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. c8: Chapter IV

The Foundation of Muslim Rule in India: A History of the Establishment and Progress of the Turkish Sultanate of Delhi, 1206–1290 A.D. c8

Language
English

Chapter IV

c8.1

Muizuddin's sudden death placed his officers in India in a difficult situation. The Delhi government was far from well-established; want of common loyalty now threatened to intensify personal jealousies. Aftermaths of the late rising still rendered communications unsafe with Ghazni which, in any case, now seemed an easy prey to the aggressive Khwarizm Shah. By far the most serious menace came from the Hindus whose military power, only stunned by the rapidity of the conquest, now showed signs of recovery and even of offensive action. Already, by 1206, Kalinjar had been recovered and the Chandella king appeared effectively to stop further expansion in the south¹. In the Gangetic plain numerous chiefs still held out in open defiance². Gahdvala rule was still a reality, for Harischandra found means to establish himself in the districts of Farrukhabad and Budaun³. Even the Pariharas appeared to have regained their initiative and recovered Gwalior which had to be reconquered several years later. In the east, a terrible disaster had befallen the Muslim arms and the two-year old possession of Lakhnauti, rendered insecure by distance and by Khalji factiousness, promised to be a heavy liability. The Turks had overrun the whole of north India, but on Muizzuddin’s death found themselves in effective possession only of Sind and parts of the Punjab and the Gangetic valley with Rajput resistance increasing in extent.

c8.2

¹ Inscriptions of Trailokyavarma, Paramardideva's successor, refer to his expelling the Turks from his kingdom; *EI*, I, p. 327. In his earliest inscription, dated in 1206, recording the grant of land to an officer whose father had lost his life in fighting the Turks, he is called "Lord of Kalinjar"; *EI*, XVI, p. 273. The fortress is not mentioned again by Minhaj, until a few years later when we hear of expeditions sent against the "Rai of Kalinjar."

c8.3

² One of these, Maharanaka Pratapadeva of Japila, in an inscription dated V. S. 1279/1223 A.D. discovered in the Mirzapur district, refers to his destruction of the "Javana"; *EI*, IV, pp. 310-312.

c8.4

³ Reu: *History of the Rathors* in *Asutosh Silver Jubilee Volumes*, III, p. 265.

c8.5

The situation called for quick action and unified command. Muizzuddin left no son; his nephew in possession of Ghor, showed no promise of leadership or of energetic action. With the Khwarizm Shah menacingly advancing to Ghazni and Ghor, political foresight demanded severance of Delhi’s connection with the trans-Indus state. Among Muizzuddin’s officers three held important commands and nourished ambitions of sovereignty. Tajuddin Yalduz, held Karman and Sankuran on the route from Afghanistan to upper Sind, and was widely believed to have been marked out for the viceroyalty of Ghazni proper. Another equally favoured slave was Nasiruddin Qubachah¹, a son-in-law of Yalduz and lately appointed to hold charge of Uch. By far the most capable and devoted of his slaves was Qutbuddin Aibak. Purchased early in life, he was noted for intrepidity and munificence, and had earned his master’s confidence to be placed, as noticed above, after the victory of Tarain, in charge of his Indian conquests. Latterly, as Muizzuddin’s representative, he exercised from Delhi the functions of a viceroy and commander of all the military forces stationed in the realm¹. In 1206 he was formally invested with viceregal powers and promoted to the rank of *malik*².

c8.6

¹ Raverty, op. cit. p. 531, note 8, argues at great length that the name should really be pronounced as Kabajah, but the above form is confirmed in Hindi script on one of his coins; JASB, 1887, p. 171.

c8.7

¹ He appointed Hasan Arnal to the command of Kol; Tajul Maasir, f. 26b. His appointment of Bakhtiyar to the iqta of Bihar clearly shows his status.

c8.8

² Fakhre Mudir: Tarikh, p. 28. See also TA, I, p. 47. Tajul Maasir, f. 83, implies that he was appointed to the viceroyalty as early as 1193.

c8.9

It was therefore a fulfilment of his master's wish when, in response to the invitation of the Lahore citizens, he came from Delhi and assumed sovereign power. Qutbuddin Aibak's formal accession took place on the 17th zilqad, 602/June 24th, 1206³, more than three months after Muizuddin's death, an interval that must have been occupied by manœuvres to build up a party of supporters. Technically he was still a slave for, although Ghiyasuddin Mahmud from Ghor sent him the royal insignia and standard and also conferred the title of *Sultan*⁴, his formal manumission was not obtained till 605/1208; in inscriptions no higher titles are used with his name than *Malik* and *Sipahsalar*⁵. The statement that 'coins were struck and the *khutbah* read in his name throughout Hindusthan' must be taken as a conventional phrase emphasising his sovereign power, for no silver or billon coin of his has yet been discovered⁶.

c8.10

³ Fakhre Mudir: Tarikh, p. 30, and 32; Minhaj, p. 140.

c8.11

⁴ Minhaj, p. 90 and 140; TM, p. 14; cf. TA, I, p. 42.

c8.12

⁵ EIM, 1911-12, p. 2.

c8.13

⁶ Tajul Maasir, f. 202a; Minhaj, 141. Rodgers, JRAS, 1894, nos. 37-40, ascribed four copper pieces to Aibak; they bear the appellation al-Qutbi; see on these coins, Wright, p. 69, who thinks they should be ascribed to the Karman mint.

c8.14

Aibak's was a short reign and foreign affairs occupied most of his time. Yalduz possessed himself of Ghazni and commenced playing a diplomatic game with both Ghiyasuddin Mahmud and the Khwarizm Shah. The latter, having swallowed the whole of Iran and Central Asia, now cast covetous eyes on Ghazni. To make matters worse for Aibak, by virtue of his possessing the capital of Muizzuddin’s empire, Yalduz now laid claim to the whole of his master’s dominions including Delhi. Unless vigorously resisted, this claim would mean not only a negation of Delhi’s sovereignty but also an extension of the Khwarizm Shah’s ambitions of conquest to India. The situation in the northwest had thus to be closely watched and other affairs had to yield to the urgency of this problem. In such a context Aibak’s continued residence in Lahore from where he is reported to have never moved, becomes intelligible¹.

c8.15

¹ For details of Yalduz's overtures to Khiva and Ghor, see Minhaj, pp. 89-96; Khwand Amir: *Rauzatus-Safa*, IV, p. 126-17. For Aibak's problems see Ferishta, I, p. 63.

c8.16

Yalduz was no match for the Khwarizm Shah. The latter had partisans in Ghazni whose citizens were notoriously fickle in their attachments. In 605/1208, hard pressed by the Khwarizm Shahi faction at his court, Yalduz was compelled to leave the city and withdraw towards the Punjab. What Aibak had foreseen, now came to pass; it was now imperative to forestall the Khwarizm Shah and occupy the city. A party of its citizens also suddenly felt an affection for him and sent an invitation. Yalduz in any case could not be allowed to find refuge in the Punjab, and was therefore promptly driven out to his former possessions in “Karman and Sankuran”. Aibak then moved up to Ghazni to occupy it. Judging from the sequel, the step was obviously taken in haste and was militarily ill-supported. Within forty days the citizens concieved a dislike for his rule—he had no direct association with them for many years—and Yalduz once again became a favourite. On the latter advancing unexpectedly, Aibak was obliged to beat a hurried retreat¹. The venture thus did little to improve the situation and now Yalduz’s enmity added to his anxiety.

c8.17

¹ Tajal Maasir, f. 202a; Minhaj, p. 140, also p. 90. Cf. Ferishta, I, p. 63, who places the event in 603/1207.

c8.18

He was thus in no position to resume offensive military action against the Rajputs. Even the affairs in Lakhnauti, urgent in themselves, could engage only his passing attention. The least that Bakhtiyar’s murder had threatened to do there was to sever Delhi’s connection and split the province into small, mutually jealous units. Having siezed and imprisoned the murderer, Ali Mardan, the Khalji chiefs proceeded to elect Muhammud Sheran to the chieftaincy who was pledged to acknowledge little subordination to Delhi². Ali Mardan escaped from confinement, and making his way to Delhi, persuaded Aibak to intervene in the Lakhnauti affairs. On proceeding thither to establish order, the Delhi agent Qaimaz Rumi, however, met with blank refusal on the part of the Khaljis to recognise his authority. In Husamuddin Iwaz, one of the Khalji chiefs, Rumi, however, found a willing tool and left him at Devkot to hold temporary charge of the province. On the agent’s departure Iwaz was immidiately turned out; whereupon Rumi returned and reinstated him but only after a severe struggle with Sheran and his party³ Ali Mardan eventually induced Aibak to appoint him governor over the province where he was soon to commence a reign of terror⁴.

c8.19

² Minhaj, p. 158; Cf. TA, I. p. 51.

c8.20

³ Sheran was soon after killed in a quarrell with his party and was buried near “Maksida and Santosh,” near Mahigunj on the Atrai; JASB, 1875, p. 284. Cf. Alfi, f. 616a, which states that he was killed in a battle with the Hindu rajas.

c8.21

⁴ Minhaj, p. 159.

c8.22

This imposition of its authority over the eastern province was but a poor consolation, for the Delhi state at the moment needed political security more than suzerain status. When Aibak died in 607/1210, of injuries recieved in a fall from his horse while playing *chaugan*¹, the clouds on the northwest were gathering thick and fast. He read the portents and did his best to preserve Delhi's separate entity. A military leader of great energy and high merit, he combined the intrepidity of the Turk with the refined taste and generosity of the Persian; extreme liberality earned him the epithet of "*Lakh Buksh*" (giver of lakhs), while, characteristically enough, his killing is also said to have been by lakhs². Both Hasan Nizami and Fakhre Mudir found in him an appreciative patron and dedicated their works to him³. On two occasions, at least, he interceded with his master for the vanquished Hindu princes⁴. It hardly needs emphasising that to his untiring exertion and devoted service Muizzuddin owed most of his success in India. For he merely supplied the motive power; Aibak was responsible for the detailed planning and initiation of the Delhi state.

c8.23

¹ *Ibid*, p. 141; *TM*, p. 15; Cf. *Mirat-i-Jahan Numa*, f. 53, which places his death in 609/1212, whereas Aibak's latest inscription is dated *Ramzan*, 607/1210.

c8.24

² Minhaj, p. 138.

c8.25

³ *Tajul Maasir*, f. 7 b; Fakhre Mudir: *Tarikh*, p. 72. Minhaj states that before taking service under Muizzuddin Aibak had acquired proficiency in literature.

c8.26

⁴ *Tajul Maasir*, f. 143b and 194b.

c8.27

On his death the officers at Lahore raised his son Aram Shah to be their chief. But the step was not supported at Delhi where the citizens headed by the chief magistrate, "invited" Iltutmish, the governor of Budaun and a son-in-law of Aibak, to assume the crown. Backed by the Lahore faction, Aram thereupon marched against Delhi but Iltutmish found it easy to defeat and possibly slay him. Aram's reign, devoid of any other recorded interest, lasted not more than eight months¹.

c8.28

¹ Minhaj, p. 141; TM, p. 16; TA, I, p. 55. Raverty argues that he was Aibak's adopted son, for which, however, no authentic evidence is available. See also Haji Dabir, II, p. 686. Raverty: op. cit. p. 589, note 4, on the supposed evidence of an anonymous work, describing the coins of Delhi sultans, entitled Tafsil-i-Sikka, f. 8, states that Aram ruled upto 1215. But Iltutmish's earliest coin was issued in 608/1211 and his inscription is dated Jamadi I, 608/1211. See CCIM, II, intr. p. 6; EIM, 1911-12, p. 3.

c8.29

Iltutmish at last became master of the Delhi state but the schism had an adverse effect on the outlying areas of its attenuated dominion. In Lakhnauti, Ali Mardan assumed independent sovereign status and began to behave like an emperor². Qubachah occupied Multan and extended his dominions to include Bhatinda, Kuhram and Sarsuti; and on Aram's death even possessed himself of Lahore³. Rajput chiefs withheld tribute and repudiated allegiance. The small Chauhana principality of Jalor, whom Aibak had forced to submission, declared independence; Ranthambhor, given as an appanage to Prithviraja's son, also ceased to acknowledge vassalage.

c8.30

² For his tyrannical rule and insufferable boastfulness see Minhaj, p. 159-60. TA I, p. 53, states that he issued coins with the title of sultan Alauddin; no such coin has been discovered.

c8.31

³ Minhaj, p. 143.

c8.32

The new king's position was too insecure to enable him to take action at once; he did not feel safe enough to assume even sovereign dignity. Realist as he was, he found it wiser to compromise for the time being, and accept the regal insignia—the canopy and the mace—from Yalduz who, now that Aibak was dead, felt free to push his claims of suzerainty⁴. A great peril confronted Iltutmish when the Turkish guards (jandars) of Delhi, in alliance with Aram Shah’s party, rose in open rebellion and meant to negative his accession. It was only by a sanguinary conflict that they could be dispersed¹. It took him some months’ hard and tactful action to extend his authority even in the districts in the immidiate vicinity of Delhi, in charge of officers whose ranks were originally equal to his own. Even then his rule does not appear to have been effective beyond Benares on the east and the Siwalikh hills on the west².

c8.33

⁴ Minhaj, p. 170; Haji Dabir, II, p. 688, says that Iltutmish entered into an alliance with Yalduz; this is highly improbable unless it refers to his initial acceptance of the regal insignia.

c8.34

¹ Tajul Maasir, f. 215-16; Minhaj, p. 170.

c8.35

² Minhaj, p. 171.

c8.36

Iltutmish

c8.37

His difficulties

c8.38

His position was further imperilled by the developments in Afghanistan. Yalduz’s troops, sometime before 612/1215, succeeded in expelling Qubachah from Lahore and occupying the greater part of Punjab³. While this undoubtedly slackened the latter’s hold on Kuhram, Sarsuti and Bhatinda, it constituted a serious menace to Iltutmish, for Yalduz holding the Punjab, meant a direct invitation to the Khwarizm Shah whose annexation of Ghazni was only a question of time. It was a repetition of the problem which had led Aibak to occupy Ghazni. With the example of the latter’s failure to hold the city Iltutmish, however, dared not attempt the same solution and thus to cross swords with the mighty Khwarizm Shah. Prudence pointed to a defensive policy and he bided his time. It came soon enough. In 612/1215, Yalduz was finally forced out of Ghazni and fell back on Lahore⁴. He then renewed his claim to overlordship and thus precipitated the struggle for which Iltutmish was now well-prepared. He accordingly marched out, met him on the field of Tarain, defeated and finally captured him¹. The victory completed Aibak’s work; the last obstacle to Delhi’s independence and to her disengagement from central Asian power-politics was finally eliminated. Delhi became a sovereign state, in fact if not, yet, in theory.

c8.39

³ Ibid, p. 135, 143 and 171. Yalduz’s wazir who occupied Lahore on this occasion was assasinated at Ghazni just before the Khwarizmi troops took the city in, 612/1215.

c8.40

⁴ Tajul Maasir, f. 230b. Farishta, I, p. 65, states that he even marched towards Thaneswar.

c8.41

¹ Minhaj, p. 135; Tajul Maasir, f. 232a, states that the battle was fought at Samana. Yalduz, wounded in the battle, was taken captive and died a prisoner at Budaun.

c8.42

Lahore was not immidiately annexed but seems to have been restored to Qubachah; Hasan Nizami hints at an agreement whose alleged breach, in 614/1217, furnished Iltutmish with a *casus belli* to make war and wrest the province². Lahore was evidently in Qubachah’s possession when the Delhi forces marched out. As they crossed the Beas, Qubachah took fright and fled to Uch³. Unopposed, Iltutmish occupied Lahore and for the first time placed his own governor there⁴.

c8.43

² Tajul Maasir, f. 241b. Ferishta, adds that Qubachah tried to occupy Sirhind which finally brought Iltutmish against him; I, p. 315.

c8.44

³ Minhaj, p. 171; Tajul Maasir, f. 245. Cf. TA, I, p. 58-9.

c8.45

⁴ Tajul Maasir, f. 248a. His eldest son Nasiruddin Mahmud, was placed in charge.

c8.46

This success, however, did not, by any means, secure him the whole of the Punjab. Qubachah remained confined to Sind but it was some years before Iltutmish could annex the territories in the Chinab and Jhelum valleys. Ever since the Khokar rising the districts round the Salt Range had been practically in control of the insurgent tribes. Within three years of the occupation of Lahore, across the Indus came the gust of a storm that had burst in, and was now sweeping across, Central Asia. Issuing from the uplands of Tartary, the Mongols, under Temujin, whose imperial title the Persians pronounce as Chengiz Khan, literally rolled up the vast Khwarizmi empire, and with fire and sword, were now tearing up the great fabric of Islamic civilization in the east. While the Khwarizm Shah was driven to find shelter in the Caspian coast, his crown-prince Jalaluddin Mangbarni, persued relentlessly across Khurasan, could elude him only by crossing over into the Punjab, where Iltutmish was thereby robbed of his recently gained advantage. Mangbarni established himself in the upper Sind Sagar Doab and contracted a matrimonial alliance with the chief of the Salt Range¹. This gave him an excuse as well as help for widening his hold at the expense of Qubachah, with whom the hill chief was in perpetual hostility. Qubachah, in consequence, was practically driven out of the Sind Sagar Doab. Mangbarni's three years' sojourn in western Punjab also effected Iltutmish's hold on the Ravi and Chinab regions. The prince captured the fort of Basraur (Pasraur) in the Sialkot district and tried to support himself by plundering the riverine tracts² He even found it possible to advance upto Lahore whence he appealed to Delhi for shelter³.

c8.47

¹ Juwaini, II, p. 145.

c8.48

² Ibid, p. 147. For its identification see Cunningham; Reports, XIV, p. 46-47.

c8.49

³ After Mahmud's transfer to Hansi, no governor is mentioned as having been appointed to Lahore till 1228. When a Mongol force persued Mangbarni in 621/1224, it is said to have plundered the Lahore province; Juwaini, II, p. 112.

c8.50

Rules of hospitality required only one answer to the request but Iltutmish was a great realist. To reverse Aibak's and his own foreign policy at this stage and to seek the displeasure of a far more terrible power by receiving the fugitive prince, would have been not only unwise but almost suicidal. Mangbarni therefore was given a polite refusal and when he prepared to avenge himself by further aggressions in the Punjab, Iltutmish got ready for military action¹. It did not, however, come to actual fighting, for the prince thought it prudent to turn his attention to Qubachah².

c8.51

¹ Minhaj seems to be evasive in mentioning the incident. On page 293 of Raverty's translation, he states that Iltutmish sent a force against Mangbarni; but on p. 171, text, he says Iltutmish himself led an army against the "Khwarizmshahi trouble which had reached Lahore." This latter statement is copied by Haji Dabir, II, p. 691.

c8.52

² en-Nessawi, p. 88, however, states that Iltutmish even helped Qubachah with troops, which is highly improbable. Minhaj merely adds that on Iltutmish's approach Mangbarni turned aside.

c8.53

Mangbarni left India in 1224, but western Punjab continued to witness rapid political changes. These changes which extended far beyond Iltutmish’s reign, require a fuller discussion³ and admit of only a passing reference here. They upset Iltutmish’s plan of consolidation on the west, but they also helped him to destroy his rival Qubachah⁴. For, the latter had to bear the brunt of Mangbarni’s invasion and of its aftermath, which fearfully weakened his power of resistance. Close on the heels of the Khwarizmi fugitive, came the Mongols in his persuit and reached as far as Multan; then, a mass migration of the Khalji supporters of Mangbarni who appeared like an invading army. Iltutmish had thus the satisfaction of seeing Qubachah nearly crushed by these events; he needed little military exertion to recover Bhatinda, Kuhram and Sarsuti and the tracts along the Hakra river⁵.

c8.54

³ See Chapter IX, infra.

c8.55

⁴ Tuhfatul Kiram, f. 262b, mentions the names of seven "ranas" as paying tribute to Qubachah. Among them, from their names, two appear to have belonged to the Rathor and Solanki Rajputs.

c8.56

⁵ A governor was appointed over Bhatinda some time before 1227; Minhaj, p. 232. He is stated to have encroached on Qubachah's territory and occupied Wanjrut (Vijnot in Bhawalpur state) in the Multan province. Raverty: op. cit. p. 723; The printed text has Gujrat for Wanjrut; see also IA, 1882, p. 1-9.

c8.57

Changiz Khan’s departure from Afghanistan removed a dominating fear from Iltutmish’s mind. With Qubachah struggling against foreign intruders in lower Sind he now felt free to reoccupy Lahore¹. Soon after, in 625/1228, he prepared to deliver his final attack. Directing the governor of Lahore to attack Multan, he himself marched his forces to Uch². Unable to offer frontal resistance Qubachah left a garrison in the town and himself fled to the security of the island fortress of Bhakar in lower Indus³. Uch capitulated after three months’ brave defence⁴. Bhakar could not give Qubachah the expected security when a detachment of Delhi troops, commanded by the wazir, pressed the siege by cutting it off from the mainland. In desperation he sent his son to Iltutmish to negotiate for terms⁵. The latter demanded his unconditional surrender. This he refused and when the citadel was assaulted, drowned himself in the Indus waters⁶.

c8.58

¹ Minhaj, p. 236.

c8.59

² Minhaj gives conflicting dates for the event; p. 114, 624/1227; pp. 172 and 236, 625/1228; Nuruddin Aufi, the author of the Jawamiul Hikayat who was living with Qubachah at this time, confirms the last-mentioned date; f. 3a. See also Haji Dabir, II, p. 696. Cf. Ferishta, I, p. 65, and TA, II, p. 317. Also Tarikh-i-Masumi, f. 31a.

c8.60

³ Minhaj, p. 144.

c8.61

⁴ Ibid, p. 173; see also TA, I, p. 57.

c8.62

⁵ Tajul Maasir, in Elliot, II, p. 242; Minhaj, p. 144.

c8.63

⁶ Ibid, p. 173; Aufi: op. cit. f. 4a. He died on the 19th Jamadi II, 625/May 26th, 1228.

c8.64

With Qubachah thus finally eliminated, the extension of Delhi’s unified control was now possible over Muizzuddin’s west Indian provinces. Multan and Uch were annexed and became governor’s provinces. The Sumra ruler of Debal, named Sinanuddin Chanisar, transferred his allegiance to Delhi and was confirmed as a vassal⁷. According to Hasan Nizami, twelve celebrated fortresses were captured on this occasion and "Siwistan (Sehwan) and Lak (Lakki Pass?) as far as the shores of the ocean came under Iltutmish's authority; coins were struck and the Khutbah read in his name as far as Kusdar and Makran"¹. It is doubtful, however, if he could make any immediate headway in the upper Sind Sagar Doab. Besides the area dominated by the unsubdued tribes of the Salt Range, the western part, called Baniyan by the contemporary writers, which originally formed part of Mangbarni's Indian possessions, was now under his lieutenant, Saifuddin Hasan Qarlugh, who was to hold it for his master as best as he could². Judging from Mangbarni's alliance with the Salt Range chief, Qarlugh's influence must also have been fairly extensive. In the northeastern Punjab, however, Iltutmish appears to have succeeded in extending his rule upto Sialkot and Janer (Hajner) and possibly also Jullunder, which appear as part of the Delhi kingdom early in Mahmud's reign³.

c8.65

⁷ Minhaj, p. 173; the Sind histories do not mention the event. See Raverty; op. cit. p. 615, note; also Elliot, I, p. 485.

c8.66

¹ Tajul Maasir in Elliot, II, p. 242. ² en-Nessawi, p.

c8.67

The Lahore and Multan provinces were however, exposed to the incursions of the hill-tribes and their reduction must have figured in his plans. It is more than probable that the governors were instructed to gradually reduce the Jhelum and Indus tract. The occupation of the stronghold of Nandanah, in the Salt Range, recorded by Minhaj⁴, could only have been the result of such

c8.68

Progress in the Punjab.

c8.69

⁹² Baniyan is almost always mentioned with Ghazni and Karman and the "country of the Indus"; Minhaj, pp. 238 and 392; also Raverty, op. cit. p. 530, note 7. ³ Sialkot and Hajner are listed in his conquests; Minhaj, p.

c8.70

¹⁷⁹ For location of Hajner (written Janjer in the text) see chapter IX infra. Jullunder is mentioned on p. 210, for the first time. ⁴ Minhaj, p. 179, where it is included in Iltutmish's conquests; it is called Nardin by Utbi: Tarikh-i-Yamini, p. 260; For some years the later Hindu-shahiya kings made it their capital. For its location see Raverty: op. cit. p. 534, note 1; IGI, XVIII, p. 349; also Nazim, p. 91.

c8.71

operations. Kujah, mentioned along with Nandanah as having been placed in charge of malik Aitigin, must also be looked for in the same area and also as a resulting acquisition¹. Iltutmish's last expedition, which illness compelled him to abandon, was projected towards Baniyan². Nevertheless, as will appear from a subsequent discussion, by the time he died, Delhi's hold on western Punjab was far from effective.

c8.72

¹ Minhaj, p. 253.

c8.73

² Ibid, p. 176; Cf. Haji Dabir, II, p. 699, who thought that it was directed against Khurasan. See also Chapter IX.

c8.74

In other directions however, he was more successful. After 1225 he could turn his attention to the east where, since Aibak's death Delhi's authority had been completely negatived. Ali Mardan's tyranny in Lakhnauti had continued unchecked for two years until his exasperated officers put an end to it by murdering him and raising Husamuddin Iwaz once again to chief authority³. On his accession, which must have occurred shortly after 1211,⁴ Iwaz took the title of Sultan Ghiyasuddin and assumed full sovereign status⁵. He was a generous and able ruler and undertook a number of public works; one of them, a raised causway connecting Lakhnauti with Lakhanor and Devkot, proved immensely benificial in the rains and, in some places, is still traceable⁶. Iltutmish's' preoccupations left him unmolested⁷. He found means to annex Bihar and also to raid and exact tribute from the neighbouring Hindu states of "Jajnagar, Tirhut, Bang, and Kamrud¹." The chronicles of the Brahmin dynasty of Mithila. however, make no mention of any such raids². On the southwest also, these expeditions could not have made any appreciable change in the frontier; Ananga-bhima III (1211-1238), the king of Orissa, in his inscriptions also claims to have vanquished the *Javanas* of Rarh and Varendri³. On the east, across the Karatoya, border conflicts are all that could have taken place with the Sena kings of east Bengal with no positive advantage to either of the combatants⁴. The exaction of tribute from Kamrup must refer to occasional raids into the northeastern part of the trans-Karatoya region which, at least from the 13th century, seems to have been included within the geographical term of Kamrup⁵. In north Bihar Iwaz might have exercised some sort of control over part of Bhagalpur district

c8.75

³ Minhaj, p. 160.

c8.76

⁴ Ali Mardan, appointed by Aibak soon after his return from Ghazni, is known to have ruled for two years which, counting from before 607 (the year of Aibak's death), would bring us to a little after 608/1211 or 1212. Cf. on this point JASB (N. S.) IV, p. 154.

c8.77

⁵ Minhaj, p. 161. His earliest coin is dated 616/1219; JRAS (N. S.) VI, p. 352.

c8.78

⁶ For a description see Abid Ali: Gour and Punduah.

c8.79

⁷ Cf. Wright, p. 15-16 nos. 49F, 49H to 49J, who ascribes one gold and a few silver pieces of Iltutmish to the Bengal mint and thus seems to support Thomas, JRAS, VI, p. 348, who held that during

c8.80

¹ Minhaj, p. 163.

c8.81

² For their history, see *JASB*, (N.S.) XI, pp. 406-8; Cunningham: *Reports*, XVI, p. 159.

c8.82

³ *JASB*, 1898, pp. 317-327; 1903, p. 109; *EI*, XIII, p. 150; *JRAS*, 1915, p. 505-6.

c8.83

⁴ Two grants of Kesava and Viswarupa, successors of Lakhsmanasena, refer to their successful fight with the *Garga Javanas*; *JASB*, 1896, pp. 9-15; (N. S.) X, pp. 99-104.

c8.84

⁵ Barua: *Early history of Kamrup*, p. 224, states that in 1227 Iwaz advanced along the Brahmaputra upto Gauhati whence he was repulsed with heavy losses. This seems to be based on the inadequate evidence of some of his 621 coins found in Gauhati. See also Bhattacharya: *Mughal Northeast Frontier policy*, p. 55, note, and Gait: *History of Assam*, 37.

c8.85

these years Iwaz must have acknowledged Iltutmish's suzerainty. The ascription, however, is doubtful; the word can also be read as Nagaur as is found in one of his 608 issues: Thomas: *Chronicles* p. 78, no. 59. For Bengal, the word Gour did not come into use until much later; in the chronicles, as well as in the coins, it is always referred to as Lakhnauti. The first undoubted mention of the Bengal mint is found on a *Tankah* of Raziyah which bears the name of Lakhnauti; Thomas: *Chronicles*, p. 107 no. 90. No other coin is known to bear Gour as a mint name. Besides, it is hardly probable that Iwaz should have acknowledged Iltutmish when the latter was hardly secure on the throne, and then, as is proved by his coins, to have declared his independence just when the Delhi monarch, freed from all other dangers, was known to be strong enough to enforce his suzerainty.

c8.86

through which passed the highway from Delhi to Lakhnauti¹.

c8.87

¹ For the use of this route see Minhaj, p. 159.

c8.88

As soon as the Mongol threat was lifted, Iltutmish started operations against Iwaz. As a preliminary measure and by a process not recorded in the chronicles, the district of Bihar south of the Ganges was wrested and placed under his own governor². In 622/1225 he finally advanced along the Ganges. Iwaz brought his forces up the river and planned to intercept him in Bihar. No battle however seems to have taken place for an agreement was eventually concluded under the terms of which Iwaz accepted Iltutmish's suzerainty and offered to pay an indemnity³. He also relinquished his claim on Bihar which Iltutmish now placed under Malik Jani⁴. Immediately on the king's return however, Iwaz, who obviously did not mean to keep the agreement, drove out Jani and reasserted independence. Iltutmish thereupon instructed his son, prince Nasiruddin Mahmud, then the governor of Awadh, to watch for an opportunity to dispossess the Khalji king. It came in 624/1226 when taking advantage of his absence on a campaign in the east, Mahmud suddenly appeared before Lakhnauti and seized the city. Iwaz hurriedly returned, gave battle but was defeated and slain⁵. Lakhnauti thus finally passed under Delhi.

c8.89

² Operations in the eastern provinces. Ibid, p. 163; Hasan Nizami also seems to refer to this event: Elliot, II, p. 241.

c8.90

³ Minhaj, p. 163, 171: Alfi, however, states that the agreement followed a severe engagemnt; f. 615. Cf. Salim: Riyazus-Salatin, p. 72.

c8.91

⁴ Minhaj, p. 189.

c8.92

⁵ Ibid, p. 164.

c8.93

Mahmud ruled the province as his father's deputy until his sudden death, which opened the way for fresh trouble. The circumstances of his death, not detailed by Fresh troubles in Lakhnauti.

c8.94

the chronicler, seem to have had an obvious connection with the subsequent rebellion of a man named Balka Khalji¹. His identity is difficult to establish and Minhaj gives him obscure and even irreconcilable antecedents². Unless he can be proved to be identical with Alauddin Daulat Shah b. Maudud, who issued the unique coin described by Thomas³, Balka, possibly a relation if not the son of Iwaz, should be supposed to have become the leader of the Khalji chiefs, who in their loyalty to the late ruler, considered subordination to Delhi as intolerable. Assuming that the date on Alauddin Daulat Shah’s coin has been correctly read as 627/1229, it must have been issued by a man who, on Mahmud’s death, assumed regal status and placated Iltutmish by inscribing his name and titles on the obverse and thus acknowledging his suzerainty⁴. To what family and tribe this self-appointed vassal ruler belonged it is immaterial to enquire for the autonomy-loving Khaljis headed by Balka soon ousted him and thus furnished Iltutmish with a pretext for a second invasion of Lakhnauti towards the end of the same year (i.e. 627/ending November 8, 1230)⁵. Balka was defeated and slain;

c8.95

¹ Minhaj, p. 181.

c8.96

² Ibid, p. 163. He is called Ikhtiyaruddin Balka, but on p. 174, he is simply Balka Malik Khalji. In the list of Iltutmish’s maliks one ‘Daulat Shah Khalji, malik of Lakhnauti’ is mentioned but no Balka; it is unlikely that the rebel would be listed here. Raverty increases the confusion, for he found in two old Mss. of the Tabaqat, Ikhtiyaruddin Daulat Shah-i-Balka b. Husamuddin Iwaz, Khalji; others mention one Iran Shah-i-Balka Khalji. It seems we are dealing with two persons here and Daulat Shah, and not Balka, is to be identified with Daulat Shah of Thomas’s coin. For this suggestion I am indebted to my pupil and friend Abdul Majid of the Calcutta University.

c8.97

³ JRAS. (N.S.) VI. p. 362, no. 13; also Wright, p. 21, no. 53A. It has many peculiarities; Iltutmish is given the kunyat of Abdul Fath, whereas all his other coins bear only Abul Muzaffar. Daulat Shah calls himself Shahanshah, unusual for one who acknowledges a suzerain.

c8.98

⁴ See on this point JASB (N.S.) IV., p. 154.

c8.99

⁵ Minhaj, p. 174. This date is also, like that on the Daulat Shah coin, doubtful, for Raverty found 628 in some of the older manuscripts; Haji Dabir, II, p. 698, however, has 627.

c8.100

Laknauti and Bihar henceforth became two separate provinces¹.

c8.101

¹ Minhaj, pp. 231 and 242.

c8.102

Taking advantage of the dangers besetting the Delhi Sultanate the Rajputs, all these years, made steady progress in recovering their territories. Mention has been made of the loss of Kalinjar to the Chandellas; inscriptions found near Ajaigarh testify to their continuous occupation of the neighbourhood throughout the century². In Gwalior also, where Iltutmish held his first appointment, local chroniclers detail a continuous Parihara rule upto 1231³; coins and inscriptions of a prince named Malayavarmadeva, belonging to the same family, have been found in Narwar, Gwalior and Jhansi to prove an uninterrupted occupation from at least 1220 to 1233⁴. In Rajputana, the recently independent Chauhana family found it possible to impose its paramountcy over other princes in the north. In an inscription, discovered at Manglana (Jodhpur state) dated in 1215, a local chieftain named Jaitrasinha, acknowledges Vallanadeva of Ranthambhor as his overlord, though the "Suratrana Iltutmish of Joginipur" is also mentioned therein⁵. Iltutmish's name appears (as *Sama-Sorala-deva*) in a coin of another prince calling himself Chaharadeva who, seemingly identical with the author of a fragmentary grant, boasts of his Chauhana descent and appears as ruling at Ranthambhor¹. This record, like the Manglana inscription, must belong to the early part of Iltutmish’s reign for, latterly, Ranthambhor required armed expedition to enforce his suzerainty. An extension of the power of the Chauhanas of Jalor is also testified to by an inscription of Udaisinha’s (Udisah of Hasan Nizami) grandson, in which the former is credited with ruling over Nadol, Jalor, Mandor, Bharmer, Ratnapur, Sanchor, Radhadhara, Kher, Ramsin and Bhinmal; and also with having curbed the pride of the Turushkas². In northwestern Rajputana, the Jadon Bhattis established themselves at Kaman, Tijara and Sarhatta (northern Alwar)³. Even Ajmer, Bayana and Thangir seem to have been lost, to judge from their inclusion among Iltutmish’s conquests⁴.

c8.103

² Cunningham: *Reports*, XXI, pp. 49-52.

c8.104

³ *Gwalior Namah*, f. 10. See also Cunningham: *Reports*, II, pp. 378-81.

c8.105

⁴ Cunningham: *Reports* II, p. 315; *Coins of Medieval India*, p. 80-90. Ojha: *Rajputana*, I, p. 166. *IA*, 1918, p. 241.

c8.106

⁵ *IA*, XVI, p. 86. Vallanadeva must be identical with Vallanadeva of the *Hammira maha-kavya*, the son of Govindaraja; *IA*, 1879, p. 62, The latter, a grandson of Prithviraja of Ajmer, is said to have founded the independence of Ranthambhor principality by the force of his own arms.

c8.107

¹ Thomas: *Chronicles*, p. 70; also Cunningham: *Coins of Medieval India*, p. 92. Both however, ascribe it to another Chaharadeva, of Narwar, who, in reality, was not a Chauhana and appears later in history. The peculiarly Chauhana device of the ‘bull and horseman’ and the word *Asawari* on the coin, connect it, at any rate, with the Chaharadeva of the inscription which, although undated, is paleographically ascribed to this period and to this prince; *EI*, XII, p. 223-24. Chaharadeva, however, does not appear in the list of the *Hammira-maha-kavya*.

c8.108

² *EI*, IX, p. 72-73.

c8.109

³ Cunningham: *Reports*, XX, p. 10-11.

c8.110

⁴ Minhaj, Raverty’s trans. p. 627.

c8.111

From 1226 he commenced operations to recover the lost territories. In that year he advanced into Rajputana and invested Ranthambhor. It was easily captured and garrisoned⁵. Next year he marched against the Paramara capital of Mandor which also fell easily and was in all probability annexed¹. The final victory over Qubachah enabled him to make a more concentrated drive against the Hindu states. To this period should be ascribed the reduction of Jalor recorded by Hasan Nizami, who, however, places it immediately after his accession². After a close investment Udaisinha was compelled to surrender but was allowed to continue as a tributary vassal³. Rajput records ascribe to Iltutmish also an attack on Nagda, the capital of the Guhelots, from where the reigning prince Jaitrasinha repulsed him with heavy losses⁴. A similarly unsuccessful attack is also said to have been made on the Chalukyas of Gujrat⁵. Success however, seems to have attended his efforts in eastern and northern Rajputana where Bayana and Thangir were recovered⁶; towards the end of his reign, the country round Ajmer, including Lawah, Kasili and Sambhar, appears under his governors⁷. Offensive action appears to have been continued in Rajputana by his governors also, one of whom is reported to have lost his life in an expedition to Bundi⁸. Nagaur, in Jodhpur state, which reappears under Delhi in Masud’s reign, must also have been recovered at this period. Mention

c8.112

⁵ Minhaj, p. 172; the text has Ratanpur, but see Raverty, trans. p. 610. *Cf.* the *Hammira-maha-kavya* in which the event is related differently. The young prince Viranarayana, on his way to wed the Kachwaha princess of Gwalior, was attacked by the forces of ‘Jalaluddin, ruler of Joginipur,’ but the battle proving indecisive, the latter, by promises of reward and friendship, persuaded the prince to visit Delhi where he was perfidiously murdered. His minister, Bhagavata, thereupon retired to Malwah and the fort of Ranthambhor was consequently occupied by Jalaluddin’s forces without opposition. Although Jalaluddin is known to have been one of Raziah’s official names, in whose reign

c8.113

¹ Minhaj, p. 182; *Tajul Mansir*, Elliot, II, p. 241, also mentions Mandor.

c8.114

² *Tajul Mansir*, f, 200a; Minhaj includes Jalor among Iltutmish’s conquests; p. 179.

c8.115

³ In his inscriptions Udaisinha makes no mention of his conflict wth the Turks. His earliest record is dated in 1205; *EI*, XII, p. 53.

c8.116

⁴ Ojha: *Rajputana*, I, p. 272; *IA*, 1928, p. 55.

c8.117

⁵ Ojha: *Rajputana*, II, p. 462.

c8.118

⁶ These places are listed in Iltutmish’s conquests; Minhaj, p. 179. At Kaman, near Thangir, he built the mosque now known as the *Chausat Khamba*; see Cunningham: *Reports*, XX, pp. 11 and 56.

c8.119

⁷ Minhaj, p. 236.

c8.120

⁸ *Ibid*, p. 176.

c8.121

the fortress was reoccupied by the Chauhanas, yet the account of its capture must refer to Iltutmish’s expedition. Bhagavata later recovered the fortress and founded the dynasty whose representative was Hammira, for whom the account was admittedly written; *IA*, 1879, p. 63.

c8.122

should be made in connection with this offensive in Rajputana of Iltutmish's expedition into Malwah and the plunder of Bhilsa and Ujjain in 632/1234-5¹. It was little more than a predatory raid, for the Paramara dynasty is known to have suffered no territorial loss on this occasion but continued in independence till the end of the century².

c8.123

¹ Minhaj, p. 176.

c8.124

² Ojha: *Rajputana*, I, p. 201-2.

c8.125

In 629/1231 Iltutmish besieged Gwalior. The Parihara ruler, called Mangal Deo by Minhaj, (possibly meant for Malayavarmadeva) after resisting for a whole year, secretly evacuated the fortress. It was occupied the next morning and garrisoned under the command of Rashiduddin³.

c8.126

³ Minhaj, p. 175. *Cf.* Gwalior Namah, f. 11.

c8.127

Operations south of the Jumna, however, brought less encouraging results. Malik Tayasai, the commandant of Bayana and Gwalior, was directed in 631/1233-34, to proceed with the Kanouj forces against Kalinjar. The ruler, possibly Trailokyavarma, fled on his approach and Tayasai thereupon freely plundered a number of towns and obtained a vast amount of booty⁴. Kalinjar however, does not appear to have been recovered; judging from the Hindu records of the country around, little territorial advantage accrued to the Delhi forces. Although Tayasai claimed to have captured the raja's standard and kettledrums on this occasion, he obviously considered it a great military feat to have been able to get away. Mention is made, in connection with this expedition, of a place, called Jamu by Minhaj, which, Cunningham thought, should refer to Bandhogarh in Baghelkhand where the Baghela dynasty had recently established itself and was gathering power¹. On his way back Tayasai was attacked in the defiles by a "Rana Chahir Ajari", doubtless identical with Chahara Deva of the Jajapella dynasty who later supplanted the Pariharas in Narwar². By great exertions Tayasai was able to extricate his forces and reach Gwalior.

c8.128

⁴ Minhaj, p. 240.

c8.129

¹ Cunningham: *Reports* XXI, p. 104; Raverty: *op. cit.*, p. 824, note, identified it with Damoh in the Central Provinces, but it is too far off towards the south.

c8.130

² *EI*, VII, p. 223-24; Cunningham: *Coins of Medieval India*, p. 91. In both the papers, however, this Chahir Ajari is confused with Nahardeva of Ranthambhor against whom Tayasai's expedition is accordingly stated to have been directed. Chahir Ajari is never mentioned by Minhaj along with Ranthambhor whose Rana is consistently named Nahar Deo; *e.g.* p. 292, Raverty's translation, p. 818. *Cf.* on this point, *IA*, 1918, p. 242-43.

c8.131

In the Ganges valley also Hindu aggression was sought to be checked. The inclusion, among Iltutmish's conquests, not only of Budaun where he held his last post before accession to the throne, but also of Kanouj and Benares, points to their having been lost to the Hindus in the meantime³. At Budaun the establishment of the Gahdvala family has been mentioned earlier; survival, and a possible recovery of the Rashtrakuta line represented by Lakhanapala, also could not have been altogether an improbability⁴. In eastern Rohilkhand, the Katehriya Rajputs retained their stronghold at Ahicchatra (modern Aolna), not far from Budaun; the inclusion of Katehar in the list of Iltutmish's conquests is a clear indication of the range of his operations. It also seems probable that the subjugation of Bahraich and the districts north of the Gogra river, was also effected about this time. In Awadh and the Doab also Muslim rule had to be re-established by force. On his appointment to Awadh prince Nasiruddin Mahmud is said to have waged continuous ‘holy wars’ against the refractory Hindu tribes and to have overthrown a chief named Bartu (or Prithu) “beneath whose sword about a hundred and twenty thousand Mussalmans had attained martyrdom”¹. Operations against the local chiefs in the Doab are alluded to in a passage in the *Tabaqat* in which ‘the son of the Rai’ is said to have been captured by Malik Tamur Khan in course of an expedition to Chandwar². It is doubtful if any appreciable advance could be made into north Bihar. Tirhut is, however, included in Iltutmish’s acquisitions, but this should mean nothing more tangible than a possibly successful raid³.

c8.132

³ Minhaj, p. 179. Iltutmish issued a commemorative coin from the *kharaj* of Kanouj; Wright, no. 52 and p. 71-72.

c8.133

⁴ His inscription is ascribed to a period from the end of the 12th century to the beginning of the 13th century; *EI*, I, pp. 61-62.

c8.134

¹ Minhaj, p. 170. *Cf.* Barua: *op. cit.*, p. 224, and *CHI*, III, p. 54, wherein this Bartu has been identified with a legendary king of Assam who, it is attempted to prove thereby, opposed Bakhtiyar as well as Iwaz. This is untenable, for Bartu is mentioned only in connection with Awadh. See Ray: *Dynastic History*, I, p. 547, who, more plausibly, suggests his connection with the Gahdvala family.

c8.135

² Minhaj, p. 247. Notice may be taken in this context of a Sanskrit inscription, on a brick, found near Jaunpur, and dated V. S. 1273/A. D. 1217, in which certain Hindu bankers record the mortgage of some land. It refers to the current coin under the name of *Shabdoddika drama* (Shahabuddin’s dirhams?). *JASB*, XIX, p. 454-6.

c8.136

³ Minhaj, p. 179. The printed text also mentions Darbhanga as one of his conquests.

c8.137

Iltutmish died in April 1236, of an illness contracted during his expedition to the northwest⁴. His was a remarkably successful reign. He took up Aibak’s unfinished work and against heavy odds and on imperfect foundations, built up a state whose sovereignty required great diplomatic skill to preserve. That he,

c8.138

⁴ The date, as given by Minhaj, p. 176, is 20th Shaban, 633/29th April, 1236.

c8.139

Achievements of Iltutmish.

c8.140

an ex-slave, could leave the crown to his sons, is a measure of his constructive statesmanship. Great realism, steadfastness and foresight marked his conduct of foreign affairs. Medieval India owed him not a little gratitude for helping her to escape the Mongol fury which had uprooted more powerful and far older empires. His firm and energetic action unified the kingdom and saved it from initial dismemberment. Against the Rajputs his forward policy achieved great success and yielded results of great moral value; it constituted an effective answer to the first challenge directed by the Hindus against the newly established Muslim state. Beyond recovering Muizzuddin's conquests he made appreciable advances into Rajputana and the trans-Gangetic tracts and also towards reorganising the Indus valley frontier. A calculating and skilful organiser, to him the Sultanate owed the first outline of its administrative system. He laid the foundations of an absolutist monarchy that was to serve later as the instrument of a military imperialism under the Khaljis. By a clever compromise with religions leaders', he disarmed moral opposition, while the military class found profit and occupation in his expansionist schemes. Not merely his crown and his dynasty, but also the state obtained its final sanction, and his ambition its crowning fulfilment, when, on the 22nd Rabi, I, 626/19th February, 1229, emissaries from the Abbaside Caliph arrived from Baghdad to invest him with the powers of an Islamic king². Aibak's objective was at last achieved and the Delhi state thus became a full legal entity. To describe Iltutmish as great would no doubt be an overstatement, but he was an unusually able ruler who left his mark on every aspect of the Sultanate's activity. Even long after he was gone and his dynasty supplanted, people fondly looked back to his "prosperous and glorious reign"¹. Aibak outlined the Delhi Sultanate and its sovereign status; Iltutmish was unquestionably its first king.

c8.141

¹ See Ferishta, I, p. 66-7, for his scrupulous performance of the religious duties. He affected a great reverence for the Sufis; Minhaj, pp. 166-68. Barani, pp. 103-137, makes lengthy reference to his 'love and regard for those derveshes who had renounced the world's material attractions. See Fawadul Fawaid, f. 65, for an illustration of how this religiosity helped in the fulfilment of his imperialistic schemes. See also, Zikr-i-Jami-Aulia-i-Delhi, f. 201a.

c8.142

² Minhaj, p. 174.

c8.143

¹ Barani, p. 63-64.

Linked texts (10)