Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Foundation of Muslim Rule in India: A History of the Establishment and Progress of the Turkish Sultanate of Delhi, 1206–1290 A.D. c12: Chapter VIII. Kaiqubad and Kaiumars: 1287-1290

The Foundation of Muslim Rule in India: A History of the Establishment and Progress of the Turkish Sultanate of Delhi, 1206–1290 A.D. c12

Language
English

Chapter VIII. Kaiqubad and Kaiumars: 1287-1290

c12.2

It is useless to speculate on the possible result of Kaikhusrau's accession, for, immediately after Balban's death, he was sent off to Multan to which he had been appointed to succeed his father¹. Fakh-ruddin and his people are reported to have had some private quarrel with the prince Muhammad and so were unwilling, despite Balban's last request, to allow his son to ascend the throne, "lest harm came to them"². Malik Beksariq, the *wazir* Hasan Basri, and the *dabir*, who opposed this arbitrary measure, were imprisoned by the *kotwal's* party and eventually exiled³. Bughra Khan's son, Kaiqubad, was then given the title of Muizzuddin and was raised to the throne⁴.

c12.3

¹ Barani, p. 110.

c12.4

² Barani p. 122. He says to describe the quarrel in detail would involve the disclosure of domestic secrets.

c12.5

³ TM, p. 22.

c12.6

⁴ Barani, p. 127, and Haji Dabir, II, p. 738, wrongly date the event in 685/1286, but Amir Khusrau: *Qiranus-Sadain*, p. 27, places Kaiqubad's accession in 686, which date is copied in the *TM*, p. 52; see Elliot, III, p. 525; for Kaiqubad's earliest coin dated 686, see Wright, p. 63; Balban's coins, however, cease with 685/1286.

c12.7

Barani seems to forget his old age when he describes the gay and care free life that marked the young king's reign. The prince, then in his 18th year, had been brought up under the strict care and vigilance of his grandfather. He was gifted with charming manners and accomplishments and possessed of refined taste for poetry and music.

c12.8

During adolescence, the puritannical Balban allowed him no opportunity for tasting the pleasures of life; "he could not glance at a fair face or drain a goblet of wine"¹. Now suddenly, and quite unexpectedly, in the most critical period of a man's life, he found himself absolute master not only of his own actions but of a rich and prosperous kingdom. The usual result followed; his pent-up desires and preferences found expression in unbridled indulgence in wine, women and gaiety. The court became full of buffoons, musicians and dancers. Citizens and courtiers, whose yearning for sensual pleasures remained unsatisfied under the austere Balban, also followed suit and Delhi became a flourishing mart for wine, musicians and dancing girls who flocked from all parts of the kingdom. Persuit of pleasure became the rule of life and even men of letters and learning were obliged to earn appreciation by paying their quota of poetry, wit, and humour to merry parties. Kaiqubad gave up residing in the old city and built himself a new palace at Kilokhri, a few miles down the Jumna². The courtiers also shifted there, and soon the placed teemed with new buildings and with people of all descriptions. Barani remarks, perhaps with no little exaggeration, that during the three years of Kaiqubad's rule the people had no other work but to seek merriment and invent newer forms of pleasure. As the personal popularity of the young Sultan increased, the governmental measures of the late king became less in evidence. The administration was left to shift for itself and to the successful intriguer.

c12.9

¹ Barani, p. 128.

c12.10

² *Ibid*, p. 130. The place was already growing as a suburb and as early as the reign of Nasiruddin Mahmud, it was known as the *Shahr-i-Nau*; Raverty: *Trans. Tab. Nas.* p. 634. For a description of Kaiqubad's palace see Amir Khusrau: *op. cit.*, p. 24-44.

c12.11

The description of Kaiqubad’s merry parties occupy most of Barani’s account of the reign; behind the gaity, however, was the inevitable intriguer. On his accession, following the customary procedure, Kaiqubad confirmed the old officers. Among the promotions was that of the deputy *wazir*, Khwaja Khatir who received the vacant office of Hasan Basri. Among new appointments were those of Malik Tuzaki the private chamberlain, Malik Jawarji the *Sar-i-Jandar*, and of Malik Qiwamuddin, the chief secretary, the latter receiving the additional post of the deputy chief of the royal household (*naib-i-wakil-i-dar*). An appointment which proved to have the greatest consequence for Kaiqubad, was that of Malik Nizamuddin, the son-in-law of the *kotwal* Fakhruddin, who became the chief magistrate of the capital (*dad-bak*)¹.

c12.12

¹ TM, p. 53; Barani, p. 131.

c12.13

An ambitious man with an innate aptitude for intrigue, Nizamuddin soon warmed himself in the Sultan’s confidence. Although he held only a judicial post, Barani states, he soon made himself into a *de facto naib-i-mamlikat*, and assumed control over all state departments. He possessed the virtues of a shrewd and able administrator and Barani gives him the entire credit for maintenance of law and order during the gay king’s rule². He sent his wife to reside in the place and to assume control of the Sultan’s *harem*. By virtue of his relation with the *kotwal*, the most influential man in the city, Nizamuddin wielded undisputed authority and most of the courtiers found it prudent to profess attachment to him.

c12.14

² Barani, p. 168.

c12.15

Barani regrets that such an able administrator should have yielded to the temptation of wearing the crown.

c12.16

To every thinking man, however, a dynastic change was only a matter of time and Nizamuddin's ambition was no crime. Balban's children had proved themselves utterly unworthy of his crown; the state needed strong, courageous men, not the timid Bughra Khan or the pleasure-loving Kaiqubad. Mongol attacks had been recurring with increased frequency. The need for a militarist king was more urgent than before and sentimental consideration for dynastic legitimacy could claim no precedence. Nizamuddin probably was no soldier, but the arguments of his father-in-law who tried to dissuade him from his designs, on the ground that "he did not belong to the race of kings" were certainly no justification for the continuance on the throne of an effete dynasty¹.

c12.17

¹ Barani, pp. 135-138.

c12.18

Nizamuddin pursued his game with undiminished vigour, and proceeded to weed out his rivals systematically. Kaikhusrau was likely to prove an obstacle; so he was summoned from Multan and was murdered on the way at Rhotak under Kaiqubad's order, issued in a fit of drunkenness². This foul deed left no doubt as to Nizamuddin's traitorous design; his unscrupulous nature inspired terror in the heart of every man of note. The *wazir*, Khwaja Khatir, already bereft of his authority as the chief executive officer of the state, was next disgraced. A colony of Mongol converts who had settled in Delhi in Balban's reign, and who were related to many of the influential men of Balban's party, were likewise imprisoned and slain on a trumped-up charge of sedition. Among them were officers of note, including the *sar-i-jandar* and the *amir-i-hajib*; their vacant offices Nizamuddin now filled with more dependable men¹. The Sultan, now completely under the control of Nizamuddin's wife, refused to listen to any complaint against him. The dynastic change thus began to be openly talked about and Kaiqubad's deposition became only a question of time.

c12.19

² *Ibid*, p. 133.

c12.20

¹ Barani, p. 132. TM, p. 53 states, the Sultan, six months after his accession, wanted to seize some of the new Mussalman amirs, and accordingly in a Darbar held to announce a victory over the Mongols in Multan, Nizamuddin was ready with his retainers. As the amir-i-hajib, the wakil-i-dar, the naib-i-barbak, the sar-i-jandar, and the akhurbak came to offer congratulations, they were all seized and with the exception of two who were exiled, all were executed

c12.21

Fate, as Barani remarks, however was to provide a different instrument for the execution of this historical task, for Nizamuddin was not destined to reap the fruit of his labour. In Lakhnauti, Bughra Khan had assumed sovereignty after Balban's death², but, though aiming at separate political existence, he could not remain indifferent to the happenings at Delhi. Some writers even ascribe to him a readiness to press his claim to his father's throne, even if only to counteract Nizamuddin. Kaiqubad's headlong march to self-destruction seems to have at last awakened the family shirker to a sense of his dynastic interests. He had kept himself fully informed of his son's doings and carried on a constant correspondence with Delhi; his letters carried advice, admonition, and warning but his son, completely under the spell of his nemesis, showed no signs of improvement. At last Bughra decided to see him and asked for an interview. This was granted and a meeting was arranged on the banks of the Sarju river in Awadh³. It is difficult to be certain as to Bughra Khan's motives; whether it was solely a filial affection that prompted him to this course is a point on which early writers are not unanimous. Like all others he unmistakeably saw the impending doom of his father’s dynasty and it is not unlikely that, remembering at last his father’s wishes, he wanted to reclaim the throne: this, at least, is the interpretation put to his action by Amir Khusrau and a few later writers¹.

c12.22

² Barani, p. 139; TM, p. 54. No coin of Bughra has yet been discovered.

c12.23

³ Barani p. 140.

c12.24

¹ Qiranus Sadain, p. 34-35: Ibn Battuta: Rahla, II, p. 29; TM, p. 54. See also TA, I, p. 107.

c12.25

Whatever his real motive, Bughra certainly marched with his army and encamped on the eastern bank of the Sarju. Kaiqubad also started in full military array and after a leisurely march arrived to pitch his camp on the opposite bank.

c12.26

This display of military power may only have been a precautionary measure but Nizamuddin, instinctively, foresaw the probable effect on the young king of a meeting with his long-separated father, and tried his best to bring about an armed conflict. It was only through the earnest endeavours of some of the loyal adherents of Balban’s family that this was averted. Nizamuddin persuaded the king to impose rigid and humiliating ceremonials on Bughra; he was required to cross over and do obeisance to his son, the successor to Balban’s throne and the Lord Paramount of India. Following a protracted exchange of arguments and threats, during which the peace-makers were hard put to avert a rupture, paternal affection got the better of Bughra’s sense of dignity and he agreed to pay homage to the Sultan of Delhi². The meeting that followed is one of the tenderest episodes in medieval history and has furnished the theme of one of the celebrated poems of Amir Khusrau. Kaiqubad affected a stony dignity and with kingly unconcern looked on as his father, bowing and kissing the ground, approached the throne and prostrated himself at his feet; but at the end he broke down and threw himself at Bughra’s feet and in tears, which melted the heart of all the spectators, conducted him to the throne. They remained together for some days, during which Bughra advised his son to mend his ways, to live up to his family traditions and to save himself from the destruction which his conduct was bringing upon him. At the last meeting, in the style of Balban, he instructed him as to the art of administration and, while parting, whispered an advice to get rid of evil counsellers like Nizamuddin¹. After a final exchange of presents, the two parted, the father convinced that he had seen the last of his son, and Kaiqubad, impulsively determined to carry out his father’s advice.

c12.27

² See JASB, 1860, pp. 225-38, for abridged translation of the Qiranus Sadain where a full account is given of the messages exchanged. Bughra sent his younger son Kaikaus to Kaiqubad as a hostage while the later sent his infant son, Kaiumars. For the whole episode see TM, pp. 54-55; Barani, pp. 142-156.

c12.28

¹ Barani, p. 156; Qiranus-Sadain, pp. 154 rand 160.

c12.29

For some stages he never touched wine or looked at the numerous courtesans who accompanied the party; but at the end, on the advances of a particularly enticing beauty, his half-hearted resolution gave way. Before he reached Kilokhri he was again a drunken debauch and worse than ever².

c12.30

² Barani, p. 164. Cf. Ibn Battuta: Rahlah II, p. 29, who erroneously states that Bughra accompanied Kaiqubad to Delhi on this occasion.

c12.31

Nizamuddin continued his game. Malik Shahak, Jawarji’s successor as the *amir-i-hajib* and the governor of Multan who had lately earned fame and honour in victory over the Mongols, seemed to be increasing in power and so drew his unwelcome attention. The Malik had to flee to the hills in the north where a few of the other nobles, similarly apprehensive, joined him. Being sincerely loyal to the Sultan he returned in obedience to

c12.32

Nizamuddin's death.

c12.33

orders, but was immediately imprisoned, and, later, executed¹. A similar treatment was meted out to Tuzaki, the recently appointed army minister and the governor of Baran. But, as Barani remarks, his every move only cleared the path of the Khaljis². Before Nizamuddin could execute his final plan, Kaiqubad suddenly remembered his father's advice and ordered him to proceed to Multan to succeed Kaikhusrau. Aware of the Sultan's real intentions, he tried to find excuses and delayed departure; whereupon his enemies, divining the Sultan's mind, poisoned him³. His death undoubtedly freed Kaiqubad from imminent assasination, but it also removed the only capable administrator he possessed. The state as a result lost whatever order it had. The impulsive king never remembered or at least never acted up to the other part of his father's counsel. It was in any case too late, for the effects of unrestrained drinking and debauchery now laid him low with paralysis⁴.

c12.34

¹ *TM*, p. 55.

c12.35

² Barani, p. 134, pp. 138-39.

c12.36

³ Barani, p. 170. Isami p. 192-94, says that Nizamuddin once poisoned the Sultan's drink but the latter detected it and the culprit himself was made to die of this.

c12.37

⁴ Barani, p. 171; *TM*, p. says he was afflicted with *falij* and *laqwah*: Isami also supports this; p. 194, verse No. 3805.

c12.38

Barani states that after Nizamuddin's death many of the old officers and supporters of Balban's family whom he had kept away, returned and joined the administration. But, he adds, order was never restored; since none of the aspiring officers who now pressed their claim to the highest executive post, was powerful enough to impose his will on the others, the government lost all cohesion and strength. In the palace, Malik Aitaman and Malik Surkha, the new incumbents in the posts of *amir-i-hajib* and *barbak*, held supreme power, and since they had the Sultan in their charge, were in a position to use his name for their actions. In the vacancy caused by the execution of Tuzaki, Kaiqubad had appointed Malik Firoz Khalji, formerly the *sar-i-jandar* and the governor of Samana¹. Firoz held the title of Shaista Khan² and was a powerful man; not only was the army under his charge, but he was also the head of a very numerous and influential clan scattered all over the kingdom. Between him and the *de facto* rulers in the palace, no love was lost and the allegedly non-Turkish origin of Firoz added to the causes of dissension and to the consequent anarchy.

c12.39

¹ *TM*, p. 56, calls him by his Turkish name of Firoz Yaghrash Khalji; see Isami, p. 195-196, for an unconfirmed story of how, with his brother, Firoz (Isami calls him Shahabuddin) came to Delhi and was appointed governor of Babel (?) from where on the instigation of his enemies, Kaiqubad ordered him to be brought in chains to Delhi. On his way a Sufi congratulated him on his future greatness. On arrival at Delhi, the king at once pardoned, and what is more, gave him the office of *ariz* and the title of Imadul Mulk

c12.40

² *TM*, p. 56; Barani, p. 170, writes the title as Siyasat Khan.

c12.41

Owing to their long separation from their homeland the Khaljis who, at least from the 10th century, were known to have dwelt in the Helmand valley and then in Lamghan, were consequently not regarded as Turks by the new immigrants from Turkestan. Early chroniclers considered them a separate people and hence the Turcophile party of Balban and the citizens of Delhi affected to despite them as non-Turks³. The appointment of Firoz to the important post of army minister (*ariz*) and the resultant advancement of his people, therefore, created great dissatisfaction among those who sought to preserve the exclusively Turkish compositin of the government. The jealousy of Surkha and Kacchan had also to be reckoned with. As in the case of Rayhan nearly fifty years ago, a move was accordingly initiated under their leadership to eliminate all non-Turkish officers. A list of such men as were to be exterminated was drawn up in-secret. The attempt was a logical culmination of Balban's racialism; so prominently had he identified himself with this policy that the preservation of his dynasty was considerhed essential for its continued application¹.

c12.42

³ For the origin of the Khaljis as to whose Turkish origin modern scholars are in general agreement, see Raverty: *tran. Tab, Nas.*, p. 548: *JASB*, 1875; *Encyclopaedia of Islam*, article on Khalji; *BLSOS*, 1940 pp. 417-34.

c12.43

¹ Haji Dabir II, p. 750; Barani, p. 181.

c12.44

In order to obtain royal sanction to the proposed list of the condemned men which Kaiqubad was physically not in a position to accord, the movers had recourse to an unprecedented step. Without formally deposing the reigning king or forcing him to abdicate, they brought out his three-year old son, Kaiumars, from the harem and crowned him as Shamsuddin in obvious supersession of his father². A regent for the infant king was appointed from among their own ranks and a re-arrangement of the state-offices on the basis of the new policy followed. The proposed measure was then duly sanctioned and Firoz's name headed the condemned list. For obvious reasons the army minister had not been consulted about the accession, though as a loyal officer, he acqueisced in the new regime. Though unaware of the real nature of the new arrangement, he was yet highly suspicious of the new officers who did little to conceal their feelings towards him. Surkha undertook to commence enforcing the plan by slaying Firoz. One of the latter's relations, named Ahmad Chap, who was in the service of Kacchan, however, secretly conveyed the news to him. Thus put on his guard, Firoz planned to leave the capital. Anxious to augment his party in view of the approaching conflict, he moved his quarters to Ghiyaspur, a few miles from Delhi, and then sent for his relations from Baran on the plea of removing them from the zone of a threatened Mongol invasion. He was joined by a number of other non-Turkish officers similarly black-listed¹.

c12.45

² Ferishta, I, p. 88; Barani, p. 171 skips over a lot of details.

c12.46

¹ Details in TM, p. 56; Barani, p. 171-72.

c12.47

On the day following his removal to Ghiyaspur, Firoz was holding a review of the Kanouj forces when a message from Kaiumars’s court reached him demanding his immediate presence. He could at once see through the game and delayed compliance, until Kacchan himself rode up with a more urgent message. Without openly disobeying the royal summons Firoz pointed to the review he was holding and begged to be allowed to finish it. Kacchan was thus constrained to wait, and in the belief that his real motive had not yet been suspected, relaxed in the tent-shade. As soon as Firoz found him off his guard he beckoned to his men who cut off his head and threw the body into the Jumna².

c12.48

² TM, idem; the place where Firoz was holding his review is called Bhukal-pahari, while Barani calls it Baharpur; Haji Dabir, II, p. 751 and Isami, p. 197, support TM.

c12.49

This action tore off the mask and the two parties now came out in open conflict. Firoz felt it an obvious advantage to be able to invoke the king’s authority for his party, and so sent his sons with a body of troops to fetch Kaiumars from Delhi. They raided the palace and secured the king, and when a party of Turkish officers came in their persuit, slew most of them and captured, among others, the sons of the kotwal³. Kidnapping of their king by the hated Khalijis, however, roused the Delhi citizens to action and they streamed out to force his release. They were dissuaded from the course and turned back by Fakhruddin who feared for the lives of his captive sons. With the king finally in his control, Firoz thus became the master of the situation; even some Turkish officers now tacitly recognised it by joining him¹.

c12.50

³ TM, p. 57-58, gives a slightly different account: after slaying Kacchan he rode towards Kilokhri palace and drew up his forces in order to occupy it. Malik Chajju and others thereupon brought out the dying Kaiqubad and seated him under a pavilion outside the palace and prepared some loyalist troops to oppose. He gave out that all they wanted to do was to send Kaiqubad to his father. A part of the loyalist troops having for some unexplained reason withdrawn themselves, Firoz was able to occupy the palace and bring out Kaiqubad’s infant son from the 24

c12.51

¹ Barani, p. 182. See *T M*, pp. 50-51, for a slightly different account.

c12.52

Barani fails to record the subsequent events of the unfortunate boy-king's reign; some of his coins have however, come to light². According to Yahya Sirhindi, he reigned for a little over three months³. Having finally dispersed his opponents Firoz installed the king in his father's palace at Kilokhri and proceeded to settle the administration on his behalf. He offered the deputyship of the kingdom to Malik Chajju, one of Balban's nephews, and asked for the provinces of Multan, Bhatinda and Dipalpur for himself. Chajju, too proud to receive any office as a gift from the Khalji, refused the offer and preferred the governorship of Karra and Manikpur instead, whither he immediately repaired with the surviving members of Balban's family. A similar offer to the kotwal having also been refused⁴, Firoz was obliged to accept the regency himself. Kaiqubad in the meantime met with an ignominious end; as he lay motionless on his bed, unattended and in hunger and thirst, a Khalji trooper, sent by harem who was then seated on the throne. His offer of the regency to Malik Chajju and his own ultimate acceptance of the office is said to have followed the death of Kaiqubad, who was left under the pavilion and died on the next day of hunger and thirst. Isami, however, makes it clear that Kaiumars's elevation to the throne took place in his father's life time but is said to have been done by Firoz himself, pp. 199-200.

c12.53

² Wright, p. 66, no. 279. Rodgers: *Lahore Museum Catalogue*, p. 84, no. 4. Brown: *Coins of India*, p. 71. Theyy are all dated 689/1290.

c12.54

³ *T M*, p. 61.

c12.55

⁴ Barani, p. 173; *T M*, p. 59. Haji Dabir, II, p. 752.

c12.56

Firoz, entered the apartment, rolled him in his bed-clothes and kicked him off into the Jumna¹.

c12.57

¹ Barani, p. 173. For the version of *TM*, respecting this incident, see note above. The above account is confirmed by Isami, p. 200.

c12.58

The regency was only a transitional arrangement; the 13th century-Sultanate had, for all practical purposes, come to an end. The inevitable supplanting of Kaiumars has not been sufficiently detailed by Barani²; the process, however, is not difficult to imagine, nor is it necessary to sentimentalise the affair. The young prince was no better representative of his dynasty whose political traditions were neither renewable nor in accord with the spirit of the times. Firoz only formalised the coming of a new age when he ascended the throne at Kilokhari in March 1290 and proclaimed himself as Sultan Jalaluddin Firoz³.

c12.59

² *TM*, p. 60-61, states that after three months the Turkish nobles headed by Surkha again-plotted to get rid of the Khalji regent and free the king from his control. Firoz got scent of this move and sent an army to the Kilokhari palace to seize the king. Surkha’s party opposed the troops but were defeated and Surkha himself was killed. Following this, Firoz rode into the palace, put the king in confinement and himself ascended the throne, in *Rabi* I, 689. The boy king died in prison. The account is partly supported by Isami, pp. 201-203. Kaiumar’s death is not recorded.

c12.60

³ Barani gives the date as 688/1289; p. 175. Haji Dabir III p. 753, and *TA* I, p. 117, only copy this date; but *TM*, p. 61, and Ferishta, I, p. 88, date the event correctly in 689/1290 which is in accordance with the numismatic evidence. The earliest coin of Firoz, a gold piece, issued possibly on his accession, is dated 689; Wright, p. 83, No. 280.

c12.61

The revolution was complete, but it took time to normalise the people’s lives. Delhi was a stronghold of the Turkish party and Firoz for some months preferred to stay away at Kilokhari. His opponents, however, soon realised the futility of clinging to a retrogressive ideal and gradually came to terms. His unassuming and peaceable nature soon removed the popular dislike for his rule, and the Delhi citizens confirmed the new regime by tendering their allegiance. On the invitation of Fakhruddin, the most respected survivor of the vanquished party, Firoz eventually entered Delhi and was seated on the throne of his illustrious master¹.

c12.62

¹ Barani, p. 173, 176-77.

c12.63

Barani regrets that from that day sovereignty passed from the Turks for ever. This is only partly true. The crown was still worn by a member of that race but Turkish domination passed for ever. Haji Dabir is more correct in his evaluation of the event when he remarks that ‘with Kaiumars ended the line of kings that was started by Muizzuddin Muhammad b. Sam’².

c12.64

² II, p. 752.

Linked texts (5)