Relation of Delhi Sultanate with HP

Here are the complete, structured notes from the provided text, detailing the relationship between the Tughlaq Dynasty and Kangra.

1. Context: Kangra’s Prominence

• Initial Fame: The Kangra fort became famous among the “Mohammedan rulers of Lahore and Delhi” after Mahmud Ghazani captured significant booty from it.
• Tughlaq Ambition: The Sultans of the Tughlaq dynasty are noted as being “more ambitious than their predecessors.”

---

2. Interaction 1: Mohammed Tughlaq (A.D. 1325-1351)

• Kangra Ruler: Prithvi Chandra.
• Claimed Event: Mohammed Tughlaq is said to have invaded and captured the Kangra fort.
• Historical Dispute:
  • Contradiction: Historians Ferishta and Barni (in his Tarikh-i-Firozshahi) make no reference to this invasion.
  • Supporting Source: The narration of Badari Chacha states the siege took place in A.D. 1337.
  • Context of 1337: This was the same year as the Sultan’s “so called invasion of China (Quarachi)”.
  • Probable Nature: Badari Chacha was not with the army. The text suggests it was likely only a “short duration” incursion into the outer Himalayas, and a detachment may have reached Kangra due to its fame.

---

3. Interaction 2: Firoz Shah Tughlaq (A.D. 1351-1388)

Kangra Rulers of the Period

• Parava Chand (1354-1360): His reign was “uneventful.”
• Rup Chand (A.D. 1360-1375): His reign was an “important period.”

Pretext for Invasion

• Rup Chand’s Actions: He conducted a “plundering raid on the plains upto Delhi,” which provided Firoz Shah Tughlaq with a “rational pretext” for an expedition.
• General Context:
  • The Rajput hill chiefs felt “uneasiness” under the “new yoke” of Mohammedan rule.
  • Rup Chand had been participating in “revengeful expeditions” (a practice continuing since Ghazani’s time).
• A Separate Defeat: Once, while returning from a raid on the plains, Rup Chand was defeated by the Sultan of Kashmir, Shahabuddin (1356-1374 A.D.), lost all his wealth, and fled back to Kangra.

The Siege of Nagarkot (Kangra)

• Date: One source states the invasion was in 1361 A.D. to “punish Rup Chand.” Another source gives the date as A.D. 1365.
• Duration: The siege continued for six months.
• Source Mention: The expedition is referenced in both “Tarikh-i-Firoz Ferishta” and “Tarikh-i-Firoz Shahi.”

The Surrender

• Act of Surrender: The Katoch chief, Rup Chand, was forced to surrender. He “came down from his fort and making apologies, cast himself at the feet of the Sultan.”
• Sultan’s Response:
  • Firoz Shah “with much dignity” placed his hand on the Raja’s back.
  • He bestowed “robes of honour and an umbrella” on Rup Chand and sent him back to his fort.
  • He also presented Rup Chand with “gifts and invaluables.”
• Raja’s Reciprocation: Rup Chand sent “many offerings and horses of priceless worth” to the Sultan.

Aftermath of the Siege

• The Jwalamukhi Library:
  • A temple (identified as Jwalamukhi) contained a fine library of 1,300 Hindu books.
  • Firoz Shah ordered one book on philosophy, astrology, and divination to be translated into Persian.
  • Translator: Izzudin Khalid Khani.
  • Translated Work: ‘Dalayil-i-Firoz Shahi’.
• Temple Lore & Confusion:
  • Locals told Firoz Shah that the idol at Nagarkot was of Nowshaba, the wife of Alexander the Great.
  • Ferishta’s Error: He “confounded” the Mata Devi of Nagarkot with the goddess of Jwalamukhi (two places over 20 miles apart).
  • Shams-i-Siraj’s Correction: He correctly stated that Jwalamukhi was “in the road to Nagarkot”.
• Renaming (Disputed): According to Ferishta, Nagarkot was renamed ‘Mohammedabad‘ in honor of the “late king.”
• The Garrison Dispute (Was the fort occupied?):
  • Claim (Cunnighum): Citing Ma ‘Usir-ul Umara, he claimed the fort was occupied by a “Mohammedan garrison.”
  • Conclusion (Text):No, it was not. This claim is not supported by:
    • Any contemporaneous account.
    • Ferishta: States Rup Chand was “resorted to his dominions.”
    • Tarikh-i-Firoz Shahi: “says nothing about a garrison.”
    • Ma ‘Usir-ul Umara: (Despite Cunnighum’s claim) also “strengthen the conclusion that the fort was not occupied.”
    • Shah-Fateh-i-Kangra: Affirms the fort was “never occupied or garrisoned” by Mohammedan armies before Jahangir.

firoz shah tughlaq attacked sirmur with help of roop Chand when ruler was bhagat Prakash .

---

4. Interaction 3: Asylum for a Tughlaq Prince

• Kangra Ruler: Sangara Chand (succeeded his father Rup Chand after his death in A.D. 1375).
• The Fugitive: Nasir-ud-Din, Firoz Shah Tughlaq’s eldest son, who was “driven from power by his two cousins.”
• The Event:
  • Nasir-ud-Din first fled to Sirmaur.
  • Being pursued, he retreated to Nagarkot (Kangra).
  • Sangara Chand gave the prince and his followers asylum in the fort.
  • Reason: This was “in fulfilment to the Rajput tradition to extend protection to those who supplicate for it, even if any of them happened to be fallen enemy.”
• Outcome:
  • The prince stayed at Nagarkot until the end of A.D. 1389.
  • He was recalled to Delhi and, in August A.D. 1390, ascended the throne under the name Mohammed Tughlaq.

Here are the structured notes from the text you provided.

1. The Fall of the Tughlaq Dynasty

• Last Ruler: Mahmud Nasir-uddin (ruled 1395-1413 A.D.).
• The Decisive Blow: The invasion of the Mongol ruler Timur in 1398 A.D. “sealed the fate of the Tughluq dynasty.”
• Events of the Invasion:
  • Mahmud Nasir-uddin fled Delhi.
  • Timur captured the city, destroyed many temples in North India, and killed thousands.
  • Delhi was plundered for 15 days.
  • Timur then returned to Samarkand with a large amount of wealth.
• The Final End: Muhammad Tughlaq (Mahmud Nasir-uddin) reoccupied Delhi and ruled until 1413 A.D., marking the end of the dynasty.

---

2. Timur’s Campaign in the Shivalik Hills (1398-99 A.D.)

• Kangra Ruler at the time: Raja Megh Chand (succeeded to the throne in A.D. 1390).
• Source: Timur’s memoirs, called Malfuzat-i-Timuri, reference Nagarkot (Kangra).
• Invasion Route: Timur invaded the Shivalik states on his return journey in A.D. 1399. He started near Haridwar and advanced along the outskirts of the hills to Jammu.
• Specific Actions in the Hills:
  • He invaded the Kiarda-dun valley (Sirmaur).
  • He “stormed eight forts” but the text does not state Kangra was one of them.
  • His excursions reached Nurpur, which was then called ‘Dhameri‘ or ‘Dhamal‘.
  • He likely crossed the Ravi near Pathankot and reached Jammu from the North-East, where he captured the local Raja “by a stratagem.”
• Timur’s Unfulfilled Plan for Nagarkot (Kangra):
  • While his camp was at Dasuha (near Hoshiarpur), he “formed the resolve to subdue Nagarkot.”
  • Outcome: He was “prevented from fully carrying out his design” because of the “difficult character of terrain.”
• Interactions with other Hill Rajas:
  • Raja Alam Chand of Hindur (Nalagarh) (1356-1406 A.D.): He offered “needed provisions to Timur and his entourage.” As a result, Timur “marched on without inflicting any injury to Hindur state.”
  • Rattan Singh: A local ruler (of an area perhaps between Kangra, Hoshiarpur, or Sirmaur) “opposed his march.”

---

3. Kangra’s Status After the Tughlaqs

• New Kangra Ruler: Hari Chand became the Raja of Kangra, “probably in 1405 A.D.”
• Power Vacuum in Delhi:
  • After Firoz Shah Tughlaq’s death (A.D. 1388), the Delhi Empire “fell into confusion for about a century.”
  • Due to the “intense” struggle for power in Delhi, “the hills of Kangra were almost forgotten.”
• A “Purely Nominal” Relationship:
  • A temple inscription (from a later date) states that Raja Sansar Chand Katoch (I) was a tributary of Mohammed Shah (most likely of the Sayyid dynasty that followed the Tughlaqs).
  • However, the “disorder of uncertainty” in Delhi made this tributary relationship “purely nominal.”
• Period of de-facto Independence:
  • Kangra is not mentioned in any “Mohammedan records” again until the reign of Sher Shah Suri (A.D. 1540-1545).

lodhi dynasty :

sikander lodhi attacked nagarkot when king was Pragya Chand and then attacked Mandi when king was dilawar sen .. so there is hill named sikander dhar in HAMIRPUR .