Babur’s Invasion of India In The Early 16th Century

This post is about Babur’s Invasion of India in the early 16th century. India stood at a crossroads, fragmented by rival kingdoms and internal strife, setting the stage for a transformative chapter in its history. Enter Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur, a determined warrior from Central Asia, who, with a small but disciplined army, invaded India and forever changed its destiny. His victories, particularly at the Battle of Panipat in 1526, marked the rise of the Mughal Empire, a dynasty that would shape India’s cultural, political, and social landscape for centuries. This blog explores the factors behind Babur’s success, the state of India on the eve of his invasion, and the lasting impact of his conquests, revealing a story of ambition, strategy, and resilience.

The Political Scene Before Babur’s Invasion

Before Babur arrived, India was divided into several regions ruled by different kings and chieftains. The Tughluq dynasty, which once held significant power, had weakened. The Saiyyad (1414–1451) and Lodi (1451–1526) rulers struggled to maintain control. The nobles often rebelled, and the central authority in North-West India was crumbling.

In Central India, there were three key kingdoms: Gujarat, Malwa, and Mewar. Mewar, led by the powerful Rana Sanga, was the strongest. Malwa, under Sultan Mahmud Khalji II, was declining due to internal conflicts and a weak ruler. Gujarat, ruled by Muzaffar Shah II, was also a significant player. Malwa’s fertile land and trade routes made it a target for its neighbors, including the Lodis, Mewar, and Gujarat. Rana Sanga eventually expanded his influence over Malwa and Gujarat, making Mewar a dominant force in Rajputana.

In the east, Bengal was ruled by Nusrat Shah, while the south had the powerful Vijayanagar and Bahmani kingdoms. Around Agra, several Afghan chieftains controlled smaller territories, adding to the fragmented political landscape.

Some historians, like Rushbrooke William, believed that Rana Sanga led a Rajput confederacy driven by religious zeal to establish a Hindu empire. However, this view is debated. Babur himself noted in his memoir, Baburnama, that India had five Muslim rulers (Lodis, Gujarat, Malwa, Bahmani, and Bengal) and two non-Muslim rulers (Mewar and Vijayanagar). Yet, he never said these groups were divided purely by religion. In fact, many Muslim chieftains, like Hasan Khan Mewati, allied with Rana Sanga against Babur, suggesting that political alliances were more about power than religion.

India on the Eve of Babur’s Invasion: Debunking the Communal Interpretation

When Babur invaded India in 1526, the region was a patchwork of kingdoms, each with its own rulers and ambitions. Some historians, like Rushbrooke Williams, have suggested that Babur, a Muslim conqueror, came to India to defeat non-Muslims and establish Islamic rule. They also claim that India was divided along religious lines, with Hindu kingdoms, led by Rana Sanga of Mewar, poised to overthrow Muslim sultanates and establish Hindu supremacy. This idea, known as the communal interpretation, paints the conflict as a religious battle between Hindus and Muslims. But is this true? Let’s examine this theory in simple language and see what the evidence really says.

The Communal Interpretation

Rushbrooke Williams, who wrote a detailed biography of Babur, argued that India was split between Hindu and Muslim states, and that Rana Sanga was ready to establish a Hindu empire if Babur hadn’t intervened. He based this idea on two main sources:

1. Babur’s Baburnama: Babur wrote that India had five Muslim-ruled states (the Lodis in Delhi, Gujarat, Malwa, Bahmani, and Bengal) and two non-Muslim states (Mewar and Vijayanagar). Williams used this to suggest a religious divide. Babur also noted that Rana Sanga had expanded his control over parts of Malwa, capturing strongholds like Ranthambhor, Saranpur, Bhilsa, and Chanderi, showing his power to challenge Muslim rulers.
2. Shaikh Zain’s Fathnama of Khanwa: Written after Babur’s victory at the Battle of Khanwa in 1527, this document claims that Rana Sanga led a confederacy of “10 pagan chiefs” and had overrun 200 Muslim-inhabited cities, oppressing Muslims. This suggests a religious conflict.
3. Mirat-i Sikandari: This text describes Gujarat’s ruler, Muzaffar Shah II, invading Malwa in 1515 to suppress a “Hindu revolt” led by Medini Rai, who was supported by Rana Sanga. The text frames this as a Muslim effort to defeat non-Muslims.

Based on these sources, Williams argued that India was divided by religion, with Rana Sanga’s Hindu forces ready to dominate Muslim sultanates.

Examining the Evidence

While these sources might seem to support a religious divide, other evidence from the same texts and additional sources tells a different story. Let’s look at the other side:

1. No Clear Religious Divide in Baburnama: Although Babur mentioned five Muslim and two non-Muslim states, he never said they were fighting each other over religion. In fact, he noted that many rais and ranas (local chiefs) in India were divided into two groups: those allied with Muslim states and those independent. This shows that alliances were based on politics, not religion. Some Hindu chiefs worked with Muslim rulers, blurring any clear Hindu-Muslim divide.
2. Mixed Alliances at Khanwa: Shaikh Zain’s Fathnama lists “10 pagan chiefs” supporting Rana Sanga, but it also includes Muslim leaders like Hasan Khan Mewati, who led 10,000 Muslim troops, and Sultan Mahmud Lodi, who commanded 10,000 Afghan troops. If the Battle of Khanwa was a religious war, why were Muslim leaders fighting alongside Rana Sanga against Babur? This suggests the conflict was about power, not religion.
3. Rana Sanga’s Support for a Muslim Ruler: Before Khanwa, Rana Sanga supported Sultan Mahmud Lodi as the Sultan of Delhi, even minting coins in Mewar to recognize him as the ruler of the Lodi Empire. This shows that Rana Sanga wasn’t trying to establish a Hindu empire but was willing to back a Muslim ruler to maintain a balance of power.
4. Mixed Casualties in Malwa: The Mirat-i Sikandari describes Muzaffar Shah II’s 1515 invasion of Malwa as a mission to suppress a “Hindu revolt.” However, it also lists both Muslim and Hindu chiefs among those killed in the battle, including names like Fateh Khan and Malle Khan. This indicates that Muslims and Hindus fought on both sides, undermining the idea of a purely religious conflict.
5. Hasan Khan Mewati’s Role: According to Risqullah Mushtaqi’s Waqi’at-i Mushtaqi, it was Hasan Khan Mewati, a Muslim noble, who convinced Rana Sanga to oppose Babur. This suggests that the confederacy against Babur was formed for political reasons, not religious ones, and was led by a Muslim leader.
6. Rana Sanga’s Limited Ambitions: In 1514, Rana Sanga invaded Malwa, captured its capital, Mandu, and took the Khalji king prisoner. Instead of annexing Malwa, he treated the king well, released him, and allowed him to return to Mandu as ruler, asking only for friendly relations with Mewar. This shows that Rana Sanga was more interested in securing Mewar’s borders than building an empire, let alone a Hindu one.

The Reality of the Conflict

The evidence suggests that the political struggles in India before Babur’s invasion were not primarily about religion. Instead, they were about power, territory, and alliances. Kings and nobles, whether Hindu or Muslim, formed alliances based on their interests, not their faith. For example:

• Muslim and Hindu chiefs fought together in battles, as seen in both Khanwa and Malwa.
• Rana Sanga supported a Muslim ruler, Mahmud Lodi, for the Delhi throne.
• The conflicts were often about controlling key regions like Malwa, which was valuable for its fertile land and trade routes, rather than religious supremacy.

The idea of a Hindu-Muslim divide, as proposed by Rushbrooke Williams, oversimplifies the complex political landscape. Rana Sanga’s actions show he had no ambition to become the supreme ruler of India. His focus was on strengthening Mewar and securing its borders, not establishing a Hindu empire. Gujarat, not Mewar, was the state with the potential to dominate, but its conflicts were about adjusting frontiers, not religious conquest.

The Lodi Empire and Its Challenges Before Babur’s Invasion

The Lodi Empire, which ruled parts of northern India before Babur’s invasion in 1526, was primarily an Afghan empire. Many of its officers and nobles came from Afghan regions, and the large Afghan population in northern India gave the empire a strong base. However, the empire faced internal problems that weakened it, making it easier for Babur to defeat it. Let’s explore the Lodi Empire’s structure, its strengths, and the issues that led to its downfall in simple terms.

The Afghan Identity of the Lodi Empire

The Lodi Empire, established by Bahlul Lodi in 1451, relied heavily on Afghan support. Bahlul appealed to Afghan tribal loyalties to gain power, as seen in his announcements quoted by historians like Abbas Khan in Tarikh-i Khan Jahani. He promised that the kingdom of Delhi belonged to Afghans and that any conquered lands would be shared among them. This created a sense of unity among Afghan tribes, often called an “Afghan Confederacy” by historian RP Tripathi.

However, not all Afghans were treated equally. Bahlul and his successor, Sikandar Lodi, favored certain Afghan clans like the Lodis, Sarwanis, Lohanis, and Farmulis, giving them important positions. Other Afghan groups, like the Niazis, Surs, and Kakkars, were often ignored or considered unfit for high roles, even in the army. This unequal treatment caused resentment among some Afghan nobles.

A Diverse Empire

Despite its Afghan roots, the Lodi Empire wasn’t just for Afghans. It included many non-Afghans, such as Indian Shaikhzadas (Muslim nobles) from places like Koil, Amroha, and the Gangetic plains. Sikandar Lodi also welcomed Rajput chieftains, making the empire’s social base broader than that of the early Mughals. This mix of Afghan and non-Afghan nobles, including some Hindus, gave the Lodis a wide support network.

It’s estimated that around 4 crore Afghans lived in northern India at the time, and many Hindu chiefs also supported the Lodis. The Guru Granth Sahib suggests that the fall of the Lodis was seen as a loss by some people, reflecting their strong connection with local communities.

Problems Within the Empire

Despite this broad support, the Lodi Empire had serious internal issues. The main problem was the tension between the Lodi rulers’ desire for centralized control and the Afghan nobles’ wish to act independently. This conflict started during Sikandar Lodi’s reign and worsened under his son, Ibrahim Lodi.

1. Noble Autonomy: Afghan nobles had a lot of freedom in managing their iqtas (land assignments). They could choose how to assess and collect taxes (e.g., by estimation or measurement) and keep any extra revenue for themselves instead of sending it to the state. This lack of central control weakened the empire’s administration.
2. Independent Actions: Nobles could wage wars against local chiefs, create new jagirs (land grants), or appoint zamindars without permission from the ruler. This was unusual, as earlier and later rulers didn’t allow such freedom.
3. Hereditary Iqtas: Some nobles held their iqtas like family property, passing them down to their heirs. For example, when Hasan Khan Sur died, his son Sher Khan fought to keep his father’s iqta in Sahsaram.
4. No Transfer Policy: Unlike earlier dynasties like the Khaljis, the Lodis didn’t regularly transfer nobles to different iqtas. This allowed nobles to grow too powerful in one place, making them harder to control.

Revolts and Discontent

These freedoms led to widespread dissatisfaction, especially under Ibrahim Lodi. Many Afghan nobles revolted, including Daulat Khan Lodi, the governor of Punjab, who invited Babur to invade India. Other nobles, like Alauddin Khan Lodi and the Farmulis, also turned against Ibrahim. This showed how divided the empire had become.

Economic Troubles

Another major issue was a shortage of gold and silver coins during the Lodi period, as noted by historian John F. Richards. This shortage hurt the nobles’ wealth, as they relied on cash to maintain their status and armies. Several factors may have caused this:

• The Lodi Empire was landlocked, cut off from coastal trade routes controlled by independent states, which limited access to precious metals.
• Some historians, like Edward Thomas, suggest Timur’s plunder of Delhi in 1398 caused the shortage, but Richards argues this doesn’t fully explain it, as other landlocked states like Kashmir and Mewar didn’t face the same issue.
• Richards suggests Bahlul and Sikandar deliberately reduced the use of gold and silver coins to limit the nobles’ power, but this backfired by causing economic strain.

To make matters worse, Bahlul introduced a new copper coin called the Bahluli Tanka, which was worth much less than earlier coins (1:20 ratio). During Ibrahim’s reign, good harvests led to bumper crops, causing food prices to drop sharply. Since nobles often collected taxes in kind (crops) rather than cash, they couldn’t sell the surplus due to low prices. This left them with little money to pay for troops or maintain their lavish lifestyles, fueling more rebellions.

Why the Lodis Fell

The combination of noble autonomy, internal revolts, and economic troubles weakened the Lodi Empire. Ibrahim’s attempts to centralize power angered the Afghan nobles, who were used to acting independently. Meanwhile, the empire’s diverse support base wasn’t enough to hold off Babur’s well-organized army at the Battle of Panipat in 1526. The Lodis’ internal divisions and fiscal policies played a big role in their downfall, paving the way for Babur to establish the Mughal Empire.

Babur’s Background and Central Asia

Babur was born in 1483 and became the ruler of Farghana, a small region in Central Asia, at the age of 12 in 1494. His early years were tough, as he faced challenges from Mongol Khans, Timurid princes, and rebellious nobles. Despite capturing Samarqand twice, Babur couldn’t hold it due to the rise of the Uzbegs under Shaibani Khan. By 1504, after losing hope of ruling Central Asia, Babur captured Kabul, which became his base.

The unstable situation in Central Asia, coupled with the Uzbegs’ dominance, pushed Babur to look toward India. The wealth of India, the political chaos after the death of Sikandar Lodi, and invitations from Rana Sanga and Daulat Khan Lodi (the governor of Punjab) encouraged Babur to invade. He also saw himself as heir to Timur, a great conqueror who had once raided India.

Babur’s Invasions and the Battle of Panipat

Babur didn’t invade India suddenly. He tested the waters with four smaller campaigns before the decisive Battle of Panipat in 1526. He first captured Bhira (1519–1520), then Sialkot (1520), and Lahore (1524). These victories showed him that the Lodi forces were not invincible.

The Battle of Panipat was a turning point. Babur faced Ibrahim Lodi, whose army was massive—around 100,000 soldiers and 1,000–500 elephants—compared to Babur’s 12,000 horsemen. However, Babur’s superior tactics and use of the Rumi (Ottoman) method of warfare turned the tide. He positioned his troops cleverly, using carts and breastworks to confuse the Afghan army. His mounted archers and well-organized forces outmaneuvered Ibrahim’s larger but disorganized army. Within hours, Babur won, and Ibrahim Lodi was killed. This victory marked the beginning of Mughal rule in India.

Factors Behind The Babur’s Success in Indian

Weaknesses of the Lodi Empire

The Lodi Empire, which Babur defeated, had many internal problems that made it vulnerable.

1. Divided Nobles: The Lodi Empire was an Afghan empire with a large Afghan population, estimated at around 4 crore people. Its rulers, starting with Bahlul Lodi in 1441, relied on Afghan tribal loyalty, promising to share conquered lands. However, not all Afghans were treated equally. Only certain clans, like the Lodis, Sarwanis, Lohanis, and Farmulis, got important roles, while others, like the Niazis, Surs, and Kakkars, were ignored. This created resentment among many Afghan nobles.
2. Non-Afghan Inclusion: The Lodis also included non-Afghans, such as Indian Muslim nobles (Shaikhzadas) from places like Koil and Amroha, and even Rajput chieftains under Sikandar Lodi. While this gave the empire a broad social base, it also caused tension between the privileged Afghan clans and non-Afghan groups.
3. Noble Autonomy: Afghan nobles had a lot of freedom. They could decide how to collect taxes from their iqtas (land assignments), keep extra revenue, wage wars against local chiefs, and even pass their lands to their heirs. Unlike earlier dynasties, the Lodis didn’t transfer nobles to different regions, allowing them to grow too powerful. This lack of central control weakened the empire.
4. Revolts: By the time of Ibrahim Lodi, many nobles were unhappy. Some, like Daulat Khan Lodi, the governor of Punjab, revolted and even invited Babur to invade India. Others, like Alauddin Khan Lodi and the Farmulis, also turned against Ibrahim, showing how divided the empire was.
5. Economic Problems: The Lodi Empire faced a shortage of gold and silver coins, which hurt the nobles’ ability to maintain armies and their lavish lifestyles. Bahlul introduced a copper coin, the Bahluli Tanka, worth much less than earlier coins (1:20 ratio). Good harvests during Ibrahim’s reign led to low crop prices, and since nobles often collected taxes in crops rather than cash, they couldn’t sell the surplus. This economic strain fueled more rebellions.
6. Local Opposition: Despite the Lodis’ wide support, many locals, including Muslims, were hostile to Babur’s Mughals, who were seen as outsiders. Sources like Lataif-i Quddusi describe how Muslim communities, such as those in Karnal, feared Babur’s forces. After the Battle of Panipat, Babur’s troops even attacked a dargah and burned a library, increasing local resentment. However, the Lodis’ internal divisions prevented them from uniting against Babur.

Babur’s Military Strengths

Babur’s success wasn’t just due to his enemies’ weaknesses. His advanced military tactics, technology, and leadership played a huge role.

1. Use of Handguns: While Indians knew about cannons and gunpowder before Babur, he introduced handheld firearms like arquebuses and matchlocks to northern India. These were new to many, especially in the northwest. In 1519, during the siege of Bajaur, Babur’s use of these “tufungs” shocked the locals, who mocked the sound at first but soon suffered heavy losses. Handguns gave Babur’s smaller army a big advantage, as they could be used effectively in open battles, unlike cannons, which were mostly used in sieges or from fixed positions.
2. Ottoman Tactics: Babur borrowed advanced tactics from the Ottomans, who had used them successfully in battles like Chaldiran (1514). At Panipat and Khanwa, he employed the tulughma formation, dividing his army into three parts: the right wing (maimana), left wing (maisara), and center (hashm-i qalb). These units could wheel around and surround the enemy, confusing and outmaneuvering larger armies. Babur’s forces were well-organized, with each section knowing its role, unlike the chaotic Lodi army.
3. Araba Formation: Babur used a defensive setup called the araba formation, where carts were tied together with rawhide or iron chains to create a barricade. Gaps between the carts allowed his cavalry to move freely, while gunners (tufungchis) and cannons were protected behind mantelets (shields) and tripods. At Panipat, he dug ditches on two sides and used the town of Panipat as a barrier on the third, forcing the enemy to attack from the front, where his artillery was ready. At Khanwa, wheeled tripods allowed his cannons to move, making his artillery even more effective.
4. Artillery and Mobility: Babur’s use of artillery was revolutionary. Unlike the Lodis, who used cannons from fixed positions, Babur’s cannons and handguns were mobile. He placed heavy mortars (firangis) and light artillery (zarb-wa-zan) strategically, protected by carts and tripods. This allowed his gunners to fire safely without being overrun by enemy cavalry, which needed about 30 minutes to capture a cannon. His cavalry could also charge through gaps in the barricade, keeping his army flexible.
5. Leadership and Planning: Babur was a skilled commander who planned his battles carefully. At Panipat, he exploited Ibrahim Lodi’s inexperience and the Lodi army’s lack of coordination. The Lodi troops, packed tightly, couldn’t move forward or retreat when Babur’s artillery opened fire, leading to heavy losses. At Khanwa, Babur rallied his demoralized troops with a fiery speech and used his Ottoman-style tactics to defeat Rana Sanga’s Rajput confederacy. His ability to adapt and innovate gave him an edge.

Why Babur Won

Babur’s success came from a combination of his enemies’ weaknesses and his own strengths. The Lodi Empire was weakened by internal divisions, rebellious nobles, and economic troubles, making it unable to resist Babur’s invasion. Meanwhile, Babur’s use of handheld firearms, Ottoman-inspired tactics like tulughma and araba, mobile artillery, and strong leadership allowed his small army to defeat much larger forces. His victories at Panipat and Khanwa not only ended the Lodi Empire but also set the stage for the Mughal Empire to dominate India.

Challenges After Panipat

Winning Panipat was just the start. Babur faced two major challenges: the Rajputs led by Rana Sanga and the Afghan chieftains in eastern India.

Babur vs. Rana Sanga

Rana Sanga, the ruler of Mewar, was a formidable opponent. Babur believed Rana had promised to support him against Ibrahim Lodi but didn’t follow through. Rana likely expected Babur to return to Kabul after Panipat, leaving him to dominate northern India. When Babur decided to stay, tensions arose.

In 1527, Rana Sanga formed a confederacy with Afghan nobles, including Hasan Khan Mewati, to challenge Babur. They met at the Battle of Khanwa. Babur’s army was demoralized after hearing about the Rajputs’ bravery, but he rallied them with a passionate speech. Using Ottoman tactics again, Babur fortified his position with carts, iron chains, and wooden tripods to support his artillery. The battle, fought on March 17, 1527, was a disaster for the Rajputs. Rana Sanga was wounded and fled, and many of his allies, including Hasan Khan Mewati, were killed. This victory weakened the Rajputs significantly.

In 1528, Babur defeated Medini Rai in Chanderi, further crushing Rajput resistance. However, the Afghans remained a threat in the east.

Babur vs. the Afghans

The Afghans, though defeated at Panipat, remained strong in Bihar and Jaunpur under leaders such as Sultan Muhammad Nuhani. After he died in 1528, Mahmud Lodi, Ibrahim’s brother, took charge and gained support from Nusrat Shah of Bengal. Babur responded decisively, defeating Nusrat Shah’s forces at the Battle of Ghagra in 1529. This victory broke the Afghan-Bengal alliance and demoralized the Afghans, securing Babur’s control over northern India.

Conclusion

Babur’s invasion of India in 1526 was a pivotal moment that reshaped the subcontinent’s history. Despite commanding a small army, his strategic brilliance, innovative use of firearms, and Ottoman-inspired tactics like the tulughma and araba formations enabled him to defeat much larger forces at Panipat and Khanwa. The Lodi Empire’s internal divisions, rebellious nobles, and economic struggles made it vulnerable, while India’s fragmented political landscape provided Babur with the opportunity to establish the Mughal Empire. Far from being a simple religious conquest, as some have claimed, Babur’s victories were driven by political ambition and military superiority. His legacy laid the foundation for a dynasty that united much of India, blending diverse cultures and leaving an enduring mark on its history.