Delhi : The Sayyids and the Lodis
The so-called Sayyids
AFTER the death of Sultan Mahmud, the nobles of Delhi acknowledged Daulat Khan Lodi, the most powerful of their number, as the ruler of Delhi. But he was destined to hold power only for a few months. In March, A.D. 1414, Khizr Khan, governor of Multan and its dependencies on behalf of Timur, marched against him and took possession of Delhi by the end of May of the same year. Daulat Khan was sent as a prisoner to Hissar Firuza. Some historians represent Khizr Khan as a descendant of the Prophet, and that dynasty founded by him has accordingly been styled the Sayyid Dynasty. But the arguments in favour of this claim seem to be very doubtful, though Khizr’s ancestors might have originally hailed from Arabia. Khizr did not assume the insignia of royalty but professed to rule as a viceroy of Timur’s fourth son and successor, Shah Rukh, to whom he is said to have sent tribute. His tenure of power for seven years was not marked by any striking event. The extent of the old Delhi kingdom had then been reduced to a small principality, and the authority of its ruler was limited to a few districts round Delhi. Even in those parts, it was frequently challenged by the Hindu zamindars of Etawah, Katehr, Kanauj, Patiali and Kampila. Khizr Khan and his loyal minister, Taj-ul-mulk, who was also an intrepid fighter, struggled hard against these chronic disorders till the latter died on the 13th January, 1421, and the former on the 20th May, 1421. Ferishta extols Khizr Khan as “a just, generous and a benevolent prince”, but he was not a strong ruler. Owing to the efforts Khizr Khan made, “there were, of course, the ordinary concessions to expediency submission (by the insurgents) for the moment in the presence of a superior force, insincere professions of allegiance, temporising payments of tribute, or desertion of fields and strongholds easily regained; but there was clearly no material advance in public security or in the supremacy of the Central Government”.
Mubarak Shah, whom his father, Khizr Khan, had nominated as his heir on his death-bed, ascended the throne of Delhi on the very day of the latter’s death, with the consent of the Delhi nobles. It was during his reign that Yahiya bin Ahmad Sarhindi wrote his Ta’rikh-i-Mubarak Shahi, which is a valuable source-book for the history of this period. But his reign is as uneventful and dreary as that of his father. There is nothing of importance to record except some punitive expeditions to suppress disorders, which compelled the Sultan to accompany his armies. He was able to subdue the rebellions at Bhatinda and in the Doab and recover balances of tribute from a limited area. But the brave Khokars grew more and more powerful and harassed him more than once. Their chief, Jasrat, confidently aspired to the establishment of their supremacy on the ruins of the Delhi kingdom. The Hindu nobles enhanced their influence in the Delhi court itself. On the 19th February, 1434, the Sultan fell victim to a conspiracy, organized by some Muslim as well as Hindu nobles under the leadership of the discontented wazir Sarvar-ul-mulk, when he proceeded to superintend the construction of a newly planned town, called Mubarakabad, on the Jumna.
The nobles of Delhi then raised Muhammad, a grandson of Khizr Khan and the heir-designate of the late murdered Sultan, to the throne of Delhi. But he also became “the victim of factions and the sport of circumstances”. Even when he had the opportunity to display his capacity for rule after the death of the unscrupulous wazir Sarvar-ul-mulk, he abused it in such a manner as to forfeit the confidence of those who had delivered him from the hands of his enemies. Buhlul Khan Lodi, the governor of Lahore and Sirhind, who had come to help the Sultan when Mahmud Shah Khalji of Malwa had advanced as far as the capital, soon made an attempt to capture Delhi. Though it failed for the time being, the condition of the Sayyids gradually passed from bad to worse. As Nizam-ud-din Ahmad writes, “the affairs of the State grow day by day more and more confused, and it so happened that there were nobles at twenty krohs from Delhi, who threw off their allegiance (to the tottering Empire) and engaged themselves in preparations for resistance to it”. After the death of Muhammad Shah in A.D. 1445, the nobles declared his son to be the ruler of the shattered kingdom, which now consisted only of the city of Delhi and the neighbouring villages, under the title of ‘Ala-ud-din ‘Alam Shah. The new ruler was more feeble and inefficient than his father. He made over the throne of Delhi to Buhlul Lodi in 1451 and retired in an inglorious manner to his favourite place, Badaun, where he spent the rest of his life, absorbed in pleasure, probably without any regret for his surrender of the throne, till his death.
The Lodis
Buhlul was called upon to rule over a mere fragment of the Delhi kingdom, which again was then in a highly distracted condition. But he was made of a different stuff from that of his immediate predecessors. Born of a fighting clan, he was active, warlike, and ambitious, and was determined to restore theranapratap.jpg (9072 bytes) strength of the Sultanate. He got rid of the influence of the old Hamid Khan by cleverly throwing him into prison with the help of his Afghan followers. He also frustrated an attempt on the part of Mahmud Shah Sharqi of Jaunpur to get possession of Delhi, and reduced to submission some provincial fief-holders and chieftains, who had enjoyed independence for several years. Thus Ahmad Khan of Mewat, Dariya Khan of Sambhal, ‘lsa Khan of Koil, Mubarak Khan of Suket, Raja Pratap Singh of Mainpuri and Bhongaon, Qutb Khan of Rewari, and the chiefs of Etawah, Chandwar and other districts of the Doab, were compelled to acknowledge the authority of the Sultan, who, however, treated them with leniency so that they might be reconciled to his rule. His more significant achievement was the successful war against the neighbouring kingdom of Jaunpur, the independence of which was extinguished. He appointed his eldest surviving son, Barbak Shah, viceroy of Jaunpur in 1486. While returning from Gwalior after chastising its Raja, Kirat Singh, the Sultan fell ill; and in the midst of intrigues for succession to the throne among the partisans of his sons, Barbak Shah and Nizam Shah, and grandson, A `zam-i-Humayun, he breathed his last by the middle of July, l489, near the town of Jalali.
After Buhlul’s death, his second son, Nizam Khan, was proclaimed king at Jalali, under the title of Sultan Sikandar Shah, on the 17th July, 1489. His succession was disputed, as some of the nobles suggested the name of Barbak Shah but their proposal came to nothing as Barbak was then at a distant place. Endowed with considerable energy and vigour, Sikandar amply justified the choice of the minority among the nobles. He made earnest efforts to increase the strength of the kingdom by removing the disorders and confusion into which it had been thrown during the preceding reigns, due largely to the refractoriness of the provincial governors, chieftains, and zamindars. He took care also to check the accounts of the leading Afghan jagirdars, much against their will. Marching to Tirhut and Bihar, he asserted his authority as far as the confines of Bengal; appointed Dariya Khan to the government of Bihar; compelled the Raja of Tirhut to pay him tribute; and concluded a treaty with ‘Ala-ud-din Husain Shah of Bengal, by which both agreed not to encroach on each other’s dominion. The chiefs of Dholpur, Chanderi, and some other places, also tendered submission to him. With the object of controlling the chiefs of Etawah, Biyana, Koil, Gwalior and Dholpur in an effective manner, he founded a new town in 1504 on the site where the modern city of Agra stands. Striving till his last days to enforce obedience from the hostile chiefs, the Sultan breathed his last at Agra on the 21st November, A.D. 1517.
Sikandar was undoubtedly the ablest of the three rulers of his dynasty. He has been highly praised by contemporary as well as some later writers for his excellent qualities of head and heart. A firm, vigilant, and upright ruler, he entertained kind feelings in his heart for the poor and the needy, patronised learned men, and himself wrote some Persian verses. He dispensed justice with strict impartiality and personally heard the complaint of even the poorest of his subjects. The efficiency of his government chiefly contributed to the prevalence of peace and prosperity in his kingdom, and the prices of the articles of prime necessity became excessively low. He was, however, not free from religious intolerance, which led him to commit some impolitic acts.