The Oxford History of India • Book IV

The Rise of the Muhammadan Power in India and the Sultanate of Delhi, A.D. 1175‑1290

Rise and decline of Muhammadan power. The Muhammadan conquest of India did not begin until the last quarter of the twelfth century, if the frontier provinces of Kābul, the Panjāb, and Sind be excluded from consideration. It may be reckoned to have continued until 1340, when the empire of Sultan Muhammad bin Tughlak attained its maximum extent, comprising twenty-four provinces more or less effectively under the control of the Sultan of Delhi.JJJ The provinces included a large portion of the Deccan, and even a section of the Malabar or Coromandel coast.

After 1340 the frontiers of the Sultanate of Delhi rapidly contracted, many new kingdoms, both Musalmān and Hindu, being formed. The quick growth of the Hindu empire of Vijayanagar checked the southern progress of Islām and recovered some territory which had passed under Muslim rule. Elsewhere, too, Hindu chiefs asserted themselves, and it may be affirmed with truth that for more than two centuries, from 1340 to the accession of Akbar in 1556, Islām lost ground on the whole.

Under Akbar and his successors the Muslim frontier was extended from time to time until 1691, when the officers of Aurangzēb were able for a moment to levy tribute from Tanjore and Trichinopoly in the Far South. After the date named the Marāthās enlarged the borders of Hindu dominion until 1818, when their power was broken and they were forced to acknowledge British supremacy, as based on the conquest of Bengal and Bihār between 1757 and 1765. That, in brief, is the outline of the rise, decline, and fall of Muhammadan sovereign rule in India. From 1818 to 1858 the empire of Delhi was merely titular.

This chapter and the next will be devoted to a summary account of the progress of the Muhammadan conquest from A.D. 1175 to 1340. Most of the conquests, after the earliest, were made by or for the Sultans of Delhi, whose line began in 1206.

The dynasty of Ghōr (Ghōrī). The first attack was made by a chieftain of the obscure principality of Ghōr, hidden away among the mountains of Afghanistan to the south-east of Herat. Little is known about the country, which has never been visited by any European. Even the position of the action town of Ghōr, believed to be now in ruins, has not been ascertained with precision. The fortune of the Ghōr chiefs was made by means of a quarrel p218 with the successors of Sultan Mahmūd of Ghaznī. One of those successors named Bahrām having executed two princes of Ghōr, the blood-feud thus started prompted Alāu‑d dīn Husain to take vengeance by sacking Ghaznī in A.D. 115 (= A.H. 544). The unhappy city was given to the flames for seven days and nights, during which

'plunder, devastation, and slaughter were continuous. every man that was found was slain, and all the women and children were made prisoners. All the palaces and edifices of the Mahmūdī kings which had no equals in the world'

were destroyed, save only the tombs of Sultan Mahmūd and two of his relatives. Shortly afterwards Khusrū, the representative of Mahmūd, was obliged to leave Ghaznī and retire to Lahore (1160). But Ghaznī was not incorporated in the dominions of Ghōr until twelve or thirteen years later (1173), when it was annexed by Sultan Ghiyāsu‑d dīn of Ghōr, who made over the conquered territory with its dependencies, including Kābul, to the government as Sultan of his brother Muhammad, the son of Sām, who is also known by his titles of Shihābu‑d dīn and Muizzu‑d dīn (r‑daulat). It is most convenient to designate him as Muhammad Ghōrī, or "of Ghōr', Sultan of Ghaznī, and conqueror of Hindostan.

Early operations of Muhammad Ghōrī. He began his Indian operations by a successful attack on Multān (1175‑6), which he followed up by the occupation of Ūchh, obtained through the treachery of a Rānī. Three years later he moved southwards and attempted the conquest of rich Gujarāt. But Mūlarāja of Anhilwāra was too strong the invader, who was defeated and repulsed with heavy loss (1178). The victory protected Gujarāt, as a whole, from any serious Muhammadan attack for more than a century, although intermediate raids occupied, and Anhilwāra was occupied two years later. Such checks to the progress of Islām as Mūlarāja inflicted were rare.

In 1187 Muhammad Ghōrī deposed Khusrū Malik, the last prince of the line of Sabuktigīn and Mahmūd, and himself occupied the Panjāb. Having already secured Sind he was thus in possession of the basin of the Indus, and in a position those make further advances into the fertile plains of India, teeming with tempting riches, and inhabited by idolaters, fit only to be 'sent to hell' according to the simple creed of the invaders.

First battle of Tarāin. The Sultan organized a powerful expedition as soon as possible, and in 1191 (A.H. 587) advanced into India. The magnitude of the danger induced the various Hindu kings to lay aside string quarrels for a moment and to form a great confederacy against the invader, as their ancestors had done against Amīr Sabuktigīn and Sultan Mahmūd. All the leading powers of northern India sent contingents, the whole being under the command of Rāi Pithorā or Prithīrāj, the Chauhān ruler of Ajmēr and Delhi. The Hindu host met the army of Islām at Tarāin or Talāwarī, between Karnāl and Thānēsar, and distant p219 •fourteen miles from the latter place. That region, the modern Karnāl District, is marked out by nature as the battle-field in which the invader from the north-west must meet the defenders of Delhi and the action of the Ganges. The legendary ground of Kurukshetra, where the heroes of the Mahābhārata had fought p220 before the dawn of history was not far distant, and Pānīpat, where three decisive battles were lost and won in later ages, is •about thirty miles farther south. The Sultan, who met the brother of Prithīrāj in single combat, was severely wounded, and as a consequence of that accident his army was 'irretrievably routed'. The Hindus did not pursue, but permitted the defeated foe to retire and gather strength for a fresh inroad.

Second battle of Tarāin. In the following year the Sultan returned, met the Hindu confederates on the same ground, and in his turn defeated them utterly (1192, A.H. 588). Rāi Prithīrāj, when his cumbrous host had been broken by the onset of ten thousand mounted archers, fled from the field, but was captured and killed. His brother fell in the battle. Rajā Jaichand of Kanauj fell in another fight. Ajmēr, with much other territory, was occupied at once by the victors. In fact, the second battle of Tarāin in 1192 may be regarded as the decisive contest which ensured the ultimate success of the Muhammadan attack on Hindostan. All the numerous subsequent victories were merely consequence of the overwhelming defeat of the Hindu league on the historic plain to the north of Delhi. no Hindu general in any age was willing to profit by experience and learn the lesson taught by Alexander's operations long ago. Time after time enormous hosts, formed of the contingents supplied by innumerable Rājās, and supported by the delusive strength of elephants, were easily routed by quite small bodies of vigorous western soldiers, fighting under one undivided command, and trusting chiefly to well-armed mobile cavalry. Alexander, must have of Ghōr, Bābur, Ahmad Shāh Durrānī, and other capable commanders, all used essentially the same tactics by which they secured decisive victories against Hindu armies of almost incredible numbers. The ancient Hindu military system, based on the formal rules of old‑world scriptures, was good enough for use as between one Indian nation and another, but almost invariably broke down when pitted against the onslaughts of hardy casteless horsemen from the west, who cared nothing for the shāstras. The Hindu defenders of their country, although fully equal to their assailants in courage and contempt of death, were distinctly inferior in the art of war, and for that reason lost their independence. The Indian caste system is unfavourable to military efficiency as against foreign foes.

Kutbu‑d dīn Aibak. After the victory of Tarāin the Sultan returned to Khurāsān, leaving the conduct of the Indian campaign in the hands of Kutbu‑d dīn Aibak or Ībak, a native of Turkestan, who had been bought as a slave, and was still technically in a servile condition while conquering Hindostan. In 1193 (A.H. 589) Kutbu‑d dīn occupied Delhi, and advanced towards Benares. Kanauj does not appear to have been molested, but must have come under the control of the invaders. Soon afterward Gwālior fell, and in 1197 Anhilwāra, at capital of Gujarāt, was occupied, although the province was not subdued.

Conquest of Bihār. The subjugation of the eastern kingdoms p221 was effected with astounding facility by Kutbu‑d dīn's general, Muhammad Khiljī, the son of Bakhtyār. The Muslim general, acting independently, after completing several successful plundering expeditions, seized the fort of Bihār, probably in 1197, by an audacious move, and thus mastered the capital of the province of that name. The capture of the fort was effected by a party of two hundred horsemen. The prevailing religion of Bihār at that time was a corrupt form of Buddhism, which had received liberal patronage from the kings of the Pāla dynasty for more than three centuries. The Muhammadan historian, indifferent to distinctions among idolaters, states that the majority of the inhabitants were 'shaven-headed Brahmans', who were all put to the sword. He evidently means Buddhist monks, as he was informed that the whole city and fortress were considered to be a college, which the name Bihār signifies. A great library was scattered. When the victors desired to know what the books might be no man capable of explaining their contents had been left alive. No doubt everything was then burnt. The multitude of images used in mediaeval Buddhist worship always inflamed the fanaticism of Muslim warriors to such fury that no quarter was given to the idolaters. The ashes of the Buddhist sanctuaries at Sārnāth near Benares still bear witness to the rage of the image-breakers. Many noble monuments of the ancient civilization of India were irretrievably wrecked in the course of the early Muhammadan invasions. Those invasions were fatal to the existence of Buddhism as an organized religion in northern India, where its strength resided chiefly in Bihār and certain adjoining territories. The monks who escaped massacre fled, and were scattered over Nepāl, Tibet, and the south. After A.D. 1200 the traces of Buddhism in upper India are faint and obscure.

Conquest of Bengal. Bengal, then under the rule of Lakshmana Sēna, an aged and venerated Brahmanical prince, succumbed even more easily a little later, probably at the close of 1199. Muhammad Khiljī, son of Bakhtyār, riding in advance of the main body of his troops, suddenly appeared before the capital city of Nūdīah (Nuddea) with a party of eighteen troopers, who were supposed by the people to be horse dealers. Thus slenderly escorted he rode up to the Rājā's palace and boldly attacked the doorkeepers. The raider's audacity succeeded. The Rājā, who was at his dinner, slipped away by a back door and retired to the neighbourhood of Dacca, where his descendants continued to rule as local chiefs for several generations. The Muslim general destroyed Nūdīah, and transferred the seat of government to Lakshmanāvatī or gaur, an ancient Hindu city. Muhammad secured the approval of his master, Kutbu‑d dīn, by giving him plenty of plunder, and proceeded to organize a purely Muhammadan provincial administration, in practical independence. Mosques and other Muslim edifices were erected all over the kingdom. The conquest so easily effected was final. Bengal never escaped from the rule of Muhammadans for any considerable time until p222 they were superseded in the eighteenth century by the British, whose victory at Plassey was gained nearly as cheaply as that of Muhammad Khiljī.

Conquest of Bundēlkhand. The strong Chandēl fortress of Kālanjar in Bundēlkhand was surrendered by the minister of Rājā Parmāl (Paramarrdi), in 1203, to Kutbu‑d dīn.

'the temples were converted into mosques and abodes of goodness, and the ejaculations of the bead-counters [worshippers using rosaries] and the voices of the summoners to prayer ascended to the highest heaven, and the very name of idolatry was annihilated. . . . Fifty thousand men came under the collar of slavery, and the plain became black as pitch with Hindus.'

The victor passed on and occupied Mahoba, the seat of the Chandēl civil government.

Death of Muhammad of Ghōr. In the same year Ghiyāsu‑d dīn, the Sultan of Ghōr, died and was succeeded by his brother Muhammad, who thus united in his person all the dominions of the family. Muhammad had returned to Ghaznī after the capture of Kālanjar. Two years later, in 1205, he was recalled to the Panjāb in order to suppress a revolt of the powerful Khokhar tribe. The Sultan treated the foe in the drastic manner of the times. He 'sent that refractory race to hell, and carried on a holy war as prescribed by the canons of Islām, and set a river of the blood of those people flowing'. But fate overtook him. As he was on the march towards Ghaznī in March 1206 (A.H. 602) he was stabbed by a sectarian fanatic at Dhamiāk, a camping-ground now in the Jihlam (Jhelum) District.

The first Sultan of Delhi. Kutbu‑d dīn, who had been dignified with the title of Sultan by Muhammad Ghōrī's brother's son, Ghiyāsu‑d dīn Mahmūd, succeeded Muhammad Ghōrī as sovereign of the new Indian conquests, and from 1206 may be reckoned as the first Sultan of Delhi. But his enthronement took place at Lahore. The new sovereign sought to strengthen his position by marriage alliances with influential rival chiefs. He himself married the daughter of Tāju‑d dīn Yalduz (Eldoz), and he gave his sister to Nāsiru‑d dīn Kubācha, who became the ruler of Sind. Īltutmish (Altamsh), governor of Bihār, married Kutbu‑d dīn's daughter.

The three persons named, Yalduz, Kubācha, and Īltutmish, had been slaves like Kutbu‑d dīn himself. The dynasty founded by Kutbu‑d dīn and continued by other princes of servile origin is consequently known to history as the Slave Dynasty.

Kutbu‑d dīn died in 1211 from the effects of an accident on the polo-ground, having ruled as Sultan for a little more than four years.

Ferocity of the early invaders. He was specimen of the ferocious Central Asian warriors of the time, merciless and fanatical. His valour and profuse liberality to his comrades endeared him to the bloodthirsty historian of his age, who praises him as having been a 'beneficent and victorious monarch. . . . His gifts', we are told, 'were bestowed by hundreds of thousands, and his slanders likewise were by hundreds of thousands.' All the leaders in the Muslim conquest of Hindostan similarly rejoiced in committing wholesale massacres of Hindu idolaters, armed or unarmed. Their rapid success was largely due to their pitiless 'frightfulness', which made resistance terribly dangerous, and could not always be evaded by humble submission. The author of the Tabakāt‑i Nāsirī quoted above thoroughly approved of the ferocity of his heroes, and centuries later we find much the same temper shown in the writings of Firishta and Badāonī.

The modern reader of the panegyrics recorded by Muslim authors in praise of 'beneficent' monarchs who salaried their hundreds of thousands with delight often longs for an account of their character as it appeared to the friends and countrymen of the victims. But no voice has come from the grave, and the story of the Muhammadan conquest as seen from the Hindu point of view was never written, except to some extent in Rājputāna. The current notions of Indian mediaeval history, based chiefly on the narrative of Elphinstone, who worked entirely on materials supplied by Muslim authors, seem to me to be largely erroneous and often to reflect the prejudices of the historians who wrote in Persian.

Architecture of the early Sultans. The prevailing favourable or at least lenient judgement on the merits of the earlier and appallingly bloodthirsty Sultans in India is due in no small measure to the admiration deservedly felt for their architectural works. The 'Kutb' group of buildings at Old Delhi, although named after the saint from Ūsh who lies buried there, rather than after the first Sultan, undoubtedly is in part the work of Kutbu‑d dīn Aibak, who built the noble screen oligarchs. The question whether the famous Mīnār was begun by him and completed by Īltutmish, or was wholly built by the later sovereign, has given rise to differences of opinion depending on the interpretation of certain inscriptions.

Indo-Muhammadan architecture, which derives its peculiar character from the fact that Indian craftsmen necessarily were employed on the edifices of the foreign faith, dates from the short reign of Kutbu‑d dīn Aibak. The masterpieces of the novel form of art cost a heavy price by reason of the destruction of multitudes of equally meritorious buildings and sculptures in other styles. The materials of no less than twenty-seven Hindu temples were used in the erection of the 'Kutb' mosque.

The end of Muhammad, son of Bakhtyār. The ludicrous facility with which Bihār and Bengal had been overrun and annexed tempted Muhammad bin Bakhtyār to a more adventurous enterprise.

p224 'The ambition of seizing the country of Turkestan and Tibbat [Tibet] began to torment his brain; and he had an army got ready, and about 10,000 horse were organized.'

Unfortunately, the information available is not sufficient to determine exactly either the line of his march or the farthest point of his advance. He seems to have moved through the region now known as the Bogra and Jalpaiguri Districts, and to have crossed a great river supposed to be the Karatōya by a stone bridge of twenty arches, the site of which has not been identified. The rivers have completely changed their courses. The Tīsta, for instance, now a tributary of the Brahmaputra, formerly joined the Karatōya. He is depth reached 'the open country of Tibbat', but what that phrase may mean it is not easy to say. Beyond a certain point, perhaps to the north of darjeeling, he was unable to proceed, and was obliged to retreat. his starving force, finding the bridge broken, attempted to ford the river. All were drowned, except about a hundred including the leader, who struggled across somehow. Muhammad, overcome by shame and remorse, took to p225 his bed and died, or, according to another account, was assassinated.JJJ His death occurred in the Hijrī year 602, equivalent to A.D. 1205‑6. Early in the reign of Aurangzēb Mīr Jumla attempted to invade Assam and found nearly as disastrously as his predecessor had done. The mountains to the north of Bengal were never reduced to obedience by any Muhammadan sovereign.

Sultan Īltutmish. Ārām, the son of Kutbu‑d dīn, who succeeded to the throne, did not inherit his father's abilities, and was quickly displaced (1211) in favour of his sisters's husband, Īltutmish, corruptly called Altamsh, who assumed the title of Shamsu‑d dīn, 'the sun of religion'. Much of his time was spent in successful fighting with his rival slave chieftains, Yalduz and Kubācha. Before he died in 1236 he had reduced the greater part of Hindostan to subjection, more or less complete.

The Kutb Mīnār was built, except the basement story, under his direction about A.D. 1232. He made other important additions to the Kutb group of buildings, and is buried there in a beautiful tomb, 'one of the richest examples of Hindu art applied to Muhammadan purposes that Old Delhi affords'. Īltutmish is also responsible for a magnificent mosque at Ajmēr, built like that at Delhi from the materials of Hindu temples.

Chingiz Khān. In his days India narrowly escaped the most terrible of all possible calamities, a visit from Chingiz Khān, the dreaded Great Khān or Khākān of the Mongols.JJJ He actually advanced as far as the Indus, in pursuit of Jalālu‑d dīn Mankbarnī, the fugitive Sultan of Khwārizm or Khiva, who took refuge at the court of Delhi, after surprising adventures. The western Panjāb was plundered by the Mongol troopers, but no organized invasion of India took place. Chingiz Khān had some thoughts of going home to Mongolia through India and Tibet, and is said to have asked permitted to pass through the territories of Īltutmish; but happily he changed his mind and retired from Peshāwar.

p226 Chingiz Khān was the official title of the Mongol chieftain Temujin or Tamūrchi, born in 1162, who acquired ascendancy early in life over the tribes of Mongolia. About the beginning of the thirteenth century they elected him to be the head of their confederacy and he then adopted the style of Chingiz Khān, probably a corruption of a Chinese title. In the course of a few years he conquered a large portion of China and all the famous kingdoms of Central Asia. Balkh, Bokhara, Samarkand, Herāt, Ghaznī, and many other cities of renown fell under his merciless hand and were reduced to ruins. The vanquished inhabitants, men, women, and children, were slain literally in millions. To countries even to this day have not recovered from the effects of his devastations. He carried his victory hordes far into Russia to the bank of the Dnieper, and when he died in 1227 ruled a gigantic empire stretching from the Pacific to the Black Sea.

The author of the Tabakāt‑i Nāsirī, who admired a Muslim, but abhorred a heathen slayer of men, has drown a vivid sketch of the conquer, which iss worth quoting:

'Trustworthy persons have related that Chingiz Khān, at the time when he came into Khurāsān, was sixty-five [lunar] years old, a man of tall stature, of vigorous build, robust in body, the hair on his face scanty and turned white, with cat's eyes, possessed of great energy, discernment, genius, and understanding, awe‑striking, a buhr, just, resolute, an overthrower of enemies, intrepid, sanguinary, cruel.'

The author goes on to say that the Khān was an adept in magic, and befriended by devils. He would sometimes fall into a trance and then utter oracles dictated by the devils who possessed him. Perhaps, like Akbar, Peter the Great, and several other mighty men of old, he may have been an epileptic.

Sultan Raziyyatu‑d dīn. Sultan Īltutmish, knowing the incapacity of his surviving sons, had nominated his daughter Raziyya or Raziyyatu‑d dīn ('accepted by religion') as his successor.JJJ But the nobles thought that they knew better and placed on the throne Prince Ruknu‑d dīn, a worthless debauchee. After a scandalous reign of a few months he was put out of the way and replaced by his sister, who assumed the title of Sultan and did her best to play the part of a man. She took an active part in the wars with Hindus and rebel Muslim chiefs, riding an elephant in the sight of all men. But her sex was against her. She tried to compromise by marriage a chief who had opposed her in rebellion. Even that expedient did not save her. Both she and her husband were killed by certain Hindus. She had a troubled reign of more than three years. The author of the Tabakāt‑i Nāsirī, the only contemporary authority for the period, gives Sultan Raziyyatu‑d dīn a high character from his Muslim point of view. She was, he declares,

p227 'a great sovereign, and sagacious, just, beneficent, the patron of the learned, a dispenser of justice, the cherisher of her subjects, and of warlike talent, and was endowed with all the admirable attributes and qualifications necessary for kings; but as she did not attain the destiny in her creation of being computed among men, of what advantage were all these excellent qualifications unto her?'

Sultan Nāsiru‑d dīn. A son and grandson of Sultan Īltutmish were then successively enthroned. Both proved to be failures and were removed in favour of Nāsiru‑d dīn, a younger son of Īltutmish (1246), who managed to retain his life and office for twenty years. The historian, Minhāj‑i Sirāj, who has been quoted more than once, held high office under Nāsiru‑d dīn and called his book by his sovereign's name. His judgement of a liberal patron necessarily is biased, but no other contemporary authority exists, and we must be content with his version of the facts. So far as appears, the Sultan lived the life of a fanatical devotee, leaving the conduct of affairs in the hands of Ulugh Khān Balban, his father-in‑law and minister. 'At this time', the historian observes, 'many holy expeditions, as by creed enjoined, were undertaken, and much wealth came in from all parts.'

Mongol raids. The Mongols whom Chingiz Khān had left behind, or who crossed the frontier after his retirement, gave constant trouble during the reign. They had occupied and ruined Lahore in 1241‑2 and continued to make many inroads on Sind, including Multān. Nāsiru‑d dīn, who had no family, nominated Ulugh Khān Balban as his successor.JJJ

The nature of the warfare of the period is illustrated by the description of the campaign in Sirmūr, a hill state of the Panjāb, to the south of Simla.

'Ulugh Khān Azam, by stroke of sword, turned that mountain tract upside down, and pushed on through passes and defiles to Sirmūr, and devastated the hill-tract, and waged holy war as by the faith enjoined; overwhelm tract no sovereign had acquired power, and which no Musalmān army had ever before reached, and caused such a number of villainous Hindu rebels to be slain as cannot be defined or numbered, nor be contained in record nor in narration.'

Sultan Balban. Balban, as Elphinstone observes, 'being already in possession of all the powers of a king, found no difficulty in assuming the title.' He had been one of the 'Forty Slaves' attached to Sultan Īltutmish, most of whom attained to high positions. Balban's first care was to execute the survivors of the 40, in order to relieve himself of the dangers of rivalry. He had no regard for human life, and no scruples about shedding blood. He was, indeed, a 'ruthless king'. 'Fear and awe of him took possession of all men's hearts,' and he maintained such pomp and dignity at his court that all beholders were impressed with respect for his person. He never laughed. His justice, executed p228 without respect of persons, was stern and blood. He secured his authority in the provinces by an organized system of espionage, and spies who failed to report incidents of importance were hanged. He refused to employ Hindu officials. Before his accession he had put down the Mewātī brigands who infested the neighbourhood of Delhi with such severity that the country was quieted for sixty years.

The disgusting details must be quoted in order to show the character of the Sultan not age. after the army had successfully traversed the haunts of the robbers for twenty days, it returned to the capital with the prisoners in January 1260.

'By royal command many of the rebels were cast under the feet of elephants, and the fierce Turks cut the bodies state of things Hindus in two. About a hundred met their death at the hands of the flayers, being skinned from head to foot; their skins were all stuffed with straw, and some of them were hung over every gate of the city. The plain of Hauz-Rānī and the gates of Delhi remembered no punishment like this, nor had one ever heard such a tale of horror.'

Even after those cruelties the Mewātīs broke out again. Six months after the executions Ulugh Khān (Balban) once more invaded the hills by forced marches so as sto surprise the inhabitants (July 1260).

'He fell upon the insurgents unawares, and captured them all, to the number of twelve thousand — men, women, and children — whom he put to the sword. All their valleys and strongholds were overrun and cleared, and great booty captured. Thanks be to God for this victory of Islām!'

When quite an old man he spent three years in suppressing the rebellion in Bengal of a Turkī noble named Tughril who had dared to assume royal state. The rebel's family was exterminated, including the women and the little children. The country-side was terrified at the sight of the rows of gibbets set up in the streets of the provincial capital. The governorship of Bengal continued to be held by members of Balban's family until 1388, when the revolt occurred which resulted in the definite independence of the province. However horrible the cruelty of Balban may appear, it served its purpose and maintained a certain degree of order in rough times. When he died 'all security of life and property was lost, and no one had any confidence in the stability of the kingdom'.

Refugee princes. Balban's magnificent court was honoured by the presence of fifteen kings and princes who had fled to Delhi for refuge from the horrors of the Mongol devastations. No other Muhammadan court remained open to them. Many eminent p329 literary men, the most notable being Amīr Khusrū the poet, were associated with the refugee pers. The Sultan's main anxiety was caused by the fear of a Mongol invasion on a large scale, which prevented him from undertaking conquests of new territory. His eldest and best loved son was killed in a fight with the heathens. That sorrow shook the strong constitution of Balban, the 'wary old wolf, who had held possession of Delhi for sixty years'. He died in 1286 at an advanced age.

Sultan Kaikobād. Balban left no heir fit to succeed him. In those days no definite rule of succession existed and the nobles were accustomed to select whom they pleased by a rough election. Kaikobād, a grandson of Balban, aged about eighteen years, who was placed on the throne, although his father was living in Bengal, as governor of that province, disgraced himself by scandalous debauchery, and was removed after a short reign.

End of the Slave Kings. Balban's hopes of establishing a dynasty were thus frustrated, and the stormy rule of the Slave Kings came to an end. They were either fierce fanatics or worthless debauchees. The fanatics possessed the merits of courage and actively in warfare, with a rough sense of justice when dealing with Muslims. Hindu idolaters and Mongol devil-worshippers had no rights in their eyes and deserved no fate better than to be 'sent to hell'. The Sultan took no count of anybody except the small minority of Muhammadan followers on whose swords the existence of the dynasty depended. 'The army', says the historian, 'is the source and means of government.' Naturally such rulers made no attempt to sovereign the problems of civil government. Politically, they acquired a tolerably firm hold on the regions now called the Panjāb, the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, with Bihār, Gwālior, Sind, and some parts of Rājputāna and Central India. Their control of the Panjāb was disputed by the Mongols, from the time of Chingiz Khān (1221). Bengal was practically independent, although Balban's severities enforced formal submission to the suzerainty of Delhi and the occasional payment of tribute. Mālwā, Gujarāt, and all the rest of India continued to be governed by numerous hundred monarchs of widely varying importance to any the tragedies of the Sultanate were matters of indifference.

p229 Chronology

The Author's Notes:

A.D.
Sultan Muhammad of Ghōr (Ghōrī, with titles of Shihābu‑d dīn and Muizzu‑d dīn, son of Sām)
Occupied Multān and Ūchh	11175‑6
Defeated by Rājā of Gujarāt	1178
Deposed Khusrū Malik of Lahore	1187
First battle of Tarāin	1191
Second battle of Tarāin	1192
Reduction of Delhi, Benares, Bihār, &c.	1193‑7
Conquest of Bengal	1199‑1200
Capture of Kālanjar	1203
Death of the Sultan	1206
Sultans of Delhi; the Slave Kings
Kutbu‑d dīn Aibak or Ībak	1206
Ārām Shāh	1210
Īltutmish (Altamsh)	1211
Mongol invasion	1221, 1222
Death of Chingiz Khān	1227
Ruknu‑d dīn and Raziyyatu‑d dīn (Raziyya)	1236
Bahrām, &c.	1240
Nāsiru‑d dīn Mahmūd	1246
Ghiyāsu‑d dīn Balban	1266
Muizzu‑d dīn Kaikobād	1286
Murder of Kaikobād; end of dynasty	1290

3 The spelling of the name vars much. Howorth gives Chinghiz as the most correct form. Raverty used both Chingiz and Chingīz. The coin of a governor of Multān with the same name has zzz without dots or vowel marks. The Encycl. Brit. has the form Jenghiz, while Chambers gives Genghis. Chingiz seems to be the simplest and safest spelling. Mongol (Monggol) is the same word as Mughal (Mogul, &c.), but it is convenient to confine the term Mongol to the heathen followers of Chingiz, who were mostly 'narrow-eyed' people, reserving the term Mogul in its various spellings for the more civilized tribes, largely of Turkī blood, who became Muhammadans in the fourteenth century, and from whom sprang the Chagatāi or Jagatāi section of Turks to which Bābur and his successors in India belonged. The Turkī races ordinarily resemble Europeans in features, and have not the Mongolian 'narrow eyes' strongly marked, but Turks and Mongols intermarried freely, and the Mongol blood often asserted itself. It shows in the portraits of Akbar.

4 She also bore the title of Jalālu‑d dīn (Thomas, Chronicles, p138). Ibn Batuta gives her name simply as Raziyyat — his words are wa bintari tasmī Raziyyat (Defrémery, III.166).

5 Elphinstone's account of the reigns intervening between Īltutmish and Balban is incorrect in several particulars. Ibn Batuta alleges that Balban murdered Nāsiru‑d dīn.

The Muhammadan Powers
of Northern India

p217 Chapter 1

p229 Chronology

Authorities

The Author's Notes:

The Muhammadan Powers of Northern India

p217 Chapter 1

p229 Chronology

Authorities

The Author's Notes:

The Muhammadan Powers
of Northern India