Vincent Arthur Smith.

The Oxford student's history of India online

. (page 9 of 27)
Online LibraryVincent Arthur SmithThe Oxford student's history of India → online text (page 9 of 27)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

recalled to India by the revolt of the Khokhars, a powerful
tribe in the Central Panjab. Having ' set a river of blood
of those people flowing ', he started for Ghazm, and was
murdered on the road by a fanatic of the Mulahidah sect in
March, A.D. 1206:

The martyrdom of the sovereign of sea and land, Muizz-ud-dm,
From the beginning of the world the like of whom no monarch

On the third of the month Sha'ban in the year six hundred

and two,
Happened on the road to Ghazni at the halting-place of

Damyak. 1 (Dhamiak in Jihlam (Jhelum) District.)

Kutb-ud-dln Ibak as general and viceroy. The successes
gained in India by the arms of Muhammad of Ghor were
largely due to the ability of his general, Malik Kutb-ud-dm
Ibak, a native of Turkestan, who had been bought as a slave
by the sultan, and was stih 1 legally a slave when he subdued
Hindustan. He led the vanguard in the action of Chandwar
near Itawa, when Raja Jaichand of Kanauj was killed by an

1 Tabakat-i-Nasirl. This account by a contemporary should be accepted,
not that which appears in Elphinstone and the text-books. The Khokhars
usually are miscalled ' Gakkars ', who were a totally different tribe in the
Salt Range.


arrow which struck him in the eye. He then pushed on to
Benares and acquired a vast amount of booty. The sultan
having returned to Ghazni, Kutb-ud-din was left in charge of
the operations in India. The capture of Kalanjar was his
work, and on that occasion 50,000 captives were enslaved.
He next occupied Mahoba, the Chandel capital (ante, p. 92),
and thence returned to Delhi through Budaon. He received
the title of sultan from Sultan Ghiyas-ud-dm Mahmud, the
successor of Muhammad of Ghor on the throne of Ghor and

Kutb-ud-din Ibak as Sultan of Delhi. From this time
(A.D. 1208) Kutb-ud-din may be regarded as an independent
Indian sovereign, the first of the long line of the sultans of
Delhi. He strengthened his position by judicious matri-
monial alliances, himself marrying the daughter of Taj-ud-dm
Yilduz (Eldoz), a rival chief, who, like Kutb-ud-dm, had been
a slave ; giving his sister to Nasir-ud-dm Kubacha, another
slave, who became the lord of Sind ; and his daughter to
Iltutmish (Altamsh), governor of Bihar, and also a slave.
He died in the year A.H. 607 (A.D. 1210-11) from the effects of
a fall from his horse. ' His gifts', says the chronicler, 'were
bestowed by hundreds of thousands, and his slaughters
likewise were by hundreds of thousands.'

The Kutbi Mosque and Minar. During the period of his
viceroyalty, between the years A.D. 1193 and 1198, Kutb-ud-
din built the great mosque near Delhi, which was subsequently
enlarged by his son-in-law, the Sultan Iltutmish (Altamsh),
who also built the celebrated tower known as the Kutb Minar.
Both mosque and minar are called Kutbi, not because they
were built by Kutb-ud-dm Ibak, but because they are con-
secrated to the memory of the saint Kutb-ud-din Ushi, who
lies buried close by.

Conquest of Bihar. Kutb-ud-din Ibak was well served by
his lieutenant, Ikhtiyar-ud-din Muhammad, son of Bakhtyar,
a Khalj Turk, who is ordinarily called in the text-books
' Muhammad Bakhtiyar ', father and son being rolled into

FROM A.D. 1193 TO 1526 115

one. In or about A.D. 1197, several years after the fall of
Delhi, this officer secured the control of Bihar by a raid of
almost incredible audacity, seizing the fort of the town of
Bihar with a party of only two hundred horsemen. The
Buddhist monasteries, which still flourished under the patron-
age of the Pala kings (ante, p. 104), were destroyed, and the
monks killed or dispersed. The Muhammadan onslaught
extinguished the life of Buddhism in its old home and last
refuge. After this time the indications of the existence of
that religion anywhere in India are very slight.

Conquest of Bengal. Bengal was brought under Muslim
domination about two years later (A.D. ? 1199) with even
greater ease. The aged Sena king, Raja Lakhmaniya or
Lakshmana-sena, surprised in his capital of Nudiah (Nuddea,
Navadvipa) by a party of only eighteen horsemen, fled by
the back door and took refuge in the Dacca district, leaving
Nudiah to the fury of the conqueror, who sacked the town
and made Lakhnauti or Gaur the seat of his government.
Muhammad and his officers endowed mosques, colleges, and
Muhammadan monasteries in all parts of the kingdom, and
sent much booty to their chief, Kutb-ud-din.

Death of Muhammad, son of Bakhtyar. Some years later,
in A.D. 1204-5 (A.H. 601), Muhammad, the son of Bakhtyar,
rashly undertook to invade the mountains. He managed
to enter those beyond Darjeeling, but, being unable to secure
any safe foothold, was compelled to retreat. During the
retirement he lost almost all his force. Next year he was

The so-called ' Pat ban dynasties ' and ' Pat han empire ' .
The sultans of Delhi, beginning with Kutb-ud-dln in 1206,
ending with Ibrahim Lodi in 1526, and including the Sur
claimants up to 1556, are often erroneously called the ' Pa than
kings ', and their rule is designated the ' Pathan empire '.
But, as a matter of fact, only the sultans of the Lodi and
Sur families were Pathans (properly Patans), that is to say,
Afghans. Kutb-ud-din and the other so-called Slave Kings


were natives of Turkestan, of Turkish blood. The sultans of
the Khalji (Khilji) dynasty also were Turks. The Tughlak
sultans seem to have been of mixed Turkish and Hindu blood,
and the so-called Sayyid princes claimed Arab descent from
the prophet Muhammad.

Sultan Iltutmish (Altamsh). Aram, the adopted son of
Kutb-ud-dm, succeeded him, but proved incapable, and was
soon replaced (A.D. 1211) by Shams-ud-dm Iltutmish (Altamsh
&c., of the text-books), governor of Bihar. The new sultan
had to fight and overcome his brother slaves Taj-ud-dm
Yilduz (lyalduz) and Nasir-ud-dm Kubacha. He compelled
the successors of Muhammad, the son of Bakhtyar, in Bengal
to acknowledge his authority. After some more fighting in
various directions Iltutmish died in May 1236, and was buried
beside the mosque which he had enlarged and the minar
which he had built at Delhi.

Sultan Razlyah (Raziyyat-nd-din). Rukn-ud-din, son of
Iltutmish, a worthless fellow, ' whose inclinations were wholly
towards buffoonery, sensuality, and diversion ', was deposed
after seven months of misrule, his place being taken by his
sister Raziyyat-ud-din, commonly called Raziyah, a capable
sovereign, whose chief fault seems to have been her sex.
' Sultan Raziyyat may she rest in peace ! was 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 com-
puted among men, of what advantage were all these excellent
qualifications unto her ? ' She tried to secure her throne
by submitting to marriage with a turbulent Turk! chief,
but other nobles, who would not endure a woman's rule,
defeated her in October, A.D. 1240, after a disturbed reign
of three and a half years. She and her husband were killed
by certain Hindus.

Sultan Nasir-ud-dln Mahmud. She was followed by two

FROM A. D. 1193 TO 1526


insignificant princes, and in 1246 Nasir-ud-dm Mahmud, one
of her brothers, became sultan of Delhi. He was a quiet,
studious man, ill fitted for rule in such times, but managed
to retain his throne for twenty years by the help of an able
slave minister, Ulugh Khan, otherwise called Ghiyas-ud-dm


Balban, whose daughter was married to the sultan, and who
fought hard throughout his master's reign to establish the
Muslim supremacy in Hindustan. The Tabakat-i-Nasiri,
a valuable history by Minhaj-i-Siraj, the chief Kazi, was
written in this reign and derives its name from the sultan.
Some quotations from it are made in this work.

Sultan Ghiyas-ud-dm Balban. ' Balban, being already in
possession of all the powers of king, found no difficulty in


assuming the title.' He was nearly sixty years of age when
he ascended the throne, but age had not quenched his vigour.
He proved himself to be a strong ruler, severe and even cruel
in his punishments, and utterly regardless of bloodshed. The
Mewatis near Delhi gave him much trouble, and were chastised
with merciless ferocity. His principal military operation was
the suppression of a revolt in Bengal. His court was adorned
by many princely fugitives from various kingdoms of Asia
then devastated by the Mongol hordes, and he was a liberal
patron of Persian literature, and especially of Amir Khusru,
the poet.

The Mongols (Mughals of the Syllabus). 1 A young Mongol
chief named Temujin, born in 1162, gradually acquired
supreme power among the nomads of the steppes, and was
elected as their sovereign with the title of Chinghiz Khan,
by which (with various corruptions) he is generally known.
Having made himself master of Mongolia, Northern China,
and Turkestan he fell with his savage hordes upon the king-
dom of Khwarizm (Khiva), sacked Bukhara, Samarkand,
Merv, and other cities, destroying the inhabitants by millions.
The murderous conqueror and his generals then overran the
country now called Afghanistan, sacked what remained of
Ghazm, stormed Herat, and even occupied Peshawar. Jalal-
ud-din, the Shah of Khwarizm, who had fled before the Khan,
attempted to make a stand on the Indus, but was defeated,
and fled to Delhi, where he was received by the sultan (1221,
1222). The Khan thought of returning to Mongolia through

1 Mongol (or, more strictly, Monggol) and Mughal (Mogul, &c.) really are
only different forms of the same word, the nasalized g being represented in
Arabic by ghain. But it is convenient and desirable for a historian of India
to apply the term Mongol to the ' narrow-eyed ' and heathen nomads who
formed the bulk of the hordes led by Chinghiz Khan, and to restrict the
term Mughal to the section of the Muhammadan Turks represented by
Babur and his successors. The Turks and Mongols often associated and
intermarried, and Babur himself, a Turk on the father's side, was of Mongol
descent on the mother's side. The Turks resemble Europeans (Aryans) in
physique, and are not ' narrow-eyed '.

FROM A. D. 1193 TO 1526 119

India and Assam, and even asked the permission of Sultan
Iltutmish to do so, but happily desisted from his purpose,
and India was spared the unspeakable horrors which befell
Central Asia, and from the effects of which those regions
have never recovered. Raids by bodies of Mongol troops
long continued, and gave much anxiety to the Sultan Ghiyas-
ud-din Balban, whose eldest son was killed in battle with
them. The death of this son, who became known as the
Martyr Prince, deeply affected Balban, then about eighty
years of age, and hastened his end. On the west the Mongol
hordes penetrated into Europe as far as the Dnieper in

Sultan Kaikobad ; end of Slave Kings. When Balban died
in 1287 he was succeeded on the throne of Delhi by his grand-
son Kaikobad (Muizz-ud-dm), a good-for-nothing, debauched
youth. Some Turkish chiefs of the Khalj or Khilji tribe put
him out of the way, and raised to the throne one of them-
selves, by name Jalal-ud-din. Thus ended in (A.H. 689)
A.D. 1290 l the dynasty of the Turkish Slave-Sultans of Delhi,
which had begun with Kutb-ud-dm Ibak in 1206.

Muhammadan Conquest of Hindustan.

Sultan Muhammad of Ghor (Ghori, Shihab-ud-dln, Muizz- A.D.


Occupied Uchh in Sind "", 7 '" ','. . . 1175-6

Defeated by Raja of Gujarat .... 1178-9

Deposed Khusru Malik of Lahore .... 1186 or 1187

First battle of Tarain 1191

Second battle of Tarain 1192

Reduction of Delhi, Kanauj, Benares, and Bihar . 1193-7

Conquest of Bengal 1199 or 1200

Capture of Anhilwara . .... . . 1197

Capture of Kalanjar 1203

Death of the sultan 1206

1 Elphinstone's date, A.D. 1288 = A.H. 687, as given by Firishtah, is


The Sultans of Delhi.

The. Slave Kings.

Kutb-ud-din Ibak . . ace. 1206 (mosque at Delhi)

Aram Shah .... ace. 1210

Iltutmish (Altamsh) . . ace. 1211 (Mongol invasion, 1221, 1222)
Rukn-ud-dln and Razlyah . ace. 1236
Bahrain, &c. . . . ace. 1240

Nasir-ud-din Mahmud . . ace. 1246 (Tabakdt-i-Ndsin)
Balban (Ghiyas-ud-dm) . . ace. 1266
Kaikobad (Muizz-ud-din) . ace. 1286 or 1287

killed 1290


The Khilji sultans of Delhi : Ala-ud-dln ; the Tughlak dynasty.

Jalal-ud-din Khilji. Sultan Jalal-ud-din was an old man
seventy years of age when he was called to undertake the rule
of Hindustan. A famine occurred in A.D. 1291, of such
severity that the historian records that multitudes of Hindus,
' from excess of hunger and want ', drowned themselves in the
Jumna. Jalal-ud-din conducted an indecisive campaign in
Malwa, and, like his predecessors, had to defend his realm
against incursions of the Mongols (Mughals of the Muham-
madan writers). His forces repelled them from Lahore, and
three thousand of the nomads, who surrendered, became
Muhammadans and entered the service of the sultan, who
allotted them for residence a suburb of Delhi, thence called
Mughalpur. Jalal-ud-din, being far advanced in years, left
most of the fighting to be done by his brother's son, Ala-ud-dm,
who was also his son-in-law.

Expedition of Ala-ud-dln to the Deccan. The first attack
by the armies of Islam on the countries to the south of the
Narbada was made in A.D. 1294 by Ala-ud-dm, who marched
seven hundred miles into Berar and Khandesh, and compelled
Raja Ramachandra-deva, the Yadava ruler of Deogiri and the
Western Deccan (ante, p. 95), to surrender Elichpur with its
dependencies. Immense booty was brought to Delhi.

Murder of Jalal-ud-din. Ala-ud-dm was on bad terms with

FROM A. D. 1193 TO 1526 121

his wife, the daughter of the sultan, as well as with her mother,
and this domestic feud may have influenced him in his
treachery to his uncle, who trusted him blindly, and would
listen to no warnings. However that may be, the old man
was persuaded to place himself in the power of Ala-ud-din at
Kara in the Allahabad district during the month of Ramazan,
A.H. 695 (July 1296), and was there foully murdered as he
clasped his nephew's hand.

Ala-ud-din Khilji. The army, won over ' by the hope of
the red gold ' which Ala-ud-dm distributed lavishly, condoned
the crime and accepted the murderer as sultan. The sons
and various relatives and adherents of the old monarch were
massacred, and the usurper's throne thus secured. During
his reign the Mongols entered India no less than five times,
but were always repulsed. The last repulse in 1303, when
they threatened Delhi, was so effectual that ' from that day
the Mughals lost their enthusiasm for the conquest of Hindu-
stan, and the teeth of their ambition became blunted '.
Ala-ud-din found the Mongol converts to Islam troublesome,
and had a general massacre of them carried out under secret
orders on a fixed day in A.D. 1297. He captured the strong
fortresses of Ranthambhor and Chitor in Rajputana.

Malik Kafur 's conquest of the south. The most notable
events of the reign are the campaigns conducted in the south
by Malik Kafur, a slave eunuch high in the sultan's favour.
During the many ages since the time of Samudragupta no
northern army seems to have entered the south, except that
led into Khandesh and Berar by Ala-ud-din in 1294, during
his uncle's reign. These southern campaigns lasted from
A.D. 1302 to 1311, and in the course of his operations Malik
Kafur overran the Yadava kingdom of Deogiri, the Hoysala
kingdom of Mysore (Dorasamudra), and the Tamil states of
the Far South (ante, p. 96). Musalman governors were
established on the Ma'abar, or Coromandel coast. The
southern currency was then exclusively in gold, of which
metal enormous treasures were brought to the capital.


Buildings at Delhi. The sultan employed the wealth thus
gained in extensive building operations at Delhi, where he
formed a new city called Sir!, enlarged the Kutbi mosque, and
erected a noble gateway. The savagery of the times is illus-
trated by the remark of Amir Khusru, concerning the new
fortress at Delhi : ' It is a condition that in a new building
blood should be sprinkled ; he therefore sacrificed some
thousands of goat-bearded Mughals for the purpose '. He
began a huge minar intended to outshine the creation of
Iltutmish, but the work was soon stopped.

Death and character of Ala-ud-dm. Towards the close of
his reign the sultan's health was impaired, and he became the
prey of unjust suspicions of others, while placing implicit
confidence in the eunuch Kafur, who is suspected of having
hastened his end. He died in January, A. D. 1316. Ala-ud-
din was a fierce despot of the Central Asian type illiterate,
arrogant, fanatical, cruel, and sanguinary. He was an able
general, and, in times when sultans were not expected to be
merciful, was reputed a capable sovereign. He liked to be con-
sidered a ' second Alexander ', and used that title in his coin
legends. His internal policy was characterized by many
arbitrary and vexatious regulations, which died with him.
As regards the Hindus, the bulk of his subjects, his policy was
to ' grind them down ' and reduce them to poverty.

Kutb-ud-dm Mubarak. Malik Kafur tried to retain power
by placing on the throne an infant son of the deceased sultan,
but the minister was promptly assassinated, and an adult son
of Ala-ud-dm's, by name Kutb-ud-dln Mubarak, was made
sultan. At first he showed some energy, marching into the
Deccan and defeating Harapala, the Yadava Raja of Deogiri,
whom he cruelly flayed alive. On his return he gave himself
up to filthy sensuality, and allowed a low-born Hindu convert,
Khusru Khan, to mismanage state affairs. In 1320 this
minister murdered his worthless master and seized the throne.
He tried to organize a Hindu reaction during his brief tenure
of power, but had not the personal qualities deserving of sue-

FROM A. D. 1193 TO 1526 123

cess. Four months later he paid the penalty of his ill deeds,
and was himself killed by Fakhr-ud-din Juna Khan, son of
Ghazi Khan (or Malik or Beg) Tughlak, governor of the Panjab.
Ghazi Khan was invited by the nobles to assume the royal
power, and, in 1320 (A. H. 720), became sultan under the style
of Ghiyas-ud-din.

The Tughlak dynasty ; Ghiyas-ud-din. The new sovereign
is said to have been the son of a Turk slave of the Sultan
Balban by a Hindu Jat mother. Certainly he was not a
' Pathan '. During his reign of four years he won a good
reputation as an administrator, and reduced to a certain
amount of obedience the Muhammadan princes who then ruled
Bengal and Eastern Bengal in practical independence. In
February, A.D. 1325 (A. H. 725), he was killed by the fall of
a pavilion erected for his reception by his son Fakhr-ud-din
Juna. There is good reason for believing that the l accident '
was caused intentionally.

Muhammad Adil, son of Tughlak. No opposition was made
to the assumption of power by Juna, who is generally known
to history as Muhammad, son of (bin) Tughlak. He enjoyed
a long reign of twenty-six years, and during the earlier part
of it controlled twenty-three provinces, a dominion far larger
than that of any of his predecessors. But the empire never
was at rest ; no sooner was one section brought back to its
allegiance than another would seek to assert its independence,
and by the end of Muhammad's reign it was falling to pieces.

A vein of insanity ran through the sultan's character, which
is rightly described by Badaoni as ' a mixture of opposites '.
His natural great abilities were constantly perverted, and he
could not resist indulgence in mad schemes, which ruined his
people and shook the throne. In spite of all, he died in his
bed ; as the historian observes, ' at length disease overcame
him, and the sultan was freed from his people, and the people
from their sultan.' This deliverance was accomplished in
March, A. D. 1351, near Tatta (Thattah) in Sind, where the
sultan was engaged, as usual, in the pursuit of rebels.


Transfer of capital to Daulatabad. One of the maddest of
his schemes was the transfer of the capital from Delhi to
Deogiri in the Deccan, which he renamed Daulatabad. The
tyrant's order was carried out with such ruthless completeness
that Delhi ' became so deserted that there was not left even a
dog or a cat in the city '. Ibn Batuta, the contemporary
traveller, found Delhi ' almost a desert ', and tells a gruesome
story that, the sultan's ' servants finding a blind man in one of
the houses and a bedridden man in another, the emperor com-
manded the bedridden man to be projected from a balista, and
the blind one to be dragged by his feet to Daulatabad, which
is at the distance of ten days, and he was so dragged ; but his
limbs dropping off by the way, only one of his legs was brought
to the place intended, and was then thrown into it ; for the
order had been that they should go to this place '. The un-
happy people were afterwards forced to return to Delhi.

Other mad schemes ; cruelty. The sultan aspired to the
fame of a universal conqueror, and accordingly collected a vast
army for the subjugation of Persia, which dispersed without
effecting anything beyond pillage of his subjects. Again,
he thought to subdue China and sent 100,000 men into the
Himalayas, where 80,000, mostly cavalry, perished miserably.
In order to provide funds for his schemes of world-wide con-
quest, he tried to force people to take copper or brass money as
silver, engraving upon it the legend, ' He who obeys the sultan,
truly, he obeys God '. But, of course, the scheme failed in
practice, 'till at last copper became copper, and silver, silver',
while heaps of the brass coins lay at Tughlakabad (a Delhi fort) ,
'and had no more value than stones'. His administration,
which he believed to be the perfection of justice, was so cruel
and sanguinary that ' there was constantly in front of his royal
pavilion and his civil court a mound of dead bodies and a heap
of corpses, while the sweepers and executioners were weary of
dragging the wretched victims and putting them to death in
crowds. So that the people were never tired of rebelling, nor
the king of punishing '. He also committed frightful massacres

FROM A. D. 1193 TO 1526 125

on a large scale, and is said to have organized man-hunts,
driving men and women like game to the slaughter.

Ruin of the empire. In the earlier days of his reign Muham-
mad had completed the reduction of the Deccan and brought
it into some sort of order like the home provinces. But Bengal
secured its independence about 1340, and before the end of
the reign the Deccan, conquered with so much difficulty, had
shaken off its allegiance.

Character of Muhammad bin Tughlak. Mr. E. Thomas has
fairly summed up this ' mixture of opposites ' by describing
him as ' learned, merciless, religious, and mad '. He was elo-
quent, accomplished, skilled in Arabic, Persian, logic, mathe-
matics, and Greek philosophy. He abstained from strong
drink, the ruin of so many kings of Delhi, led a moral life,
and was distinguished for his personal gallantry. But all these
fine qualities were more than neutralized by his savage temper
and insane ambitions, so that his reign stands out as one of the
most calamitous in Indian history.


Decline of the sultanate of Delhi : Firoz and the other successors of
Muhammad bin Tughlak ; Timur; the Lodi dynasty.

Firoz Shah Tughlak. Flroz, the first cousin and designated
heir of Sultan Muhammad Adil, was invited by the nobles
present atThattah to accept the crown and rescue the state.
Firoz accepted his election with great reluctance. As soon as
possible, and with much difficulty, he brought back the army
to the capital. Three years later he built the new city of
Fir5zabad near Delhi. The sultan's principal interest lay in
building and the carrying out of public works. Firoz Shah's
name is now chiefly remembered for the system of canals which
he constructed for the supply of water from both the Jumna
and the Sutlaj. Although most of these works have been
obliterated by changes in the courses of the rivers and other


causes, one of them still exists in a modified form and does good
service as the Western Jumna canal.

Events of his reign. In 1356 Flr5z Shah held the whole

Online LibraryVincent Arthur SmithThe Oxford student's history of India → online text (page 9 of 27)