The Sultanate of Delhi, 711–1526 A.D. c14.s17: Muhammad of Ghur’s death : his achievements
The Sultanate of Delhi, 711–1526 A.D. c14.s17
- Language
- English
Muhammad of Ghur’s death : his achievements
c14.s17.1
Muhammad of Ghur was called back to his country (Ghazni) in order to meet his Central Asian enemies, leaving Qutub-ud-din Aibak in charge of his conquest in India. He gained some success against the encroachment of the Khwarizm Shah who was his chief rival in Central Asia. But it was short-lived. The Khwarizmi army, supported by Qara-Khitais, inflicted a crushing defeat on Muhammad at Andhkhud in 1204. It was with great difficulty that he could save himself and retreat to his capital of Ghur. He was obliged to conclude a defensive alliance with Ala-ud-din Khwarizm Shah whereby he resigned his claim to all his conquests in Central Asia, except Herat and Balkh. The news of Muhammad’s defeat at Andhkhud spread like wild fire and it was rumoured that he himself had been killed in the battle. This led to a general rising among the turbulent people of the Panjab. The situation was worsened by the defection and disloyalty of one of the officers of Muhammad, named Aibak-bak, who killed the governor of Multan and established himself as an independent ruler of the place. The Khokhars and other turbulent tribes, who resided in the country between Lahore and Ghazni, broke into an open rebellion and began plundering the districts between the Chenab and the Jhelam. They made an attempt to capture Lahore. The roads became infested with rebels and the revenues from the Panjab could not be sent to Ghazni. Muhammad of Ghur was obliged to proceed to the Panjab in order to chastise the rebels. He sent urgent instructions to Qutub-ud-din Aibak to join him at the Jhelam. Aibak was besieged by the rebels on the way, but he succeeded in defeating and dispersing them and joining his master. Muhammad, accompanied by Aibak, came to Lahore and after setting its affairs began his return march to Ghazni. While he was encamped at a place called Damayak and engaged in evening prayers, he was assassinated on 15th March, 1206, by some Shia rebels and Hindu Khokhars.
c14.s17.2
Muhammad of Ghur was, without doubt, inferior in military ability to Mahmud of Ghazni. Unlike the latter, he suffered a number of defeats at the hands of Indian rulers. He could not equal Mahmud in grandeur and influence. But in practical statesmanship, constructive ability and actual achievements he was far superior to that notable ruler of Ghazni. Like Mahmud, he quickly perceived that the political condition of India was rotten; but while Mahmud helped himself to its riches, Muhammad devoted himself to conquering quite a considerable extent of the country and establishing an empire. Wealth for its own sake had no attraction for him. He wanted territory which he desired to bequeath to his successors. In short, Muhammad’s aim was loftier than that of Mahmud.
c14.s17.3
The causes of his success were his ability to gauge the situation and master it, and his steadfast determination to pursue his objective relentlessly. Moreover, he possessed patience and the quality of not accepting a defeat as final. He realised that he had little chances in Central Asia against his great rival, the Khwarizm Shah; so, like Babar after him, he concentrated all his ability and strength on acquiring a foothold in India. He was a judge of human character and patronised his slaves who fully justified his choice and confidence. Though he had no son of his body to inherit his vast dominion in India, his slaves, like Qutub-ud-din Aibak and others, were there to carry on his work. Muhammad was not a mere soldier. He was not indifferent to culture and had scholars and poets like Fakhr-ud-din Razi and Nizami Uruzi at his court. He was the real founder of the Turkish empire in India.