The Cambridge History of India, Vol. III: Turks and Afghans v3.c20.513

v3.c20.513

The reign of Fīrūz closes the most brilliant epoch of Muslim rule in India before the reign of Akbar. 'Alā-ud-dīn Khaljī, who, though differing much from Akbar in most respects, resembled him in desiring to establish a religion of his own devising, had not only extended the empire over almost the whole of India, but had welded the loose confederacy of fiefs which had owned allegiance to the Slave Kings into a homogeneous state. The disorders which followed his death failed to shake seriously the great fabric which he had erected, and the energy of Tughluq and, at first, of his son Muhammad gave it solidity. The latter prince possessed qualities which might have made him the greatest of the rulers of Delhi had they not been marred by a disordered imagination. The loss of the Deccan and Bengal, occasioned by his tyranny, was not an unmixed evil. The difficulty of governing the former, owing to its distance from the centre of administration, had been acknowledged by the ill-considered attempt to transfer the capital to Daulatābād, and the allegiance of the latter had seldom been spontaneous and had depended chiefly on the personality of the reigning sovereign of Delhi, an uncertain quantity. What remained of the kingdom was more than sufficient to engross the attention of a ruler of ordinary abilities, and Fīrūz had, in spite of two great defects of character, succeeded in improving the administration and in alleviating the lot and winning the affection of his subjects. Military capacity and diligence in matters of detail are qualities indispensable to an oriental despot, and Fīrūz lacked both. After two unsuccessful expeditions into Bengal he was fain to recognise the independence of that country, and his rashness twice imperilled the existence of his army. His easy tolerance of abuses would have completely destroyed the efficiency of that mainstay of absolute power, had it not been counteracted by the vigilance and energy of his officers, who were carefully selected and entirely trusted by him. His judgement of character was, indeed, the principal counterpoise to his impatience of the disagreeable details of government, and the personal popularity which he enjoyed as the kindly and genial successor of a capricious tyrant secured the fidelity of his trusted officers, but his extensive delegation of authority to them undermined the power of the crown. No policy, however well devised, could have sustained this power under the feeble rule of his successors and the terrible blow dealt at the kingdom within ten years of his death, but his system of decentralisation would have embarrassed the ablest successors, and undoubtedly accelerated the downfall of his dynasty.