My undergraduate programme was History, of which three papers were in Ancient, Mediaeval and Modern Indian History, with special emphasis on the History of Bengal. So when I read that Sher Shah will raise his flag in Delhi, I naturally feel excited; a new chapter in history is opening up.
Sher Shah and his forebears were Pathans. His grandfather, Ibrahim Khan, came down to the plains of Hindustan to enter service with Bahlul Lodi, and was given jagirs in the Punjab. His father, Hasan Khan, was with his grandfather at the time. Farid Khan, as Sher Shah was known from birth, ran away because he did not get along with his father, and entered service with the governor of Jaunpur. His active career started later, with the Mughal Governor of Bihar, and he was the regent for the young Sultan of Bihar, Jalal Khan. He took complete control of Bihar after defeating Ghiasuddin Mahmud Shah of Bengal in 1534, and then followed up by attacking Ghiasuddin at home, in Bengal, in 1538. However, he could not take control of Bengal because of the attack by Humayun on the eastern provinces, although he was in the state at the time of the attack. In 1539, he fought the battle of Chausa, defeated Humayun, drove him out of India, and ascended the throne of Delhi. And so on.
He was in Bengal for a few months, briefly, when campaigning against Ghiasuddin. That is all. His father and grandfather NEVER came to the east.
You will understand my disdain for the shallow learning that positions Sher Shah as a Bengali ruler, when he was not able to take over the reins from Ghiasuddin Mahmud Shah due to the simultaneous attack of Humayun. He had nothing, at best very little, an incidental parenthetical possibility of rule at best, before he shifted his attention to Delhi.
There is as much justification in considering General A. A. Khan Niazi, or Tikka Khan, as Bengali generals - they spent as much time as Sher Shah - as there is of considering Sher Shah a Bengali general and ruler.
However, please feel free to instruct me further in the history of my own land, my own country, whenever the urge strikes you. Just don't expect silly little brags and an exaggerated sense of importance to be given much time or attention. They will be treated as they deserve.
We are not tallking here about Niazi or Tikka Khan. We are discussing about Sher Shah. So, do not change the context to suit your weird view. Here, we are talking of people like Sultan Bahlul Lodi whose forefathers were Pathans, but he became the Emperor of India in 1456 (?). Cannot he be called a Hindustani only because he was of Pathan ancestory?
All the Rajputs, by your narrow standards should be called HUN, and not Hindustanis. Mughals were Uzbek and not Hidustani. This thinking is weird and is of no use in practical discussion of history. Chieftain Khwaja Osman of Bengal was ONLY a Pathan, but was not a Bangali Muslim when he fought against the Mughals in the eastern Bengal.
By your formula no muslim man from outside of Hindustan who settled himself here cannot be a HINDUSTANI muslim. Yet, all of the settler Muslims have during the course of time become Hindustani. Some are now regarded as Delhiwala, some are Bangali and some are UP wala.
There are many ingredients of foreign bloods in Bangali muslims of today. Sher Shah's grandfather lived in Punjab, but he is not called a Punjabi. He lost that identity when he moves to another part of India by the course of time. But, by your standard, everybody is static. He cannot be another except what his grandfather was. By your standard, President Obama is a Kenyan and President Bush is an Englishman, not withstanding that they have become the Presidents of the USA.
Sher Shah's forebearers were like many of the millions of Muslims who came to Hindustan for seeking fortune. He came to Bihar. But, he took over the reign of Bengal from Ghiyasuddin Mahmud Shah. Mahmud Shah's young son was killed by Jalal Khan, the son of Sher Shah. This caused Mahmud Shah to collapse and die. Sher Shah took over the Sultanate of Bengal.
This made Humayun nerveous and he rushed to Gaud. Sher Shah vacated Gaud and took the northern route to Bihar. Humayun stayed in Bengal for about six months and spent this period to establish a Mughal administration in Gaud (Bengal). Before the onset of next flood season, Humayun ventured out of Gaud to go back to Delhi/Agra.
it was probably the Ghagra (?) river where the local troops of Sher Shah stopped Humayun's troops to cross. Humayun was forced to recognize Sher Shah as the Sultan of Bengal. But, in an ensuing battle, Humayun's troops were defeated. His troops jumped to the river to save their lives. Humayun was rescued from the flowing river by a visti (water man) Nizam.
Humayun fled to Delhi and after about one year he came back with full force. After his defeat at Chausa Humayun fled to Iran, and Sher Shah, the Sultan of Bengal captured Delhi. His descendents ruled over Hindustan until Adil Shah was defeated by Humayun at the 2nd Battle of Panipath in 1556.
All the Pathans and Bangali muslims in the northern India fled to Bengal. These people regrouped, kept Bengal free of Mughal domination until about 1605 when Jahangir was the Emperor. Note that almost all the Muslim warrior Chieftains (combinedly known as Baro Bhumiya) of then Bengal were of Pathan ancestory. So, the Mughal-Pathan war that started in 1526 in the 1st battle of Panipath ended with the defeat of Khwaja Osman Khan in Mymensingh/Sylhet in 1605.
Refer to an article written by Dr. Bhattasali titled, 'The Last Pathan Hero of Bengal' and learn more about this last battle. Read also 'Baharistani Ghaebi' by Mirza Ispahani, a Mughal General. But, by your thinking they were just Pthans even after they had been living in Hindustan/Bengal for six or more generations.
You cannot identfy any Indian muslim only by his ancestory. Foreign Muslims had already become part of India and Bengal at the time of history that we are discussing here. Who domiciled in Bengal have become known as Bangali Muslims. You must, perhaps, be aware that all the Sultans, except Raja Ganesh, of Bengal during Muslim period were of foreign ancestory.
Even the loved Sirajuddowlah was of Iranian/Delhiwala ancestory. Same was with Sher Shah. He was a Pathan by ancestory, but he was the Sultan of Bengal before he became the Emperor of Hindustan. Note also that during those days Muslims were not regarded as Bangali. They were just Muslims or Jabans. Only recently we impose this Bangali suffix to the Muslims of Bengal.
So, how do you define their positions vis-a-vis Bengal. Reality is they were Bengali Muslims because their forefathers had domiciled in Bengal. It is same with all the American Presidents and most of the American people. It is also same with all the Muslim emperors and many of the Muslim population of Hindustan/Delhi.
.
