The Foundation of Muslim Rule in India: A History of the Establishment and Progress of the Turkish Sultanate of Delhi, 1206–1290 A.D. c15.7

c15.7

to have been entirely taken away, for among the 13th century coins so far discovered, not many instances are found of such a modified vassalage. The name of Iltutmish (written *Sama-sorala-deva*, i.e. Shamsuddin) is included, evidently as a suzerain, in a few coins of a Chauhana prince of Ranthambhor whose name was read by Thomas as Chaharadeva. From an inscription of another prince, Jaitra Singh, dated 1215, acknowledging the overlordship of Vallanadeva of Ranthambhor, but also mentioning Iltutmish of ‘Joginipur’¹, it seems that the suzerainty was to be acknowledged in epigraphs also. If the Assam king’s offer to have the *khutba* read in his capital in the name of the Muslim conqueror, Yuzbak, in 1255², can be taken as illustrating the prevailing conditions of vassalage, the vassal was also required to give this symbolic expression to Muslim suzerainty, but this would depend on the existence of a Muslim colony in the Hindu state. In the details of administration, the vassal ruler appears to have enjoyed complete independence, subject, obviously, to his obligation to respect his suzerain’s edicts. The privilege of having his own modified coinage probably carried with it the right to levy customs duty on his own frontiers. Ordinarily, the vassal was his own master in the matter of assessment and collection of land-revenue, administration of justice and observance of religious practices. In the matter of revenue assessment, however, the standard set for the administered areas was expected to be followed in his dominions also, but this could hardly be a condition of vassalage. Much depended on the prestige and strength of the king whose suzerainty had, in fact, to be periodically enforced on the point of sword.