Q.

Discuss the character and composition of the Sultanate ruling

class in the 13th century.

Ans. The Delhi Sultanate in India was established in 1206 A.D. It was the
result of a process that had begun with the campaigns of the Ghaznavids and
Mahmud of Ghazni; and Muizzuddin Muhammad Ghuri, which led to the
conquest of North India. However, the establishment of the empire was not
an easy process. In the first phase of its history, i.e., the Ilbari period (1206-
1290 A.D.), the territories over which the Muslims had actual control were
few, they faced stiff resistance, and there was no administrative structure in
place. Thus, this period was marked with the consolidation of Turkish rule in
India. In the course of this, a ruling class also emerged, which had a distinct
character and composition, and played a formative role in the nature of the
Sultanate.

The main sources for the study of the Sultanate period are the Persian
political chronicles, of which the most important are Minhaj-us-Siraj
Juzjani’s Tabaqat-i-Nasiri, which covers the period up to Balban; Zia-ud-
Din Barani’s Tarikh-i-Firozshahi and Fatawa-i-Jahandari which continues
the narrative till Firuzshah Tughluq’s period; and later works like Isami’s
Futuhus Salatin. But they all suffer from biases. Excessive use of religious
terminology, owing to the background of the writers, is another problem.
These accounts can be supplemented with the accounts of Arab travelers;
mystic or Sufi literature; and local, regional bardic literature, mainly Rajput,
which, though they too glorify Rajput resistance, courage and chivalry, yet
they give an insight into the period and provide a different point of view.
Texts can be used in correlation with archaeological evidence from
monuments, coins, inscriptions etc.

The ruling class comprised of four groups – the Sultan or the Crown;
the nobility or the umara; the ulama; and the local chieftains. The
relationship between all of them was one of conflict and tension, yet marked
by cooperation and co-dependence. The word ‘Sultan’ comes from ‘sult’,
meaning ‘power’. The nobility held a very powerful position in the state and
actually conducted the work of administration and governance. Minhaj
describes them as “Arakin-i-daulat wa, Sutun-i-sultanate”, meaning
‘members of the state and pillars of the Sultanate’. The word ‘ulama’ (sing.
alim) comes from ‘ilm’, meaning knowledge. It was not an organized group
and included anyone who was well-versed in religious learning and Islamic
Law. The local chieftains included the displaced political authority, as well
as chiefs at the regional, district and village level.

The Ilbari Period of the Delhi Sultanate saw the evolution and gradual
changes in the composition of the ruling class. The period was also marked
by tensions within the ruling class, especially between the Crown and the
nobility, so much so that Nigam has remarked that the “the history of the
sultanate period to a great extent is the history of the achievements and
failures of the Turkish Nobility”. But in order to understand these tensions,
as well as the development of the institutions of the Delhi Sultanate, one
must keep in view their background in Islamic history.

The Sultanate was a monarchical institution established by the

Muslims. But it is not mentioned either in the Quran or the Hadis. Yet it
evolved as a necessary institution, to maintain stability, from the time of the
Ummayads, reaching its culmination when Mahmud of Ghazni declared
himself as a Sultan, independent of the Abbasid Caliphate at Baghdad. It
was influenced by the Pre-Islamic Sassanid traditions. However, the
institution was still ‘un-Islamic’. Therefore, to legitimize the Sultan’s
position, kingship was associated with divinity. The Adab-ul-Harb by
Fakhr-i-Mudabbir says that “whoever obeys the Sultan, obeys God”. Thus, it
equates loyalty to the Sultan with allegiance to God, and similarly rebellion
against the Sultan as going against divine will. He also invokes the verse
from the Quran, which asks people to obey those in authority. The Sultan
adopted titles like zillallah (shadow of God on earth). Another form of
legitimization was formal recognition from the Caliph, even though actual
power remained in the hands of the Sultan. This could be through a letter of
recognition (khillat), sikkah or coins issued in their name, or reading the
khutbah in their name. Such legitimization was more important in the early
years of the Sultanate, when they had no local support in India.

Yet, monarchy had no basis in Islam. There were no clear laws of

succession. This was significant as it meant that anyone could make a claim
to monarchy as long as he had the ability to defend it. Amir Khusrau writes
that it depended not on the birth of a person, but his ability to wield the
sword. This is where the Crown came into a conflict of interests with the
nobility. The nobles all saw themselves as equal and the Sultan as “first
among equals”. So the rise of any one from among them to the position of
Sultan was resented. This was as most of them were slaves and thus owed
allegiance only to their master alone. Also, this was a period of transition.
The nobles were still tied to their nomadic traditions; they had no history or
tradition of monarchy. They were used to a tribal polity where decisions
were taken through consensus and the tribal leader had no superior power
except the right to lead military campaigns. So they were unaccustomed to
assumption of absolute power by the Sultan and resisted any such attempt.

Since the very inception of Turkish rule in India the Turkish nobility
played an important role in carving out a strong empire as well as shaping
the government of the empire. Two terms mentioned in the sources are
relevant - khwaja-tash, implying that all nobles were equal in power, status
and privilege because they were slaves of the same master; and sultani,
meaning ‘slaves of the master who they have put on the throne’. This shows
that they had a say in matters of succession and came to play kingmakers.
Later, some of the Sultans emerged from among the nobility itself, e.g.
Balban. Thus, they wielded immense power. Many of the kings after
Iltutmish exercised only nominal authority; real power was in the hands of
the nobility.

However, the nobility was not one unified group. Traditional scholars
like Nizami and Nigam have presented the nobility as consisting of 2
monolithic groups – the Turks and the non-Turks of high lineage (Tajiks).
The nobility was undoubtedly dominated by Turkish ghulams. Tajiks were
men of Persian speech, mostly free-born. But recent scholarship by Hambly
and Sunil Kumar has argued that this is a simplistic representation, and there
was a more complex structure in place. We have evidence of the existence of
other groups like free-born Turks, Khaljis, Ghuris, Afghans, Mongols, black
African slaves (Habashi, literally ‘Abyssinian’), and later Indian converts
(shaikhzadas), who gradually became important and competed for power.
Also, the Turkish slaves also had their own internal differences. There were
often differences between slaves of different Sultans. For instance, between
the slaves of Muizzuddin (Muizzi slaves), Aibek (Qutbi slaves), and
Iltutmish (Shamsi slaves), who owed allegiance only to their master. There
was also a conflict between senior and junior slaves of the same master.
Later, dissensions also developed between nobles at the centre (Delhi) and
provincial nobles, as is seen in the time of Raziya. Thus nobility consisted of
diverse elements, all in competition with each other. Sometimes the Sultan
would himself promote these divisions, in order to weaken the nobility and
strengthen his own position. The Turks aimed mainly for motives of
personal ambition or self-protection and united only in the face of common
danger from the non-Turkish faction.
 Peter Jackson has done a comparative study between the mamluk
institution in Egypt and India. He points out that the bandagan was
distinguished by a hierarchy. Sunil Kumar has questioned the use of the
word “nobility”. He feels that rather than professional service, it was the
personal relationship that existed between a ghulam and his patron that led
to a close relationship between them, and their appointment to higher
positions. He refers to terms like parwarish (nourishing), parwardan
(upbringing) and tarbiyat (to pass on certain values and etiquettes), with
regard to the process of fostering the slaves.

The powers and position of the ulama in the state, and its relationship
with the rulers has been a matter of continuous debate. The ulama are
distinguished from the nobility by using the term ahl-i-saif (wielders of the
sword) for the latter, and ahl-i-qalam (wielders of the pen) for the former.
The sources refer to 2 categories of ulama – ulama-i-akharat/batini and
ulama-i-dunya/zahiri. The former were those scholars who devoted
themselves to religious learning and led a simple and austere life, e.g. the
Sufis. The latter were associated with the ruling elite and the state and got
employment in the government as mufti, qazi, imam etc. The newly-
converted Turks paid great deference to the clergy. But they kept effective
political control in their hands and confined them to deciding judicial cases,
religious matters and education.

There was a tacit relationship between the Sultan and the ulama; one of
interdependence. The ulama helped legitimize the actions of the Sultan. In
return, the state patronized them. In the initial stages of the establishment of
the Sultanate, this relationship was much stronger since the Sultan did not
have the support of the local groups and had to rely exclusively on their
Muslim support base. The ulama commanded considerable influence among
the Muslims and in various ways assisted the Delhi Sultans in consolidating
their authority. However, as the Sultanate began to establish close
relationships with the local groups, they moved further away from the
ulama.

Another bone of contention was the enforcement of the shariah. The

ulama wanted the Sultans to take up their cause and implement it in India.
However, the Sultans realized that this was not possible, since they were
ruling a pre-dominantly non-Muslim state. This can be seen in an incident
narrated by Barani, where Iltutmish’s wazir considers such a policy
impractical because the Muslims were too few in number, “like salt in a dish
(of food)”. Barani also remarks that the shariah was silent about matters
pertaining to the state. Moreover, the Sultans had perforce to promulgate
zawabit (state law), which was based of the discretion of the Sultan. If there
was a conflict between state-law and the shariah, the state-law was to
prevail.

Iltutmish honored the ulama as much because of his own piety as

because of their influence with Muslim elite and soldiery. But there were
also problems - Barani tells us that Iltutmish got some prominent qazis
murdered. When he nominated Raziya as his successor in preference to his
sons, he did not consult them but afterwards informed them of his decision,
so they had no option but to concur. From Bahram Shah’s reign, their
influence increased and occasionally they married into the ruling house. But
sometimes, they could also be disloyal to the interest of the state and the
ruling Sultan, as is seen in the time of Bahram Shah. Due to this, Balban
evolved a policy relegating the influence of the ulama to background. At the
same time, he cultivated good personal relationships with them. Thus, on the
whole, the ulama occupied a position of great prestige throughout this
period, and even when they could not influence the Sultan, they could not be
easily influenced by him. 

The fourth components, i.e. the local intermediaries, were crucial for
the functioning of the state because they were responsible for land revenue
collection, on which the state was based. This was because, unlike the Turks,
they had a personal relationship with the peasantry and knowledge of the
local agrarian conditions and local languages. And though the state often had
to face military resistance from them, they depended on them for provincial
administration, as firstly the Turks were limited in number; and secondly the
newly-arrived Turks were unfamiliar with the details and problems of day-
to-day administration. The administration at the local level was not changed
and the Hindus continued to dominate the country-side as khuts,
muqaddams, chaudhuri, rana etc. Several defeated Hindu kings were also
made vassals of the Sultanate, on the condition of payment of a tribute.
However, this depended on the prestige and strength of the king, whose
suzerainty, in fact, had to be periodically enforced at the point of sword.

So far, we have seen an overview of the general issues concerning the

ruling class that faced the Delhi Sultanate during the 13 th century, be it their
tensions or composition. But for their proper understanding, it is necessary
to trace the circumstances which led to the creation and establishment of the
Delhi Sultanate, for the character and the composition of the governing class
changed from period to period and ruler to ruler.

The establishment of the Delhi Sultanate was a culmination of the

campaigns of Muizzuddin Ghuri, who first invaded India in 1175 and
conquered most of North India. Initially his armies consisted largely of the
Ghurians and the Khalaj. However, after the Second Battle of Tarain (1192),
the Ghurian commanders came increasingly to play a secondary role to his
Turkish slaves. The ghulam system, which had begun under the Abbasids,
who had started the practice of recruiting and training Turkish slaves for
purposes of war and administration, was continued by Muizzuddin. He
conducted most of his campaigns in India through his Turkish slaves, mainly
Yalduz; Qubacha; and Qutb-ud-din Aibek, in order to keep the territories as
his own personal possessions. Thus, the conquest of India was possible only
through the joint efforts of these slaves.

After the death of Muizzuddin, there arose a conflict regarding his

possessions. He had left no heir and his territories passed down to his
slaves. He was succeeded by his nephew Ghiyasuddin Mahmud at Ghur. In
India, it was Aibek, the younger slave in charge of Delhi and Lahore, who
assumed power and established the Delhi Sultanate. In 1206, he was
formally invested and promoted to the rank of Malik. He never referred to
himself as Sultan. In inscriptions, no higher titles are used with his name
than amir and Sipahsalar. During his short reign, he faced problems from
the other Muizzi slaves. Yalduz was in control of Punjab, and Qubacha of
Multan and upper Sind. But he did not face any difficulties from his own
nobility, mainly because there was no formal administration system in this
period. So there were no positions or iqtas to fight over. The nobility was
rather like an organized armed camp, whose only interest was to share the
tribute/booty got from defeated rulers. Also, the actual power of the
Sultanate was confined to a few centers in North India and Rajput resistance
was a serious problem.

On Aibek’s death in 1210, the officers at Lahore nominated Aram Shah

to be the Sultan. He was supported by the Qutbi nobles. But his accession
was not supported at Delhi, where a party of nobles headed by the
sipahsalar “invited” Iltutmish, the governor of Budaun and son-in-law of
Aibek, to assume the Crown. Aram thereupon marched against Delhi but
Iltutmish, who had the support of the Muizzi slaves, found it easy to defeat
him. Aram’s reign thus lasted for about 8 months. It is unclear whether he
was Aibek’s son or not. But his reign shows that the nobility was beginning
to play an important role in succession, with not much regard to hereditary
principles.

Iltutmish’s period was significant as it was during his reign that the
Sultanate acquired legitimacy. He received a letter of investiture from the
Abbasid Caliph in 1229, which formally recognized the independent status
of the Delhi Sultanate. A group of jurists like chief qazi Wazih-ud-din
Kashani led a challenge doubting the free status of Iltutmish, which he
cleverly met with a letter of manumission issued by his late master. This was
the first attempt by the ulama to assert their right to the choice of the
sovereign.

His period was also important as he gave an administrative framework

to the empire by introducing the iqtadari system. This institution too had
been prevalent in Turko-Persian states. Iqtas were mainly revenue
assignments, which transferred the right to collect revenue from that land to
its holder (iqtadar). In return, the iqtadar had to maintain a military
contingent, maintain law and order in his region and send a surplus to the
centre (fawazil). It was supposed to be a non-hereditary system and iqtadars
were supposed to be regularly transferred. This was a way of organizing the
nobility and curbing their power. However, it intensified the conflicts
between them as there was competition for positions. Some nobles even
tried to make themselves substantially independent in their iqtas and so
challenged central authority.

Iltutmish’s position was highly precarious initially, as he did not have

the support of the Qutbi nobles. He slowly stabilized his position and
brought under his control various regions such as Budaon, Awadh, and the
Shivalik. He also put an end to the claims of the Muizzi nobles. Yalduz was
forced out of Ghazni by the Khwarazm Shah and wrested Lahore from
Qubacha. But Iltutmish defeated him in 1216 at Tarain. Iltutmish was
diplomatically also able to prevent the Mongols from crossing the Indus into
India. He refused refuge to the Khwarazm Prince Jalaluddin Mankabarni, for
he knew that the position of the Sultanate was weak. He also feared his own
position, as Mankabarni could have got the support of the Tajik nobles.

He also collected a large number of Tajik officers. His wazir Nizam-ul-

Mulk Junaidi was a Tajik as well. To counter the aspirations of the nobility,
Iltutmish created the Turkan-i-chahalgani, which was a group of 40 Turkish
slaves, who owed personal loyalty to Iltutmish, and who had all attained the
rank of khan. Traditional writers like Nigam and Nizami wrote that they
were a tightly knit group, who held all important positions, and were bound
together by their need to protect the monopoly from other factions of the
nobility. Recent writers have questioned this view. Peter Jackson notes that
in contemporary Egypt there were amirs commanding units of 40 royal
mamluks and concludes that perhaps the chahalganis formed a parallel
group of commanders within the ranks of Iltutmish’s Shamsi slaves. Hambly
points out that Juzjani, who is a contemporary, does not mention the
chahalgani. Only Barani does, and this may be because the term was a
popular nickname, or an expression of opprobrium which became used in
later times. But Minhaj does give a list of 25 nobles of Iltutmish’s period. It
is not clear upon what basis he selected the 25 but it may be because they
were the core of the chahalgani. Hambly also questions their number. M.
Habib says that 40 was merely a formal number, they were most likely
lesser. The number may be used in the biblical sense of meaning a large
number, as in the Quranic context, 40 is a synonym for many. Barani says
that the Turkish chahalgani were equal in privileges and power. He also
refers to their unwillingness to submit to any leader, even from amongst
themselves. It is significant that Barani makes mention of the bandagan-i-
Shamsi as well as the chahalgani. The difference between them seems to be
in the phrase which Barani uses when he mentions the chahalgani for the
first time, including Balban “among the forty Turkish slaves freed…”
Hambly feels that possibly all forty slaves were manumitted at the same
time. He concludes that though we do not the know the origin or definite
meaning of this term, but they were a group of nobles, very powerful, who
assumed a dominant role after Iltutmish’s death and controlled the
succession of weak rulers, who were, in effect, mostly puppets in their
hands.

Iltutmish also started the practice of nominating his successor, and for
sometime after his death, the Crown did remain in his family. But the period
was marked with great instability, as Sultans came to power in quick
succession and mostly for a brief period. Of the sovereigns, only Balban is
known with certainty to have died a natural death. Power was increasingly
being controlled by the Turkish nobility. Initially, Iltutmish had nominated
Raziya as he felt that none of his surviving sons was competent enough.
Later, though, he seems to have changed his mind in favour of his eldest
son, Ruknuddin Firuz Shah. His mother, Shah Turkan, wielded real power
during his 7-month reign, which was dominated by a revolt on the part of a
group among Iltutmish’s senior amirs, including the wazir. According to
Isami, Firuz tried to curtail the power and even physically eliminate
prominent Turkish slaves, and excessively relied upon Tajiks, whom the
Turks massacred in the course of the Sultan’s campaign against the rebel
Kabir Khan. So he was deposed and Raziya was enthroned in his place.

Raziya’s period is important for several reasons. Not only was she the
first and only female Sultan, but her period also saw the emergence of a new
kind of factionalism within the nobility – between the Delhi nobles and the
provincial nobles. She had come to power mainly with the support of the
former. This was resented by the latter, who felt that they too should be
consulted in matters of succession. As a result, she had to face many
rebellions in places like Bhatinda. Raziya resorted to creating divisions in
the hostile camp by cleverly turning them against each other. She also tried
to strictly implement the iqtadari regulations, which also made them
resentful. Her accession can be taken to show the indifference of the ulama,
as the elevation of a woman to royal authority was contrary to Islamic
practice. It can also be attributed to the Central Asian background of the
ruling class, where women enjoyed greater freedom. Also, perhaps the
nobles felt that being a women, she could be a puppet in their hands. Many
junior slaves of Iltutmish were promoted, e.g. Balban, who became the
amir-i-shikar (incharge of hunting expeditions). But Raziya soon began to
exercise independent authority and tried to break the Turkish nobles’
monopoly by introducing new elements in the nobility. A prominent Tajik,
Khwaja Muhazzuddin, was appointed the wazir. Her appointment of Yaqut,
an Abyssinian slave to the rank of chief of cavalry (amir-i-akhur) alienated
the Turks, in particular, the amir-hajib, Aitigen. She was then deposed in
favour of her brother Bahram Shah and was killed in 1240 in a vain bid to
recover the throne, despite entering into a matrimonial alliance with an
important noble Altunia.

Bahram Shah was involved in the conspiracy against Raziya. But his
elevation to the throne was conditional to his agreeing to create a new office,
the naib-i-mamlikat (regent) to whom he was made to delegate all his
powers by a written proclamation. Aitigen was appointed to this post,
Muhazzabuddin, was the wazir. But when Aitigen assumed some royal
prerogatives, like keeping an elephant and playing the naubat at his gate,
Bahram had him executed. Not only did he threaten the nobles, he also
became unpopular with the ulama, who participated in an abortive
conspiracy to dethrone him. Bahram Shah was overthrown in 1242 when,
under the influence of one of his courtiers, he contemplated the wholesale
removal of the Turkish slave officers. The fact that the ringleaders were not
punished but were in fact rewarded suggests that the new Sultan, Masud
Shah, was behind them.

A noble and son-in-law of Iltutmish, Kishli Khan, tried to assume

sovereignty in the confusion. But the other nobles did not accept him as the
king and Ala-ud-din Masud, the very young son of Firoz, was raised to the
throne, precisely on the same conditions as his uncle. Soon the wazir came
to exercise all power and so he was murdered. A more submissive wazir was
found and the amir-i-hajib’s office was given to Balban, where he
appropriated all power. Masud tried to build support from his own family
and other minor ranks of nobility; and also promoted the Abyssinians. He
was deposed and was succeeded by his uncle Nasiruddin Mahmud. Balban
and Mahmud probably had a hand in this. Balban was, by now, very
powerful. He even thought of directly assuming power but stopped when he
realized that the nobility was as yet not ready and it could lead to an even
more serious conflict between the Tajiks and the Turks.

Nasiruddin Mahmud, Iltutmish’s son, had a very long reign (20 years).
This was probably because by his time, most members of his family had
been eliminated. So the nobility had to continue with him. His was a
nominal rule; Ulugh Khan Balban wielded the real power. Balban’s daughter
married the Sultan in 1249 and soon he was appointed as the naib. All key
positions came to be held by his men. Minhaj speaks of Mahmud as a saintly
king, who devoted his life to religion. But he also had some political
ambitions. In 1253, he dismissed Balban and, in order to further reduce the
power of the Turkish nobility, redistributed other offices to important Tajiks.
He also appointed Imad-ud-din Raihan, an Indian convert, as his wakil-i-dar.
This shows that the Indian element in the nobility, though small, was
becoming important. Indian converts were considered even more dangerous
as they could get local support. So the Turkish amirs, though jealous of
Balban’s power, now rallied around him in order to protect their interests,
although there were some who also joined Raihan. The Sultan compromised
and Balban was reappointed. This amounted to a virtual surrender of royal
authority to Balban and his clique. Barani even says that Balban was given
the royal chatr. It is not known how Mahmud’s reign came to an end, for
Minhaj died before the event and Barani’s account opens with Balban’s
accession. It is not clear whether he was poisoned by Balban as mentioned in
the 14th century accounts of Ibn Battuta and Isami, or died a natural death. It
is also unclear what became of his sons.

Balban assumed power in 1266 A.D. This did not evoke a very strong
reaction from the nobility as in the case of Kishli Khan, because by now
Balban had built up a sizeable support base for himself in the nobility.
Moreover, he was also been related to Iltutmish’s family, having married his
daughter. He also claimed to be from the ruling line of khans of Iltutmish’s
own clans. His reign is significant for several reasons – the consolidation of
the Sultanate, as opposed to expansion; his theory of kingship; further
development of administrative institutions like the iqtadari system; and his
tackling of the Mongol problem by building a strong defence on the north-
west frontier.

Balban had been a part of the powerful nobility himself and knew the
extent of their influence and authority. Barani describes their attitude as “tu
keeste keh man na am, wa tu ke baashee ke man nabaash am”, which meant
‘what are you that I am not and what have you been that I have not been’.
This implies again that they saw themselves equal in status. So, to curtail
their power and assert royal authority, he developed a theory of kingship. He
associated divinity with kingship and adopted titles like niyabat-i-khudai
(vice-regent of God). This was to show that the king derived his authority
from God, not the nobles, and was above them in position. According to
Barani, he also maintained a distinction based on birth, and kept distance
from the masses. However, Peter Hardy has shown that these views may
well be those of Barani himself, found in his Fatawa-i-Jahandari. He sought
to increase personal prestige by claiming descent from the mythical Turkish
hero, Afrasiyab. He also re-organized the court etiquette and insisted on the
sijda and the paibos (prostration and kissing the monarch's feet). He
displayed the grandeur of his court to inspire awe among nobles.

Balban also took certain measures to centralize authority in the hands of

the Sultan. He freely eliminated his rivals, like his cousin Sher Khan,
through the use of ‘dagger and poison’. He tried to build his own group of
loyal nobles, whether Turks or Khaljis, and employed a network of spies and
informers to monitor the activities of his amirs. He also strictly implemented
the iqtadari regulations. Fawazil was also regularly collected. When he
found that many of the iqtas were held by people either no longer rendering
state service, or by the family members of original wajhdar who had died, he
cancelled all such iqtas and gave grants to only those who had title deeds.
This was to convey to the nobility that the iqtas could be enjoyed by them
only as long as the state desired it; and so they derived their power from the
king. The army was also re-organized to enable the state to regulate the
governing class.

Balban also faced many rebellions in this period. In dealing with these,
for the first time, we also hear of the use of Afghan military commanders.
Although they were confined to the lower levels, there is now evidence of
their involvement in administration as well. Towards the latter half of his
reign, he also faced a rebellion from his iqtadar in Bengal, Tughril Khan,
who declared independence in 1275. This was a serious challenge to the
king’s authority. Balban sent 2-3 expeditions to bring him to submission.
However, all were defeated. Balban led the fourth expedition personally.
This was successful and the rebel was killed. Bughra Khan, his son, was
appointed to the province and also warned him of the consequences of
rebellion against Delhi.

Thus, we see that Balban was able to consolidate the Sultanate and
resolve the conflict between the Crown and the nobility during his reign.
However, the solution had no permanent basis. In his time he faced no
serious challenge from the nobility. But after his death, the problem returned
again and the disintegration of the empire began. Moreover, it is said that his
extreme racialism led him to make the Sultanate an exclusively Turkish
concern. On one occasion, he revoked the selection of a native Muslim,
Kamal-i-Mahyar, for a clerical post in Amroha. Yet the number of pure-born
Turks was steadily declining due to the Mongols severing Delhi’s contact
with Turkestan. So it was impossible for them to maintain predominance.
The composition of the ruling class certainly broadened under Balban. The
kotwal of Delhi, Fakhruddin, was a Tajik. There was an influx of Mongol
notables in this period. He also had to recruit the Khaljis under Jalaluddin
Khalji to fight the Mongols. We also hear that his servitors included a
certain Hatya Paik, presumably a Hindu aristocrat. After a campaign in the
Salt Range, Balban brought back with him two sons of their Raja, who
adopted Islam. The appearance of these princes, together with Kamal-i-
Mahyar, among the maliks of his successor, can be seen to show the rise of
an Indian Muslim aristocracy, even prior to the Khalji era, with which it is
traditionally associated.

Some historians hold Balban responsible for sapping the roots of

Turkish power in India. It is said that his policies weakened the Turkish
nobility. This paved the way for the rise of the Khaljis as there were no
powerful Turkish nobles left to seriously counter-challenge their authority.
But Balban can only in part be held responsible for the ‘Khalji Revolution’.
Jalaluddin’s rise to power appears to have been a product of compromise. As
Barani admits, a number of Turkish maliks and amirs had thrown in their lot
with him, and there had been negotiations with the Ghiyasi party, headed by
Balban’s nephew Malik Chajju.

Balban had nominated his eldest son, Muhammad, as successor. But he

died fighting against the Mongols in 1286. His other son, Bughra Khan was
irresponsible, so he had no choice but to nominate Muhammad’s young son
for succession. But after his death, a party headed by the influential
Fakhruddin, who had been on bad terms with Muhammad, ignored Balban’s
nomination and enthroned Bughra Khan’s son Kaiqubad. Bughra Khan
advanced westwards to challenge Kaiqubad, but was reconciled with his son
at a meeting on the banks of the river Sarju. Under Kaiqubad, the non-
Turkish elements increased significantly in power. Barani refers to Mongol
converts who had settled in Delhi and had close family ties with leading
Turkish nobles and held high position in Kaiqubad’s court. But it was the
dadbeg (amir-i-dad), Nizamuddin, who dominated the state. After Kaiqubad
had him poisoned, he himself was deposed. For Barani, the execution or
exile of the chief men of Balban’s reign by Nizamuddin, followed by the
Sultan’s deposition in favour of his son Kaiumars, undermined the regime –
there was a rivalry among the maliks, with none strong enough to triumph.
The regency was only a transitional arrangement; the 13th century Sultanate
had, for all practical purposes, come to an end. Jalaluddin Khalji rallied his
followers, seized control of Kaiumars and became naib, and after a short
interval, occupied the throne himself. Thus, the Ilbari period came to an end,
and the Khalji Period began. In the early years, though there was a reduction
of the power of the Turks, their presence never diminished. However, a
dramatic shift in the composition of the ruling class came only with Ala-ud-
din Khalji, when the process of Indianisation began.
Bibliography:-

1.

2. Peter Jackson - The Delhi Sultanate: A Political And Military History

3. Mohammad Habib And K. A. Nizami (Ed.) - A Comprehensive History Of India,
Volume 5: The Delhi Sultanat (A.D. 1206-1526)
4. S. B. P. Nigam – Nobility Under The Sultans Of Delhi (A.D. 1206-1398)
5. K. A. Nizami – Some Aspects Of Religion And Politics In India During The 13 th
Century
6. K. A. Nizami – State And Culture In Medieval India
7. K. A. Nizami (Ed.) - Politics And Society During The Early Medieval Period:
Collected Works Of Professor Mohammad Habib, Volumes I and II
8. A. B. M. Habibullah – The Foundation Of Muslim Rule In India (A History Of The
Establishment And Progress Of The Turkish Sultanate Of Delhi: 1206-1290 A.D.)
9. Satish Chandra – Medieval India: From Sultanat To The Mughals, Part One: Delhi
Sultanat (1206-1526 A.D.)
10. André Wink – Al-Hind: The Making Of The Indo-Islamic World, Volume II: The
Slave Kings And The Islamic Conquest (11th-13th Centuries)
11. Irfan Habib (Ed.) – Medieval India 1, Researches In The History Of India (1200-
1750)
a. Formation Of The Sultanate Ruling Class Of The Thirteenth Century – Irfan
Habib
b. Social Mobility In The Delhi Sultanate – Iqtidar Husain Siddiqui
12. Daniel Pipes – Slave Soldiers And Islam: The Genesis Of A Military System
13. ARTICLES –
a. The Mamlūk Institution In Early Muslim India – Peter Jackson
b. Role Of The Ghūlams In The Ghaznavid And Seljūqid States: A
Consideration Of Some Aspects – Sunil Kumar
c. When Slaves Were Nobles: The Shamsi Bandagan In The Early Delhi
Sultanate – Sunil Kumar
d. Who Were The Chihilgānī, The Forty Slaves Of Sultān Shams Al-Dīn
Iltutmish Of Delhi? – Gavin Hambly
e. The Islamic Frontier In The East: Expansion Into South Asia – J. F. Richards
f. Epic And Counter-Epic In Medieval India – Aziz Ahmad
g. Trends In The Political Thought Of Medieval Muslim India – Aziz Ahmad
(From – Studia Islamica, Volume 17, 1962)
h. The Early Turkish Nucleus In India – Aziz Ahmad (From – Turcica, Volume
9, 1977)
i. The Role Of Ulema In Indo-Muslim History – Aziz Ahmad (From – Studia
Islamica, Volume 31, 1970)
j. Mongol Pressure In An Alien Land – Aziz Ahmad (From – Central Asiatic
Journal, Volume 6, 1961)
k. The Early Ghaznavids – C. E. Bosworth (From - Cambridge History Of Iran,
Volume 4)