What's new

Ghazi Malik, the Turco-Punjabi Sultan

Hamza913

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Sep 15, 2015
Messages
8,954
Reaction score
11
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Ghazi Malik was the founder of the Tughlaq dynasty, and reigned for 4 years (1321-1325).

Ghazi Malik was a man of humble origins, with his father being a Turkic slave and his mother a normal, everyday Punjabi. He was almost certainly born in the Punjab, most probably Dipalpur as that was the city in which his mother came from, and also the place he would actually later govern under the Khiliji dynasty.

Under the Khiliji dynasty, Ghazi Malik attained a high position due to his personal achievements. He led many attacks against the Mongols during the reign of Allaudin Khalji, and defeated them with his superior battle tactics and harsh punishments.

Once Allaudin Khalji had passed away, the position of Sultan was open for those who could take it. Initially, Allaudin's son took the throne, but he was quickly overthrown and executed by Khusro Khan. Khusro Khan then proceeded to show far more leniency to Hindus than his predecessors, and even became a Hindu.

Whilst this power struggle went on in Delhi, Ghazi Malik quickly conquered Multan, Uch and Sindh, having each area under his direct control. Upon hearing Khusro Khan's apostasy, Ghazi Malik went and conquered Delhi, overthrowing and then beheading Khusro Khan. The position of Sultan was now Ghazi's.

However, the rest of the Khiliji's domain started to break apart, with many regions declaring their independence. Ghazi Malik then sprung into action, recapturing each region that had once been apart of the Khiliji Sultanate. But Ghazi Malik didn't just retake the areas that were previously ruled by the Khiliji's, he also expanded the Sultanate significantly. Some examples of his conquests include when he defeated the Raja of Tirhut and captured his domain, his conquering of most of the Bengal area (taking advantage of it's civil war), and his invasion of Warrangal, in which he defeated Pratap Rudra Deva in battle and took control of the area.

Ghazi Malik also continued his harsh policy against the Mongols, capturing and killing many of them, such as the envoys of Ilkhan Oljeitu. The Mongols were ineffective in their attempts to stop him.

Unfortunately, Ghazi Malik was not destined to rule for long. His reign was cut short in 1325, when a pavilion fell on him and killed him. There is great debate as to whether or not the death was an accident, or a murder potentially committed by his son, Muhammad Bin Tughlaq, in a power grab.

Ghazi Malik, despite his short reign, managed to create the largest Muslim dynasty that the Indian sub-continent had ever seen at that time, and the 2nd largest to ever exist in the region (1st place goes to the Mughals).

Map of the Tughlaq dynasty during Ghazi Malik's reign:

Tughlaq_dynasty_1321_-_1398_ad.PNG


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghiyath_al-Din_Tughluq
http://historypak.com/ghiyasuddin-tughluq/

@Ahmad Sajjad Paracha @BHarwana @lastofthepatriots @Talwar e Pakistan @Kaptaan @Max @Iqbal Ali @Albatross @Dalit @hussain0216 @313ghazi @Devil Soul @DESERT FIGHTER @Hassan Guy @HAKIKAT @Jon-Snow @Chinese-Dragon @Mugwop @waz @Oscar @Divergent @punit @padamchen @Luffy 500 @Sharif al-Hijaz @Truth Hurts @Arsalan
 
.
If Mughal era was one of the golden ages of India, this was one of the darkest.

Thankfully it was short-lived.
 
.
If Mughal era was one of the golden ages of India, this was one of the darkest.

Thankfully it was short-lived.

This was not a dark age for anyone, he treated his people well and defended them from the Mongols.

It's only a dark age for you because he killed Khusro Khan, who may I remind you killed Allaudin's son in the first place.
 
.
This was not a dark age for anyone, he treated his people well and defended them from the Mongols.

It's only a dark age for you because he killed Khusro Khan, who may I remind you killed Allaudin's son in the first place.
Why would I care about Khusro!
This era saw the death of countless Hindus and Muslims under the imperial hand.

Btw, your info is wrong. Khusro Khan was born a Hindu and later became Muslim, not the other way.
But my post had nothing to do with it. Tughlaq plunders were as bad as Mongol plunders. He just protected his throne from Mongols.

Anyway, this dynasty never reached my land just like other Indian empires. So mine is sort of an outsider unbiased view.
 
.
Why would I care about Khusro!
This era saw the death of countless Hindus and Muslims under the imperial hand.

Btw, your info is wrong. Khusro Khan was born a Hindu and later became Muslim, not the other way.
But my post had nothing to do with it. Tughlaq plunders were as bad as Mongol plunders. He just protected his throne from Mongols.

Anyway, this dynasty never reached my land just like other Indian empires. So mine is sort of an outsider unbiased view.

Khusro became Muslim, but then became Hindu again.

This era saw Muslims shine, along with anyone else who submitted to their rule and helped hem. Cities across the region became great cultural and education centres, such as Lahore or Delhi. This time was also one of great ethnic diversity, you had Arabs, Persians, Turks, Punjabis, Pakhtuns, etc, all living together and fighting together in the army's of these dynasties.

These Muslim conquerors like Ghazi Malik were plunderers just as much as any other conqueror in South Asian history, including your beloved Maratha's and Mauryan's.

The Mughal Empire wasn't that different to these dynasties either, they looted and plundered and destroyed temples too. The only exceptions were Akbar and Jahangir, who just looted and plundered but without the religious zeal.

When you get down to it, almost every conqueror in history was a looter and a plunderer. To single out these ones purely because it fits your narrative is silly, and shows your ignorance of history.
 
.
Khusro became Muslim, but then became Hindu again.

This era saw Muslims shine, along with anyone else who submitted to their rule and helped hem. Cities across the region became great cultural and education centres, such as Lahore or Delhi. This time was also one of great ethnic diversity, you had Arabs, Persians, Turks, Punjabis, Pakhtuns, etc, all living together and fighting together in the army's of these dynasties.

These Muslim conquerors like Ghazi Malik were plunderers just as much as any other conqueror in South Asian history, including your beloved Maratha's and Mauryan's.

The Mughal Empire wasn't that different to these dynasties either, they looted and plundered and destroyed temples too. The only exceptions were Akbar and Jahangir, who just looted and plundered but without the religious zeal.

When you get down to it, almost every conqueror in history was a looter and a plunderer. To single out these ones purely because it fits your narrative is silly, and shows your ignorance of history.
Again, why would you think Marathas are beloved to me?!
You're making too many assumptions.

There's a certain reason why Tughlaqs were so short lived. It was an extremely chaotic era that saw deaths of innocents (all religions) and stupid reformations that broke the empire.
The dynasty lasted less than a 100 years and was a small one for the most part.

I'm well aware of how dynasties loot. I brought it up only because you said that Mongols were kept away, who were masters at it. Tughlaqs did enough plunder instead of Mongols. That's the point. Not that only Tughlaqs did it.
 
.
@dsr478 @KapitaanAli

We never really got these details in high school history texts. But did India ever have Shia Muslim rulers? Who? When?

Or were all Sunni?

Cheers, Doc
 
.
Again, why would you think Marathas are beloved to me?!
You're making too many assumptions.

There's a certain reason why Tughlaqs were so short lived. It was an extremely chaotic era that saw deaths of innocents (all religions) and stupid reformations that broke the empire.
The dynasty lasted less than a 100 years and was a small one for the most part.

I'm well aware of how dynasties loot. I brought it up only because you said that Mongols were kept away, who were masters at it. Tughlaqs did enough plunder instead of Mongols. That's the point. Not that only Tughlaqs did it.

Ghazi Malik was an able administrator and powerful ruler. It was only his successors who were incompetent and broke the empire.

@dsr478 @KapitaanAli

We never really got these details in high school history texts. But did India ever have Shia Muslim rulers? Who? When?

Or were all Sunni?

Cheers, Doc

There were a few minor ones, but they got crushed pretty quick.

It's always been Sunni dominated, sometimes Sufis, other times Salafis.
 
.
Ghazi Malik was an able administrator and powerful ruler. It was only his successors who were incompetent and broke the empire.



There were a few minor ones, but they got crushed pretty quick.

It's always been Sunni dominated, sometimes Sufis, other times Salafis.

But the Mughals were Persians no? So Shia?

Cheers, Doc
 
.
But the Mughals were Persians no? So Shia?

Cheers, Doc

Good question.

For most of its history, Iran was actually Sunni. It only became Shia under the Safavid dynasty, which ruled contemporary to the Mughals.

The Mughals themselves had ancestry from all over. They had Mongol, Turkic, Indian and, as you rightfully said, Persian blood in them.

It's very possible that they ended up marrying Shia's, as they did marry people from Safavid Persia, but none of the Mughal rulers themselves were actually Shia. They were all Sunnis, with a couple of them being deists (e.g Akbar).
 
.
Good question.

For most of its history, Iran was actually Sunni. It only became Shia under the Safavid dynasty, which ruled contemporary to the Mughals.

The Mughals themselves had ancestry from all over. They had Mongol, Turkic, Indian and, as you rightfully said, Persian blood in them.

It's very possible that they ended up marrying Shia's, as they did marry people from Safavid Persia, but none of the Mughal rulers themselves were actually Shia. They were all Sunnis, with a couple of them being deists (e.g Akbar).

Coincidentally, Jodha Akbar was playing on TV last night. Which also showed how yummy Ash still was in 2007-8 ...

Also, for all.of its history, except the past 1000 years, Iran was Mithraic and Zoroastrian. Though yeah, I understand you meant post Islamic Iran only.

Cheers, Doc
 
.
Asalamu Alaikum

@waz

Could I please get this thread moved to the history section?
 
.

Latest posts

Military Forum Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom