History of the Khaljis, A.D. 1290–1320 c1: Front matter
History of the Khaljis, A.D. 1290–1320 c1
- Language
- English
Contents
- c1.s1 Origin of the Khaljīs — 29 parts
Front matter
c1.3
BY K.S. LAL
c1.4
Pub by the Indian Press Limited Allahabad ed to grip it with all his might. He held the office of Vakil-i-dar⁹ and posing as an attached servant of the state had won the confidence of the king. As time passed, all the duties of the government devolved upon him. He found a very good assistant in Malik 'Umdatul-mulk Qivāmuddin 'Alā Dabīr.¹⁰ Qivāmuddin had no equal in learning and eloquence of style and held the post of Naib Vakil-i-dar.¹¹ Nizāmuddin himself was very industrious, discreet, penetrating and talented, and fared well with the task of administration. But his manoeuvres were soon known to the people at large. Several of the leading nobles—some on account of the fear that no immunity could be expected from Nizāmuddin if he became too powerful, and some others through sheer ambition—also began to aspire for power for themselves. But Nizāmuddin was not to be caught napping. He reflected that prince Muhammad who had a talent for command was dead, and Nāsiruddīn Bughra was wasting away his energies in the insalubrious retreats of Bengal. So the only thorn in his side which could prove a source of trouble later on was Kai Khusrau, now in exile at Multan. He, therefore, instigated Mu'izzuddin to murder Kai Khusrau, forwarding the plea that if even a few of Balban's officers fraternised with him it would not take him a day to push the king aside and usurp the throne.¹² Kai Khusrau also seems to have made an attempt for the crown for which he had a legitimate claim. He had gone as far as Ghaznī to seek assistance from the Mongols but they were busy otherwise and could not help him in marching on to Delhi. The chagrined prince had returned to Multan but his moments were communicated to Muizzuddin who ordered his death.¹³ In short the prey of Nizāmuddīn’s machinations was summoned from Multan and beheaded at Rohtak on his way to Delhi.¹⁴ Having got rid of one enemy Nizāmuddīn tried his hands on others. He charged Khwājā Khatīr Muʻizzuddīn’s minister, with some trivial offence and got him paraded through the city seated on an ass. He ordered a wholesale massacre of the Mughal converts, better known as neo-Muslims, on the charge that they had plotted against the monarch, and banished their families to distant fortresses.¹⁵ Next Malik Shahik, feudatory of Multan, and Malik Tuzaki, feudatory of Baran, both trusted barons of Balban, were summoned to the court and killed on one pretext or the other. Nizāmuddīn even went to the extent of attempting on the king’s life. He added poison into his potions and this fact was responsible for the king’s early if not immediate death.¹⁶ But in spite of these excesses, Nizām enjoyed unflinching confidence of the king. In fact Muʻizzuddīn was, for all practicle purposes, playing into his hands. If anybody insinuated nefrous motives to his designs the sultan would forthwith mention to Nizām: "So and so has told me such and such things about you." The man would then be called and suffer from the implacable revenge of the wily councillor. In this way Nizāmuddīn destroyed many useful ministers and officials. Such was his ascendancy that his wife was designed as "the honorary mother of the sultan and the directress of female apartments." Owing to his unchallangeable position and unshakable power "the nobles and officers became completely obsequious and subservient to him ... and his threshold become the asylum of high and low."¹⁷
c1.5
⁹ Ferishtah p. 84. According to 'Isāmī he was appointed Mir dād (*Futūh* pp. 181, 182, 191) but Ferishtah seems more correct since all the historians say that Qivāmuddin, the Naib Vakil-i-dar, was his assistant. The principal duty of the Vakil-i-dar was to keep the keys of the palace gates. Also see *Tab. Nas.* Raverty vol. I. p. 694.
c1.6
¹⁰ Barani has قوامالدین علاقہ دبیر. The word 'Alaqa has no meaning. علاقہ may be a mistake of the copyist for علامہ which may mean that Qivāmuddin was an efficient secretary or that he was son of one 'Alā Dabīr.
c1.7
¹¹ Barani p. 131.
c1.8
¹² Ibid. pp. 132-33.
c1.9
¹³ *Futūh* pp. 190-92. Ferishtah p. 84 repeats the same story, quoting *Futuh* and the History of Haji Muhammad Qanhari as his authorities.
c1.10
¹⁴ Barani p. 133; Badaoni, Ranking Vol. I p. 222; Ferishtah p. 84.
c1.11
¹⁵ Barani pp. 133-34.
c1.12
¹⁶ *Futūh*. pp. 192-94.
c1.13
¹⁷ *Tab. Akb.* Trs. by De p. 122.
c1.14
The nonagenarian Fakhruddīn was aware of the dangerous game his son-in-law was playing. On more than one occassion he had reprimanded him saying: "Give up this idea of sovereignty ... The imperial purple befits the person of soldiers. You, who dare not strike a green-grocer with an onion stalk, or fling a clod at a jackal, how can you count yourself a man among men and dream of an imperial crown."¹⁸ This advice was appreciated more by those who learnt about it, than by the one for whom it was meant. But if Nizāmuddīn refused to listen to his father-in-law the foolish sultan at last lent an attentive ear to his father. When the tidings of the ruinous conditions at Delhi reached Bughrā Khān in Bengal he hastened to meet his son at Ayodhya, where Mu'izzuddīn arrived to receive him. Nizām did his best to create a rift between father and son and even tried to stop an interview between them. But they met and the tears of the two added a pleasant poignancy to the situation.¹⁹ Nāsiruddīn gave a hundred pieces of advice to Mu'izzuddīn, and at the time of parting, he whispered into his ears: "Be quick and put Nizāmuddīn out of the way. If after this he finds an opportunity, he will not leave you on the throne for a day.”²⁰
c1.15
¹⁸ Baranī p. 136., *J.A.S.B.*, 1871 pp. 191-92.
c1.16
¹⁹ For a graphic description of the meeting *see Qirānus Sādāin* Persian text, pp. 130-60. Elliot vol. III pp. 524-96 and Ibn Battūtah, vol. III p. 177.
c1.17
²⁰ Barani p. 156.
c1.18
The advice went home. The first thing Mu‘izzudīn did on his return to Kīlūgharī was to order Nizāmuddīn to Multan, ostensibly to take charge of the administration there but in reality to remove him from Delhi. Nizāmuddīn at once surmised the cause of his sudden transfer and delayed departure. The courtiers knew that the king wanted to do away with him and secretly obtained his permission to effect Nizām’s death. One of these days some deadly poison was administered into his wine and his crafty career came to a sudden close. *The Ascendancy of the Khaljīs.*
c1.19
Nizāmuddīn’s death paralysed Mu‘izzuddīn’s government. Despite his intriguing nature, he was an able and shrewd administrator. There was no one fitted to take his place. Mu‘izzuddīn was as bad as ever. For some time he had complied with his father's wishes but then “the reins of his heart slipped away from his hands” and once again his concupiscence began to grow boundless. Constant drinking completely wrecked his health, and the little stability that there was in the government was shaken out of it.²¹ It was at this juncture that Jalāl-uddīn Fīroz Khaljī, governor (Naib) of Samanah and Sarjāndār of the court, was sent for by the king. On his arrival he was given the title of Shayasta Khān,²² the fief of Baran, and the portfolio of the Minister of War (‘Ariz-i-Mumalik). Malik Aitmar Kachhan and Malik Aitmar Surkhāh, two noblemen of Balban were made Master of Ceremonies (Barbak) and Vakīl-i-dar respectively. Thus an interim arrangement was decided upon and an attempt was made to run the tottering administration. Jalāluddīn was a born soldier and had for long fought the Mughals on the north-west frontier. He was a man full of experience and was incapable of any wrong action.²³ Soon the Turkish nobles grew jealous of his position. Suddenly the sultan was attacked with paralysis. His condition gradually deteriorated and there was no hope of his recovery. Factions multiplied and recriminations intensified. The situation, however, was eased for the time being by the prompt action of some influential Balbanī nobles, who placed an infant son of Mu'izzuddīn²⁴ on the throne and gave him the title of Shamsuddīn. Jalāluddīn Shayasta Khān was appointed his deputy (Naib) and important posts and portfolios were distributed among capable officers. In this way kingship "remained in the house of Balban (Turks and did not fall into the hands of some one (of another race)."
c1.20
²¹ Baranī p. 170.
c1.21
²² Barani alone, p. 170, has Siyāsat Khan. All other historians give the above title.
c1.22
²³ *T.M.S.* p. 56.
c1.23
²⁴ Barani p. 171 has خورد سال. Ferishtah p. 87 has طفل سه ساله or a child of three years. Barani and Nizāmuddīn give his name. The author of *T.M.S.* has Kaikaus while 'Iṣāmī and Ferishtah have Kaimurs.
c1.24
"ملك در خاندان سلطان بلبن بماند و بر قومی و اصلی ديگر نيفتد، و از اصل تركان نبود، "²⁵
c1.25
²⁵ Barani p. 171.
c1.26
This saving of the throne for the Turks was nothing but a gesture on the part of the old aristocracy against Jalāluddīn Khaljī who had outdone them all in efficiency and ability. The nobility at Delhi was hereafter clearly divided into two camps. The Turkish party was headed by the adventurous Aitmar Kachhan and Aitmar Surkhāh and consisted of old Balbanī barons. The other was headed by Jalāluddīn Khaljī, whom public opinion did not consider as belonging to Turkish blood. Aitmar Kachhan and Aitmar Surkhāh together with some Turkish nobles decided that such nobles as were not real Turks should be divested of all power and removed from their positions. They prepared a list of such names and the name of Jalāluddin headed the list.²⁶ Jalāluddin was informed of this conspiracy by Malik Ahmad Chap the chief Hājib of the king.²⁷ Jalāl now felt that it was not safe for him to stay in Delhi any longer and he with his adherents betook themselves to Bahārpur.²⁸ He called some men from his fief of Baran (modern Bulandshahr) and rallied round him a strong party of relatives and friends.
c1.27
²⁶ Ibid. p. 172.
c1.28
²⁷ *Futūh.* p. 197., *T.M.S.* p. 56.
c1.29
²⁸ Barani has Bahārpur, Ferishtah Bahadurpur, Badaoni Bahāpur and ‘Iṣāmī Bhokal Bahārī. The place lies on the Jumna some six or seven miles east of old Delhi and south west of Kilughari.
c1.30
Jalāluddin’s flight created consternation in the Turkish ranks. Their game was out. They decided to strike the first blow and finish Jalāluddin. To disarm him of all suspicion Aitmar Kachhan and Aitmar Surkhah sent him a memorial addressing him as emperor Jalāluddin. Aitmar Kachhan started with a small band of troopers to decoy him from Bahārpur, carry him off to Kilughari and kill him in the presence of the infant king Shamsuddin. Jalāluddin had scented the plot from before and as soon as Kachhan arrived at the former’s mansion he was pulled down from his horse and instantly beheaded by ‘Alāuddin.²⁹ The murder of Kachhan further inflamed feelings of animosity on both sides. Jalāluddin’s brave and gallant sons now rode post haste to Delhi with a company of fifty horse,³⁰ forcibly seized the infant king and carried him off to Bahārpur together with the sons of Malik Fakhruddin.³¹ Aitmar Surkhāh started in their pursuit and overtook them near Bahārpur. A hand to hand scuffle ensued in which Ikhtiyāruddin, the eldest son of Jalāl, fell from his horse and Surkhah dealt upon him two or three blows with his sword. Luckily none of them proved effective and this gave time to Ikhtiyāruddīn, who drew his sword and struck off the head of Aitmar Surkhah.³²
c1.31
²⁹ *Futūh.* p. 198.
c1.32
³⁰ Barani has 50, *Tab. Akb.* and Ferishtah 500.
c1.33
³¹ Ferishtah p. 88. The narrative of Badaoni is slightly different.
c1.34
³² *T.M.S.* p. 59 *Farishtah* p. 88.
c1.35
The abduction of the young king was too much for the public of Delhi to stand. The citizens rose in a body, poured out of all the thirteen gates³³ of the city and assembled at the Badaon Gate. They determined to march to Bahārpur and rescue the emperor’s son from the clutches of the Khaljīs. A sub-conscious loyalty had developed in their breasts for the Īlbārīs who had ruled over them for the last eighty years, and the people abhorred the very idea of being ruled by the Khaljīs. But before they could leave the walls of the city Malikul’umra stood at the Badaon Gate and stopped them from proceeding further. His sons were in the custody of Jalāl-uddīn and in the interest of his own kith and kin he did not want any struggle with the latter. He, therefore, put down the tumult and dispersed the crowd. The majority of the people turned back, but a large number of Turkish Amīrs and Maliks finding both of their leaders killed and their cause lost went over to Jalāluddīn. Their forces swelled the ranks of the Khaljīs.³⁴
c1.36
³³ Baranī has twelve gates but Amīr Khusrau (*Qirānus Sādāin*, Elliot vol. III p. 524) has thirteen. Sharafuddīn Yazdī, the author of *Mulfūzāt-i-Tīmūrī*, points out that the old Delhi of Mu‘izzuddīn had ten gates but three others were opened from Sīrī (‘Alāuddīn’s city) to Jahānpanāh (Tughlaq’s city). Thus Delhi had thirteen gates and not twelve. Ibn Battūtah gives the names of several of them.
c1.37
³⁴ *Zafarul Vāli* p. 753.
c1.38
With the Turkish party crushed, the infant king in his possession, and the paralytic Mu‘izzuddīn in the throes of death, Jalāluddīn was now all powerful. A couple of days after Shamsuddīn’s abduction Jalāl sent to Kīlughari a man named Turkesh,⁵⁵ whose father had been killed by Mu‘izzuddīn, to avenge his father’s death by finishing the dying sultan. The man entered the palace, wrapped the king’s body in a carpet, delivered a few kicks at it, and flung it into the Jumna. The river bore away the last of the Ilbārī sultans (19th Muharram 689, Wednesday, February 1st, 1290).⁵⁶ The crown was almost thrust on Jalāluddīn’s head but he hesitated to adorn the diadem all at once. He seated Shamsuddīn on the throne at Bahārpur and proposed to Malik Chhajjū, nephew of Balban, to undertake the duties of Regent and the guardianship of the young king. On his behalf, he requested for the districts of Tabarhinda, Deopalpur and Multan.⁵⁷ Malik Chhajjū on the other hand asked for the fief of Kara, yielding Regency and Vazirship to Shayastā Khān. Jalāluddīn assented to the proposal and assigned Kara to Chhajjū who immediately left for his fief. For some time Jalāluddīn used to bring Shamsuddīn into the darbār and place him on the throne, himself discharging the duties of Regent and Vazīr, but everybody knew that such an arrangement was not to continue for long. Friends and foes all hailed the rising star and Jalāluddīn left Bahārpur with the puppet king and a large concourse of people. He arrived in Kīlughari and crowned himself king. Shamsuddīn was thrown into prison where he died after some time.⁵⁸
c1.39
⁵⁵ *Futūh*, p. 200.
c1.40
⁵⁶ Mu‘izzuddīn ruled for three years and some months. Also see *T.M.S.* p. 59.
c1.41
⁵⁷ Badaonī, Ranking, vol. I p. 229.
c1.42
⁵⁸ Shamsuddīn’s reign lasted for three months and some days. *T.M.S.* p. 61; Ferishtah p. 88; Badaonī, Ranking, vol. I p. 229.
c1.43
The citizens of Delhi, however, looked upon his accession with great resentment. Delhi was full of men of rank and wealth, writes the contemporary chronicler Ziyāuddīn, “but no voice of congratulation hailed the installation of Jalāluddin." So apprehensive was the new king of their hostile attitude that for a long time he did not venture to enter the metropolis. The popular feeling was against the Khaljīs whose ascendancy had put an end to the government of the "Turks."
Origin of the Khaljīs
c1.s1.1
The resentment of the public was due to the belief that the Khaljīs were a race different from that of the Turks. But in reality it was not so. Ziyauddīn Baranī writes that when Kaiqubād fell seriously ill and there was no hope his recovery, the officers of Balban assemled together and decided to enthrone a young son of Mu'izzuddīn, and carry on the administration through a council of regents "lest the sovereignty should be lost to the Turks."[Footnote marker: 39?] The historian also writes that because Jalāluddīn "belonged to a different race (اصل) " he did not have any confidence in the Turks, nor did the Turks put their trust in the Khaljīs. After Jalāluddīn had left Delhi, established his headquarter at Bahārpur, defeated the Turks under Aitmar Kachhan and Aitmar Surkhāh and captured the young son of Mu'izzuddīn, a large number of Turkish nobles (از اصل تركان) went over to him and the Khaljīs gained numerical superiority. On the day of the death of Mu'izuddīn the government of the country "passed from the family of the Turks (در خاندان تركان) to that of the Khaljīs (در اصل خلجيان). Nobles, soldiers and merchants all alike were amazed, and they wondered at the way the Khaljīs had seated themselves on the throne in place of the Turks and the kingship passed from the Turkish race to another race.⁴¹
c1.s1.2
³⁹ *Baranī* p. 171.,
c1.s1.3
⁴⁰ *Ibid.* p. 173.
c1.s1.4
⁴¹ *Ibid* pp. 175-76, شريف و لشكرى و بازارى......حيران ماندندى و ايشان را عجب مينمود كه خلجيان چگونه بجائ تركان بر تخت نشستند و بادشاهی از اصل تركان دراصل ديگر رود –
c1.s1.5
The above statements of Baranī bear out two facts. Firstly, that there were two parties at Delhi, one under Aitmar Kachhan and Aitmar Surkhāh, and the other under Jalāluddin Khaljī. Either of them wanted to gain ascendency at the court, and to rule in the name of the young son of Mu‘izuddin, who was lying on his death bed. Naturally, each party distrusted the other, and tried to out manoeuver each other's plans. Secondly, that the Khaljīs were of a different race from the Turks. Beyond this Baranī does not say anything. He does not point out the race to which the Khaljīs belonged.
c1.s1.6
But later historians have tried to elucidate the point. Niẓāmuddīn Aḥmad is perhaps the first among them. According to him the Khaljīs were the descendants of Qulij Khan, a son-in-law of Changīz Khan. Qulij was not on good terms with his wife but dared not break away openly from her father, the Mongol emperor. At last he found a welcome opportunity to overthrow his allegiance to Changīz, when with his family and followers numbering about 30,000 men, he migrated to the dales of Ghaur and Jurjistān. There he remained undisturbed, and his people came to be known as Qāljī from Qalij or Qulij; but later on, on account of constant use, the word changed into Khaljī. When the rulers of Ghaur conquered India, the Khaljīs followed in their train in large numbers and took service under the sultans of Hindustān. Among these Khaljīs were the ancestors of Sultan Jalāluddīn of Delhi and Sultan Maḥmūd of Malwa. Niẓāmuddīn further adds that according to the author of the Saljūqnāmah the Khaljīs were descended from Turk, son of Japhet, son of Noah.⁴²
c1.s1.7
⁴² *Tab. Akb.* p. 116.
c1.s1.8
But Niẓāmuddīn’s conclusion is hardly worth credence, because in an earlier context he writes that the Khaljīs fought in the Khvarizm Shahi armies, and, therefore, their existence before Changīz Khan's times cannot be doubted. The hypothesis finds support from Ferishtah who says that the Khaljīs are often mentioned in the histories of Ghaznā, and it is certain that they existed anterior to the time of Changīz Khan. But, perhaps, to reconcile himself to Niẓāmuddīn's statement he adds that it is likely that Qalij Khan may himself have been of the tribe of the Khaljīs, and Jalāluddīn of Delhi and Maḥmūd of Malwa may have descended directly from him.⁴³ Badaonī, on the other hand, vehemently criticises the Qalij Khānī ancestry saying that this theory "has no real authority" . . . "and as a matter of fact there is no connection whatever between Qalij and Khalj."⁴⁴ Both Ferishtah and Badaonī think the second statement of Niẓāmuddīn, which mentions Turk, son of Japhet, as the progenitor of the Khaljī race, as the more reasonable. Hājīuddabīr writing about the Khaljīs of Malwa says that they were descendants of Qalij Khan, son of Afrāsiyāb, who was son-in-law of Changīz Khan;⁴⁵ but he does not say anything about the ancestry of Jalāluddīn of Delhi.
c1.s1.9
⁴³ Ferishtah p. 88.
c1.s1.10
⁴⁴ Badaoni, Ranking vol. I, p. 230.
c1.s1.11
⁴⁵ *Zafarul Vālī* p. 197.
c1.s1.12
Baranī's indefiniteness on this issue appears inexplicable. His father and uncle had been in the service of Delhi sultans for a considerable time. He himself was an intimate friend of many an influential government servant. Besides this he had consulted many contemporary and earlier works. He was thus in a position to possess accurate information with regard to the origin of the Khaljīs. Therefore, he either deliberately avoided to throw light on this point, or thought it to be a matter of little consequence, or was perhaps unable to ascertain the truth. Anyhow the fact is that he was not conversant with ethnological studies, because he displays a similar vagueness about the origin of the Tughlaqs. But his statements do bear out that the Khaljīs were not welcomed by a certain section of the nobles, because they came of a race different from that of the Turks. Later historians like Nizāmuddīn, Badaonī and Ferishtah do not advance the position any further. Their statements are based only on legends and not on any definite conclusions of historical research.
c1.s1.13
A critical study of the subject, however, conclusively points to the Turkish origin of the Khaljīs. Khalj is the name given to the land lying on either side of river Helmand in Afghanistan, and the inhabitants of that region were known as Khaljīs. Various nomadic tribes had settled in Khalj from very remote times and under such circumstances it is impossible to assert with absolute certainty that the Khaljīs belonged to a particular tribe or race. Ibn Haukal, an Arab geographer of the 10th century A.D.,⁴⁶ ascribes Turkish origin to the Khaljīs. According to him they were settled from the old in the regions between Hindustan and Sijistan, and that "they are rich in cattle and their habits, customs and dress are like those of the Turks."⁴⁷ Many other writers like Istakhrī, the author of Hudūd-ul-'Ālam and Dīvān-i-Lughātul Turk also think that the Khaljīs were Turks, who from long past resided in Khalj in Afghanistan.⁴⁸ Besides these there is the authority of Fakhruddīn, the author of Tārīkh-i-Fakhruddīn Mubārak Shāhī who finished his work in 1206 about a century and a half before Barani's Tarīkh was completed. Fakhruddīn gives a list of sixty-four Turkish tribes in which he includes Turk, Ghuz, Khaljī, Tatar, Ughuz, and Qai etc.⁴⁹ He gives valuable information on Turkish tribes which shows that he had intimate knowledge about them. Minhāj Sirāj, the author of the *Tabqāt-i-Nāṣirī* says that the Khaljīs served in the army of the Khvarizm Shahi emperors of Transoxiana and took part in various wars of Ghaur and Ghazna.⁵⁰ According to Raverty also Khaljīs were not a "hypothetical" tribe as Elliot is inclined to think,⁵¹ but were a Turkish tribe who having inhabited in Afghanistan for a very long time had been so much assimilated with the people of the locality that they were considered more as Afghans than as Turks.⁵² Barthold, one of the greatest modern authorities on Central Asia, also thinks the Khaljīs to be a Turkish tribe, who, as early as the fourth century A.D., had settled in the southern Afghanistan.⁵³
c1.s1.14
⁴⁶ Ibn Haukal wrote between 902 and 968 A.D.
c1.s1.15
⁴⁷ Ibn Haukal: *Kitāb Moujamul Buldān*, Arabic Text, Vol. II p. 419. *J.A.S.B.* 1852 p. 368. *J.A.S.B.* 1853 p. 152.
c1.s1.16
⁴⁸ Also see proceedings Indian History Congress 1938, pp. 297-303.
c1.s1.17
⁴⁹ *Tarīkh-i-Fakhruddīn*, edited by Sir Denison Ross, London, p. 47.
c1.s1.18
⁵⁰ *Tab. Nas.* Raverty, Vol. I, pp. 539-41, and footnotes.
c1.s1.19
⁵¹ *Elliot* Vol. VIII p. xviii.
c1.s1.20
⁵² *Tab. Nas.* Raverty, Vol. I pp. li and footnotes on pp. 539-41.
c1.s1.21
⁵³ *Encyclopaedia of Islam*, p. 875.
c1.s1.22
Thus it can safely be concluded that the Khaljīs were Turks, but having been long in residence in Afghanistan had assimilated the habits and customs of that country. Some of them came to India as soldiers in the armies of the conquerors from Ghazna and Ghaur and many more arrived as refugees during Mongol upheaval in Central Asia and Afghanistan. Here they were regarded to be different from the Ilbārī Turks who belonged, so to say, to the blue blood. The sovereignty of Delhi had been the monopoly of the Ilbārī Turks for about a century, and a change of dyansty appeared to the people of Delhi a violent break from the conditions to which they had now adjusted themselves. In other words it is in the conservatism of the populace that we should find an explanation of the surprise at the accession of the Khaljīs, and not in the racial differences between the Khaljīs and the Ilbārīs. Both belonged to the same stock.⁵⁴
c1.s1.23
⁵⁴ Ferishtah clarifies the position when he says:— بادشاهى از تركى که غلامان سلاطین غور بودند بسله خلجیان انتقال یافت —
c1.s1.24
*Importance of the Khaljī Revolution.*
c1.s1.25
The Khaljī Revolution was fraught with far reaching consequences. It not only heralded the advent of a new dynasty; it ushered in an era of ceaseless conquests, of unique experiments in statecraft, and of incomparable literary outburst. In the veins of the Khaljīs did not flow the royal blood. They belonged to the proletariat and their accession to power delivered a death-blow to the pseudo-belief that the sovereignty was a monopoly of the privileged. The Khaljī revolt is essentially a revolt of the Indian Muslims against the Turkish hegemony, of those who looked to Delhi, against those who sought inspiration from Ghaur and Ghazna. The revolution resulted in the supercession of a commoner's government over that of the blue-blood's and shocked to their marrow many a high-browed Turk to whom other Musalmans, Indian-born or otherwise, were made of a stuff inferior to their own.
c1.s1.26
A change of dynasty was not a new thing to the Indian people. The frequent and quite unexpected dynastic revolutions had killed in them all sentiments of goodwill for any house or dynasty; and even if they developed loyalty for some particular house they were never reluctant to transfer it to another, if circumstances so required. Thus the supercession of Khaljīs over the Ilbarīs was not of much consequence to the people at large.
c1.s1.27
Neither inheritance, nor election, nor even intrigue had secured the throne to Jalaluddin. It was by a *coup de main* that the throne had passed from the Ilbārīs to the Khaljīs, and it was through sheer force that they maintained it. Neither the support of the people, nor of the nobility, nor even of the clergy was sought. Whatever the Khaljīs did or undid for the country, they at least showed to the Muslim world that the state could not only exist but vigorously function without any religious support,—an unprecedented phenomenon indeed.
c1.s1.28
What is of striking importance during the regime of the Khaljīs (and especially of 'Alāūddīn) is a continuous series of unprecedented conquests in the annals of Indo-Muslim history. For the first time the Khaljīs carried Muslim arms into the remotest corners of the country. Constitutionally the Khaljīs were empire builders, for they brought to knees independent kings at home and kept an eye on defence against external aggression. Had it not been for 'Alāūddīn's prompt and stern measures India would have passed into the hands of the Mughals two centuries earlier than it actually did.
c1.s1.29
Some of the reforms of 'Alāūddīn, again, are unique experiments in medieval times. They succeeded quite well what if their success was short lived. But the force that was the mainstay of the Khaljīs proved a canker in their body-politic and a contemporary saint was tempted to declare that "the empire of 'Alāūddīn (the greatest of the Khaljīs) had no stable foundations."