The Foundation of Muslim Rule in India: A History of the Establishment and Progress of the Turkish Sultanate of Delhi, 1206–1290 A.D. c9.26

c9.26

This recognition of her authority, as the sequel showed, concealed a latent opposition. The officers who had rebelled against Firoz were hardly prepared to submit tamely to a princess who was, after all, their own creation. She was herself aware of the dangerous power of her father's Turkish officers and slaves who monopolised all power in the state. The crown was vindicated when she overthrew the provincial chiefs and in the process arrested the growth of a dangerous constitutional precedent; it was necessary now to follow it up by restoring the monarchy to its rightful position. For, a dynastic leadership could yield the best results, in the circumstances in which the Turks were placed, only when it commanded absolute power; in the 13th century India, the monarch's firmness was the only justification for his existence. Courage and unflinching determination was to be her motto; in strength of character she was to prove herself "better than man". Details of her measures in this direction have not been recorded but it seems certain that by discarding female attire, and riding out in public and holding open courts¹ which her opponents later pretended to consider as scandalous conduct, she intended to emphasise the firmness and vigour of her rule. It is also reasonable to suppose that the 'favour' stated to have been shown to the Abyssinian 'master of the horse', Jamaluddin Yaqut, occurred about this time² and was part of her plan to break the Turkish nobles' monopoly of all important offices. For, the amir-i-akhur, like the amir-hajib, carried great privilege and power and seems to have been always held by a Turk. Isami states that ever since Firoz's accession Yaqut had attached himself to Raziah's cause³; the favour could thus mean only an increased dependence on his support to counter the 'maliks'.