta,1931,P.76|Nizamuddin Ahmad.Tabagat-J Akbari. Nswal Kishors ed.. 1S7 5.\/ol.l.pp.69-70;Firishta.Tarikh-i\ Firishta.Namal Kishors sd.,1884,Vol,X,p.l03.Also Commissariat op.cit.P.2iSC WisgaCThs Rjss of Muslim Power in Gu.1arat.iared p,63)is of the viauf that although Gujarat was eonqusrsd in>. 1298-89 AO. it was not attachsd to the Delhi Sultanate untlA 1305 A.O. \ (4) See Niiamuddin Ahmad, OP.cit.. p.72j Firishta, op.cit. .P . 115t' annexed both the regions to the Delhi SuUanate . Henceforth, Gujarat and nalua practically remained a part of the Delhi Sultanate till the end of the 14th cent. A. D.
The beginning of the 15th century aatu the collapae of the Tughlaq dynasty under the impact of Timur'e invasion and Governors of provinces like Gujarat, flaltua, 3aunpur, (1) Bengal, etc., proclaimed their ind^sendence. Though thess regional kingdoms lusraj^roducts of anarchy, and harboured Mutual tensions and conflicts, they continued to exist, with varying fortunes, dotun to the end of the 15th century,
Gujarat became independent in 1407-8 A.D, (810 H.H.) uihen its last Tuglaq Governor, Zefar Khan, ta|f:ing advantage of Timur'e invasion, assumsd the sovereign title of Muzaffar (2) Shah I. Thia dynaety ruled over Gujarat from 1407<»8 A,D. to 1572-73 (810 A.M.- 980 A.M.). It luas abolishsd only aftsr (3) Akbar finally annex ad Gujarat to ths Mughal Empire.
P. (4) f.n, of prev. contd.f Rushbrook Williams, An Empire Builder of Sixteenth Century. Delhi,1916,p.10. All of these concur on 1304-5 AD ae the data of the annexation of flalwa. But Yahya SirhindKop.cit.. PP ,77-78) placee the event in 1300 AD (700 AH), (1)
(2) Baburnama.Bombay.1890.0.189: Nizamuddin Ahmad.ap.cit..Vol. III,p.448;Sh8ikh Abdul Haque Muhaddis Dehalvi.op .cit..p.26t Firishta.op.oi.t..vol.II.p.181t Sikender bin Manjhu, Wlrat-i Sikanderi.Barode. 1961,p.21. (3) 'ibul Fazl, Akbar name. Bibliotheca Indiea Series, Calcutta, 1878,VoI,n,pp.368-72; Nizamuddin Ahmad.OP.cit.. p.444. similarly ths kingdom of Maltus waa eatabllahed In
1404-5 A.O. (807 A,H,) by Dilauar Khan Ghori luho had been appointed Gowarnor of the roglon by the last Tughlaq ruler. (1) Sultan fluhammad Shah. With the replacement of tha Ghori dynasty by the Kha|ji8 in 1436-9 A,D. (842 A.H.), «ah«ud Khaljl (2) I seized pouier in Naliua sftet poisoning Ghaznl Khan. Ths Kings of this dynasty ruled Maluja till 1531-32 (937 A.H,), Subsequently (3) Maliua uuas annaxad by Bahadur Shah of Gujarat,
Zn this dissertation lue havs aimed a rsvleun of the long history of interaction bstu>een the kingdoms of nalwa and Gujarat during tha period from 1407 A.O. to 1526 M.O, Whils our study of the yoars 1407 - 1498 M.O. is in the nature of a background, a more detailed treatment of the evidence for the period 1498 A.O. - 1526 A.O. has been attempted.
The study has been undertaken in the hope that it mould, on the one hand, give fresh insights into tha nature and causes of struggle and discard betwaen the tu (1) Nizamuddin Ahmad, p.533; Sheikh Abdul Haque Huhaddia Dehlavi, p.26{ Firisbka, P.234. (2) aMikli Shihab Hekim^ Wa*a»ir-i Piahmud Shaht. Delhi, 1968, PP.33-5| Nizamuddin AhRiad,p.461) ririshts,p . 190. (3) Nizamuddin Ahmad, pp. 501-2; Firishta, p«2t7t Sikander bin Manjhu, qp.c^it., pp. 277-8. b other hand, It aight prowlds us uuith an analogy for tha kind of •oolo-politioal conflict* and compromiaaa that luers devedoping in Northern and Central India aa a vuhola, on the eve of Babur'e invaaion. Tha reign of Sultan Ahmad 5hah (1410-1441 AO), Sultan Mahmud Shah Bagada (1459-1511 rt.O.)» and Sultan Muzaffar 5hah n (1511-1526 A.O.) conatitute a oiatarahed in the annals of Gujarat. For, it wisa during this period that Gujarat amargad as the moat pooiefful stake, playing an important role in shaping politics in Northern India. It had a floMJ^ahing trade tuith the Delhi Sultanate, Maliua, and other regions of ths Indian sub-continent, to uuhich parts it exported several of its products. Salt tuas one of the major items of export from (1) Gujarat to neighbouring areaa* The bulk of the white salt (2) producsd at Dhejwara was sxported to Maluta. Moreover, Gujarat, by virtue of its position on the Western Coastline of India, traded uiith other countries of the world via its numerous see- (3) posts. All thsse made for economic prosperity and, consequently, (1) Among the more important salt producing areas of Gujarat u/ere Broach, Cambay, Godhara,Ahmedabad, and Dhejwara. (2) See Mil nuhammac Khan, MJLrat-i Ahwadi. Bombay, 1889. Vol. I, P.15, (1) Gujarat could maintain a large army. From about 1507 onwarda Ita army came to be equipped uiith a More eophiaticated kind (2) of field guna acquired fron Weet Aeia. Poeaeseed tuith large financial reaouroaa and an impraaaive max machinery, the rulera of Gujarat, (apecially Sultan Hahmud Begada and Sultan Muzaffar Shah II) could check the growing might of Rajput zamindare in their kingdom. It uaa the lamindara inaido Gujarat that the powerful in thff BOUfii^f their efforte to euppMsa^the zawindarif of Champanir, Idar, and 3unagarh were annexed, Simultaneoualy they encroached on the territoriee of nalma, oeot^iying portiona of it that belonged to the Khalji etate governing the region. The eame period alao tuitneased the aucceee of the Gujaratia (3) and their alliee againat the Portugueao near Chaul. In the caae of Malwa, the reigne of Sultan Hoahang Shah (1407-14?5 A.D.) and Sultan Mahmud Khalji I (1438-1469 A.D.) are moat remarkable. During their reigne Maltua became highly proeperoue. The cultivation of foodgraina in Maltua tuaa (1) Cf, Sikander Manjhu (op.cit..D.112> who racorda that in the early daya of Sultan Mahmud Begade the army uiaa expanded to auch an exient that the entire countryeide of Gujarat stood distributed among the aoldiera in lieu of salaries and not a aingle village remained in Khaljsa for four ysara. (2) Mirat-i Ahmadi. Vol.I, p,125. (3) Sharfuddin Mahmud Bukhari, Tabaqat«i Hahmud Shahi,(M^>.l62» pp.17«18| Sikandsr bin ManlKu. op.cit..PP.?air"2t7/i^-? o axtsnaivi sneugh to yield surplus** for export to Gujarat and other places. Wheat (tuhleh was cultivated on a large scale in the ^sarkar; of Garh) was an important item in the export of cereals. Ram opiun was another item exported to Gujarat. According to Barbosa, the opium processed at Cambay, (2) uias produced at Maltua. An increase in the military strength of Maltua during this period is evident from the annexation of, besides several zawindaris on its ouin periphery and in the (5) hinterland* a number of places belonging to Meuiar. From our study of the sources it appears that constant attempts mere made by the rulers of both Gujarat and Maluia to maintain the existing balance of power in the region. Until 1526 the ruler of neither state ssriously tried to abolish the rival dynasty, even when circumstances seemed to permit aueh a drastic measure. After 1526, however, there is a change, and ths kingdom of Malwa was eventually annsxed to Gujarat by Bahadur Shah in 1531-32 A,0, My dissertstion have besn dsvoted to an examination of the circumstances in which the deliberate orientation of the (1) For the export of foodgrains from nalwa to Gujarat, aeo, Abul Fazl, Ain-i Akbari. Bib. Ind.,Vol.I,pp.456-85| Vol.11, pp.94-95, 114-16. Also see Moreland, Indie st the death of Akbar. London,1920,P.244j Irfan Habib. Agrarian System of Muohal India. Bombay, 1963,p.73| Pearson.pp.cit.. p.13. (2) Sarboas, op.cit.« Vol.II,p.230| Alao Irfan Habib, op.cit.. P.74, (3) See Chapter I for a diacuaaion of all theae conqueata. y tuio statas towards maintaining a balance of poiuer in th« region came to be undermined - resulting in the loss of their independent identities and the absorption of the entire region, once again^ into an impmrial system based in the Plains of Northern India, The First Chapter takes up the question of ths political boundary betujeen Gujarat and naloia. Hers I have tried to pisce togsther the territorial adjustments occurring, from time to time, bettueen the tuio states. Thsoratically, thsss rssulted from either a state of confrontation and tussle or a stats of mutual undsrstanding and allianos against a common foe as, for instance, against the Rajput chisfs ou>ing allsgianes to the Sisodias of Metuar. The burden of my Second Chapter is an examination (1) of ths tuell-knoiun thesis of Rushbrook Williami, according to uihich the period covered by us tuas marksd by an increasing alignment of regional statss along religious linss, so mueh so that ths emerging blocks of "Hindu* snd "Muslim* pouisrs wsre In a stats of collision with each other. Rushbrook yilliam*s prsssntation of ths problem crsstss the inevitable impression that religious animosity and discord were the primary and most potent factors shaping the relations bstiueen Halufa, Gujarat, and neuiar. I have tried to cheek the authenticity of this vistu by An (1) Rushbrook William, and Emoirs Builder of the 16th century Allahabad, 1915. iJ an analysis of the actual perception af the rulara of tha tuio «tat88» and their adwisars, as raflaetad in the claina and counter-olaina aada by then at different points of time. The Third Chapter deals entirely uiith the role played by the a^amindars in either supporting or subverting tha regional balance sought to be Maintained by Gujarat and rialtua kingdons. Chapter lU is a scrutiny of the rols of Ulewa^ and Mashaikhi in the relations bettueen Gujarat and Malu/a, Here I have tried to assess the extent to uhich state policies uiere formulated according to the tenets of the ^hariat because of the direct or indirect intervention of the religious classes. This «»ould give the clue to the degree of influence they could exercise on the rulers of Maliua and Gujaratj and* also, how far this Influence tuas instrunental in pushing the two states into an alliance with each other for carrying on a ".liha^* in tha territories of the neigh- bouring Hindu rajas. The Chapter is, thsrefore in part, a ra-examinatlon of Rushbrook 8illia«*s vieui. As far as possible we have endeavoured to nove fron generalities to specific facts. It is hoped that the venture would enable ue to ovarcone, in part at leaat, the bias built into the bulk of our Persian chroniclss. The uee of the aocounta of European Travallars and of Inscriptions is slso to the sane purpose. Unfortunately, no modern unrk on this particular theme as such is availabls and we have thus been denied a nuch deeired help. The tourca Material on tha relatlona of tha kingdona of Maluta and Gujarat, though problanatlc in natura, it available in a variety of ferns and throu/a light on various aspects of this rslationship. It is quite axtansivs snd varied to sustain a detailed study of the history of ths relations of ths tu>o states dui^ig tha I5th and first quartsr of ths 16th centuries. One sarious draui-back of tha literary sourcos in that thsy srs latsr vuotks, iiostly rsgional histories coaipiled during ths lata 16th and early 17th centuries. But at ths sane time contemporary litsrsry writings are not altogether abssnt and ths onss that available are quite rich in original infomation on our subject. Ths infor-> nation furnishsd by ths literary sources is supplenentsd by ths surviving inscriptions and also by the accounts Isft bshind by the European travellers of ths 17th century. Ths last nsntionsd category of source naterial is partleulsrly ussful for uiorking out ths scononie intsrdspsndsnes of ths tuto kingdons and snablss ua to discern ths Qso-political factors shaping their Mutual relations. The earliest uiork uaed by ne for purposss of background information on ths subjsct is Traikh*! Wubarak Shahi of Yahyi Sirhindi, compiled at Delhi during the reign of Sultan Mubarsk (1) Yahya Sirhindi, Tarikh-i Mubarak Shah^. Textt od, by, M.Hldayat Husain, Bibliotheea Indica Ssries, Calcutta, 1931. J o,., Shah In 838 A.H./ 1494-35 A.O. Yahya Sirhln(li, apparently, wrota thia book for tha psruaal of hia anployar and patron. Sultan Mubarak Shah. This is Indicated by hia conmant that, "it (tha book) is a auitabla taken of aataan and affection to the ruler, for no More tuorthy offering can be nada to a king (1) than a record of the achiaveaienta of hia predeeeseora." Thus, it «ay be expected, the Tarikh-i Mubarak Shahi contains all tha drawbacks and advantages of a court history. Its account is naturally tailored to glorify the role of Mubarak Shah and his predecessor but, at the same time, it furnishes copious information that uias available to its author on ths political hiatory of the period from official papers. The information furnished by Tarikh»i Mubarak Shahi on the early history of Maliua-Gujarat relations is uniqus and thus is of vary great significance for our study. Another very early tuork that helped us greatly in under standing and interpreting our problem in ite true historical perspective, is Ma^ssir-i Mahmud Shahi by Mahmud Kirmani, popularly knotun as Shihab Hakim, a court historian of Sultan Mahmud Khalji I (1438-39 - 1469 ^.D.) of Malwa. Shihab Hakim mainly concentratoe on the expansion of Maluia kingdom under (1) The narrative in the book commences from ths period of Muhammad Sam, the founder of the Ghori dynasty and eontinuss upto Rabi*I 838 A.H./1434-33 AD. For information on ths earlier period the author seeme to have ueed authentic sourcsi liks Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi of Barni. (2) Shihab Hakim, Ma*asir-i Mahmud Shahi.Text, ed. by, S.Nurul Hasan Hashmi, Delhi, 19oS. 1J Mahmud Khaljl I, The utork was eoi^lsted by hia around 1567 A.O, Ita infornation though selaetad luith the elaar bias towards glorifying tha Military aehievanantt of Hahmud Khalji doss bring into relief a neu< equilibriiM of political forces arrived at in the Maliua-Gujarat region follou/ing the accretion of military strength to Malu>a as a result of its victories over the chieftains located on ita frontier. This evidsnco and tha process it highlights, aust be kept in view if Sultan Hahmud Begada's cautious but aggraaaiva policy toiuards Maltua is to be properly undsratood* The RiLYaa..ul'-In8ha of Khuiaja Ptahaud Gauian (813 A.H,/ 1410-11 M.O. - 886 A«H./l481-82 A.D,) bsing the only collection of letters (ooapiled in India) knoiun to have survivsd froa tha 15th century should naturally be rsgarded as a very il^>ortant sourcs. This faaous collsction contains letters written by Khwaja Mahaud Gau/an aa priae ainistsr of ths Bahaani Ea^aire to the eonteR^orary rulerst noblest 'uleaa and other asn of eminence in India as well as in West Asia, Hany of thets letters are of a diploaatio nature and therefore of especial significance for our atudy. The affaire of Gujarat and Halwa, in particular the political and ailitary alignaents of thsss kingdoms with tha Bahmani kingdoa, havs found mention in soas (1) Kahmud Gawan, Rivaa-ul-Insha, Text, ed. by Shaikh Chand with introduction and notes* 194B, Hyderabad Decean. lyt of tha Xatters prsservsd in Rlvaful-'Iftsha. Theae lattera are of help in aacartaining the aequance of eventa or tha cauaal pattern of developments in connection with theaa Kingdona - aona thing tuhich tuould have been difficult to achieve merely on the baaia of tha Pareian chronielaa. The earlieat hiatory of Gujarat uaed by ua in thia atudy» ia Tabgat-i Mahaud Shah, (the last surviving part of Tarikh-i GuiaratV by Sharfuddin flahmud Sukhari* Tha exact data of the coapilation of this book is not •entioned any where, and internal evidence too rmtalna ailsnt. But from a note of the copyiet in the colophan of the aurviving Manus cript, to the effect that Sharfuddih, tha author of tha book, paaaed atuay on 10th Safar 921 A.H./26th March 1515 %,D, one may conclude that this book was conpilsd some tine before that date. In the preface of the book, the author (2) inforas us thet the book i« divided into three tabaoats. but unfortunately only the last tabaqa of the book covering the reign of Sultan Mahaiud Bagada (843 A,H./l456-59 A.D.-917 A.H./151Q-11 A.D.) is avallabls. It is obvious that tha (1) Sharfuddin Mahieud Bukhari, Tataqat"! Mahwud Shahit MS, in Maulana Azad Library,AMU Alioarh, Farsiya Akhbar. 162. It has a totel of 20 folios and ia written in Naataliq ecript. (2) According to the author tha first ^abqa dealt with Zafar Khan (743 A,H./l312-43 A.D. - 813 A.H,/l410-11 A.D,); tha second recorded the history of Gujarat for ths period between 1410-11 to 1458 A.D. id author uiho llvad in Gujarat during Sultan Mahnud Bagada*a raign , uiaa an aye utitnaaa to uihat ha racorda in tha aurviving section of tha book. Tha information 8i«>pliad by the author, (1) although praaantad in a language having religioua ovartonaa, la by and large authentic and uaaful. The hiatoriea of Gujarat conpiled during the 16th and 17th centuriae appear either in the forn of aeparate aectione of general hiatoriea euch aa for example to be found in Tab gat (2) (3) k ^kbari and Tarikh-i Firiahtai or in tha form of full- fledged chronicle concerned mainly tuith regional davelopmenta. Both theee are indeed wary rich in factual detaila and furnish enornoua evidence on diplomatic ties and military confliota in the atatea of Gujarat, Maluia and Mamar dating from the time of their exiatance aa aeparate entitiea* Some of thaae worka had bean turitten in the Mughal Co^ire by officials who tuare poated in the Mughal aufcfa of Gujarat Two vary early ehroniclea of this nature are Tarikh-i Gu-larat by Abu Turab Wall, compiled sometime betiueen 1584 and (1) He deplete Sultan Mahmud Begada aa the teouraga of unortho- dosy and a defender of Islam and goes to the extant of comparing him with Sultan Mahnud Ghazni. The only difference between the two great men, waa that the A^msr taaid former had no Firdauei, who could immortalize his nama by ooa^iQsing somsthing comparable with the Sultan Nawah. (2) Nizamuddin Ahmad, Tabqat-i Akbarit vola.X and XII,Naval Klahore Preas, Luoknow, 1875. (3) Firiahta, Tarikh-t Firiahta. vole. I & II, Naval Klshora Preaa, Lucknow, 1865-66 A.O, IG (1) 1597J and Tarlkh-1 Salatin-1 Gujarat of Mahwud Bukhari, complatad tonetlMia aftar the annexation of Gujarat to the (2) Mughal Empire in 980 rt,H,/l572-73 A,D, But unfortunately theae tuorka do not furnlah any (uorthwhile information on the problem that we have undertaken to atudy in this dlaeer^is- tion. In thie category may ba inoludedi Aw Arabic History of Gujarat (2afar-ul->ifalih bi Wuzaffar Wa Alihi). oomiiilftd by Abdullah Huhammed batter known aa HaJi-ud-Oabir in the (3) year 1014 ^•H,/l6Qf-6 A.O, )lnether tuork belonging to thia (*) category ie Sikander bin Manjhu'a Mixcl-i Sikandari. turitten in the year 1020 A.H,/1611-12 H,D. Laet but not the leaet ia Wjrat-l Ahmadi of Muhamroed Hasan alias All Muhammad Khan, (5) tuho completed this monumental tuork around 1174 ri,H,/176l A.O. Thaaa are all general regional hlstoriaa on the political history of Gujarat enabling one to tuork out a oonneetad chronology of events from tha time an independent kingdom was established in the region in the beginning of the 15th century to the time when theae books were written, for the (1) Abu Turab Wall, Tarikh-i Gujarat.Bibliotheca Indiea Series, Calcutta, 190B. (2) Mahmud Sukhari, Tarikh-i 3alatin-i Gujarat. Text. ad. by| S.A.I, Tirmizi, •Aligarh Historieal Institute, 19i0. (1) Haji-ud Oabir, An iArabic History of GuJaratt 2 Volumes. Tr. byf M.f, Lokhandwala, Baroda, 1970. (4) Sikander bin Manjhu, Mjrat-i Sikandari. Text. ad. byj SC Miera and ML Rahman, Baroda, 1961. (5) Ali Muhammad Khan, Mirat-i Ahmadi. Baroda, 1930. ll •arllsr period thesa authors aae* to have u«ed authantlo •oureaa aceeaalbla to thaa. This la borne out by the fact that the weraion af ewanta given In one book rarely contra dicts that one given In the other. But at the same tine each one of theai furniahas original information not to be found elaauthere, AnonQ these uiorks Wlrat"! Ahwadi la of particular significance as It provides us lulth a datailad administrative history of Gujarat baaed on Imperial farwans. aanshurft nlshana. parwaniahiii daaturul Awal,<| etc. It is true that the information supplied by *he Mirat almost entirely relates to the Mughal psrlodi but in so far as it occasionally identifies placast specifies the limits of administrative or fiscal units» or helps in u^orking out the position and locals of a lamlndar clan, it has proved useful* Ths specific information fournished by Abul Fazl in (1) his account of twelve subas in ths Ain-i ^kbari on ths extent of individual sarkars and the dominant xamindar castes of different paroanaa in the farkara has bsen of great help in drawing the bounderies of the two kingdoms ea also in locating the territories of ths lamindara with whom theae powara had to deal and who in turn played notable rola in shaping thsir mutual rslatlons. Moreover the Tabqat»i Akbari (1) Abul Fazl Allami, Ain«i Akbarli Wol.II, 8*M., Adds 7652. I have uaed Blochaann*a edition of Ain»i Akbari. I * II Habibganj Collection, Azad Library, AHU, 13 of Nizamuddin ikhmad, and GwXahan-l Ibrahiwi (oonnonly knotun 8» Tatlkh-i Fltighta^ of Muhammad Qasim Hindu Bag Flrlshta contain asparata sections on the political history of naltua, Thess sections have bean used to supplsmsnt the infornation provided by othsr sources. As already statsd« an attsaipt has also been made to utilize all the relevant information available in the accounts of European travellers and in the form of surviving inscrip tions of our region brought to light in Epigraphia Inclica and other books besides. But, co^ared vuith the total mass of the evidences* the information gleaned from thaae sources is rathsr msagrs, ikll the other monographs and periodical litersture consulted here in course of the pr^saration of this dissertation are listed in the bibliography. c- u- -1 a>? X rn >—1 CP H o m r 33 T ^ O —1 o 3>3 3D m m C/1 (/I o c. -n z 3C o o m r- c: > t> 33 —( > > m n > z Z -n u r- c s m > z r- n 3^ m > o o r- X mM Ul r< ro > CD Z *•— 'Jl M (/) ^—* z m (i LO ^- Uui. 1 •* o 0-J0' u. — o < UJ o ?_J < UzJ 3 •'1 z —I zo u. < O z Z < UJ ^^Vv'5 5 < X a: * —» -J UJ < < Q O3 z u. z 3 o I/) U) UJ UJ •'^ u. ..l- 'l )> • ,i' Vc' ) ? tfl *- * fy^ Ir Y s* O n T '^ s^'.' •: '^->~~ |IN8| *g n(/) r_. I lO I5S ? § '*^-&^^ 'n 19 CH^iPTER - I For identifying tha territories or regions over which there tuas going on a tussle betiueen the kingdoms of Gujarat and Maiuia and also for pin-pointing the geo-political factors that gave rise to claims or ambitions on the part of these tu>o powers over specific territories, it is important to attempt to dram on a map,their changing boundaries facing each other's territories at different points of time. With the help of this kind of map it vuould be possible to explain the pattern of territorial expansion of the ttuo states in different direction in the perspective of geographical factors dominating their mutual relationship. For this study, our Information is mainly basaion inscriptions surviving in Malwa and Gujarat from I5th and 16th century, and on the accounts of the expeditions undertaken by the rulers of MaluiS and Gujarat into each other's terri tories given in the Persian chronicles. Partly, it also refers to scattered information in the sources specifying the position of various places in the kingdoms of Gujarat and naltua during the period of our study. Such evidence furnished by Ma'asir-i Mahroud Shahi of Shihab Hakim (u/hich <-i '•J «> cowers devalopmants of the period, 1407-69 A.D.) and Tat) ye have prepared a comprehensive index of place names mentioned in different inscriptions of that period and in the context of different military episodes reported in our sources and also these mentioned as sagkars and parganas in rtin-i Akbari (1) There are tura possibilities in this regard; that the parganas of Oohad, Savli and Dhabua were originally a part of the zamindari of Champanir, and Oohad, Savli and 3habua were annexed ^o the kingdoms of Gujarat and Malwa sometime before /'•1484 the annexation of Champanir to Gujarat in 14837A.0. It was apparently, on account of this traditional affinity these parganas were included in sarkar Champanir during Mkbar's time. On the other hand, it is also possible that the above paroanas were nevenev r a part of Champanir and were added to safkar"champanir. and have tried to establl&h their exact location with the (1) help of the National /ttlas of India, Bartholomew world Travel (2) , and the District Gazetteers* These places are then plotted on a nap of the region covered by illaltua and Gujarat kingdoms shouting rivers and contours representing hills rising above 600 metres from the surface of the Sea, After having plotted these places on such a map, u/s have tried to draw the boundary lines of the tmo kingdoms as these existed at different points of tine by assuming that from one point of political control of a pouter to another, its line of effective control ivould run along the prominent physical features of the region like extension of hills. Or it mould run parallel to the sarkar boundaries of Akbar's time as indicated in Ain»i Akbari (3) and worked out on a map by Irfan Habib. In these maps all those (1) We have used only its reference map of Western India. National Atlas is issued by the ministry of Ldiication, Government of India, and it is prepared under the direction of Professor S.H. Chatterjee, (Director, National Atlas Organization). (2) We have used only its map of Indian Sub*Continent. The Bartholomew World Travel map is issued by Qohn Bartholomew & Sons Ltd« Oeglcan Street, Edinburgh, eH9, ITA Scotland. (3) It seems to be fair supposition that there were only minor variations in sarkar boundaries under the kingdoms of Gujarat and Plalwa and those of the Mughal period. For the sarkar boundaries under Akbar based on Ain-i Akbari, see, Irfan Habibi^'^tlas of Huqhal/l^»d4a. OOP 1982. Sheel Nos. ) t Ml (a), WII (a), ix(a). places that tuere controlled by independent or sami-independent chiefs are identified by putting a sign of cross against their names* In cases such places correspond to the safkar head quarters of Min»i rtkbarj, me have assuned that the territories covered by those aarkars originally attached to the zamindaris located in the same place. These naps are prepared for three phases in the history of the relations betvueen Haliua and Gujarat s (a) shouting there boundaries during 1407 M.D, to 1483 H«Q,, (b) during 1484 M.O. to 1513 M.D., (c) and during 1314 M.D. to 1526 A.O. It seems that the traditional boundary of the kingdom of Gujarat starting from the coast of the Gulf of Cambay at some point to the south of Surat moved northward to encircle the territory attaching to ^arkar Nandurbar located on the left side of Tapti uthich has throughout remained a part of the kingdom of Gujarat. In the appended map tue have not shomn the Gujarati boundary extending from the sea-coast i^to the confines of Nandurbar alignment is yet to be uiorked out. But I have shou/n tuith dotts the boundary of the yarkar Nandurbar upto the point it crosses Tapti. It should enable us to have a vague idea of the point at luhich the Gujarati boundary towards the east meets that of the kingdom of Malwa. As uiorked out by Irfan Habib the boundary of sarkar Nandurbar, which is being treated here as the eastern boundary of Gujarat touiards Malwa during this tlMs, crossed river Tapti at a (1) point about 38 Km to the north-east of pargana Nandurbar and (2) South-east of parqana Sultanpur of the same sarkar and extend (3) north-tuards along the boundary of parqanaJB Sultanpur, Khayar, (4) Namuhi, meeting the boundary of Maluia above the river Tapti luhere the boundaries of the jiarkar Nandurbar, Nadod (an indepen dent flajput zareindari of that time); Bijagarh and Mandu of rtin-i Mkbari meet each other. (1) Nandurbar is situated on 21».22' N, 74«».l5' E, For sarkar Nandurbar, see, Ain-i rtkbari, pp.101, and it is also mentioned in t^ Shihab Hakim: p,7D, Nixamuddin Mhmadjp,14D; Firishtaj pp.185,384; Sikander Manjhu; pp.47,84-85, But in Ain-i Akbari this sarkar is mentioned in suba Malwa, uthile according to other accounts of I5th and early l6th centuries this tuas a place in Gujarat. (2) Sultar^ur is on 2l« 43'N, 74».14'E. For parqana Sultanpur, of sarkar Nandurbar of Akbar's time, see, Ain-i Akbaritp.101 and this place is also mentioned in an Inscription of 86l *.H Rabi I, 2nd/7th August 1457 A.D. on a Minar there during the reign of Sultan Qutbuddin cf. Bendrey p.m. This place is also mentioned in the accounts of 15th-l6th century of Gujarat. See, Shibab Hakimt p.70; Nizamuddin Ahmads p.463; Haji-ud-Oabirs pp.4,16-17; Sikander Manjhu: pp.51,57. (5) Khayart is situated on 21« 45* N, 74« 15'E. For this parqana of"8a"rkar Nandurbar, of Akbar*s time, see, Ain-i Akbari; P.IOI; National Atlas of western India; Atlas of Huqha'l Empire. Sheet No.lX(a>. (4) Narouhi: is on 22» 26'N, 77».55'E, For this, see, Ibid. (5) Nadod:is on 21».58'N, 73«.28'E, about 51 Km east-by-north from Surat. For the independent zamindari of Nadod, see, Nizamuddin Ahmad: pp.451-52; Firishta: p,i85; Sikander bin Kanjhu:p.46 and according to Nizamuddin Ahmadtp.105,its raja became the tributary chief of Gujarat in 821 A.H./1417-18 AD Nadod is also mentioned in Ain-i Akbari:pp. 121-22 as a i|arkag of Akbar's time. On the northern aide of kavbada till 1483 /^.D. the boundary of Gujarat used to take a turn in the north- u/esterly direction to circumvent the autonomous Rajput principality of Champanir that separated Gujarat from nalwa in this region. The curve of the Gujarati boundary circum venting the ChariHjanir zamindari roughly corresponds to the boundary of the sarkar Champanir of ftin-i rtkbari ujith the only modification that in our map the parganas Dohad and Savli (4) are shoiun in Gujarat and 3habua in Maltua. After this detour the Gujarati boundary meete Malma line of control at a point about 21 Kms to east of Oohad (it u/as a sloping area u/ith (5) sandy rocks). From this point the common boundary of the tuKi (1) Champanir tou/n is on 22»,24'N, 73«.32'E and is 25 Km. north-east of Baroda. For the zamindari of Champanir, see, ahihab Hakimj pp.68-69,75,121; Nizanuddin Ahmad; pp.148, 452-53, 462, Firishta; pp.1B4-B6, 190; Sikander Manjhut PP. 46-47,51-52,56,125. (2) Do had? is on 22».50'N, 74«»,16'E. For this pargana of sarkar Champanir of rtkbar's time, see, Ain-i Akbarit p.122, Bui it is mentioned as a place of Gujarat in the accounts of I5th-I6th centuries of Gujarat, see, Nizamuddin Ahmadtpp. 160,174,179-80,462,484; Haji-ud-Dabirj pp.2,26; Firishtaj PP.397,407-8; Sikander Manjhus pp.47,143,146; Nahavandi,pp. 178-79. (3) Savli;is on 22",34'N, 73».12«E. For this pargana of sarkar Champanir of Akbar's time see Ain-i Akbarit p.l2i. It was also in Gujarat before the annexation of Champanir into Gujarat, see Nizamuddin Ahmad; p.462, HaJi-ud-0abir;p.2; Sikander Manjhu; p.47, (*) 3^>abua; is on 22».28'N, 23«.14'E. For the evidence that 3habua mas under the possession of Maluta ruler before the annexation of Champanir into Gujarat, see, Nahavandi,p.137. (5) For the sloping sandy rocks of Oohad, see, 3ahangirtpp.204-8, *:.y CJ states appears to have stretched in a north-easterly direction along the hill features up to rlwer Mahl. This alignment of the boundary naturally runs along the eastern (1) confines of parqana Bslaslnoor In sarkar Ahmadabad, and that of Bansuiara (uthlch during Akbar*8 reign uias Included (2) In the sarkar Oungarpur). From this point the alignment of the boundary touched the course of Mahl, It excluded along the right bank of river In a north-u/esterly direction. At a point about 44 Kms to the east of Oungarpur the Cujaratl boundary deviated from the river course moving touiards the uieat aemarcatiag the autonomous zamlndarl (3) (4) of Dungarpur» and Idar from -- -«-»------.-— (1) Balaalnoor Is situated on 21«.25'N, 76».15'E, for this pi ago ana of sarkar Ahmadabadt see, Aln-l Akbarl; p.121, This pargana is also referred in the accounts of 15th and 16th centuries, sea, Shlhab Hakimsp.69; Slkander Manjhut p.77. Also see, SC Misras p.182. (2) Bansuiara is not specif lea lly mentioned in the accounts of this period, but the alignnent that we have drawn along the physical features appear to demarcate its territory from Oungarpur which at this time was an autonomous lamindar^ (3) Oungarpur is on 23*.50*N, 73**48'E, This was independent zamlndarl in 15th and early 16th centuries. For this zamindar][. see Shlhab Hakimtp.121} Nahavandlt p.145, But according to Aln-i Akbaritp.133. it was a pagqana of sarkar Sirohl of Akbar's tlms, (*) IdagJ is on 23".50'N, 73«,4'E,and la 102.2 Kms north-east of Ahraadabad. According to Shlhab Hakimtp,70{Niz8muddln Ahmad,pp.452-53;Firiahtaip.185}Slkander ManJhusp«46;Nah8- vandi,p.136,it was a local zawjndari in 15th and early 16th centuries,but according to Aln-i AKbayllP.120 it was a pagoany of serkjaf; Ahmadabad of Akbar*s time.For Independent zamlndarl of Idar also see.Ras Walaipp.302-3tGommlasariatt pp.53n,54,83-85,86-87,129}SC Misraspp.144-46,152,164,170-72 177,199,200} UN Dayjpp,19, 37, the Gujarat! territory. Before this line crosaea Sabarmati at a point 25 KRIS to the lueat of Idar it touches upon the (1) (2) northern confines of the Gujarati parganaa Meghraj, Himmatnagar, m (4) Vianagar and Wadnagar. On the left side of Sabarmati the boundary apparently axtenda along the confinsa of the aarkar (5) Ha tan up to Ramn of Kutch, (1) Weghraj s is on 23».35'N, 73«.32'E, This luaa a parqana of aarkar Mhinadabad, see, Ain"i i^kbari.p. 121 ; rttlaa of Mughal b >vv4>j^>:t i^^^^. Sheet Wllia), (2) Himroatnaqart is on 23«»,38'N, 72».58'E. for thia parqana. see, Ain-i Akbari.p.121. It ia alao mentioned in the accounta of 15th and early 16th centuriea of Nizanuddin Ahmadj p.113; Sikander nanjhu; p.113. Thia place is also mentioned in an Inscription of 928 M,H,/I522 H.D. on a atep-uiell called Uazi's Wavdi constructed by Shams, son of Hubarak Sultani in the period of Sultan Muzaffar Shah II, Cf.Epjqraphica Indiia l^ 1963,PP.44-45. (3) Wisnaqar? b on 72».33»N, 23».42'E. according to Min-i Tkbarlj p. 121, this uias a pargana of aarkar Patan in Akbar's period. While it luaa also under the poasession of the rulers of Gujarat in I5th and early I6th centuriea, aee, Sikander Manjhu; p.198. C^) wadnagar; is on 24»,48»N, 72«.46«E. For thia parqana of aarkar Patan of rtkbar'a time, see, Ain-i Akbari.p.121. According to Nizamuddin Ahffladtp.186; Sikander hanJuTT p. 198, it vuaa alao in Gujarat in 15th and early 16th centuriea* (5) Patan: is on 23».50'N, 72».5»E. For thia aarkar of Mkbar'a time, aee, Ain-i Akbari. p. 121. Thia place ia alao mentioned in the inacriptiona of l5th and l6th centuriea, luhich are found on different buildinga of Patan of that time. We find tura inacriptiona of 812 A,H./1409-10 A.D. and 813 A.H./1410- 11 A.D, of Sultan Muzaffar Shah I»a period. The firat one ia engraved on ttuo alaba, which are reapectivsly built into the outer and inner face of the wall over the luindoui of the hujra aituatad inaide the tomb-encloaure of Makhdum Huaamuddin( a 14th cen. Chiahti Saint,d.1336 A.D.). This also states that Khan-i A'zam Asad Khan constructed it in 14C9-10 AD during the reign of Shamsuddin Muzaffar Shah. It furnishes the earliest versified record of the Gujarati Sultan, The other inscription contd.... t^ For the period 810 '<.H./14D7-8 ^.D, to 887 rt.H./l403-84 n,Ot, thiB boundary of Hmlmm towattin Qujarat from ths confinss (1) of Nandurbar upto the confinaa of parqana Deolla (at that time matt called Deola) in the north ran dlong the Qujarati boundary h with exception stretch were the titto alignMent mere aeparated from each other by the territory of the ind^3andent zawindari of Champanir. The eastern boundary ofthe later day farkay Champsnir is treated in our map as the boundary of the ;amindar|. of Chai^anir of thie period touiarda Haluia. (S) f»n. of previous page oontinuedt* ia to be aeen over the central mihrab of the moequa called iangrezon^kl-Fiasjid at t^atan, Hleo dated in the reign of Huzaffar Shah I, it records the construction of a mosque in 1410-11 4,D« Tuio inscriptions are belonged to Sultan lihmad Shah*s reign. One inscription of 820 H.H./I416-17 M«0., is found on the central mihrab of the mosque in the phuti-Mahalla or i^^injarkot at ^atan. It states that this mosque was constructed in 1416*17 »i,D, during the reign of l^asiruddin Mbu*l fath Mhmad Shah X. Ths second one is fixed on the water-trough for cattle near e «uell outside the h^hatipal gate at Patan, The «j»ell utas constructed on the last day of 021 M,H,/1418-19 M.D, during the reign of Sultan lihmad Shah I. One inscription of Sultan Muhammad Shah n*s reign is engraved into the southern utall of court* yard of the mosque in Khatkimada at Paten, ££, Epiorsphia Indleg!;i963.pp. 11-13,15,23. Qna Inscription of 021 H.H,/ I4l£i-19 i.D, of Sultan Ahmad Shah*s raign is also referred in commissariat,vol,I,pp» 122-23. This epigraph is fised in a iuell at the old capital of Hatan '«^hilvad• »ibdullah Sultani, the Kotutal of the city NahruAla, laid the foundation of this utell on the second Friday of iil-Mijjah 821 M,M./3an.6, 1419 ^Ut). This place is also mentioned in different accounts of that period. See, Shihab HakimS p.19, Nizamuddin Mhmad; pp. 449-50, Sikandar Hanjhu: pp.40-41. (1) Ueoliat is situated on 24-,2'H, 74».40E. For the information that ueolia tuas in the possession of the ruler of Malwa f before 1314 ^»0», eee, Firishtas p.207; Sikander i^anjhus P.105. i-l ij The boundary of the Maluia kingdom totuards the south facing Khandesh and i^hnadnagar Is not very certain for thla period. But It luould be of Interest to uiorkout this boundary as uisXl because only after u/e know the alignment of this boundary that one can be sure as to luhere the boundaries of Maliua and Gujarat met in the region betiueen Tap ti and Narbada. We have assumed that the entire territory of sarkar Bljagarh luhich is ahouin in the Ain-i Akbarl as a part of the suba (1) Maluia, tuas a part of the Haltua kingdom at this tfcme also. But it may be noted that Bljagarh is not specifically mentioned In any one of the accounts for this period. Niether is there any suggestion that the territory covered by this aarkar tuas a part of either of Gujarat of Khandesh. On the right siiGle of the river Taptl Asirgarh, and Thalner ase the only tuio (2) important places that are mentioned as belonging to Khandesh. On the strength of this evidence lue have congectured that till 1483-84 A.O. the Maluja boundary to the south of Narbada ran (1) For the information that Bljagarh tuas a part of auba Maltua In Akbar's period, see, rtkbar Namai Wol.II .p. I66x ATn-i Akbarit pp.99-100. (2) Asiri situated on 21».25'N, 76».15«E, and Thalnert situatsd on 21».20*N, 75*.21*E, ivers belonged to suba Khandssh in Ajjbat's tims. £f. Ain-i Akbarii pp.107-8; and according to Firishtaspp.276-83, these wsrs also in Khandesh kingdom in 15th and early I6th centuries. along the confines of farkar Bijagarh meeting the Gujarati boundary near parqana 3ul1ianpur (modern Taloda). In the north, the boundary of the Mfltua kingdom tuas shirting from one alignment to another at different points of times. It seems tilil 826 A.H./1422-23 A.D., this boundary from near Oeolia takino a turn to the north-east* separated (2) the territories of sarkar Mandsor and that of sarkar (3) Gagraun that luere then controlled by autonomoue chieftains* (4) from those of sarkars of Sarangpur (except paroana Khilchipur) (1) In the south of Narbada river, Bijagarh luas already under the control of Malvua, so from 825 A.H./1422-23 A.D. to 869 A.H./1464-65 /4.O., Sultan Mahmud Khalji X paid his attention toiuards the conquests of the independent aamin- daris* tjuhich were in the south of Narbada, For the informa- tion related to the conquests of these independent zamin - darisi see, Chapter III, pp. |o (2) Mandsort is on 24».4'N, 75».5'E, For this sarkar of Akbar's tims, see, ^in-i Akbarit p.101. We find discription of Mandsor in the accounts of 15th and I6th centuries Maltua for the first time in 845 A.H./1439-40 A.O. But it is possib le that it mould included in Malwa some time before 826 A. H./1422-23 A.D. see, Shihab Hakimt p.53. Also see, U.N. Oaytp.175. (3) Gaqraunt is on 24«.40'N, 76«.10'E, This luas a sarkar of Akbar*s tims, see, Ain-i Akbaritp.102. Accoriing to Nizamuddin Ahmadt p.396; Firishtasp.238, ths ruler of Maltua conquered and annexed this zamindari into Mal«ua in 826 AH/ 1422*23 AD, But Shihab Hakinsp.54 refers that Gagraun included in Malwa in 846 A,H./1440-41 A.O. ^Iso see, U.N. Dayipp,49-50, (*) Saranopurt is on 23».34'N, 76«.26'E:. For sarkar Sarangpur of Akbar*s period, see, Ain-i Akbarii pp.98-99. This place contd J i (1) and Chandsrl of Maltua. In this alignment the line separating parqana Khilchlpur from the rest of the garkar Sarangpur la not very certain. i4fter 850 M.H./1446-47 M.O* the possession contd. r.n.4(prev.page) is also mentioned in tuto inscriptions of 15th->l6th centuries. One on the building called 3ain Khan Bhatti (in ruins). Second on a gate, called Ghadiali gate, in tovun, £f.» Wadhva Bharatt p. 122; Shihab Hakirotpp ,34-35t Nizamuddin Ahmad: pp.455-56; Haji-ud-Dabirjpp,16-17} Firishtajpp, 186-87,190, 245-46; Sikander Manjhuxpp.52-53. Also see, U.N.Dayipp.41-43,65,103-5,107,140-42,173. (1) Chanderit is on 24«.43'N, 78».9'E and la 1300 ft. above Sea-lsvel, For this sarkar of Akbar'a time, see, Ajn-i Akbari; pp.97-98. We also found some Inscriptions in different buildings of Ch3ndsri(15th century A.D.). One inscription is built up in the west uiall of the Tomb of Shah Kamal. Adjacent to it is a mosque, u/hich has on its central mihrab an inscription in Arabic of the reign of Qadr Khan (818 A.H,/1415-16 A.D.), This mentions Qadr Khan an independent ruler of Chanderi(according to Tarikh-i Muhammadi of Bihamid Khani, 1438-39 A.D. f.469-b and Adat-ul-Faulada of uadi Khan Badr Oharwal, Qadr Khan ruled Chanderi after the death of a Oilavuar Khan till 818 A.H./ 1*15-16 A.D,). The other inscription of 828 A.H./1424-25 A.D. of Hoshang's reign is engraved on the r^iat^sil of a door in a tomb siutated in the east corner of the family grave yard of Nizamuddin, Another inscription of 1459-60 A.O, is fixed into the western side of the step-utell locally called Chandiya-Baoli. The other inscription is set up above ths central mihrab of moti-flasjid of Chanderi. Another inscription isto be seen on the tomb of Mahma Shah situated on a hill about 3 Km N.W. of Chanderi) It record \ the construction of a stip-vuell and a lofty dome in 1462- 63 A.O, during the reign of Mahmud Khalji 1. _£f, Epjqra- phia Indica 1964 A.D.,pp.51-53, 57-60. We find an inscrip tion of 814 /<.H,/1411-12 A.D, of Dil«u/ar Khan's reign on the Delhi Darujaza, Chanderi, Fort. Another inscription of 833 A.H./1429-30 A.D. u/as also find in Chanderi. See, Epioraphia Indicat 1925-26, p.17,22. ^t Bendreyjpp , 107 , 109. We find Budh^ Chanderi Sati stone uiith an inscription dated V.S.1535/1464 A.O. We find an inscription of V.S. contd.... } •"» of Malma ruler in north extendsd uptiXl the territory of Meujar and the ruler of Malms conquered Ranthambor and Alanpur in that year. In 861 A.K./1456~57 A.O., he also conquered (2) Nagor, AJmer» Toda, Saiibhar, Harauti etc. Mandalgarh also came under the control of the ruler of Maltua in the sane (3) year and in 862 A,H./1457-58 A.O, Bundi and Khilchlpux also (A) conquered. There is some ewidences Indicating that R^snthambor contd. f.n.l (prev.page) 1484/1427 A.O. on Gola Ba^jji we find aoma Inscriptions of I5th (1) For the conquest of Ranthambor and Alanpur by the rulsr of Maluja in 1446-47 A.O., see, Shihab Hakimtp.46 and Nizamuddin Ahmadtpp.352, 363, 373 also refers that Rantham bor and Alanpur vuere under the control of Mahmud Khalji X of Maltua.. Also see, U.N.Oayipp.121,179. (2) For the conquest of Nsgor, AJmer, Toda, Sambhar, Harauti etc., by the ruler of Maliua, see, Shihab Hakimtpp .SS^S?. (3) For the conquest of Mandalgarh ay Mahmud Khalji I in 1456- 57 A.D., see, Shihab Hakim»pp.85-89; Firishtat p.251. Also sea, U.N.Days p.189. (4) For the conquest of Bundi and Khilchipur by the ruler of Maluia, see, Shihab Hakimtpp .88-89. Also see, U.N.Dayip.189. •) '"1 continued to be a part of the Maltua klngdon dovun to tha tine when it was annexed from them by Rana Sanga sone tine between 1900 and 1526 A.O. This inpression is supported firstly by Babur*s statement that Rana Sanga had conquered (1) Ranthanbor and othe T places from Naliua. It is further strengthened by Nizamuddin Ahmed's references to Bahlul Lodi*s attack on parqanja Alanpur of Ranthambor during Sultan Ghayas- uddin Khalji's reign (873 A,H,/l469-70 A.O. to 906 A,H«/l501-2 M.O.) and to tha suppression of a rebellion at Ranthambor by Nasiruddin Khalji and slso In 913 A.H./1503-6 A.D. he recalled (2) his youngest son *Azam Humayun from the fort of Ranthambor. It seems likely that like Ranthambor other places in south eastern Rajputana conquered by Maliua during Sultan Mahmud Khalji*s reign remained in the hands of the Malwa rulers down to the first decade of the 16th century» when they were expelled from that region by Rana Sanga and his allies. For the period 1460-1505* the boundary of Halwa kingdom in the north should therefore be drawn in such a fashion that (1) For the conquest of Ranthambor etc. of l^alwa by Rana Sanga of Chitor before 1526 A.O., see, Babur Wama» pp.189-90. (2) For all above incidents, that show the sark&r Ranthambor under the rule of Malws, see, Nizamuddin Ahmadspp.352,363, 373. Also see, U.N.Days p.233* it should shoui Nagor, MJfiiar» Sambhar* Ranthanbor a« Its constituents, I Have shown this boundary on the map In a broksn line, u/hich actually runs along ths boundaries of these jarkajr^* The only variation in this regard is that yarkay boundary la at this point uihsre I have included Mandalgarh, a parqana in ^arkar Chittor luith Malma and on this pojtnt of course the Aver Banas is taken as the alignment of the boundary. After 1483-84 M,D,, there ca«e a change in the boundary line of Gujarat toiuarde Maliua, This change occurred because of the annexation of Chan^ianir to the kingdooi of (1) Qujarat. Till this tine Chanpanir formed a buffer-zone (2) betiueen Maltue and Gujarat. It could remain Independent (1) For the conquest and annexation of Chainpanlr by Sultan Hahmud Shah Begdde in 1483-64 ^.0,, see, Barbosatp,117{ Varthamatp.SB,introduction; Huhammad Sharfudciintp,15| Nizamuddin Ahmadsp.478| Haji-ud Oabir: p«28; Firiahtat p,202; Sikander Hanjhusp,137; Nahavandi$pp«58t134;We also find some inscription^on several buildings of Chas^sanir ufhieh show that after 1483-84 M«0,, it wea under the poas- eseion of the rulers of Gujarat* We find tuto inscriptions of 889 H.H. 2nd Zi*l-Qa'd/Tuesday, 23rd November 1484 A.O., one on the Halo J- gateway, Champanir Fort and other on Dohad gateway, Chas^anir fort* For these inscriptions, see, Epiaraphica Indicat pp.4-5, 1929-30. Cf. Bendreytp.113. we also find two other inscriptions 07^914 A.H./Tussday 2nd nay 1506 to Fri 20th April 1509 A,0, end 924 A.H,/ Wednesday 13th 3anuary 1518 to Sunday 2nd Danuary 1519 A.O. Both in the Jaini rtasjid Champanir. For thass inscriptions, see, Itoioraphica Indicas pp.36,1944-34 A,0. ,p ,15,1937-38 A.O, Cf. Bendreyt PP.117-18» We also havs some inscriptions of 889 M.!-l./l4B4-85 M.D. and 93C 'i.H./l524-25 A.O. Two contd..< .J J douun to 1484 on account of the material assistance that (1) received from Maluta. After the annexation of Champanir into Gujarat in 1483-84 A.0.» border demarcating the territories of the ttuo states stretched from Narbada to northwards along the PaiUgarh hill features upto the confines of parqana (2) 3habua, uihieh tuas at that time possibly in the possession of (3) rialtua. By this change an area measuring roughly 615 sq* Km. contd. f.n. No.l(prev.page) inscriptions in Arabic are carved at the top of the imposing Godhara and Halo,i^ gates of the citadel of Champanir in 1484-89 A.O, They commemorate the date of the conquest of Champanir by Mahmud I uihich agrees exactly with that given for the fall of the fortress on the hill by the Persian and Arabic historians. The inscription of 1924-25 A.O. is on a mosque of the touin of Halol in Champanir in the reign of Muzaffar Shah II. Cf. commissariatt pp.200-201» 289-90. Also see, Has Mala; p.372; Commissariat} p.195; Watson}p.44; W.Haigt p.310. contd. f.n.No.2(prev. page) For the indpendent zaminclari of Champanir which was a buffer-zone between Gujarat and Malwa, see, Suprat P.7. (1) Champanir received material help of Malwa against Gujarat in 816 A.H./1413-14 M.D., 821 A.H./1418-19 A.D., 854 A.M./ 1450-51 A.D., 855 A.H./1451-52 A.D., 870 A.H./1465-66 A.D., 875 A.H./1471-72 A.D., etc. For this see, Chapter III, PP. 6-7 (2) 3habuat This parqana of sarkar Champanir is tretched from 22».28 and 23».14»N, 74».20' and 75».19»E. with an area of, 1,336 sq miles and was 1,171 ft above sea-level. ^^" pataana is near Ohar on left bank of river Mahi. (3) According to Nahavanditp.137, 3habua(at that time was Oambu) was in ths possession of the Malwa ruler in 821 A.H./ 1417-18 A.O. As we have no information suggesting that 3habua changed hands subsequently we may assume that it was still under Malwa down to 1483-84 A.O.t • ^ 1 (1) uuas added to the kingdom of Gujarat. Savli» Baroda, and (2) Oabhol, ujhieh till 14B4 A.O. luere tha frontier outposts of the Gujarati kingdom along the boundary of Chanpanir princi pality, lost their strategic importance and instead of them Champenir itself became the main frontier outpost tou/ards Halkua, The conquest of Champanir gave the Gujaratis strategic advantage over Malu/a in so far ae this region was at the (3) higher altitude as the Gujarati plain was, and tharefore it (1) Barodai is situated on 22*,18'N, 73»15'E. This was a sarkar of Akbar's time, see, ftin^-i Akbarii p,l22. This was also an ii^sortant place of Gujarat in 15th and early 16th centuries. We find two inscriptions of 816 A.H./141S- 14 A.D. and 847 A.H,/l444-45 M.D. One into the north wall of the tomb of Pir Ghoda. The other inscription is on a pillar from Sathod in Baroda district. It is some sort of royal order of Sultan Muhammad Shah issued on the 15th Muharram 847 A.H,/I5th May 1443 A.D, The description of Baroda is an important strategic place of Gujarat is also in the accounts of 15th and early 16th centuries of Gujarat, see, Shlhab Hakims pp. 70-71; Nizamuddin Ahmad: p.148; HaJi-ud-Oabir, p.5, Firishtat p.249; Sikander Manjhut pp.51,125. ^Iso see, Watsonj p.37; W.Haig}p.301; S.C.Misra» p. 170-1. (2) Dabhoit is situated on 22».8'N, 73«.28'E and is roughly 29 Km distant from Ahmadabad. It is a paroana of sarkay Baroda in rtkbar's time, see, Ain-i Akbarii p.122. It is also mentioned in Gujarat in Nizamuddin Ahmad{p.14B. (3) for the higher altitude of Champanir, see, Shihab Hakims pp. 68-69; Sharfuddin Bukharii p.14. Also see. National lY t Atlas Of Western Indiat^"Atlas of Mughal/HMtias Sheet No. Vll(a). <} i (1) ujas easier to launch an invasion of Maltua from this base. P argana Dohad located to the north of the territory of Champanir as before remained in Gujarat and therefore the common boundary of Gujarat and Malvua from near Oohad northwards remained the same as before 1483-4 A.D. The third and final change during the period of our study /'l407-8 A,D. to 1525-26 A,0,J7» i" common border of Gujarat and Maliua, came in the year 919 A,H,/1513-14 A.D,, ujhan Sultan Muzaffar Shah II of Gujarat annexed Oeolia into (2) Gujarat, vuhich till this time u/as an important outpost of Malvua in the north-uiest. As a result of this annexation, the north-eastern boundary of Gujarat undertuent a thorough change. No\u from the confines of parpana Dohad the common boundary of Gujarat and Haluta moving along river Mahi for about 90 Km in the north-uesterly direction and sharply turned touuards the north-east and extended along the plateau (1) After the conquest of Champanir by Gujarati ruler init4d4«BS^ A.O., he launched his invasion of Naltua in 4B3-84 ^l^ A.H./1513-14 A.O. via this route. (2) According to all the accounts of 15th and early I6th centuries of Gujarat and Maltua, Deolia tuas annexed to Gujarat possibly in 919 A.H,/1513-14 A,D.,u [ Of) up to Mandsor and from there it proceeded to clrcumvant tha territory of the srstuihile principality of Oaolia along is the plateau tuail and touched the courae of the river f^ahi again at a point approximately 96 Km u/sst of Dungarpur. The annexation of Oeolia resulted in the loaa of about 785 sq.km, of Maliua territory tuhioh nout came to be included in Gujarat, The establishment of their control at Oeolia gave tha Gujaratis strategic advantage over Maltua in so far as this region was at the same a Ititude as the Nalu/a territory was, ano therefore it luas easier to launch an invasion of Kialuia from this base. This borne out by the history of subsequent Gujarati invasions of Maluia. On all these occasions the rulers of Gujarat used Deolia as the base of their military (1) operations against Malvua. Besides Oeolia, Sultan Muzaffar Shah II of Gujarat also conquered and annexed the independent Rajput zamjndari of Idar (1) A careful study of the accounts of 15th and early 16th centuries of Gujarat and Malvua shouts that before the annexation of Oeolia into Gujarat, all rulers of Gujarat started their moves toiuards Malwa from Oohad as they 4««4^did in 820 A,H,/1416-17 A.O., 852 A.H,/l448-49 A.D., 887-88 A.H./1483-84 M.D., 917 A,H,/l511-12 A.D,, etc. But after the conquest of Oeolia, later on, the rulers of Gujarat launched their invaeions of Malwa from this base. For sxan^le, in 919 ^.H./1513-14 A.O., 923 A.H./1517-18 A.O, etc., the ruler of Gujarat invaded Maliue from Oeolia. y) after 921 A.H,/l5l$-l6 A.O. Although this relatad to a change in the Gujaratl boundary towards the north u/here It faced Oungarpur and the territory of i^ieujar and it did not have a direct bearing on Gujarat - Maliva realtions but it is important to notice this development here as it is indi cative of the strengthening of the overall strategic position of Uujarat u/hich eventually gave it an Mpper hand in its relations luith l^ialuia as u/ell. By this annexation, the boundary of Maluia in the north-west changed once nore. Now the northern boundary line of Gujarat from the point where it touched the course of Mahi, extended along the right bank of the river in a north-westerly direction along the Arsvalli hill-features along the confines of the erotwhile zaaindar^ of Idar and then it moved along the confines of the sarkar Patan towards Rann of Kutch. After 925 A,H./1319-2Q A.O., there occured a noticeable change in the north-eastern boundary of Malwa, Following his (1) Nizamuddin Ahmad (p«183) and Sikandsr Manjhut p«19? refsrs to Sultan Muzaffar Shah IX appointing in 924 A.H./ 1518-19 A.D« fHiiaarat-ul Mulk to Idar. This would suggsst that already by 921 A.H./1515-16 A.O. Idar had annexed to Gujarat. Apparently it was annexed in 1515 A,0.,whsn Muzaffar Shah II is reported to have invadsd Idar. Cf« Nizamuddin Ahroadj pp.178-79i Sikander Manjhui p.181. AISO see, Commissariattpp.272-73. aii l braak lulth the KhaIJi ruler which end to Gujaratl intervention in 924 A,H./1518-19 A.D, Medini Rai occupied Gagraun (1) and set up his headquarters there. The territory of Mandsor including Harauti and Kichichituara passed under Rana Sanga*a (2) (3) control and Chanderl luas occupied by Medini Rai. Bhilsa (4) and Raisena want under the possession of Silahdi Purabiya. (5) Sikandar Khan beesae independent in the territory of Satu/as. In 925 A.H./1519-2C) A.O. Silahdi Purabiya also conquarad Sarangpur but in 926 A.H./152Q-21 A.D. Sultan Hahmud KhaIJi II (6) re-conquered it. This boundary line thus runs from closs to Deolia eastwards demarcating the territory of Mandsor upon UJJain and (1) For the conquest of Qagron by Medini Rai, sse* Nizamuddin Ahmadtp.5e7s Sikander Manjhutp.193. (2) For the conquest of Mandsor by the ruler of Mewar, see, Sikander Manjhut p.2Q1. Also see, UN Oaytp.303. (3) For the conquest of Chanderi by Medini Rai, see, Firishta: pp. 267-68. 4lso see, U.N.Day; p.303. (4) For the san^Maa* occupation of Raisena and Bhilsa by Silahdi Purabiya, sse, Nizamuddin Ahmadipp.587-88. Also sse, U.N.Days p.303. (5) For the conquest of Satwas by Sikandsr Khan, sse, Nizamuddin Ahraads pp.587-88. Also see, U.N.Dayt p.303. (6) For Sarangpur, see, Nizamuddin Ahmadt p.588. Also see, U.N.Dayt p.303. .41 Gagraun from Sarangpur. fhan from near Kllchlpur it Riovea in southern direction along the confines of sarkars chanderi and Raisena luhioh by and large follotus the river Parbati. Above description of the boundaries of Haliua and Gujarat suggests that Malu Vindhayan rocks luhieh nade it difficult for any power located (1) in Gujarat to penetrate the heartland of Malma, The area covered tuith Vindhayan hills like rihouu and Bijagarh and part of Mandu uiera 600 ft. above sea-level, while the areas covered by the Vindhayan plateau near Gujarat like Osolia, 3habua, Dhar, Na*leha, UJJaint Sarangpur and part of Mandu were only 400 ft. above sea-level. It was this stei^i rise of the plateau on the Malwa aide that tended to enaura (2) Malwa*a inmunity from the Gujarati away. The areaa of Gujarat like Oabhoi, Godhara, Champanir etc., which ware (1) For Vindhayan hilla and rocka, aee, O.H.K.Spate and M.T. A.Learmonthj pp.621,622-25; National Atlaa of yestarn India. Ed, by S.P .Chatterlji^e. Alin see, U.N.Oayt P.3. (2) For tha contours of Malwa, see, National Atlas Of Western Indiai^^ktlas of Mughal^^t4»d^$ Sheet No.IXC'Tf; near Maluja were on higher a Ititudes and luara :7Q0 ft above sea-level* While the areas like Baroda, Oholka, Cambay and Broach were 50 ft, abova sea-level and Ahmadabad and Patan ware 150 ft* abova sea-level. The north-eastern parts of Gujarat, (Oohad and its adjoining areas), from which base the Gujaratia fraquontly launched thair invasions towards (1) Malwa, were also 30C ft abova saa-laval* As the result of this peculiar nature of the Gujarati terraii^, Malwa was protected by Gujarati sway. Becuass of the sharp plateau wall of Malwa facing'Gujarat and because a»d bacaus^ of the peculiar nature of terrain in the north- eestsrn parts of Gujarat, the rulers of Gujarat could not easily think of annexing it. But when the ruler of Gujarat annexed Deolia in 1513-14 A*D., they came to get a foot hold on a tract which was at the same hieght as the Malwa territory} which ideally si^pliad as basa of Gujarati military operations in Malwa* It thus bscamre. sasiar for the Gujaratis to invade and control territory on the Malwa aide. All the subsequent invasions of Malwa wera launched by the Gujaratis from this base and evsntually Bahadur Shah was able to annex Malwa in 1551-32 A*D. (l) For the contours of Gujarat, see, Ibid:.Atlas of Muohal , , Ihe^kmi Sheet No, VI 1(a). It stews, Kaluis's control ov«r Daolia was crucial for maintaining its suiay over territories in south-aastsrn Rajputans sonquarsd by Hahmud KhaIJi I during 1454-61 A.O. kuhieh included Mandsory Gagraun, RanthaMbor, AJnar* Nagor and r^andalgarh. In this connaction on* cannot nias to nota that soon after the loss of Osolia> the f1aly»a kingdom lost its foothold in South-eastern fiajputana as a result of Msutar*s sxpansion in tho region in 1519*20 H*D« In that year Rana Sanga and his ally Msdini Rai is rsported to havo oonquerad froii nalwa Handsor>Gagraun, Raisen and Chanderi (1) etc. 4 CH/iPT£R -II Nature of the frequsnt conflicta betu/een Gujarat and Halu»at nn rtaaeaswent of the contet^orary claims and charactBri^ationt, ha uje have seen the states of Gujarat and f^aluja luere located adjacent to each other and also had along stretch of (1) cofflmon border. The mutual relations of these kingdoms generally remained strained throughout the period of their existence. From time to time, this persisting tension led to out-break of armed conflicts bettueen them uihich often continued for months some times even years. It is of intsrest to investigate as to ufhat mere the factors that contributed to these frequent clashes betureen these ttuo states till kingdom of Malma uias finally extinguished as a consequence of Bahadur Shah's decision to annex (2) its territory in 1331-32 M.O. Was this persisting conflict and tension the result of an expansionist drive on the part of any one of the contenders or did it result from particular kind of claims that they had on each other and tried to enforce the observance of these claims by use of military force tuhenever there tuas an attempt to flau\ them 7 (1) For the boundary of Gujarat and Malaga, see, chapter I. (2) For the annexation of Maluts into Gujarat in 1531-32 M.O., see, Tarikh-i Alfi: pp.89-90; Nizamuddin Ahmad; pp.501-2; Haji-ud-Qabirt pp.168-69; Firishtaj p.277; Sikander Manjhuj p.278. See also, Commlssariat:p.326; Rushbrook William} pp. 10-11; W.Haigj p.327, U.N.Day; p.308. '.* l) For identifying the factota that created friction betiueen the tiuo states, it ujould be of interest to analyse the reasons which the contending parties gave on different occasions for starting hostilities against each other. The Justifications advanced from time to time by the rulers of Gujarat and Maltua for their moves against each other are recorded in the chronicles and an analysis of these explanations or rationalisations can be very useful for gaining some idea of the mutual claims and obligations that u/ere, apparently, regarded by the respective parties as unvoilable or sacrosanet in their relations. Intervention by the rulers of Gujarat in the affairs of Malu/a on the pretext of punishing a prince or noble or a group of nobles responsible for overthrowing or killing a reigning monarch u/as a recurring phsnomsnon. There tuere several occasions luhen Sultans of Gujarat tried to Justify their invasions of rialuja on such grounds. In Rabi II, Jamd I, 810 A.M./Sept., October 1407 M.O., luhen Oilamar Khan Ghori uas killed through poisoning by his son Hoshang, the Sultan of Gujarat, Muzaffar (1) Shah I, invaded Malu/a for '^punishing'* Hoshang. Similarly, uuhen (1) For the invasion of the ruler of Gujarat on Malvua in 1407 'i.O., see, Tarikh-i Alfii p.348; Nizamuddin Ahraadj p.448, Firishta: p.182; Sikandar Manjhu: pp.25-26. It is also referred in Watsons p.32 Haig. p.293; Kisrat p.156. '4l;} in 906 rt,H./l500-l501 ^.0, Sultan Ghtytaauddin Khaljl of Maluia tuas killed by his son Nasiruddin Khalji, Su,ltan Mahmud Shah Begada (1) of Gujarat decided to invade Maluia. Then after aone time in 923 H.H./1517-18 A.D., Sultan huzaffar Shah II of Gujarat gave military help to the Haliua ruler Sultan Mahmud Khalji II on his request for re-establishing his authority at Mandu after suppress ing the Rajput chieftain Medini Rai, The latter had succeeded in gaining an t^iper hand in the affairs of Maluia tuith the si^^port of a pouterful faction of Rajput and Afghan nobles of Mahrnud (2) Khalji II. But it seems that these interventions by the rulers of Gujarat were tuith a limited aim of ensuring that either a ruler of Maltua friendly to Gujarat is not allowed to be eliminated or the person coming to the throne after his elimination should (3) also be so forced to agree to remain on friendly terms vuith them. In 1407-8 H.O., as also in 1500-01 H.D., the rulers of Gujarat finally agreed to allovu the same persons* uiho were accused of murdering the reigning kings* to remain on the throne of l^alwa (1) For killing the Nalwa ruler by his son in 1500-1 M.O. and for the decision of the invasion on flalwa by the ruler of Gujarat see, Nizamuddin Hhmadt p,479; Haji-ud-Oabirsp.32; Sikander Manjhui p.117. This evidence is also discussed in Haigs p.311. (2) For the military help of the ruler of Gujarat to the exiled ruler of Malwa Mahmud Khalji II against Medini Rai in 1517-18 H.D., see. Shah Mbu Turab Walis pp.3-4; Nizamuddin Ahmads pp. 179-83; BijA*J6d-D«lbiftt pp; f4-97; Firishtaj pp.408-10, 525-26; Sikander Hanjhut pp. 182-85. Watsons p.46; Haigs p.319; Elphinatons p.676(Appendix) also described this evidence. (3) For a different kind of explanation, see, S.C.Misra:p .57, who mai.i.^^ins inat it was due to the old enemity that Muzaffar Shah I invaded Halwa. According tq^iAim, he wanted just such an opportunity to seize and annex Halwa and, therefore, was determined to take advantage of the confused situation conse- queently on Oilawar Khan*s death for his own ulterisr purposes. after they had, assured the Gujaratia of their good-iuill totuarda them. In the case of Hoahang, the ruler of Gujarat, Muzaffar Shah I went out of his way to helping him inatalled at Mandu once he had given aufficient proof of his dependence on the Gujaratia. Although it is true that, to bfgin with, Muzaffar Shah I thwarted Hoshang*s attempt to aseand the throne by taking him prisoner in 810 A.H,/1407-8 H.O, It ia aignificant that as soon aa it became known that Muaa Khan, another member af the Mslwa ruling family, had usurped the throne, riuzaffar Shah I, not only releaaad Hoahang Shah in 811 A.il./l4ub-9 A.D., but alao aent him to Flandu with a large army under the commander of Prince Mhmad Khan. With the help of thia force, Hoahang Shah re-gained (1) the throne from Muaa Khan. At thia time, Hoahang appears to have accepted certain obligationa towards Sultan Muzaffar Shah I which apparently placed the kingdom of Malwa in an unequal poaition (2) via-a-vi a Gujarat* However, it aeema, the rulera of Halwa were never reconciled to thia kind of unequal relationahip that was sought to be impoaed upon them by the Gujaratia. Whenever they were strong enough^ they raaiatad the Gujarati demand that the rulera of Malwa ahould continue to fulfil the obligationa agreed to by Hoahang Shah at (1) For thia help of the ruler of Gujarat to Hoahang, aee, Shihab Hakimtp.l6; Tarikh-1 HlfiS p.375; Nizamuddin tihmadt p.449; Sikander P^anjhut pp.16-17. Hlao aaa, W.Haigsp .296; S.C.niaras pp.157-58. (2) For accepting the obligationa towards the ruler of Gujarat by Sultan Hoshang, see, Shihab Hakiffisp.15. According to the aame author, then the ruler of Malwa could gain equal poaition, viaa via Gujarat, by the treaty of 1451-52 A.D. the timp of his rise to poiuer with the halp of Muzaffar Shah I, They trlod to force the Gujarati ruler to re-dafine their mutual ratationt in such a fashion that the t\uo powers are placed at par uiith each other. In this connf^ctlon the provisions of the agreBinent arrived at betu/sen Mahmud Khalji I and Sultan Uutbuddin of Gujarat after the war of 655 A,H,/l451-52 H.D,, and tha details of the negotiations preceding this agreement recordad by Shihab Hakin are of considerable interest and deserve (1) detailed notice. In 855 A,H,/l45l-52 «.D,, when Sultan Hahmud Khalji I was planning to invade Gujarat and was preparing an expedition under Taj Khan, for that purpose, the Gujarati ruler wutbuddin sent a team of officials and devitrfss including Sadroul wuzat, Qazi Kusamuddin and a Hindu nobis, Hathar, to negotiate a settlement with the ruler of Malwa, At these negotiations Sultan Plahmud Khalji'a side was represented by Bandagi Hazrat Mqzul Uuzat Sadr-i Jahan, Shejkh-ul Islam Nlzamuddin, Shaikh Mahraud, Qazi Daniyal and Malik lala Tayyeb. The negotiations took place at Champanir which, at this time, was the seat of an independent zamindari. The ambassadors of Gujarat started the negotiations with the assumption that there already existed a bond of friendship between the rulers of these two kingdoms and it was based on the (1) Historians liks Firiahtaj pp.192,250; Nahavandi$p.137,mention this treaty in 857 rt.H./l453-54 A.D. after the war of 1451-52 AI between the rulers of Gujarat and Malwa; and Nlzamuddin Ahmad» p.464; Haji-ud-Oabirs pp.11-12| Sikander Manjhuip•84,said that this trsaty concluded in 860-61 A.H,/l456-57 A.D. This treaty is also described by Commissariat;p.143;U.N.Oay:pp,133-36 in similar fashion as is dsscribed,above. 49 understanding arrived at between Sultan huzaffar Shah I and Hoshang Shah in 1407-8 A.D., according to luhich the rul«r of Haliua had agreed to perform certain obligations in return for military assistance by the Gujaratis. But the emissaries from Malvua pointed out that, in the changed circumstances* the unequal relationship implied in the 14Q7-8 A.D.» understanding was no longer acceptable to them. It uias maintained by them that in not 854 H.H./1450-51 A.O,, Gujarat could_^ain a victory over them mainly outing to the brBvery 9m)04k (1) This seems to be a reference to the role of Prince Ghayasuddin Muhammad and the nobles liks Masnad-i-A'li A'zam Hunayun Faddan Khan, Fatah Khan and Feroz khan etc. jcf. Shihab Hakimi P.75, [) 'J 1407-B A.O., and to enter into an alliance uiith Maltua u/ith the explicit aim of checking the expansion of the Rajput state of h9\uat, While proposing this, the envoys of Mahmud Khalji I made an appeal to the relgioua sentiment of the Gujarati ruler. It (uas their contention that the rulers of Gujarat and Malma being Muslims were duty bound to collaborate with each other against a non-Muslim poiuer. These negotiations ended successfully and a treaty uias concluded betuueen the tuio kingdoms. The terms and the conditions of the treaty were as folloiust- (1) Both the kingdoms agreed not to give any st4)port and help to Rana Kumbha (2) None would try to extend their territories at the coat of others (3) The two rulers would keep in touch with each other in future (4) Out of the territories of Rana Kumbha comprising the vjlayat of Hjmsr, Nagor and Mewar whatever had already been conquarad by the Gujaratis would remain with them. The ruler of Malwa shall have the right to annex the parts of these yilayaf atill under the (1) control of the Rana. As long as Malwa was ruled by a strong ruler like Sultan Mahmud Khalji I, the terma of thia treaty aerved aa the baaia of the relatione between the two kingdoma. It may thua be aaaumed that from 1451-32 H.D., onwarda down to 1300-1301 A.0.» when with the aaaassination of Ghayaauddin Khalji the affairs of Malwa once (1) For the conclusion of the above treaty of Gujarat and Malwa Ji in 855 A.H./1451-52 A.D., see, Shihab Haki«;pp .7 5-76. 'J i again fell into confusion the kingdom of Malwa was no longar having unequal relations utith Gujarat and that in their mutual dealings the ruler of the tuio kingdoms treated each other as equals. But this situation seems to have been reserved uiith to Sultan Mahfflud Begada*s intervnetion in 1300-01 A.O., thvuart Nasiruddin Khalji*s usurption of the throne of Maluja. It seems the rulers of naltua tried to assert their independence from Gujarati domination and intervention by trying to (ueaken them ahenever such an opportunity tuould offer itself to them. They had the tendency to go to the help of the rebellious nobles in Gujarat* Whenever there u/as a cleavage betuueen the Gujarati ruler and any section of the nobility. But it is signi ficant that on all such occasions the rulers of haltua did not try to rationalize or Justify their action uiith reference to any kind of claims, that they might be having over the kingdom of Gujarat. Then actions of the rulers of Maluja luere pure and simple their arbitrary military actions aimed at uieaking^rival so that they ware in a position to dominate over them. But for making any such move the Maiuia rulers altuays waited for invitation from one or the other section of the Gujarati nobles. This attitude of the rulers of Malwa uias in sharp contrast to that of the Gujarati (1) rulers u/ho invaded r^alu/a in 810 M.H./1407-8 A.D., 842 A.H./1438-39 (2) ^ , ^'> , H.D., 866 A.H,/l462-63 ii.D. & 86-7 A,H,/l463-64 A.O. and 919 M.H./ (1) For the invasion of the ruler of Gujarat on Maltua in 1407-8 A.O. see Suprat p. 2. (2) For the invasion of the ruler of Gujarat on Valuta in 1438-39 rt.D., see, infrat p. ii, (3) For the invasion of the ruler of Gujarat on Maliua army in Oeccan in 1462-63 & 1463-64 A.O., see, infrat pp. ^3.14. 'i9 (1) 1513-14 H.O. etc. unilaterally without uuaiting for any invitation. In this connection one may quote Sultan Hoahang Shah's invasion of Gujarat in 816 M.H,/1413-14 a.O., for helping the nobles who had rebelled against Sultan Ahmad Shah. In 816 rt.H,/l413-14 A.D., ifsportant Gujarati nobles; Uthman < Sarkhsji, Shah Malik bin Shaikh Malik, Mhmad Sher Malik, Sulaiman Afghan (entitled A*2aBi Khan), and I'sa Salar etc, (jointly luith the zamindars of 3halau (1) For the invasion of the ruler of Gujarat on Malwa in 1513-14 A,D., see, infrat P. 12, (2) For the Hoshang Shah's inoasion of Gujarat in 1413-14 A,0,, on the request of ths rebellious nobles, see, Tarikh-i AIfi>p,360: Nizamuddin Ahmadipp,451-52, Firishtas p.184; Sikandar Manjhu; pp. 40-41; This is also described by, Watsoni p,33; S.C.Misras pp,172-73. >J^ aimed at helping a contendor considered friendly to the intervening pouier to occupy the throne. On other occasions, they mould Intervene even luithout tuaiting for a tussle to flare i^ and again the aim uould be the same, namely, ensuring that the person succeeding the deceased monarch is not allou/ed to adopt a hostile posture. Such instances are not rare to find in the history of the relations between Maltua and Gujarat. For example, in 813 H.H./ 1410-11 rt.O., when, after Muzaffar Shah's death a tussle for succession rose in Gujarat, Hoshang Shah the ruler of Malwa extended military support to Muzaffar Shah*s sons, Sher Khan, Sa'adat Khan, and Haibet Khah(instedd uf one lakh of tankas a day as the expenses of his army's mard^who were opposing the accession of Mhmad^ Shah, one of the grandsons of i;he deceased Sultan nominated by him as his successor. This atten^t by Hoshang Shah to intervene in the affairs of the state of Gujarat did not prove to be very successful. kftet the defeat of Sher Khan and other at the hands of Ahmad Shah (1) against, them, the Maluia ruler had to uiithdratu from Gujarat. But, subsequently, ha remained hostile to Ahmad Shah and u/as not recon ciled to his accession. As already noticed in 813 A.H,/ 1410-11 A.D., taking advantage of the rebellion by 'Uthman Ahmad Sarkheji and other (2) nobles, he once again tried, though uasuccessfully, to dislodge Ahmad Shah from pou/er. It indicates that if the ruler of Malwa utas (1) For this military support of the Malma ruler to the opponents of Ahmad Shah I of Gujarat in 1410-11 M.O., see, Tarikh-i Alfi; P.353; Nizamuddin Ahmad: pp.449-50; Firishta} pp.182-83. Also see, M,Haigsp.296; S.C.Misratp.167. (2) Aocording to Nizamuddin Ahmadspp.451-52; Sikander Manjhuipp.40-41. the other nobles u/ese Shah Halik bin Sheikh Malik, Ahmad Sher Malik, Sulaiman Afghan (commonly knoiun as A*zam Khan) and laa Salar etc. J'i strong and in a position to Intervene in the affairs of Gujarat, he would not easily be reconciled to the coming on throne in Gujarat of a person hostile to hisi. There also exists a similar instance of a Gujarati ruler intervening in the struggle for succession in Naluua. In Ramzan 841 >^.H./February-March 1436 ^•0., Sultan Ahmad Shah I of Gujarat intervened in the tussle for succession that ensued after Hoshang's death. He unsuccess- (1) fully supported Hoshang's son, Masud Khan, against Mahmud Khalji I. Similarly, in 917 A,H./1511-12 A.D,, after the death of Nasiruddin Khalji of Maltua there arase conflict bettueen his tuio sons, Muhammad Khalji (commonly knoiun as Saheb Khan) and Plahmud Khalji. After a severe contest, Mahmud Khalji II occi^iied the throne, ufhile Muhammad Khalji fled to Gujarat. On the request of Muhammad Khalji, Sultan Muzaffar Shah II agraed to invade Malwa to instal hin on the throne. After having made euch a request, Muhammad (2) Khalji fled from Ahmadabad and took shelter in the Deccan. But (1) For this intervention of Sultan Ahmad Shah I of Gujarat in the succession affair of Maliua in 1438-39 H.O., see, Shihab Hakisi: PP.33-35; Nizamuddin Ahmadtp.461; Firishtatp.190. These sources also inform us that Mahaiud Khalji I luaa the son of Malik Mughis,- a tf The above cases of intervention by the rulers of Gujarat and Malma in the u/ars of succession taking place in the neighbouring states indicate that both of them considered this kind of intervention fully Justified and consistent uiith norms that governed their mutual relations* It is significant that usually intsrvention u/as invited by one of the contending parties and it uias not denounced by any one as an in^toper step on the part of the intervening poiuer. Appareently the right of each one of these powers to influence the outcome of a war of succession in the neighbouring kingdom was fully established and it was not considered amounting to vilation of the sovereignty and independence of kingdom where such a war was being fought. (1) For the decision of Muzaffar Shah II of Gujarat about invading Malwa in 1313-14 H.O, and later on its declaration, see, Nizamuddin Ahmad; p. 177; Haji-ud Oabirs p.93; but Firishtas p. 522, informs us that the Sultan of Gujarat returned from Malwa in 1513-14 M.O., because the army of Malwa under the command of Medini Rai (who was a Rajput general of Malwa army) gave him a drastic defeat. t>t) rtfter the treaty of 855 rt.H./l451-52 A.D,, whila the Gujaratis tuere prepared to tolerate any drive by the ruler of Haltua to extend his territory tou/arda the north- lueat at the cost of Meiuar, they vuere not agreeable to any moAie by them to snatch territory from the rulers of Khandesh and Mhmadnagar in the Oeccan. The Gujaratis extended military support to these rulers whenever attacked by Maluia. In 621 A,H./1418-19 A.O.y Sultan Hoshang Shah of Maltua sent his son Ghazni Khan luith 15»000 cavalry to help Malik f^aair of Asir to re-capture the Fort of Thalner from his brother, Malik Iftikhar. On receipt of this nsuuSf the ruler of Gujarat promptly sent his forces to reinforce Malik Iftikhar. Whan the Gujarati forces arrived to recuse Nasir Khan, Ghazni Khan (1) fled to Maliua and Nasir Khan surrendered to them. Similarly, the Sultans of Gujarat often intervened to protect the Bahmani kingdom of Oeccan from any invasion by the ruler of Malkua, In the 3amad I B66 M.H./1461-62 A.D. and Rabi I 867 M.H./ 1462-63 A.0«« Sultan flahmud Khalji I of Mal«ua had invaded the (1) For this help of the ruler of Gujarat to Malik Iftikhar againat Naair Khan of Asir and Ghazni Khan in 1418-19 A.O., see, Tarikh-i Alfi; p.365; Firishtaj p.185; Nahavandi; p. 136. Thia clash of the rulers of Gujarat and Maliua is also mentioned in Haigs p.297; S.C.Misra: p.176; U.N. Day; pp. 37-38. i)7 territory of Nizam Shah Bahmani. On both these occasions, Sultan Mahmud Begada of Gujarat gave military help to Nizam (1) Shah against the ruler of naltua. Subsequent to Hahmud Khalji^s second invasion of the Oeccan, Sultan Mahmud Begada u/rote to him reprimanding for his aggressiveness against Nizam Shah. He argued that invading the kingdom of a ruler u/ho luas not yet fully establishsd was in violation of the norms of the inter state relations. Sultan Mahmud Begada u;arned that if Mahmud Khalji I would invade the Oeccan again, the Gujarati army luould invade Malu/a, iiccording to Firishta and all other later aourceSf on receipt of the letter, Mahmud Khalji I of Halv^a, not only showed rapsntence for his in^roper actions but, he also made a solemn promise to Sultan Mahmud not to undertake any further invasion against Ahmadnagar<2>* J_r- But the court historian of Sultan Mahmud Khalji I, Shihab Hakim, does not refer to this letter nor does he mention any expression of repentencs by the (1) for the tiuo invasions of the Bahmani territories by the ruler of Maliua in 1461-62 and 1462-63 A.D. and for the military help rendered by Mahmud Begada tff Gujarat to Bahmanids against the Maltua ruler,see,Shihab Hakims pp.90-100;Sharfuddin Bukharis pp.4-5;Mahmud Ghaznitpp.69-79,93-94; Sayyad Mi. Tabatabaitpp. 100-'106tTarikh-i Mlfi. f .540Ca);Nizamuddin Ahmadjp.343; Haji- ud-0abirtp.l7;ririshtasp.3B4;Sikander Manjhujp,84.But Shihab Hakimtpp ,90-99,does not refer the help of the Gujarati ruler on the occasion of the first invasion, but it is mentioned by the other sources, (2) For the letter of Sultan Mahmud Begada to Sultan Mahmud Khalji I of Maliua and also for his reply,see,Muhammad Sharfuddinsp .5; Nizamuddin Ahmad:p.468;HaJi-ud-Oabirtp,17;Firishtasp.385, Sikander Manjhu: pp.85-86. .1 0 ruler of Malmay. Shlhab Hakim further mentions another clash betujeen the rulers of Gujarat and Maluia on the problem of Oeccan. He says that again in Damad II 869 A,H./l465-66 A«D., the ruler of Maluja tuas busy in st^iporting the chiefs located to the south of Narbada adjacent to the territories of Bider controlled by the Bahmanids, luhen he dacidsd to crush the rulers of Gujarat and Daulatabad, Jointly mobilised their forces to check any possible attempt by Mahmud KhalJi (1) to inuade Deccan again. Although the rulers of Maltua and Gujarat had strained relations utith each other and the ruler of Gujarat uias always ready to check any move by the ruler of Malwa to expand tou/ards Khandesh and Deccan, thess rulers co-operated with each other in their dealing with the Rana of Mawar and other minor Rajput states allied with the Rana. It appears that both of them thoughts that the presence of strong sisodia principality in south-eastern Rajputana presented a continuous (1) For the help of the ruler of Gujarat to Nizam Shah Bahraani of Oeccan in 1465-66 A.O. against the ruler of Malwa, see, Shihab Hakimt pp*1Q3-4. But no other source refer this evidence. So the authenticity of this evidence! is doubtful. IKI threat to their aecurity. The visible tendency of the rular of Metuar to bring the smaller states existing in their (1) neighbourhood under their hegenoney combined with influence wielded by the Rana over some of the Rajput zaroindare located (2) tuithin flaltua made these powers extremely suspicious of Meu/ar. It was on account of this situation that they concluded a treaty in B55 M.H./ 1451-52 M.O., in which they promised to give their help to each other against Rana and also decided that when either of them would get any portion of Rana's (3) territory, the other would not interfere with it. It seems the terms of this treaty were observed by the two powers in letter as wsll as spirit. In 861 A,H./l456-57 M.O., when (1) For Hewar*s tendency to annex smaller nieghbouring states one may refer to the case of Nagort>, an indepndent princi pality allied with Gujarat till 861 M.H./1457-58 rt,D., when it was extinguished by the Rana and its territory annexBd to Mewar some time after 1457-58 M.O. Cfs Nizamuddin Ahmads p.432; Sikander Manhu: p.85. Also see, commissariats pp.143-44, Rana Sanga*3 acquisitiona from todis as well as i^alwa> mentioned by Babur also go to support our contsntion. Rana Sanga annexed Ranthambor, Sarangpur, Bhilaa and Chandari from Malwa some time after 925 A.H./1519-20 A.D. He also annexed the territory of Sultan Ibrahim Lodi t^itiil Oholpur. ££: 3abur» pp.189-90, 219. (2) For example under Mahmud Khalji IIl(3rd Safer 917 H.H,/2nd May 1511 H.D, to 14th Sha'aban 937 A.H,/April 2nd 1531 A.D.), Medini Rai and other Rajput chiefs in his ssrvics looked to the ruler of Mewar for support and guidance. Cft infra: p, 16 (3) For the treaty of 1451-52 A.O. .see.supratp o. 5-6. Sultan Uutbuddin Shah of Gujarat Invadsd Msiuar to punish the Rana for his intervention in Nagor, Sultan Mahmud Khalji I of Malma, gave full military support to him. The rulers of Gujarat and Malma Jointly defeated Rana Kumbha An 1456-57 (1) , (2) A.D. LatQr, in 923 A.H,/1517-18 A.O, and 925 A,H./l519-20 (3) M.O,, the ruler of Gujarat, Sultan Muzaffar Shah II, gave military help to the Malma rular Siultan Mahmud Khalji II in suppreeaing Hedini Hal, who ivas closely allied to Mevuar. When in 926 A,H,/l519-20 M.D,, on account of the support th?t the ruler of Gujarat had given to the ruler of Malu/a against Meu^ar and Rajput chiefs allied to the Sisodia ruler, a direct conflict arose betuueen the rulers of Gujarat and ^)eu (1) For the military help of Mahmud Khalji I of Maltua to the ruler of Gujarat in 1457-58 A.O., against the Rana of l<^ou/ery see, Sikander Kanjhu; p.84; Mli Kuhammad Khans p.52. (2) Tor the military support of the ruler of Gujarat to Mahmud Khalji II against Medini Rai in 1517-18 A.O., see, Shah Abu Turab Mails pp.3-4; Nizamuddin Ahmadt pp.179-83; Haji-ud-Oabirj pp.94-97; Firishta; pp.408-10, 525-26; Sikander Manjhus 0.182-85, 167-88,192. (3) For the military support of the. ruler of Gujarat to the Maluia ruler against Medini Rai in 1519-20 A.D., see, Nizamuddin Ahmad* p.183; Haji-ud-Dabir» pp.97-98,100; Firishtat p.411. bi (1) terns of 1451-52 treaty openly supported the Gujaratis. Contemporary Persian chroniclers Qt 16th and I7th centuries regard religious aatogonisn as one of the primary factors conditioning the attitude of the rulers of Maltua and Gujarat toiuards Meuuar. But this is not borne out fully by the evidence that u/e have relating to the attitude of these tu/o pouters totuards other non-Huslim states. One can cite a number of cases to shoiu that religious sentiments did not come in the u/ay of their making a common cause uuith a non- Muslim chief fighting against a Muslim ruler. In 625 A.H./ 1421-22 A.D., the ruler of Gujarat invaded Maluua, at a time u/hen its ruler, Hoshang Shah uias conducting military operations against the Hindu ruler of ^Jnagar* As a result of Gujarati pressure on Maluia, at this occasion, Hoshang Shah had to (uithdraut from 3ajnagar luithout making any significant terri- (2) torial acquisitions* The rulers of Maltua also helped repeatedly (1) For coming of the Maliua ruler to Metuar uiith the intention of giving military support to the invading Gujarat army see, Nizamuddin Ahmadt p.490; HaJi-ud-Oabirip.104; Firishtat p.210; Sikandar Manjhus pp.201-2. (2) For the invasion of Maltua by the ruler of Gujarat in 1421-22 A.D., see, Terikh-i tilfit p.37; Nizamuddin Ahmadj P.455; Hrishtas p.186• Also see, Watsons p.SB; M.Haigs P.298; S.C.Misrat pp.192-83; U.N.Oayt pp.46-48. liZ the Rajput chiefs of Idar, Champanir, handal, 3halawar» (1) Nadod etc. In their struggle against the Gujarati king. These cases go to shoui that the religious sentiment could not haue been the Most inportant factor urging the states of Gujarat and Maluia to nake a common cause against Fieuiar, It was apparently their common fear of the growing might of the Sidodia state that forced them to co-operate uiith each other against Mewar. The religious motives attributed to them by the Persian chronilces in this connection, can at beat be accepted as an indication of the false perception of an otheriulse complex historical process by uiriters of these accounts. (1) for Kaluia rulers military help to Rajput chieftains of Gujarat, see. Chapter^ III, OO --TT—r 5 f i T it a \ -:U \ n 'II ll '^' ';'!'l^ 33 o o o < o < "^ O Of-, o a• ii3 0 o ^1 a? o o c< : •r U»:T ,s> tA'^i ^^^^'"^ 0»o > ; :3o > -H > M \ c I 2 > / O 1 .o 2: O -Si' la .4 > o i/>V', o b3 6 o >,- o> d n o ^ :xi I o > c/^ p c I 3 T; o •< z o o 1 .^ o o £ Tj T; X) X) '^ cri o o c O c/> Q o -y o o =;• ?! o « - 1 D 2 o o o . o a =- >« o n o o c o:T o. 3 -8 Igoa • ^ ^ a B ''/o n o ^ t ^•9 iij CHAPTER - in ROLE OF ZHMINDARS IN MUTUAL RELATIONS OF GUJrtRrtT AND MrtLWA; From our study of the histories of Gujarat and f^alvta It emergss that throughout the 13th century there existed a number of large zamlndarliij In the regions that fell, at one or the other tine, under these tiuo kingdoms* These ;yamindars mere often fighting against the rulers of Gujarat and Maltua. Occasionally they 11 is therefore important to examine as to tuhat role u/as played by them in shaping the over all relations between the kingdoms of Gujarat and Malwa, Before we examine the role of these zamindars. u/e are called up to identity their regions and the clans to uihich they belong. In our sources this information is oftsn missing. The zamindars usually are mentioned in the context of their rebellions without necessarily giving their namss, clans and other details. For identifying the clans and dstermining the approximate extent of the zamindaris. tus have proceeded on the following lines. If in ths context of a zamindar revolt its locals is indicatsd in sources by mentioning a particular place described in Ain-i vol.11 Akbari^as a sarkar or pargana headquarter, we have assumed that during ths period of our study that particular |tarkar or pargana b^:i uias being dominated by the ^amindar involved In the revolt. When the clan of the ^amindar concerned ie not identified in the sources for this period, lue have assumed that^by and large, he belonged to the same clan uhich is shouin controlling zamindari in that region in Ain-i Akbari. We are encouraged to make such an assumption by a number of oases in which tue find that the clans of tamindars mentioned as present in a particular place during our period were the same as those described in Ain-i rtkbari. For example the clan of Hawal Rajputs are mentioned as holding |amindari of Champanir in 13th century, and the same clan is described in Ain-i Akbari TiT~ as the dominant zamindar caste in a^arkar Champanir, In the attached map, we have indicated the location of these ^amindara by showing their headquarters with different symbols representing various zamindari clans. At a particular point of time during the period of our study these zamjndaris could be divided into two broad categories: (a) the zamindarit located on the peripheries of Malwa and Gujarat, and (b) the zamindaiis within these two kingdoms. (1) For the ruling family of the Rawal Rajputs of Champanir in the 15th century A,l9f,°>Sikander nanjhut pp. 106, 135 and compare Ainri Akbari. vol.11, p,l22. o;/ Among tha zawindarls located on the northern periphery of Gujarat, Idar and Oungarpur u/ere most liiH3ortant. The Ghalots of Dungarpur, during the period under discussion, u/ere aluiays exposed to aggression from Gujarat and Malius (and perhaps also from Meujar) and generally paid tribute to CD the one tuho claimed It by pouter and force; because It formed a sort of barrier bettueen Haliua on the one side, and Msiuar and Gujarat on the other. But they mere nearer to Gujarat because It seems that they uiere from time to time seeking to rely on the Gujaratl support In their struggle tulth other (2) nleghbourlng chiefs. While on the other hand, the Glraslah zamlndars of Idar vuho were most of the time hostile to the kingdom of Gujarat, and rebelled against the rulers of Gujarat In 914 ^,H./1411-12 M.D,, 816 A.H./1413-14 A.D,, 821 A.H,/ 1417-18 rt.D., 629-30 A.H./1426-27 M.D., 845 A,H./l440-41 A.D., 919 A,H,/1513-14 M.O. and 921 M,H./1515-16 H.O.; tusre (1) The rulers of Oungarpur paid tribute to the Maltua Sultan In 863 A.H./1458-59 M.D. and 870 A.H./1465-66 M.O. respec tively, while they paid tribute to the rulers of Gujarat in 836 A.H./1432-33 A.D. and in 846 A.H. respectively. Cf. Shlhab HakiB!}pp.90,l22;Nlzaffluddin ithmadtpp. 123,126, Also see, S.C.nisratpp. 202, 204 U.N.Days pp.3-4,195. (2) We see that the Ghelot zamlndar. Ral Sam Oas, of Dun9§rpur sought hslp from the rul!sr of Gujarat against the ^amindar of Champanir in 870 A.H./1465-66 A.O. Cf,Shlhab Haki«tp.12l. Also see, U.N.Oaytpp.195-96, This shoas that ths relations bcitiueen the zamindari of Oungarpur and the kingdoM of Gujarat uiere not hostlls. That should sxplain why the ruler of Gujarat did not consider it expedient to annex Oungarpur. (3) After every above rsbellion, tha Raja of Idar accepted to pay tribute to the ruler of Gujarat. ini suppressed and their territory annexed to Gujarat* apparently* some time between 921 ii.H./l5l3>l6 A.D. and 924 A.H./1518-19 (1) M,0, The Ghelots of Slrohl and Bagad luere other Important (2) zamlndarls of that region In the north-east of Idar, and these zamlndarla also rami^ined tributary chiefs of Gujaratl (3) kingdom. On the uiestern periphery of Gujarstl kingdom till seventies of the fourteenth century mere uhelot zamlndarl of Sorath (modern Dungadh) and of Baghedas of Sankodhara and (4> ;]agat (modern Oiuarfca). These u;ere located In the kathlauiad region* not controlled by the Gujaratl Sultans till seventies, but these were eventually annexed to Gujarat In B74-75 A,H./ 1470-71 H.O, and 887 A,H./l482-83 H.O, respectively. On the (1) The exact date of the annexation of Idar to Gujarat la not knoum. But Sultan Muzaffar 3hah II appointed jIusrat-Ul Hulk as Havaldar of Idar in 1518-15 H.U, Cf, Nlzarouddln Ahmadx pp.178-79,183} Slkander Manjhuspp.181,193. Also see. Commissariat: pp*272-73* The KvldsncQ might suggests that Idar tuas annexed to Gujarat soma time betuieen 1515-16 A.D. and 1518-19 «.£>. (2) For the Ghelots of Slrohl and Bagar, see, Aln-1 Akbarl. Vol.II,p. 511, (3) For the information that the i^amlndarla of Slrohl and Bagad remalnsd tributary chiefs of the Gujaratl kingdom for a long period of its existsncs, see, Nizamuddln Ahmad: p.184; Slkander Manjhut pp.199-200, (4) For tha Ghelots of Sorath and Baghadas of Sankodhara and Jagat, ses, Ain-i Akbarl. Wol.II, p.137, (5) Ona first hear of the zamlndarl of Sorath, existing on tha eastern periphery of Gujarat, in tha context of an uprising in Sorath in 815 >*,H,/1412-13 A,0. Cf. Tarikh-i Alfi»p.365; nizamuddln Ahmadip.102;and of 3agat and SdnKadndf^yttxiating on tha north-aaatsrn border of the kingdom,in the context of its annexation to Gujarat in 1482-83 AO.Cf.Nizamuddln Ahmadsp,151;Slkand8r Hanjhutp,130.Also ses,Commissariats pp.173-75, y i south-eastern border of the kingdom situated a large and potuerful Rathor zamlndarl of Baglana betiueen Gujarat and Oeccan, This zawjndarl also remained tributary of Gujarat (1) till latter* s annexation to Mughal Empire. On the other hand, there uiere a number of large zamindaris that were located in the heartland of the kingdom of Gujarat. Among them Mandal tifas controlled by Koli chiefs, a non-Rajput group, situatsd in the north-tuestern part of the (2) kingdom, i^mong the other north-iuestern zamindaria of Gujarat, Dhalau/ar and Ranpur are moat important. The Girasiahs u/ere in Jhalaiuar and Gohels were in Ranpur (who were fsudatories of the Gujarati kingdom). Among the zamindaris located in the central and eastern parts of Gujarat, the Rawal (1) For ths Rathor zd^indati of Baglana, see, Ain-i Akbarit P.490. This zamlndari remained the tributary of Gujarat throughout the letter's independence. See, Akbar Nama> vol, III,p.30; Nizamtjddin Ahmadjpp,119-20; Also see, SC Nisrai P. 195, (2) Ths zamlndari of Mandal firstly described in ths accounts of 15th and 16th century Gujarat, in ths contsxt of ths zareindar rising of 816 A,H,/1413-14 AD. Cf, Nizamuddin Ahmad pp. 451-52, firishtat p.185; Sikander ManJhu:pp,46-47. (3) For the Girasiahs of Qhalawar, sse, Sikandar Manjhut pp.40-41, \ (4) For Gohels of Ranpur, see, Ras Malai pp.344-47. Also see, ' Commiasariati p. 179. 0 0 zamindarl of Champanir u/as most poiuerful ona, luhlch situated on the Gujarat frontier toi:/ards Maliua. It sev/aral times paid (1) its allegiance either to Gujarat or Maluia^ but often asserted (2) its independence and it tended to become a buffer-zone bettueen the two kingdoms of Kalu/a and Gujarat. The zareindari of Champanir throughout remained a source of considerable utorry for the ruler of Gujarat. It played a leading role in large scale of revolts of the Gujarati zemindars in 1413-14, 1417-18 A.D. ThB chiefs of Champanir also invited to HaUo£\ %i^Ujui i^inwade Gujarat in 1451-52, 1465-66, 1470-71, 1484 A.D. It had come to be wievued by Sultan Mahmud Beyadb as a major source of military iueakness for Gujarat and therefore (1) The Rajas of Champanir, by and large, remained a tributary of Gujarat from 821 A,H./l4l7-1B A.D, till fifties of the eight century A.H, Cft Nizamuddin Ahmad: pp. 105, 107, 125-26. Also sen, Conmisaariat: p.82. The same chief was also paying tiibute to Maliua ruler in 852 A.H./144B-49 A.D., uihen he sought help froRi the ruler of Maliua against Muhammad Shah of Gujarat. Cft Shihab Hakimtpp.68-69. (2) Before 1417-18 A.O., the Raja of Champanir u/as eo«pletoly indepndent of any external control, i.e., either of Gujarat or Maluua, and for several times, he invited the ruler of Maltua to invade Gujarat. In 854 A,H./l449-50 A.O., he again became completely indepndent. Therefore at that time the ruler of Gujarat invaded Chamoanir for re-emerging his influence there but he remained unsuccessful in his attempt. After this inci dent Champanir remained independent zaraindari till its annex ation by Gujaratia in 1484-85 A.D, This is borne out by the evidence of 870 A.H./1465-66 A.D.,when the zamindat:jl of Champanir fought with an ally of Gujarat, Rai Sam Das of Dungarpur, and by the incident of 875 A.H./1471-72 A.D., when the Raja of Champanir gave protection to the rebells of Baroda and Oabhoi. Cf. Shihab Hakimtp.121s Nizamuddin Ahmads pp.l25- 26, 148; Sikander Manjhut pp.64-65, 125. Also see, U.N.Dayt P. 195, in 1484-85 A.O., he annexed it in hie kingdom after a (1) prolonged military campaign. The other important zareindari of this category was that of the Gohils of Nadod, which was (2) located in north-east of Gujarat. The Girasiahs of Oandah uiere also another zawindar clen, whose territory was apparently located within the »arkar of Ahmadabad. This particular z;amindari was closely allied with the rulers of Gujarat. Its chief was reported to have served in the Gujarat army during Sultan Hhmad Shah^s conflict with Hoshang Shah of Malwa in 825-26 >4.H./l421-22 A,0,, and was killed with his 500 Rajput (3) followers in the battle. The Barha Rajputs of Dabhoi and Baroda (these places were under the direct administration of Gujarati Sultans) were not friendly with the rulers of Gujarat and always rebelled against the central authority* whenever they got such opportunity as in 870 A.H./1465-66 A.p« (1) One first hear of the zamindari of Champanir in the context of the rebellion of Chiefs in 1413-14 A.O. Cf. Nizamuddin Ahmads pp.451-52; Tirishtas p.1B5; Sikandar Manjhui p.130. (2) we first hear of the zamindari of Nadod in the context of the zawindar rising in Gujarat in 1413-14 A.D. Cf, Ibtc^. The zamindsr^ in Nadod were Gohila» is borns by Ain-i Akbarl's (P.122) information that in the hilly region lying between Nadod and Nandurbar was dominated by them, (3) We received information about ths zamindari of Oandah only in the context of the war of 825-26 A.H./l4S#-22 A.D.,between the rulers cf Gujarat and Malwa.Cf.sNizanuddin Ahmadtp.110; Sikandar nanjhutp.54. Also see, SC Misratp.185. (4) For ths Barha Rajputs of Barotfs and Dabhoi, see, Ain»i Akbari.p.122 and for the conflict of the zamindars of* thesu places with the rulers of Gujarat,see, f^ifra) p. ^9^ ViJ ^^^ aiawjndaria of Mandal, Nadod, Ranpur and 3halau(ar, uihose chief led rebsllion against the ruler of Gujarat and had made a common cause uiith the ruler of naltua.in 810<>11 A.H./ 1407-8 >4,0,, 813 A.H,/1410-11 rt.O,, 816 M.H./l4l3-4l A.u. and 821 A.H./1417-18 Ak«0« respectively; ware finally extinguished and their territories were brought under the direct^ control of the Gujarati rulers. Sultan Ahmad Shah conquered Handal in 821 A.H./1417-18 M.D.; and in 833 A.H,/l429-30 A.D., he (2) also conquered the zamindari of Ohalauiar, In 821 A,H,/1417- 18 A,D», the zajnindar of Nadod accepted the overlordahip of (3) the ruler of Gujarat agreeing to pay a regular tribute to hi«. After this the Nadod chief remained, by and large^on friendly terns with the Gujarati ruler. This is borne out by the absence of any evidence indicating that subsequently like other chiefs of Gujarat the chief of Nadod also frequently revolted against the central authority. Sultan Hahmud Begaia (1) For the conquest of Handal in 1417-18 A.O,, by the ruler of Gujarat, see, Nizamuddin Ahmadi p.1C5. We also havo an inscription of 867 A,H./l462-63 A.O. of liahmud Begada's raign. The epigraph fixed over the central nihrab of the Sayyid'a mosque, assigns the contruction of the mosque to Nasir, son of Shaifchu on 1st Muharram 867 A.H./26th Sept. 1462 A.O. during the reign of Mahmud Shah Begada. iMl4KM«ui«, (2) For the conquest of 3halaiuar by the ruler of Gujarat in 1429-30 A.D. see, nitamuddin Ahmads pp.115-17. (3) For the subjugation of tha Raja of Nadod in 1417-18 A.D., by the ruler of Gujarat, see, Nizamuddin Ahmadt p.105. conquered and abolished the zarolndayi of Ranpur before 870 A.H./ 1464-65 A.D, Similarly, the :famindari» of the above tujo categories also existed in Maliua and the surrounding territory. But unfortunately it is not possible to identify the clans and regions of all these ajaminclars. Mwong the a^amindaria on the northern periphery of Halit'a Surya (Vanshi) Rajputs of l^andsor u/era wary iiapartant. After a long struggle thair gamindari (Mandaor) was annexad to Maiwa by Sultan Mahmud Khalji I (2) around 845 A.H,/l442-43 •A.D. The other important zamindari C3) of the same category luas* that of Khichi Chauhans of Gagron* It u/as previously conquered by Sultan Hoshang Shah in 826 A.H./ (4) 1422-23 A.D. and finally by Sultan Mahmud Khalji in 846 A.H,/ (5) 1442-43 A.D, The clans of the ^2aminc|ari<» of Kalyur and Sargaj are not identlfiabls, but their mention occurs in the context of Sultan Mahmud Khalji's invasion qf Meiuar territory u/hich tends to suggest that these uuare located on the northern (6) periphery of Maluia. (1) For the demolition of the zamindari of Ranpur by Mahmud Bega^a before 1464-65 A.D, See, Ras Malatpp.344-47, Also see, Commissariats pp. 179-80. (2) For the conquaat of the zamindari of ^5andso^ by Sultan Mahmud Khalji I around 1442-43 A.O.,see, Nizamuddin Ahmadt p. 335. 41ao see, U.M.Days p.175, (3) For the Khichi Chauhans of Gagran,see,Shihab Hakintf.134-b. Cft U.N.Dayjp,49, (4) Tor the conquest of Gagron in 1422-23 AD by Hoshang Shah, see Nizamuddin AhmadtpS39 {Firishtasp .238.Also sea,U.N.Dayt p.49. (5) For the conquest of Gagron by Mahmud Khalji X in 1442-43 A,D.,seB,Shihab Hakim»pp.54-55.Also see, UN Dayspp.176-78. (6) For the zamindaris of Kalyur and Khejwara, sea, Shihab Hakimtpp.39-43, 64-65. : 1 •'!» Several ln^ortant a^amlndarie seena to have existed to the south of Narbada, Amongst the zamindaris of Khandtua and Khirkiya were aiore in^ortant ones. But even In case of these two, it is not possible to identify the clans controlling the clans of then. Unfortunately Mbul Fazl does not mention^these places in Ain-i rtkbari neither does he identify the zawindars of sarkar Handle tuhich roughly covered major part of territory betu/een Narbada and Tapti, tuhere, apparently these ^amin- darif uuere situated Khanduia, after a long resistance vuas annexed by Sultan hahmud Khalji I in B69 A,H,/l464-63 A,D. In the saitie region mere also located zamindaris of Kherla (2) and Kalam, tuhich nay be identified on the basis of Hin-i (1) One first hear of the ^areindarj of Khandtua, uthich was in the south of Narbada river in s_arkar Handia, in the ^ context of Its rebellion against the ruler of Malu/a in \ 844 A.H./1440-41 A.O., Cf. Shihab Hakintp.4l. Also see, U.N.Dayt pp.111-12. (2) For the independent zawindaris of Kharla and Kalan, situated in the south of Narbada river, see, Shihab Hakim PP.18,101. Also see, U,N.Oay} pp.45,35. (3) For the existence of the 2,a'»i"<^ag^'8 o^ Kanera,Kareli,Kathe^, see, Shihab Hakint pp.42, 102-5, 106. Among the zamindars situated inside the Maltua kingdoRy that of the Rathors of Badnaur (nodarn Badnaiuar) and s«*^ (1) ^^^ zamindaris of Khejtuara and Kharal are mentioned. But exc^t Badnaur a^ Ahajataga \ue dont cone across any information about the territories and ruling clans of these zawindarln which goes to indicate that these mere comparatively smaller chieftainships. From the forgoing discription, me may conclude that a majority of the more important „:jt3mindar|t in Qujarat as uiell as Kaliua mere Rajputs. Those dominating in Qujarat uiere Girasiahs, (2) Ghelots» Baghedasi Gohils and Ramals, mhile the Rajput (3) zamindars of Malu/a belonged to Rathor and S urya (Vanshi) clans. But at the same time, in both the regionst considerable ninber o^ zamindaris mere controlled by non*RaJput clans. Among. the non-Rajput groi^is located inside Gujarat, the most prominent (4) mere the Kolis of Mandal. In and around Halma, almost entire (1) For the ji;areindaris of Badnaur, Khejuiara, and Kharal, see, Shihab Hakimt pp. 84, 129; Sikander Manjhuj p.146. (2) For the Girasiah, Ghelot, Baghsia, Gohil and Rau/*| Rajput zamindars of Gujarat, see, Ajn^i Akbaritpp.120.122.133.136. 138-39, 172; Sikander Manjhut p.46; Nizamuddin Ahmadj p.110. (3) For Ra Iput zamindars of Rathor and Surya(\/anshis) of Malma; see, Ain-i Akbarit pp. 95, 172. (4) For the Kolis of Mandal, sse, Ain-i Akbarit p.120. group of zawlndars in Trans Narbada region mere non- (1) Rajputs amongst luhom sone may be assuned to be Gonds* M peculiar feature of nalitfa*s relations uiith the zemindars appears to be that mhile those located on its north-uiestern and south-tuestern periphery lusre hostile and recalcitrant; it, by and large, did not face much trouble from the ^^amindarf located inside the kingdom* Sultan Mahmud Khalji's decision in 860 /A.H,/1456-57 rt.D. to abolish the ;^awindarl of Badnaur and in 870 rt,H,/l466-67 (2) A,D. to conquere the zamindari of Khajtuara are pehaps the only developments that might be treated as an exception to the above riile. But the annextion of Badnaur was not so much due to the strain relations of Malma with it, in doing so Sultan Hahmud Khalji was guided by anxiety to prevent the Rana of Memar from occuplng Badnaur, This apparent absence of a conflict between the central authority of the Malwa kingdom and the zamindars located in its heartland may be explained in terms of the comparative weakness of the zamindar in this region as a result of the firm administrativs control (1) For the Gonds of Malwa kingdom, see, Ain-i Akbari,pp,134, 177, (1) For the annexation of Badnaur by the ruler of Halwa in 1456-57 A.O,, see, Shihab Hakims p.B4. (2) For the annexation of Khejaara by the ruler of F^alwa in 14S6-57 M.O., see, Shihab Hakim t p.129. i'^i exercised over it by the Central authority since the Tughlaq period. From opposite angle one can also argue that in flalu/a, possiblyt there existed a greater degree of reconciliation between the zamindars and central authority resulting from the policy of Mahmud Khalji*s successors to accommodate the local chiefs in their nobility in considerable strength. As already stated, the zamindaria situated on the northern periphery of Maliua, u/ere alutays in conflict. This conflict led Sultan Hoshang Shah end specially Sultan Hahmud Khalji I to destroy many of these zamindars and annexed their territory to Maluia. Sultan Hoshang Shah invaded Gagron on 13th Septofflber 1422 A.D., and in spite of the firm reeistance offered by i^chaldas Kiichi, the chief of that place, conquered (1) it on 27th September 1423 A.O. Mandsor a«as invaded and conquered around 845 A.H./1441-42 A.O. In 844 A.H./1440-41 A.O. (3) the ruler of (laluta also subdued Sargaj, uthich uias an aimportant pay, zamindari of that period. BhoJ,the chief of that place,accepted tri (1) Tor the conquest of Gagron in 1423 A.O. ,r.' actually regarded Pleuiar as their nain adversary in that region. They felt that Maliua's success in annexing the zamlndarls located on its northern periphery only pre enpted their fully aligning themselves luith Metuar. Again, the rulers of Gujarat could take any measure for preventing the zawindaris located to the south of Narbada river. This luaa firstly because yawindaris invaded by Maluia in this region luere separated from Gujarat by territory of the State of Khandesh, and secondly because on the south-eastern periphery of Gujarat there existed hostile aiawindarls of Champanlr and Nadod, tuho most of the tine mere making a common cause with flalvua. In any case, ouiing to this Inability of the kingdom of Gujarat to intervene in the struggle (1) For the subjugation of Sargaj by Mahmud Khalji I in 1441-42 A.O. see, Shihab Hakimi p. 45. Also see, U.N Dayj pp. 114-15. (2) For the annexation of Kalyur into Maltua, see, Shihab Hakimt pp. 64-65. • I • ) i i betuieen the authority of Maltua, and a^awlndara located in its frontier it could be possible for Mahnud Khalji I to annex Khirkiya in 844 4.H./1441-42 A.D.> Kherla had already annexed into Maltua by Sultan Hoshang Shah in B23 A.H./ (2) 1421-22 A.O. In 866 A.H./ 1462-63 A.O., Kalan was also (3) included into the kingdon of Maliua, After the wars of 844 A.H./1440-41 A.D., 858 A,H,/l454.55 M.D. and 866 H.H./ 1462-63 M.D., Sultan Hahmud Khalji I annexed Khandwa into (4) Maluia in 869 A,H,/1465-66 A,0, In the same year, the zamindari of Bavabhoi (Kanera and Jataaankar), and also the chiefdoms of Kather and Kareli were conquered and (5) annexed into Malwa. It seens the zamindar resistance against central authority of ths Gujarat kingdom was much mors fierce wide (1) For the conquest of Khirkiya by the ruler of Malwa in 1441-42 A.D.» see, Shihab Hakimt p,42. Also see, U.N.Day, P. 1in (2) For the conquest of Kherla in 1441-^2 A.O., into Malwa, see, Shihab Hakim P.18; Firishtat p.237. Also see, U.N. Dayi p.45. (3) For the conquest of Kalam by Sultan Mahmud Khalji I of Malwa in 1462-63 A.O., see, Shihab Hakimi p.101. Also see, U.N.Days p.55, (4) For the wars of the Raja of Khandwa with the ruler of Malwa and the annexation of it into Malwa in 1465-66 A.O., see Shihab Hakimjpp, 41-42, 80,111. Also see, y^yj, Day.oo'.cit pp.'}11-.12, ' ' -*• •** (5) For the annexation of the zamindari of Bavabhoi and Kather and Kareli into Malwa in 146^^;? ii.*S7^7>» if. 2>s ^^.J, spread. Tha zamlndars resisting the Gujaratl authority luare located in regions boderlng i^on Maltuaf on the northern and southern peripheries as well as In the heartland of tha kingdoR, The rulers of Gujarat u/ere most the tlsis having strained relations and Intermittent fighting uuith on the independent ^amindaris. who mere located their peripheries (Idar and Sorath), as usll as in the heartland ofthels kingdom (such as Shalawar, i^andal, Champanlr, Nadod etc.) But it is nottuiorthy that the rulers of Gujarat had their relations with the ^andndari of Dungarpur, by and large, cordial. The rulers of flaliua had a tendency to encourage ^^"*^ ssamindars against the rulers of Gujarat, whenever any of then had a clash with the latter. By giving their military help to thsse |^awindarJ|l,p. the rulers of Maluta iuanted to weaken Gujarat, ss^that the latter's hand were not free to deal with thasi. But it is significant that on all such occasions ths rulers of Malwa did not try to rationalize or Justify their actions with rsference to any kind of claims that they might be having over tha kingdom of Gujarat. These actions of the rulers of Malws were simple arbitrary military moves aimed at weakening their rivals. But for making any such movs the flalwa rulers al\uay» waited for invitation from the Gujaratl zamindart. This is borne out by Hoshang Shah's intervention in the Vy devBlopmenta taking place intids Gujarat in B13 «.H./1410-11 M.D., 816 A.H,/1413-14 A,D, and S21 M.H./1417-18 A.O. On all thasB occasional Rai Punja of Idar^ Rai Tarbangdas of Champanir, Rai Sataraal Girasiah of 3halawar and Rai Sabri of Nadod etc. had started a Joint revolt against Sultan Ahmad Shah I of Gujarat and had requested Hoshang Shah to give them military help. But it seems that Hoshang Shah was not able to make much headway against the Gujarati ruler on this occasions, as the local chiefs who had invited him could not rssist the military pressure of the kingdom of Gujarat and their revolt collapsed within a short tisie. They infact ditched Hoshang Shah by entering into an agreement with the Gujarati ruler without his approval, Hoshang Shah had to retire from Gujarat without being able to sscure any (1) military or diplomatic gain from his misadventures. In 816 A.H./i413->14 A.D., soon after the supprsssion of the second Joint revolt of the laroindar referred to abova, the chieftain (1) For the intervention of Hoshang Shah of Nalwa in amindar uprising in Gujarat in 1410-11, 1413-14 and fn 1417-18 A.D., against Sultan Ahmad Shah I, see, Tarikh-i Alfii p,363; Niz»9rauddin Ahmadi pp.96,451-52; Firishtat p.185i Sikandar Manjhut pp. 40-41; 46-47. Also see, commissariat: p.82; Watsons pp.33-34; W.Haigs pp. 297-98; Elphiastonet p.673 (appendix); S.C.Misrat P.177; U.N.Oayi p|336-37. of 3halaiuar had again revolted and had sought Hoa^ang Shah's help. On this occasion, the Gujarati ruler Sultan Ahmad Shah found it difficult to tackle the situation because of the simultaneous rebellion of his nobles (i«hmad Sarganji, Shah Malik bin Sheikh Malik etc), and retired (1) from 3halawar utithout suppressing the Raja. Similarly, Sultan Hoshang Shah of Haluja again intervened in Gujarat in B21 i4.H«/l4l7-18 A.O., tuhen he cone to know about the rebellion of the Raja of Sorath, Encouraged fey these developments, the Raja of Nadod had also reneiued his rebellion. On this occasion, the ruler of Maluua had sent his son, Prince Ghazni Khan, for invading Gujarat. He was helped by the ruler of Aseer, Nasir Khan, hi this tine the Qujaratis had to simultaneously fight on tuio fronts. Sultan Ahmad Shah X sent one of his nobles, Hahmud Khan, with a large army for si^Jpreasing the rebellion of the Raja of Sorath and on the other hand deputed Mukhlis-ul-Mulk and Hahmud Barki for checking Ghazni Khan and Nasir Khan, ahmad Shah had simultaneously revaged the territory of Nadod. As on other occasion, ths invading forces of Maliua commanded by Ghazni Khan and Nasir Khan fled from Gujarat as the Gujaratis after (1) For the invasion of ths Haluia ruler in 1413-14 A.O,, in support of the Raja of 3halatuar, see, Firishtas p.184; Nahavandit aDp.111-12. Also sea S.C. Misrat p.173; U.N.Oayt (%36. 0 L having tackled the iaroindar> came fortuard to check their (1) advance. This process of ^amindar rebellions continued there after, and again in 875 ii,H»/lA7^^•^2 M.D., the chiefs of Baroda and Oabhoi rebelled in Gujarat and sought help from the chief of Champanir, Chai^ak bin Gangdas. On this occasion the ruler of Gujarat invaded Ohampanir for forcing its ^f^iaf to ujithdratu his support from the rebellious zareindars of Baroda and Oabhoi, These |amindars after they had been expelled from the above territories had taken shelter in Champanir, On this occasion, houjever, the Gujaratis uere successful in forcing the Raja to luithdraiu his support from the rebellious ataroindars. This happened despite active military assistance given by (2) Malu/a to the chief of Chan^anir. These instances are clearly indicative of the porsiatant ^^'orts made by the rulers of Malwa to put an and to th« hegemonic claims of the Gujaratis by trying to utsaken tham mith the help of these independent zamindaris. But at the tame time it is also true that the attempts mads by tham to humble or weaken the Gujaratis were not very successful, and therefore, they uuere not able to permanently shake off the (1) For the rebellion of the Raja of Sorath and the invasion of Prince Ghazni Khan of Malu»a on Gujarat in 1417-18 ^0 see, Tarikh-i AIfitp«365tNizamuddin Ahmadtp,453, Also see, Ras rtalatp.346t%Haiqt p.297, (2) For the rebellion of the zaroindara of Baroda and Oabhoi in 1471-72 AO against the ruler of Gujarat,and the intervention of Raja of Champanir and the theruler of Kaliua in it see, Nizamuddin Ahmadt p,148; Sikander Manjhut p,125. I I 1 'J I'v hsgenonic claims unilaterally presufRed by the ii rulera of Gujarat in their relatione u/ith Malua. On the other hand» it is also noteo/orthy that the ^amindarf who participated in the rebellions of 1410-11 A.D,, 1413-14 A.D. and 1417-18 A.D. belonged to different castes and clans including Rajput as well as non-Rajputs. Which shows that already by this tine process of adjustmentst among the zamindar clan has reached a point where they tended to be have as ono caste. This also borne out by the evidence suggssting gradually induction of the Kolis into ths Rajput group. The peneteration of the Rajputs and their social system in the eastern regions and their impact on the tribal people led to a new consciousness broader solidarity emerging among at least ths upper echilons of ths local chiefs. It waS| appa rently, as consequence of this proosss that at the political plans the Rajput chiefs succeeded, in course of time, in gaining ths support of non-Rajput local chiefs against ths rulsrs of Gujarat. The Rawal Rajput chieftainship of Champ8ni¥ had e unique position in the bilateral relations of Malwa and Gujarat. Within Gujarat it was becoming the centre of lareindar resistance. Ths Raja of Champanir helped other minor chief in their defiance of the Gujarati rulers in 1413-14 A.O. and 1417-18 A,0. It maa, apparently, to strengthen this rola of the chief of Chanpanlr that the Qujaratl rulers triad to prop up the local chiefs uuho (were knouin to be hostile to the chiefs of Champanir and tried to use them for tueaksning the latter's position. For instance in 1466-67 uihen the Ghalot chief of Dungarpur came into a conflict tulth the chief of (1) Champanir, Sultan Hahmud Begada gave him military assistance. On other hand, the rulers of Haltua aliuays regarded as a safe Buffer for separating their territory from Gujarat kingdom. They knetiu that if the strategically important terri tory of Champanir mas occupied by the Gujaratis or if it passed under its influence, then it ujould become comparatively easier for the forces of Gujarat to peneterate into iikm Maliua, by making this territory of a higher a^^titude as the base of their operation. Hence they always extended military help to Champanir against Gujarat. When in 854 A.H./1450-51 A.O., Sultan Muhammad Shah of • Gujarat bsseiged Champanir, the Sultan of Maltua tried to help Champanir by ssnding his armies to invade Gujarat! territory around Dohad and this development started a war uihieh continued for above one year. In this war Malwa and Champanir jointly opposed Gujaratis but finally their forces were defeated by the Gujaratis in the battle of (1) For the military assistance of the ruler of Gujarat to the Raja of Dungarpur against the chief of Champanir, see. Supra I p.3, *- ;1 ? KapadwanJ in Safar 855 A,H,/April 1451 M.D, During this u/ar the ruler of Champanir bad paid the ruler of Maluia an amount of one lac ailvsr tankas tuhich uias in addition to the (2) payment totuards meeting on the military campaign. Again, Sultan Chayasuddin Khaljl, offered to help to the Raja of Chamapnir in 888 A»H,/l483-84 A.O,, on the condition that latter should to pay to him one lack silver tankas and in addition to that alsu ra-imburaed expenase on military expaditiona that might ba sent to Charapanir for the Raja*a (3) rescue. But on this occasion, evanturlly the Maltua rular decided not to intervene in the atrugi^la that (ensued betuteen Gujarat and Champanir. If our sources are to be believed. (1) For tha Raima rulara invasion of Gujarat in 1450-52 h,D»t on behalf of the Raja of Char^anir, sea, Nizanuddin Ahmadt pp. 62-64| Haji-ud Oabirt pp* 2-lOj firiahtas pp. 19D-92, 249-50} Sikandar Manjhuj pp»47, 69-8. Alao aac, Raa Mala t p. 352, Commissariats pp. 129, 141-42} W. Haig; p.301; W-ataoni p*37. But according to Shihab Hakimi pp. 68-69, thia utar uuas held batiuean Malwa and Gujarat in 852 A,H./l44B-49 A.D, (2) for the economic gaina of tha ruler of Maluia in tha uuar of 1450-52 A.D. see, Nizamuddin Ahmadt fk 462} Firiahta: p,19Q; Sikander Manjhus p.47. Also sue. Commissariats p.129; fl.N.Dayj p. 123. (3) for the dsciaion of tha rular of Maltua to aupport tha Raja of Champanir againat tha Sultan of Gujarat in 1483-84 A.D., saa, Sharfuddin Bukharit pp* 14-15} Nizamuddin Ahmadt pp. 159-60; Haji-ud-Oabirj p.26; Firiathai p.397; Sikander Manjhuj p.106. Alao aae, Raa Mal,at p.372; Coromisaariats pp. 193-94; W. Haigj p.309; Wataonj p.43; UN Day; pp,226-33, > 5 "; ha adopted this attitude on the advice of the *UleMia uuho luere against his help to a ooH'^luslin chief against a Muslin (1) ruler. Apparentlyt more important consideration persuading Ghayasuddin Khalji to desist from helping Champanir on this occasion was the impressive military mobilis::tion made by Gujaratis including the deployment of a powerful park of artillery commanded by Ottoman experts. This is borne out by the evidence drived from Tabaqat-i Ahmadi and Tarikh~i firishta. that Sultan Mahmud Begada used his artillery (2) against Chempanir in 8S9 A,H./l484-85 A.D. very effectively. The annexation of Champanir to the kingdom of Gujarat marks the ujatershed in the history of bilateral relationship betujecin the ttuo kingdoms. It heralded the military stpremacy of Gujarat over the entire region. The other indepndent principalities* like Madod, Mandal* Dhaliuar etc. have already been abolished or subdued by the rulers of Gujarat. In course of time» the state of Maliua, uihich luas uptill noiu a fores to be ''reckoned u/ith** ceased to be so. Although previously it was not much successful against Gujaratf but still it tried to (1) Tor the intervention of the *lH,emq of Maltua at the time of the possibility of ujar of 1463-84 A.D. bstiuean the kingdoms of Gujarat and Malufs^sse, Sharfuddin Bukharitp. 1$;Nizamuddin Ahmad$p.477;Sikander Manjhutp,137. Also sse» Commissariatt p.194t U.N.Dayj pp.230-31. (2) Ths Gujarati ruler used his artillery on the western gate of the fort of Champanir and demolished it. By this* the task of conquering the Champanir fort became easier for them. For this use of artillery from the side of ths kingdom of Gujarat against Champanir in the mat of 1484-85 A.D. see, Nizamuddin ^hmadt p.161; Firlshtas p.202. bi) maintain the balance of pouter by putting hurdles in the way of ever| expantling ambitions of Gujarat. But from this time it was no longer in a position to play that role. wuite understandably, therefore, after the annexation of Champanir to Gujarat in 8B8-89 A.H,/l484-85 A.O., there came a rsnarkable change in mutual relations of Gujarat and lialtua. Subsequently the phenomenon of intermittent fighting betuieen them tended to recede. Both the states folloujsd, more or less, a policy of reconciliation. Therefore, niether the ruler of Maltua intervened in the affairs of Gujarat, nor the Gujaratis invaded Malu/a thereafter except in 919 A.H./1513-14 A.D, It is to the point to note that the ruler of Gujarat did not invade^ Maluia in 906 A.H./1500-Q1 A.D., uihen Sultan Nasiruddin Khalji came to the throne, after poisoning his father Sultan Ghayasuddin (2) Khalji. This u/as so different from the characteristic relation of the Gujarati rulers to similar developments in Nalwa In the (1) In 1513-14 A.O., the ruler of Gujarat} Sultan Muzaffar Shah II, invaded Maluia on behalf of Prince Muhammad Khan of Maluia, mho wanted to get the throne from his brother Mahmud Khalji II. Cj[. Nixamuddin Ahmadt p. 177, Firishtaj p.206, Also see, W.Haigj pp. 317-18; U.N.Days pp.291-93. (2) For poisoning Sultan Ghayasuddin Khalji by his son Sultan Nasiruddin Khalji in 1500-01 A.O., see, Nizamuddin Ahmadi p. 479; Haji-ud Oabirt p.32; Sikander Nanjhut p.1l7. •J I (1) past. It also appears that after the extinction of the gawindari of Champanir, Kalufa lost all leverage u/ith ^aroindar of Gujarat and therefore, subsequentlyt desisted fro« helping ^^^ zawindars against the central authority in Gujarat. Its ruler had no option but to align thenselves openly tuith the Gujarati rulers in their struggle against Rajput zamindars in the north receiving help and encouragement from Meutar. This significant shift in the position of the f1alu>a state is highlighted by the manner in u>hioh Sultan Mahmud Khalji II sought help from Huzaffar Shah II for crushing riedini Rai and (2) other local chiefs in his ovun service. Muhammad Khalji* s support to Muzaffar Shah 11 in his abortive invasion of Meu/ar in 927 rt.H./l521-22 A.D. tuas quite in line luith the same (3) policy. (1) For the attitude of the Qujarati rulers to similar develop ments in Maluia in pre 1484-8& period, see, Chapter ll,pp.j^^i^ (2) For the help of Sultan Muzaffar Shah II to Sultan Mahmud Khalji II against Medini Rai and Rana Sanga in 1517-18 A.O., see, Shah Abu Turab Walit pp.3-4; Nizamuddin Ahmadt pp.179-83; HaJi-ud-Dabir» pp.94-97; Firishtai pp,408-1D, 525-26; Sikander Manjhut pp.182-85. Also see, Ras Mala: pp.381-62. commissariats pp. 273-7 4; W.Haigt p.319t Watsons p.46; Elphinstont pp.676, 680 (both Appendix); U.N.Oayspp.293-99. (3) For the support of Sultan Mahmud Khalji II to Sultan Muzaffar Shah II against Rana Sanga in 1520-21 A.O., see, Nizamuddin Ahmads p.490; HaJi-ud-Oabirs p.104, Firishtai p.210; Sikander Msnjhut pp.201-2. Also see, commissariat, p.279; W.Haigt p.321. 0 0 CHAPTER -lU The ROIB of 'Uleroa and flaahaikh in Malu/a - Gujarat Relatlona; The role of religion in shaping the actual policies of the medieval Indian states uuasf of course, very limited. But the fact remains that religious slogans u/era altuaya advanced by the rulers and their officials in order to Justify their ambitious policies and measures in respect of foreign relations aa uisll a» home affairs, u^hich had nothing to do uiith the actual spirit of the religion. Apparently, at no time, medieval Indian history uias free from such symptoms. Almost every ruler, at one or the other occasion, had to resort to concealing his real motives under the garb of religion. The Sufi saints of Chlshti and Suharuiardi orders had a strong social base. The saints of these orders tuere particu larly influenciil in Gujarat and Maluua during the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. It is, therefore, quite under standable that ths rulers of these states should have tried to exploit their popularity with certain sections of the people, by asking them to extend their * spiritual hslp' for the military enterprises uihich they undertook from time to time or by sending them to negotiate peaee u/ith the pou/ers against whom they uiould be fighting at a given time. The religious divines mare usually oj regarded by the rulers fot their help by glwing them large sums in caah, soma tiroes also through conferment of grants. Such offerings u/ould usually be made by the rulers at the time of their return from a successful military campaigin. For example in 855 M,H./l45l-52 A.D. Shah Alam, son of Qutb>ul-Aqlab Shaikh Burhanuddin, reported to have extended his **spiritual help'* to Sultan Uutbuddin of Gujarat in his conflict ujith Sultan Mahmud Khalji I of Maliua. After this (1) campaign Sultan Qutbuddin paid 70,000 silver tankas to Shah Alam. The divines on their part, luere not averse to extend their '^spiritual support** to the rulers under uuhose protection they lived. They also used to readily agree to act as diplomats. In this regard they mere, apparently, motivated by a desire to obtain material gains through the state patronage. There are number of cases when tue find religious leaders 'ulemas as tuell as sufis readily extending their co-operation to the rulers. One such case \ue have noticed above. Many more similar cases tue are going to take note of in the ensuing discussion. (1) Sultan Uutbuddin paid, at that time, silver tankas instead of golden tankas and also did not pay equivalent to the numbers of prophets ujho came in morld, as he promised uiith Shah A*lam before the mar. After rejecting these silver tankas Shah A*lam distributed 1,24,000 tankaa« equivalent to the numbers of prophets (u/ho came in the kuorld), among his follotuers and after it, he became angry tuith Sultan Uutbuddin. £f, Sikander Nanjhu;pp.80-81. The Sufis luho played an important role in the CD relations of Gujarat and Maluia luere Shaikh Burhanuddin, (2) (3) Shah M*lam and Shaikh Kamal Malatui. Uutb-ul-Aqtab Shaikh Burhanuddin and Shah A* lam belonged to the Suharuvardi »il«ilah. (4) They mere Bukhati Sayyeds. Shaikh Kamal Melavui, on the (l) According to Ain»i Akbarit Wol.III, p.173; Ha.1i»ud-Qabir p.7} Sikander Hanjhuj p.7l; Ali Muhammad Khan» pp.26-27, 93(Supp.); Shaikh Abdul Haque Muhaddis Oehalwit p.156; Shaikh Burhanuddin Qutb-ul-Aqtab uiaa the grandson of fiakhdum-i-3ahaniyan (It ujaa generally believed ^hat the Sultanate of Muzaffar Shahi dynasty utas result of the blessings of hin). He utas ancestor of Sayyed 3a* far Mas^a, brother of Imam Hasan *!Askari, Hs borned on 14th R^ab 790 A.H. and died on Bth Ziliijjah B57 A.H, in Battua, which tuas near Ahmadabad, and also buried there. He transferred from Patan to Ahroadabad, when Sultan Ahmad Shah erected this toiun in 1413-14 A,D. Also 9ee%, Muslim Communities in Gu.iaratt p.119; Pearsonj pp.14*7-48. (2) According to Ain-i Akbarit Vol.Ill, p.174; Ha.1i-ud-Dabirs p.8; Sikander Manjhut pp.17,76; Ali Muhammad Khans pp. 37-38, 94 (Supp); Shaikh Abdul Haque Muhaddis Oehalwis p.156. Also see, Muslim Communities in Gujaratt p.119j Pearson; pp. 147-48, Shah Alam uuas the eleventh son of Shaikh Burhanuddin, u/hose name uias Sirajuddin Abul Berkat, and also Miyan Manjhla or Manjhan. He utas borned on 17th Zil- qa*da 8l7 A.H, and died on 2Qth 3amad II 880 A.H. He participated in the mar of 855 A.H./1451-52 A.D. from the side of the ruler of Gujarat, see, infgas p,Lf-^ (3) HaJi-ud-Qabirt p.7; Sikander Manjhut p.71; Ali Muhammad Khans pp.93-94 (Supp), refer that Shaikh Kamal Malau/is tomb is on the back side of the Mosque of Khudauand Khan in I*lampur. He came and resided in Gujarat from Maltua during the reign of Sultan Muhammad Shah. His relations mere very friendly tuith the rulers of Maltua and he utas against the rulers of Gujarat. Also see, Pearsons p.148. (4) For the origin of fiutb-ul-Aqtab and Shah A*lam, see, Ali Muhammad Khsru(Supp),pp.26-27 ,37-38, Also see, K.A.Nlzami, I The Suhuruiatdi Silsllah^ntl-Its'Influsnce on Meditwal Indlar Polities', Medieval India Quarterly. 111(1957) pp.144-9. Cf, Pearson, ibid, p.148. 11 (1) other hand, belonged to the Chiahti silailah. If one ia to believe Paralan chroniclera, many of the expeditiona of the Gujarat! or Malu/a Sultana in thla period u/ere aucceaaful either becauae of the '^blessings'* of one or the other of theae Saints. For instance ujhen in 855 A.H./1451-52 A.D., a uuar uias fought bettueen the rulers of Gujarat and Malu/a, Shaikh Kamal Malaiul, a saint uiho tuas settled at Alinpur in Gujarat gav/e his '"spiritual help" to sultan Hahmud Khalji I of Maliua, He even iniited Mahmud Khalji to invade Gujarat. Shaikh Kamal utas sympathetic to Mahmud Khalji, becauae the latter ujas his desciple and at one occasion had given him 500 silver tankas to enable him to pay his outstanding debts. Shaikh Kamal was hostile to Sultan Muhammad Shah of Gujarat as he had seized this amount. On the other hand, the tujo Suharuiardi saints, Shaikh Burhanuddin and his son Shah A'lam, never withhold their blessings from the Gujarati rulers. In fact, it was gsnerally believed that the Muzaffar Shahi dynasty of Gujarat was able to rise to power owing to the blessings of their ancestor Makhdum*i-3ahaniyan Sayyed (2) 3alaluddin Bukhari. In 855 A.H./1451-52 A.D., the Gujarati (1) For the origin of Shaikh Kamal, see, Ali Muhammad Khant (Supp), p.93. Alao see, Pearsons p.148. (2) For the general belief that the Muzaffar Shahi dynasty of Gujarat was able to rise to power owing to the blessings of Makhdum<-i-3ahaniyan, see, Sikandar Manjhus P.11. ruler Sultan wutbuddln approached Shaikh Surhanuddin and Shah A* Ian for their blessings in his ujar against Maluia on the plea that being descendants of Makhduin-i-3ahanlyan they uuere expected to sympathies and help him. It is interesting to remember that on account of their sympathies for the contending parties the mutual relations of Shaikh (1) Kamal and Shaikh Burhanuddin had became strained. The instances of religious divines intervening in the disputes bettueen Gujarat and Maliua are numerous. Many such cases can be cited. Besides the "role" played by Shaikh Kamal and Shaikh Burhanuddin in 855 A,H,/l45l-52 A.D. there are many other instances syggesting that the * ulema and Mashaikh took interest in the mutual relations of the tuio poiuers and tried to influence the developments that luent to shape them. In this connection one may particularly refer to the role of the 'Ulema in Maliua, who appears to have by and large, discourage the Khalji rulers from helping Hindu zamindars in their struggle against the Gujarati Sultans. u (1) for the stand taken by these saints in the ujar of 855 A.H./1451~52 A.D,, see. HaJi-ud-Dabiri pp.6-8; Slkander flanjhut pp.47,71-77; All Muhammad Khans pp. 93-96 (Supp). Also see, Pearson: p.148. Khalji I for help. Although the Raja of Charopanir at this time ujas allied to Maliuaf but Mahmud Khalji u/as reluctant to go to the rescue of the Raja because, the latter, during the preceding year, had interfer^sd with the presents that mere sent by the ruler of Gujarat to Mahmud Khalji. But on further deliberation ^ the ruler of Maluja decided to give help to the Raja of Champanir on the consideration that if Champanir, located on a higher a Ititude than the Gujarati plains, utas conquered by the Gujarati ruler, they mould come to pose a threat to the security of Nalma kingdom. It is significant that, on this occasion, the Sultan of Malms took this daBision after formally consulting the 't^lerea. mho (1) readily gave their consent. This is an indication of the influence that the *ulawa exercised on the state policy in this particular respects. M similar situation had arisen in 888 A.H./1483-84 M.D. mhen Sultan Mahmud Begada of Gujarat invaded Champanir. On this occasion. Sultan Ghayasuddin Khalji of Malma decided to give military help to the Raja of Champanir (Rau/al Patai) on thb latter*s request. While marching to Champsnir, at Na'alcha, ha mas persuaded to summon a meeting of tha * uleme (1) For the incident of 852 A,H./l448-49 A,D,f see, Shihab Hakim: pp. 68-69. present In the camp. At this meeting he argued that the slogan of jihad raised by flahmud Begada u/as merely a pretext for occt^ying Champanir uuhich represented a buffer bstu/een Gujarat and Maltua. He pointed out that after occuping Champanir, Mahmud Begada could turn his forces against Maluia. But the 'ulema u/ere not impressed by this line of argument. They contented that even if the appre hensions of Maliua ruler had some basis* it luas not permissible for him to support a non-Kuslim chief against a Muslim ruler. They stated that if he tuould create difficulties in the uiay of Mahmud Begada's .lihad against the Raja of Champanir it luould actually amount to violation of shariat and therefore a sinful act. It is notevuorthy that having come up against stubborn opposition of the *uleraa.Ghayasuddin Khalji changed his decision to help the Raja of Champanir. (1) He returned to Nandu from the uiay. In the context of this episode, it is notetuorthy that at the time of setting out from t^andu^the Naliua ruler did not consider it expedient to consult the *ulema in the (1) For the role of *ulewa and Maahaikh in the u/ar of 1483-84 M.O.fSsa, Muhammed Sharfuddinj pp,14-l5j Nizamuddin Mhmadt p,477; Firishtat p,202; HaJi-ud-Oabirs p.26; Sikander Manjhus p.136. Also see, Commissariats pp.193-94; W. Haigj p.309. matter. He utas apparently set upon preventing Mahmud Begada from occupying Champanlr. A reference to ' ulewa uiould have created diffloultlaa In may of his marching to the rescue of the Champanlr chief. But It seems by the time l^aliua army reached Na*alcha, Mahmud Begada had turned his attention (1) toujards Oohad. Apparently he ujanted to avoid a direct clash uulth l^aluua over Champanlr. On the other hand» it also appears that once immediate threat to Champanlr luas averted, the Maliua ruler on his part u/as anxious to u/ithdraw. Thus uje find him using *uleraa'B opinion as the pretext for doing so. He, apparently, referred the matter to the 'ulema as he anticipated their opposition to any move for helping a non-Nuslim chief against a Muslim ruler. But the fact that the *ulewa were not given an opportunity to have a say in the matter from beginning goes to indicate that their say in such matters uuas far from being decisive. They uiere used by the ruler according to his convenience. Occasionally, these * ulema and Mashaikh also played a role in negotiations between Maluia and Gujarat for resolving the disputes that bred conflicts bettueen them. Both the rulers of Maluia as lusll as Gujarat had the tendency to use (1) For the diversion of iiahmud Begada* s attention tou/ards Oohad Instead of Champanlr, see, Sharfuddln Bukharis pp' 14-15J Haji-ud-Dablrj p.26; Sikander Manjhut pp.135-36. Also see. Commissariat: p.194. these people for this purpose. One advantage, that they perhaps hoped to gain from employing 'uleroa and Maqhaikh in their negotiationst tuas that the settlements thus arrived atf uiould have a legal sanctity in the eyes of Muslim nobles and chiefs, for example tuhen on I2th Rabi I 822 A,H./1418-19 M,D., Sultan Ahmad Shah I of Gujarat marching «(ith his army towards Handu reached Dhar, Maulana Musa and Ali 3amdar (tuho uuera important figures of Sultan Hoshang*s court) came to meet him as the latter*s envoys. These ambassadors brought a request for peaceful settlement from Sultan Hoshang regretting some of his acts that had provoked the Gujarati ruler. Sultan Ahmad Shah I on the advice of his important ministers and nobles like Nizam-ul- Mulk (Naib u A.O., Sultan Ahmad Shah I of Gujarat invaded Maliua on 12th Muharram, Sultan Hoshang Shah is reported to have sent his ambassadors to the Gujarati court for arranging peace in the (2) name of Islam. We do not knotu as to u/ho tuere the persons (1) For the role of 'ulema and Mashaikh in the peace of 1418-19, betu/een the rulers of Gujarat and Maluta, see, Tarikh-i Alfis p.366; Nizamuddin iihmadj pp.454-55; Firiahtaj p.186; Sikandar Manjhu; p.51. Alao see, SC Mi8rasp.182. (2) For the peaca treaty of 1422-23 A.O. between the rulers of Gujarat and Maluia, see, Sikander Manjhus p.53. Also see, SC Misrat p.184. yV sent on this occasion as Ilchls. But the fact that appeals for peacs was made in the name of Islan and also the fact that these Ilchis did succeed in persuading the Gujarati ruler to withdrau/y suggests that they, like the earlier occasion^ were again prominent *ule»a« In 855 A.H,/l45l-52 A.D. after the Gujaratis succeeded in frustrating Sultan flahmud Khaljis attempt to occupy a part of their kingdom, negotiations for peace luere started on Mahmud Khaljis initiative. He sent aandaqi Hazrat Aqzul-Quzat Sadr-i-3ahan.Shaikh-ul Islam Nizamuddin, Shaikh Mahmud, Uazi Oaniyal and Malik Lala Tayyab as his envoys for discussing terms for an enduring peace between the two states. The neutral territory of Champanir was chosen as the venue of these negotiations. Sady-ul ^Qus^at Uazi Husamuddin and Harhar (a Brahninofficer of Gujarat) came from Ahmadabad for participating in the talks. During the nego tiation, the 'uleroa and Haahaikh who had been deputed to represent Malwa, specially Shaikh-ul-Islam played a notable role. They stressed that the Gujarati envoys should talk to them as equals and not as the representatives for a power having st^ierior claims over the other side. Besides other (1) things, the Malwa envoys emphasized the religious basis (1) For the detail of this treaty of 1451-52 A.D., see. Chapter II, pp.5-7. of relations of the two states and thalr common duty to suppress |he Rana of Meujar» They argued that outing to mat between the tvuo Muslim rulers, the Rana and tother non- Muslim chiefs mere able to improve their positions. After much discussion a treaty tuas finally concluded vuith the prior approval of the tvuo rulers* The terms of the treaty u/ere. (a) that both the rulers of Gujarat and Maluia agreed never to help the Rana of Msiuar. (b) that both the rulers agreed that they uMiuld never try to extend their limits territorial at each other's cost, (c) that thb two rulers would keep in touch with each other in future, (d) that out of the territories of Mewar comprising the yllayats of Sirohi, Kumbhalner, AJmer, Nagor, and Mewar whatever had already been conquered by the Gujaratis would remain with them. The ruler of Malwa shall have the right to annex parts (1) of these yilayats still under the control of Rana. This treaty between Gujarat and Maltiia that is very correctly regarded a landmark in the history of mutual relations of the two powers was arranged with the help of the (1) According to Shihab Makimt pp,75-76, the above treaty was concluded in 1451-52 A.D. while according to Firishtas pp.192, 250; Nahavandis p.137, it was concluded in 1453- 54 A.D. But Nizamuddln Ahmadtp.464; HaJi-ud-Dabirt pp. 11-12; Sikander Manjhui p.84, mention it in 1456-57 A.O. Also see. Commissariats p.143. li * ulema and Mashaikh u/ho were used from both the sides for representing their points of vieius. It is understandable that the terms of this treaty tuere formulated by making an appeal to the religious sentinents of the rulers of tuio states. The underlying assumption of the terms of the treaty was that the Muslim rulers are not permitted iay the Shari'at to prolong their conflicts and thay uters enjoined to co-operate uith each other in ptting doujn neighbouring non-Muslim pou/ers. 3ut it is obvious that the religious over-tones of the agreements arrived at only represented the pre-dilection of the persons u There is evidence to suggest that the religious support underlying the treaty of 1451-52 A.D., continued A J J to be upheld by the 'ulema of Gujarat as well as Maliua subsequently. In 924 A.H./1517-18 A,D. u/han Muzaffar Shah II invaded Maluta for putting Hedini Rai his action u/as enthusiastically upheld by the *ulewa« The Qujarati expedition on this occasion was hailed as Ghaza, aimed at ending non-Muslim domination in Maluja. According to Sikander HanjhUf on this occasion, soma of the divines, accompanied the Gujarati expedition. Amongst them, name of one Syed 3alal Munaiuujar-ul-Mulk Bukhari and Malik (1) Halayak Sifati Malik Mahmud are particularly mentioned. From the above discussion it appears that there lies a basic difference betuieen the actual impact of the theocratic forces upon the atate policiea and superficial impression of their role created by the manner in uihich it is reported by the Persian chroniclers. It seems that the rulers of Gujarat as well as Maliua always had a tendency to find some convenient pretext to hide their real motive for pursuing a particular course of policy in their mutual relations. Religious slogans often cams handy to them for this purpose^ (1) For the participation of Dalai Munawmar-ul-Mulk Bukhari and Malik Mahmud in the war of 1517-18 from the side of Muzaffar Shah II, see, Sikander Manjhuj P.1B8. I ' ^• In this manner these rulers perhaps hoped to gain the support and sympathy of the orthodox Muslims for their respective causes. It ujas direct corollary of the Sultans occasional attempts to use religious slogans for furtherance of their policy alms that they should try to cultivate the influential religious figures and use them in their political game* This gave the 'uleme and orthodox groi,^ of Washaikh to deflect the state policies in such a manner that it should come to conform u The mutual relations of the kingdomsof Gujarat and i^ialuia kuera of a peculiar nature throughout their independence. On the one hand, theae kingdoms mere all the time fighting mith each other, but this intermittent fighting, on the other hand, did not generally result in the absorption of one state by the other. In most cases theae \uars only contributed to peripheral adjustments, and a balance of poiuer existed in tbis region untill the kingdom of Maluja was finally extinguished by Bahadur Shah of Gujarat in 1531-32 M.O. As Gujarat and Maluua, both luere immediate n|.eghbours of the state of Meuiar and looked aith apprehension on the grouiing might of the Sisodia rulers, they naturally had a tendency to make a common cause against Meiuar. On the other hand, Malu/a's continuous pressure against Khandesh and Ahmadnagar as lusll as attempts on their part to instigate the zamindaris located in the heartland of Gujarat against its rulers, were ressnted by the latter and contributed to a state of tension betvueen the tuto kingdoms. But Maluja uias Geographically so protected by the sharp plateau-ujall facing Gujarat that the rulers of Gujarat could not easily think of annexing it. In the north-iusst and lusst of Maliua utere Vindhayan hills.Vindhayan rocks •l --^^ which mads it difficult for any poiuar located In Gujarat to penetrate into the heartland of Malu/a. It uiaa this ste^s rise of the plateau on the Maliua side that tended to ensure Maliua*8 immunity from the siuay of the Gujarati forces, f At the same time Gujarat luas far more prosperous than Malvua and this prosperity reflected itself in the military strength of the kingdom of Gujarat, uuhich made it difficult for Maluja to gain any military advantage over it* The reasons for the prosperity of the kingdom of Gujarat seems to ba that it utas very fertile, luith large production of cotton and indigo, (1) important textile manufactures and large oversea trade. On the basis of these large resources, the kingdom of Gujarat had come to build a very large tuar machinery under Sultan Hahmud Begada, The same Sultan also introduced artillery in of his army because of ths influence Ottomans* This naturally protected Gujarat from any kind of foreign domination* (1) For the prdduction of cotton and indigo in Gujarat, see, Varthenat pp,106->7t Tome Pirast vol.I, pp*43-44; Barbosa; Vol. I, p.154; Ain-i Mkbarii Wol* I, p*97,II,pp.117,248; Ali Muhammad Khani \/ol.ni,p*7; India in the 15th Century (Nikitin)t pp.8.19.93.(StsphanoU p*9: Earlv Travels in India (Finch^i p.175, (Nicholas Withington); p*204* Also see. Commercial Products of Indiat pp»464, 467, 476-77, 572, SBI-Bl: Imperial Gaietteeri V/O1*XII.PP .301-2t Morsland, India at the dsath of Akbart pp* 105,112,158,167-71; from JuKswmsh Akbar to Auranqzebt pp*160-62; Irfan HabibJ 42 k n,74. There u/ere several factors which operated to bring theae tuio kingdoms close to each other and also occaalonally generated tension in their mutual relations. Ons such factor luaa the anxiety of the rulers of Gujarat to ensure that the Haliua kingdom should not be able to augment its strength by annexing tssrituries from neighbouring kingdoms. The Gujarati rulers u/ere all the time apprehensive that if Maltua tuould succeed in extending its sujay over Deccan, Jajnagar« Khandesh or Gangatic plainsi it ujould in the long run disturb the existing balance of po\uBT/f in the region. That is uihy \ue find that whenever the rulers of Maltua made any aggressive moves against - - 0 Khandssh, Deccan, Jajnagar or Delhi, the kingdom of Gujarat did not remain indifferent to that development. In all such situations it tuould Invariably make a counter move to thtuart the territorial expansion of the Malvua kingdom. The Sultans of Gujarat always tried to ensure that only a ruler overtly friendly to them should be alloujed to reign at Handu; To achieve this aim, the rulers of Gujarat repeatedly intervened in the affairs of Maliua, specially in 810 A,H,/l407-8 «.0., 906 rt.H,/l500-01 A.D, and 923 A.H./ 1517-18 A.D. In this connection, an intervention by Gujaratis on the pretext of punishing a prince or nobles risponable for killing or ovarthrotulng a rsigning monarch, uias a recurring phenomanon. These interventions by tht rulers of Gujarat tuere uiith the limited aim of ensuring that either s ruler of Malu/a friendly to Gujarat ia not allouted to be eliminated, or that the psraon coming to the throne, after his elimination should also be forced to remain on friendly terms ufith them. For maintaining the balance of poiuer uiithin the region, the rulers of Haluua, alu/ays tried to assert their independence from Gujarati domination and intervention. On the one hand, they resisted the Gujarati demand that the rulers of Maluta should continue to fullfil the obligations agreed to by Hoshang Shah at the tims of his rise of poiuer Uiith the help of Muzaffar Shah X. They tried to force the Gujarati ruler to re-define their mutual relations in such a fashion that the tiuo poiuors are placed at par tulth each other. In this connection the terms agreed betiuesn Gujarat and Malwi* in 85$ A.H./l45l-$2 A.O. are important. On the other hand, ths rulers of t^aluia doiun to 889 A,K./l484-8$ A.D. persistently tried to weaken the Gujaratis by hslping ths rebellious nobles and Ra^ut x«mindart in the eventuality of a cleavage bstu/een thsm and the Gujarati rulers. Sut it is siginificant that on all such occasions the rulers of Maliua did not try to rationalize or justify their attion luith refarence to any kind of claisns that they might be hawing over the kingdon of Gujarat. These actions of the rulers of Maluue tuera pure and simple arbitrary mili tary moves aimed at vueaking their rivals so that they mere not in a position to dominate over them. But for making any such move the Maltua rulers aliuays luaited for invitation from one or the other section of the Gujarati nobles or tamindars. This attitude of the rulers of Maluta luas in sharp contrast to that of the Gujarati rulers. Although the attempts on the part of ths rulers of Maliua to weaken the Gujarati kingdom, by and large, failed on every occasion. But till 888-89 A.H./1484-89 A.D., they tuere quite successful in making an effective check on Gujarati expansion towards Vlndhayan plateau. Hou/evert after the annexation of Champanir, Gujaratis mere able to gain foot-hold in a terrain of higher altitude from where advance into l^alwa was comparatively easier. This proved to be beginning of the establishment of Gujarati hegemony over the Malwa, Thereafter the rulers of Malwa were never able to intervene in the affairs of Gujarat with the help of the rebellious nobles and zamindars. On the other hand Gujaratis again assumed the role of a superior power in their relations with Malwa. After liuzaffar Shah II* s intervention }.'•• < in Maluia in 919 A.H./1513-14 A.D., the Khalji ruler of l^andu utaa reduced to the poeltion of his protege. The rulers of Gujarat and Maltua throughout co-operated uuith each other in their efforts to check the expansion of the state of Meu/ar. It seems that both of them did not like to see the grouuing might of strong Sisodia principality of South-eastern Rajputana« So they decided to check this serious threat i;o their security Jointly, It tuasy apparently* on account of this situation that these states concluded the treaty of 855 A.H,/i451-52 ^,0, which stipulated their mutual assistance against the Rane* The terms of this treaty a'Bs obseruad by the ttuo poiuers in letter as uiell as spirit. The tu/o pQu/ers repeatedly co-operated luith each other against M^ujar and annexed territories fro» it. In 923 A,H,/1517-18 A.D., 925 A.H./1519-20 A.D. and 926 A.H./1520-21 A.D., Maluia \uas protected by Gujarat kingdom from the pressure that utas being continuously put against it by Rana Sanga. The fifteenth century chronicle of Maliua Ma*asir-i Mahreud Shahi as uuell as histories uirittan during sixteenth and sewenteenth centuries liks, Tai>(Utfc»t Hahroud 3hahi. Tarikh-i- Fjrishta. Wirat-i-SJkandari and Mirat-t-^hwadi regard that religious antagonism mas one of the primary factor conditioning the attitude of the kingdoms of Malufs and Gujarat totuards Maujar. But this is not boms out fully by the evidence that u/a have relating to the attitude of these tiuo pou/ers towards non-Muslim states in general. Sultan >ihmad Shah* s invasion of Maliua in 825 A.H./1421-22 A«0., at a time u/hen its ruler* Hoshang Shah* was conducting military operation against the ruler of Jajnagar, and Kalu/a rulerb repeated help to the non-Muslim zemindars of Idar* Champanir, Mandal, 3halauiart Nadod @tc. in their struggle against the Gujarati Sultans, are the instances that go to suggest that religious sentiments did not generally prevent them from allying themselves vuith non- Muslim pOiuers to oppose a Muslim adversary. It aesms that uuhat brought them together against the Rana of Mevuar luas not religious affinity, but their common fear of the grouiing might of Neuiar under Rana Kumbha and Rana Sanga respectively. It tuas partly outing to the role that the ' ulema and Mashaikh ujere allou/ed to play in negotiating the bilateral relations of Maliua and Gujarat that the aims of their common struggle against Neuiar came to be stated in a language have patently religious overtones. The features defining Maliua-Gujarat relations discusssd above appear to have continued luith slight modi fications down to Malta's annexation by Bahadur Shah of Gujarat in fi37 A.H./1531-32 A.O, The change in the Gujarat i.' i U policy toutarda Naltua facilitating its annexation may be attributed to tiuo important developmsnta. Firstly, it eaema, the rise of a highly centralised state In north India In the post 1526 period had mads it difficult for Maluia to surviwe as an Inds^endent potuer. The fluqhal thrusts against Chandarl (1528-29 A.D.) and Kalinjar V1330-31 A»0,) had made it ovldant that they were planning Haltua's annexation, Bahadur Shah, apparently, realised that the annexation of Maltua to tha flughal Empire ujould make his oiun position untenable. After f'taluia, quite understandably^Gujarat vuould have been the next target of Mughal expansionism. He, therefore, tried to pre-6fl^3t the annexation of Maltua to the T^ughal Empire by bringing it under his direct rulb in l531->'32 A.D. iinother factor prompting Bahsdur Shah to adopt this course in hia policy toujarda Msluua mas ths grouping accretion of the Qujarati military strength resulting from the introduction of more ti sophiscatad kind of light artillery in Gujarat from around (») 1507 A.D. onutards, uihich came mainly from West Asia, (1) for the conquest of Chandarl in 1528-29 A,D, and Kalinjar in 1530-31 A,D, by Huqhala,9e9t9abur Nama.pp,190-91i Akbar Nama> Vol,I, p.123. (2) For the introduction of light artillsry in the army of Gujarat around 1507 A,D. from West Asia, see, All Wqhamme^ JKhanttfol.Ifp. 125. Also see, Iqtidsr Alam Khan, Comino of Gun-pomder and the Response of Indian Policy* 1980, P.32. i^-i This artillery vuas las* eumborsome to mova tte in the uneven tract separating Gujarati heartland from the Uindhayan plateau. Moreover, by this tine, the Gujaratls had already acquired hand guns and tuare in a position to use them in (1) the battles fought in open fields. Bahadur Shah had, apparently, calculated that u/ith his superior fire pouters he u;&8 not only in a position to overrun i^aliua end l^etuar, but was slso strong enough to confront the Mughale and stop their aouthu/ard advance. (1) The use of handguns in the army of Gujarat is being referred by avan Duarta Barbosa and this reference pertains to the year 1518 A.D, 3ea, The Book of Duarte 8arb03st Vol. I, p.118. Iiliiifi.££J£JlI Contsnporary and nsar-contsnporary Psraian and Arabic Works. 1. Abdul Baql Nlhawandl, Ma'a«lr»l Rahiwi. Vols. 11,111. Compiled in 1025 A.H,/1616-17 A.D.f W. M.Hidayat Huaain, Asiatic Sooisty Bengal (Blbllothaca Indica Sarias), 1910. 2. Abul Fazl Allani, Akbarnawa. 3 Vols. Compiled in 1004 A.H./ 1595-96 A.D.J Asiatie Society Bengal (Bibliotheca Indioa Series), 1878 A^.) 3. Abul fazl Allaiai, A'jn-i Akbari. HS. British Nuasua Add. 7652 (Microfilm in tha ftaseareh Library, Department of History, A.n.U., Aligarh.) Apart from the above manuscript I have used the text of A'in-i Akbari printed by the Asiatic Society Bengal (Bibliotheca Xndloa Series), Edited by H.BlocRmann, 1872, 4. Abdullah, farikh»i Dau^i no date for the compilation, but the internal evidence suggests that it luas turltten during the period of 3ahangir, as the author mentions him as ths reigning sovereign. Edited by Shaikh Abdul Rasheed luith introduction and notes, Aligarh, 1954. 5. Abdul Heq Muhaddis Oahalvi Haaqi, Zikr-ul-Muluk (Tarikh-i Haggj). compiled In 1004 A.H./1595-96 A.D. MS. Maulana Azad Library, A.M.U,, Aligarh, Farsiva Akhbati 35/2 (Namab Ziauddin Khan Collection). 6. Abdul Haq Muhaddis Dehalvi Haqqi, Akhbar»ul- Akhiyar fl Asrar-ul-Abrar. compiled in 1014 A.H./1605-6 A.O.t Muhammsdi Mirza Khan, Delhi, 1866. 7. Abdullah Huhammad Haji-ud-Dabir, Zafar-ul-Walih Bi Muzaffar Wa Alihi. (An Arabic History of Gujarat). 2 vols..compiled in 1014 A,H./l6Q5-6 A.D. Tr. by II M.F.Lokhanduala, Oriental Institute Baroda, (Gaakiaad Series), 1970. 8. Abu Turab Wall, Tarikh-i Gularat. compiled about 992 A.H./ 1583-84 A.D.I Asistio Society Bengal (Bibliotheca Indj5i Series), 1908. i. i-A,. 9- nullah Ah««d B Nassullah i, ate* ^agikh»i Alf|. an official history purpoaaly co«plled in 1000 M.H./1391-82 H.D, in ordar to provida tha hiatorical natarial to abul Fazl, Tha MS of «manatuUah Collaction (Fagaivah nkhbag No,17| Azad Library i^HU) and tha tranaeript copy of the Hs of Britiah HuaauHi Aad* No* I668I/II (&aat« of History nhU) hava bean usad. 10. Ahmad Yadgar, Tarikh-i Shahi. (Tarikh-i Sajatin-i Afaohlna). oompllad in 1054 A.H./1644-45 A.O.j Aaiatlc Society Bengal (Bibliotheea Indica Seriea), 1939. 11. Syed All Tabatabai Tarikh-l Burhan»i Ma'aair. compiled in 1000 A,H./l591-92 A.D, Majlia-i Makhtutat-i Farai, Hyderabad Deccan, 1936. 12. Babur, Zahiruddln Muhammad Padahah, Baburnama. Tr. into Persian from Turkish by Khan-i-Khanan Bairam Khan(in the reign of Akbar), Bombay 1890. 13. Badauni Abdul Qadir, Muntakhab^ut-Taiuarikh. compiled in 1004 A.H./1595-96 A.O. £ ct \ W.N.Leea, Kabiruddln Ahmad and Ahmad All, Asiatic Society Bengal (Bibliotheea Indica Sariea)* 1869. 14. Firiahta, Mulla Muhammad Uasim Hindu Beg, ilarikhni Gulshan>i Ibrahim^ (Tarikh-i Firiahta). Vols. I & XI. Compiled in 1015 A.H./1606-7 A.O., Namal Kiahere Press, Lucknow, 1866 A.D. 15. Khuiaja Imaduddin Mahmud Gavuan, Riygtz-ul Inaha. a collection of the lettera written on behalf of the illuatrious prima minister of the Bahmanij^ kingdom to tha contemporary rulera, nobles* Ulema and other important dignitaries of India as uuell as of abroad. Tha contents of ths Istters throws much light on ths diplomatic relations apart from the sociel and political conditions. Edited by^Shaikh Chand,u>ith Introduction and notes, Hyderabad Oeccan, 1948. 16. Mahmud Bukhari, Tarikh-i Salatin^i'-Gu.larat. compiled in 961 A,H./l554-55 A.D. Edited by^ S.A.I. Tirmizi, Aligarh Historical Instituts, I960. J 17. Shaikh Mahwud Ghaut Shattai, Gulzar*! Abrar Ghaual. MS, & Maulana Aiad Library, AMU Ali^arh, Farslva Akhbart 22/5 (Habib GanJ Collaction), copy tranacribsd in the year 1283 A.H,/l866-67 A.D, in Shikaata Amaz Waataljq acript having 296 folioa. The name of scribe ia not given. 18. Mirza Muhammad Haaan knou/n as 'Ali Muhammad Khan Bahadur, Mirat»i Ahreadi. 4 volumes. Compiled in 1174 A.H./1761-62 A.O., Oriental Institute, Baroda, (Gaekuiad Series), 1930. 19. Muhammad Kabir bin Shaikh Ismail, Afaana-i Shahan. British Museum. Adds 24, 409. ff. 237; 8q^ transcribad in plain Naatallq script, apparently, in the 18th century, (^otograph hft centre of Advanced Study, Oepartmint of History, A.M.U, Aligarh), 20. Nizamuddln Ahmad bin Muhammad Muqeem Leharvi, Tabaqat-i Akbarif vols, I & III. Compiled in 1002 M.K,/i593-94 A.D,^ Munahi Naval Kiahore Press, Lucknow, 1875. 21. Shaikh Rizqullah Muahtaql, Waqiat-i Muahtaqi. British Muaeum, Addt 1,929. ff* 106; written in Nastaliq about A.O. 1850. (Rotograph, Centre of Advanced Study, Department of History, A.M.U., Aligarh). 22. Sharfuddin Mahmud, Tabaqat«t Mahmud Shahi, (Being third tabaqa of Tarikh*! Gujarat deacribing the period of Sultan Mahmud Shah Begada (8(^3 A.H./1456-59 A.D. - 917 A.H./1511- 12 A.D.}. The author of this book is rsported to haws died on 10th Safar 921 A,H./1515-16 A.D. The manuscript of this u/ork exist in Maulana Azad Library, tranacribsd by ons Muhammad B. Nasir Karkhi in the year 923 A,H,/1517-18 A.D. at Ahraadabad. No.162 Farsiya Akbbar. Lytton folio 20 in Nastaliq. 23. Shihab Hakim, Ma«asir»i Mahmud Shahi. compiled in 872 A.H./ 1467-68 A.D. Ed. by Dr Nurul Hasan Ansari, Delhi University, 1968. 24. Sikander bin Muhammad knouffi as Manjhu bin Akbar, Mirst-i Sikandari. compiled in 1020 A.H./1611-12 A.D, Baroda,1961. '4 25. Yahya bin Ahnad bin >^bdullah al-Sirhindi, Tarikh-i Mubarak Shahi. oonplled in 838 A.H./1434-35 A.O. Ed. M. Hidayat Huaain, Asiatic Society Sangal (Bibliothaca Indica Series), 1931. 26, Yahya Khan (Mir Munahi of Farrukh Siyar), Tagkirat^ufe Muluk. India Qfricet Etha 409 (Rotograph, Centre of Advanced Study, Department of History, AMU Aligarh). Inscriptions 27. \/.S. Bendrey, A Study of Musliw Inscriptions, (uiith special reference to the inscriptions published in the Epioraphia Indo Mosleaica - 1907-1938, Together u/ith su«maries of inscriptions ohBonologically arranged), Karnataka Publishing House, Bombay, 1944. 28. Hire Lai, Rai Bahadur, Descriptive liets of Inscriptions in the Central provinces and Berar, Nagpur, 1916. 29. 0,R,Patil (edited by), The Descriptive and Classified list of ArchaaoloQieal Monuments in Madhya Bharat. The Department of Archaeology, Gwalior, 1952. 30. S.A.I. Tirmizi* Aimer through Inscriptions (1532-1852 A.D.) Indian Instituts of Islamic Studiss, New Dslhi, 196B, 31. G. Yaidani, Mandu-The City of 3ov. ( A Collection of Inscriptions of Malwa kingofom). University Press, Oxford, 1928. 32. 2.A. Dssai, *KhalU and Tuohlag Inscriptions from Gujarat*, Epiormnica Indica (An Arabic and Persian Supplement of the Archaeological Survey of India, herein after referred as Epioraphjca Indiq^^, Delhi 196^,pp, j-Ljc. 33. Z.A. Ossai, 'Inscriptions of the Gujarat Sultans*, Eoioraphica Indica. Delhi, 1962, pp. i..'. vl 34. Z.A.Daaai, 'An Early Sultanate Record', Eplqraphica Indlca. Delhi, 1968, pp, 17»20, 35. Z.A, Oesai, 'An Early 15th Century Inscription fro« Gujarat*. Epioraphica India. Delhi, 1968,pp .21-24. 36. Z.A, Oesai, 'The Inscription of Sultan AhMBd Shah I frow Dhranjaadhra', Epioraphica Indioa. Delhi,1969, pp. 37. Z.A. Oesai, A S.A. RahiM, 'A Unique Inscription of Malu/a) Prince Qadr Khan from Chanderi, Epioraphica Indioa. Delhi, 1979, pp. j / >\ 38. Z.A. Oesai & S.A.Rahin, 'Inscriptions of Sultans of Maluja', Eohioraphioa Indioa. Delhi, 1964, pp, 45-78. 39. S.A.Rahin, 'Unique Inscriptions of Sultan Ahnad of Malwa frop Piranpur near Chanderi* Epioraphica Indioa. Delhi, 1970, pp. 1*8. Accounte 40. Ouarte Barbosa, Ths Book of Duarte Barbossi 2 Voluisos, compiled around 1516-17 A.D. Tr, by Mansel Longuiorth Dames, London, 1921. 41. William Foster, Early Travels in India (1563-1619). Oxford University Press, 1921. 42. R.H. MaJor(Edited) Indie in the Fifteenth Gantury 43. Marcopolo, Ths Travels of Haroopolo. compilsd in around 1307-8 A.D. Ed. by Manual Komroff, Nsvu York, 1926. 44. Samuel Purchas, Purchas His Ptloimss , 2 Vols, First publishsd in 1625. I have used the Glasgotu ri^srint of 1905, 45. 3.8, Tavernier, Travels in India. 2 Vols., compiled in around 1676 A.D. Tr. by V, Ball, Maomillan,1889, 46, To«a Plrea, The Soma Oriental of Towa Pits«(l512-15). 2 Vola. Tr. by Armando Cortaaao, Hakluyt Sociatyi2nd Sarlea), 1944. 47, Varthama, Ludovicodi» Trayala of Ludivlco dl tfartheaia (1510-11), Tr. by 3ohn Winter aonaa, Hakluyt Society,1928. (0) Atlaa 48. Chatterji, S.P. (ad,), National Atlaa of India. Gowarnnent of India, Delhi, 1965VScale}Ma 1t2000,000). 49. Irfan Habib, An Atlaa of Wuqhal Ewpire. O.U.P.,Delhi, 1982 (Scale; 1s2000,00Q). 50. 3ohn Bartholomew, Bartholoaem World Travel Map. Edinburgh, 1977(Scala; 1t4000,000). 51. Joaeph E. Sehuiartsberg (ed.), A Hiatorical Atlaa of South Asia. Chicago, 1978. (C) Gazetteers 52. The Imperial Gazetteera of India. Vola. V,yi,UII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV have been extensively used. The reprint edition iaeued by Today & Tomorroui^s Printera & Publishers, Delhi(no date ) are being oonaultad. 53 Central Provinces District Gazetteeret(Hoahangabad district -Sd. S.L. Corbell, Calcutta, 1908), (Itoj^ dtstt. ed. G, aroum, Calcutta 1910), (Nimar Oiatrict, ed. RV Russell Allahabad 1908), (ChhindiuarTTTTBtt. ed. RV Russsl Bombav 19Q7V. (Narsinohpur District, sd. RV Ruaaell Bombay 1906), (SauQor district, ed. RV Russell, Allahbad 1906),(^eoni district, ed, RV Russsll, Allahabad 1907), (Raipur distt. sd. AE Nelson, Bombay 1909), (Damoh distt., ed, RV Russell, Allahabad, 1905), have been used. 54. Gujarat Staf Gazettaerti first thay have been publlahsd In 1877. Hotuever, tha Ilnd revlaad editiona have been used of the follouulng districts^ Baroch district (Ahmadabad, 1961), Danqes district (A&madabad 1971), ^»»*-iiisUx Surat district (Ahmadabad 1962), Ralkot diatt. (Ahmadabad 1965). 3amnaqar diatt. (Ahnadabad 197o), Qhamnagar distt.(Ahmadabad 1969). (r) Modern Works s 55. ftanchodji Amarji, Tayjkh-i Sorath. (Translated fro* Persian) Bombay 1882 A.O. 56, A Bo9b8y Subaltern, History of Handm The Ancient Capital of Malma. Conpiled in 1844, Bombay 1875. 57. M.S. Commissariat, A History of Gujarat (1297-98 A.D. to 1573 A.D.), Vol. I. Bombay, 1938, 58. F.C, Danvers, The Portugese in India s (Being a History of the Rise and Decline of their Eastern Entire), London, 1894, 59. U.N.Oey, Medieval Walwa ( a political and cultural History 1401-1562). Delhi, 1965. 60. Donald. F, Lach, India in the eyes of Europet (The sixteenth century). The Portugese profile - Gujarat, 4fiifix fl Chicago, 1965. 61. Edalji Dasabhai, A History of Gujarat, iihmadabad, 1894 A.O. India. 62. Mount, Elphinstone, The History of fiia^axai, Allahabad, 1966. 63. E,K, Forbes, Has Mala (Hindoo Annals of the Province of Goozegat in mestiern Indie). Wol.I. London1,^ 1956. 64, P,K, Goda, Studies in Indian Cultural History. Hoshiar pur, 1961, 65, Muhammad Habib & K,A. Nlzami (edited), A Comprehensive History of India, Uol.W, Delhi, 1970. i I '5 66, W, Haig (editad), A Cambrlqe History of Indiat Vol,III, Cambridge, 1928. 67, Irfan Hsbib, The AQgarlan Svatem of Huohal India (1556-1707), Bombay, 1963, 68, S,C, Miara, The Riaa of Mualiw Potnar in Su.laratC 129B to 1442);, Bombay^ 1963. 69, S.C. Miara, Mualia Cowrounitjea in Gujarat. Borobay^l964. 70, W.H.Moraland, India at the Death of Akbar. London, 1920, Akbar to 71, W.H, Moreland, From Auranqzeb ia, London, 1923. 72, W.H.Moraland, The AQtarian Svaliwi of Mualiw India. Allahabad, 1929. 73, v.B,Miara, The GurJara-pratiharaa and their Tiroes. Delhi, 196B. 74, M.N, Pearson, Merchants and Rulers in Gujarat. Delhi, 1974, 75, Rushbrook Willla»s,L,F,, An Empire Builder of Sixteenth Century. Delhi, 1916. 76, Q.H.K. Spate & A.T.A, Learnonth, India and Pakistan. London, 1967. 77, S.A.I, Tirnizi, Some Aspects of Medieval Gujarat. Delhi, 1968. 7a. 3.W, Watson, History of Gujarat. Bombay, 1876, 79, George Hiatt, The Coamareial Products of India, (Being an abridgement of the *The Dictionary of the IconoKic Products of India', London, 1908, 80, R.S.Whiteiuay, The Rise of Rjta Portugese Pomer in India (1497-1550), Westministsr, 1899, L X «i 81. Maulwi Zakaullah, Tarlkh»i Hindustan. yol.IV, Aligarh, 1916. (G) Selected Articles 82. Bhatt, S.K., *Svjltan Ahmad Shah KhalJi*of Chandiri* — a neui ruler of Khalji Dynasty of Malvua*, Proceeding a of Indian Hietory Conoreas. kkMX»A»Mi1tMXx»MK9tiHS^ (Bhubanashu/ar Session) 1977, pp. 256-60. 83. Commissariat, M.S., *A brief History of he Gujarat Sultanate, Journal of Sowbay Branch of Royal Asiatic Society. XXU C1917-21), pp. 82-133j 231-46, XXWI ^1921-26), pp. 99-157. 84. Oar, M.I. 'Mirat-i- Sikandari - its date of coisposition. Proceedinqa of Indian History Congress.(Delhi Session), 1948, pp. 159-64. 85. Dar, M.I., •Riyad-al-Insha - Its literary and Historical Walue', Islamic CuAtura WoLXXIU, No,I. 3an, 1950. PP. 231-48, Hyderabad. 86. Day, U.N., *Was Mahmud Khalji I imprisoned in Chittor by Maharana Kumbha, PracBBdinga of Indian History Conoreaa (Poona Session)' 1963'""^ , pp.130-33ip.i3o-r . 87. Oesai, Z.A., 'A Note on the Sources of Gujarat History*. Proceedings of Indian History Congress (Ahmadabad Session), 1954, pp. 385-90. \ 88. Goatz, H., "The Seige of Champanir Pavagadh by Sultan Mahmud Begada in 1482-84 A.D,* Rroceedinoa of Indian History Conoras^tPatna Session), 1946, pp. 227-32. 89. Halim, A., *SORB Minor Oynaaties of Northern India During 15th Century' 3Qurnal of Indian History. Vol. XXWI, ^^.III. 1948, pp. 223-248. I' 90 Hodivala,S.H,, *Ths unpublished coins of the G4\jarat Sultanate* poumal of Bojtbay Branch of Royal Afjatic Society. «ol.II, 1926, pp.19-39. 91. Iqtidar Alam Khan, 'Origin and Development of Gur^ouider of Technology in Indiat 1250-1500*. The Indian Hiatorical Reviem. Uol.IV, No.I, Duly 1977. pp. 1,-:. --f 92, Iqtidar Alara Khan, 'Early use of Cannon and Muskat i*»nf «T«M*wIndia«j 1442-152f-T-T*>—^f.'i'X.6w •••«ii^A.0.« « JftMJournai i' I I. lN . r^oi f 111 th*"'*•a* tconoml^ • -I II T^Mc • anI" d Social Hlatorv of the Orient Miaittxy mi thm Leidan, iJan, 1980. 93» Iqtidar Alam Khan, 'Note on the Chronology of Early ^\oves of HunayuM* . Proceedinqa of Indian Hlstoty Congress. (Muzaffaj/Session) 1971", pp 389-405. 94, Iqtidar Alan Khan, 'Coming of Gunpoiudar and the Response of Indian Polity'. Lectures delivered at The Centre for Studies in Social Sciancest Calcutta, 1981. All the references to this paper are from tha cyclostyled occasional paper no. 35, 95, Miara, S.C., 'Gujarat and Malua in the First half of the 16th century'. Proceedinqs of Indian History Conorass- (Waltair Session) 1953, pp. 245-48. 96, Mi8ra,S,C., 'A Study of the accession of Sultan Ahmad Shah of Gujarat and the events preceding to it'. ProcePdinqs of Indian History Conoresa (Agra Session). 1956,pp.231-39. 97, Miara,S.C,, Presidential Address (Medieval Section) Proceedinqs of Indian History Conqreaa (Patiala Session) 1967, pp. 129-38. 98, TirmizifS.A.I., Tarikh-i Salatin-i- Gujaratt a study of its author and the manuscript. Proceedlnos of Indian History Congress (Ahmadabad Session), 1954, pp. 258-59. 99. Tirroizi, S.A.I, Historiographical Activities under the Sultanate of Gujarat. Islamic Culture. Vol, XLI, No.I. 3an 1967,pp.21-29, Hyderabad.