The Foundation of Muslim Rule in India: A History of the Establishment and Progress of the Turkish Sultanate of Delhi, 1206–1290 A.D. c21.32

c21.32

On the face of it such absolutism was irreconcilable with the tribal polity mentioned above. A strong man like Iltutmish, who owed his accession to the fact of his being the most influential of the Turkish chiefs after Aibak, was able to resist the assertion of the latter principle. His militarist policy helped him to divert the energy of his compatriots, and all opposition was, for the time being, hushed, when eminent princes came flying from the Mongols to find refuge in his kingdom. The Caliphial investiture clothed his autocracy with legal sanction and he was able to reserve the monarchy for his family. But to continue his dynasty after his death required the constant support of a party. This he sought to create through his slaves who thus introduced a third political factor and gave a characteristic name to the period. A slave was potentially more loyal to his master than his sons¹. As Lanepoole has observed, the slave was a surer investment than a son whose claim to inheritance was not based on efficiency². A large progeny was not favourable to a king's interest, while a number of tried and efficient slaves having no other interest than to serve the master's family, was a sure asset³. Iltutmish had no illusions about the capacity of his sons and the only way to counteract the opposite tendency seemed to lie in organising his personal retainers into a party who would stand by his family and thereby uphold his absolutist monarchy. Like the Muizzi and Qutbi slaves, the Shamsi slaves were thus allowed to form themselves into a political group which, after his death, received the collective name of the "Forty"⁴. By absorbing or destroying the adherents of former kings they were enabled to reign supreme after his death; in the language of Barani, "they divided the kingdom amongst themselves"⁵.