Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Sultanate of Delhi, 711–1526 A.D. c16.s5: Nasir-ud-din Mahmud, 1246—1265

The Sultanate of Delhi, 711–1526 A.D. c16.s5

Language
English

Contents

Nasir-ud-din Mahmud, 1246—1265

His accession and character

c16.s5.t1.1

Nasir-ud-din Mahmud was enthroned at Delhi on 10th June, 1246. With his accession the struggle between the crown and the peers for the possession of real power in the state (which had begun after the death of Iltutmish) came to an end. The Turkish nobility won the contest. Nasir-ud-din Mahmud loyally abided by the tacit agreement and willingly resigned all power in the hands of Balban, the leader of 'the Forty'. The new king was by nature unambitious, docile and even timid. He contented himself with the mere form of royalty and left the substance of authority to his nobles. He was a religious-minded man, but his natural religiosity was accentuated by the memory of the fate that his predecessors had suffered at the hands of the nobility, by the great internal commotion caused by the attempt of the Hindu chiefs to regain their power and by the threat of a foreign invasion by the Mongols. Several anecdotes are related about the piety and simplicity of this ruler. One such anecdote is that his only queen used to cook his meals and, one day, when her fingers were burnt in the kitchen, she complained to the sultan and requested him to provide her with a maid-servant. Nasir-ud-din is said to have refused to comply on the plea that he was only a trustee of the State and could not use public money for his own comfort. These stories are, without doubt, very highly exaggerated. It is inconceivable that the sultan's wife, who was Balban's daughter, could have no maid-servant. We know that he had more than one wife and many slaves. The only truth in this and the various other anecdotes seems to be that Nasir-ud-din Mahmud probably lived an unostentatious life and spent most of his time in copying the Quran and in doing kindly acts of charity. He could not help it, for it was impossible for him to play the king under the circumstances. The very fact that he entered into a conspiracy with Balban against his nephew and benefactor, Masud, shows that he was not altogether without worldly ambition. But he was sagacious enough to understand his own limitations and the difference between what was possible and what was not. It was the knowledge of this together with his natural character that made him reign for about twenty years and die a natural death in 1265.

Balban : de facto ruler, 1246—1252

c16.s5.t2.1

As Balban was instrumental in raising Nasir-ud-din to the throne, the sultan placed all power in the hands of this leader of 'the Forty'. Abu Bakr seems to have continued as nominal wazir and become a partisan of Balban. The most important offices went to Balban's relatives. His younger brother, Kashlu Khan, was appointed lord chamberlain (*amir-i-hajib*). His cousin, Sher Khan, was appointed governor of Lahore and Bhatinda. Balban, who had acted as the real prime minister from the very first day of the reign, was formally appointed *naib-i-mamlikat* in 1249. The same year he gave his daughter in marriage to the young sultan which further strengthened his position and raised him head and shoulder above other Turkish nobles. Thus Balban monopolised power and used it for the advantage of himself, his relations and the Turkish state in the country.

c16.s5.t2.2

Balban’s temporary eclipse: Rayhan becomes prime minister, 1253

c16.s5.t2.3

Balban’s ascendancy and his unscrupulous use of power led to the rise of a party against him with Imad-ud-din Rayhan, a Hindu convert, at its head. Nasir-ud-din Mahmud, who seems to have resented the unbridled exercise of authority by his prime minister, became a party to the conspiracy and issued orders for the dismissal of Balban and his brother. They were directed to leave the court and proceed to their respective provinces. A fresh distribution of offices now took place. Rayhan became prime minister. The office of wazir went to Junaidi. The historian Minhaj was removed from the office of chief qazi which was given to Shamsh-ud-din. Sher Khan, Balban’s cousin, was removed from the governorship of Bhatinda and Multan which were placed under the charge of Arslan Khan. Thus the key positions in the state came to be held by Rayhan’s nominees. Rayhan has been condemned for this *coup*. He has been called a ‘renegade Hindu’, ‘a vile upstart’, ‘a usurper’ and ‘a conspirator’. The fact, however, is that he was as good a Musalman as any Turk and was neither a ruffian nor a scoundrel. He was a clever politician who exploited the king’s dissatisfaction against the arrogant Balban and his party and established his own authority in the latter’s place. He was a leader of the party of the Indian Musalmans whose number was growing with rapidity and who had begun taking interest in the politics of the time. The foreign Turks and their partisans were as much hostile to Indian Musalmans as to the Hindus. They could not tolerate an Indian Muslim holding any position of importance in the administration and hence contemporary writers used unbecoming epithets to describe Rayhan’s character and his *coup* of 1253.

c16.s5.t2.4

Re-instatement of Balban, 1254

c16.s5.t2.5

Rayhan's administration, though popular with the lower classes, could not last long. The Turkish nobles at the court and in the provinces would not tolerate an Indian Muslim as the *de facto* head of the government. They combined under the leadership of Balban and decided to take action. Their united armies proceeded towards the capital in 1254. The sultan, thereupon, issued out of Delhi and encamped near Samana. A contest between the two was imminent but Mahmud lost heart and was obliged to agree to the proposal of the insurgents to dismiss Rayhan (1254). Accordingly, Rayhan was transferred to Badaun and from there, a little after, to Baharaich. Balban was reappointed *naib* and allowed to fill important offices with his nominees. The historian Minhaj got back his post of the chief *qazi*. The ascendancy of the Turkish nobility was now unquestioned and it continued till the end of Mahmud's reign.

Balban suppresses rebellions

c16.s5.t3.1

Balban now resumed his policy of consolidating the authority of the crown. He decided to put down rebellions and to force the provinces of the Sultanate to return to allegiance. Bangal had for some time been in a disturbed condition. Tughan Khan, the governor, behaved like a king and repudiated the authority of Delhi. He even invaded Awadh. Balban soon found a pretext to interfere in the affairs of Bangal when Tughan Khan, who had been defeated by the raja of Jajnagar in Orissa, appealed to Delhi for help. Balban sent an army for his assistance under Tamur Khan, who was instructed to punish Tughan and take charge of Bangal from him. He was able to accomplish this work. Tughan was compensated by the grant of Awadh and he died immediately after (1246). But Bangal was destined to give more trouble to the ruler of Delhi. One of Tughan's successors in that province, Yuzbak-i-Tughril Khan, assumed regal title, struck coins and read the *khutba* in his name about 1255. But he was killed in an expedition to Kamarupa in or about 1257 after which the supremacy of Delhi over Bangal was re-established. Within three or four years there was again trouble in Bangal. Arslan Khan, governor of Kara, occupied Lakhanauti and ruled Bangal as an independent ruler. The province continued its career of independence till the end of Nasir-ud-din Mahmud's reign.

c16.s5.t3.2

In the north-west, too, Balban had to deal with rebellious governors. The restoration of the Delhi authority over that region was imperfect. This was due to three causes, namely, (1) the presence at Baniyan of Saif-ud-din Hasan Qarlugh who was an ambitious ruler and wanted to extend his dominion to Multan and Sindh, (2) the constant pressure of the Mongols, and (3) the disloyalty of the local officers who were anxious to carve out a fortune for themselves by intrigues with Delhi and the Mongols in Persia. In 1249 Saif-ud-din Hasan Qarlugh occupied Multan. He was, however, compelled to abandon it soon after. A few years later, Kashlu Khan, governor of Multan and Uch, repudiated allegiance to Delhi and became a vassal of Hulagu, the Mongol ruler of Persia. He entered into an alliance with another rebellious governor, named Qutlugh Khan of Awadh, and the two made an attempt to capture Delhi. But the project failed owing to the vigilance and activity of Balban. An understanding seems to have been arrived at between Delhi and Hulagu who sent an envoy to Delhi to assure the Sultan that the Mongols would respect the north-western frontier of India. But trouble continued to reign in the Panjab. Even Lahore passed into the hands of the Mongols in 1254. Only a small portion of the Panjab, namely that in the south-east, remained a part of Delhi, while the rest, namely that in the north-west, came under the Mongol sphere of influence. Multan and Sindh, however, remained parts of Delhi.

c16.s5.t3.3

One of the most difficult tasks of Balban was to resist the numerous Hindu attempts to regain their independence. His first task was to subjugate the disaffected people of the Doab. This kept him engaged for months during which bitter fighting took place. Balban defeated a notable chieftain in the fertile valley of the Yamuna, whom Minhaj calls ‘Dalaki-wa-Malaki’ identified by H. C. Ray with Trilokyavarma of the Chandela dynasty (*Dynastic History*, Vol. II, pp. 720-30), slaughtered a large number of men and carried away women and children into slavery. Next, he took upon himself the task of chastising the turbulent people of Mewat, the region south of Delhi. Here, too, he displayed his usual brutality. He led numerous expeditions against Ranthambhor which was eventually conquered. In 1247 he suppressed a rising of the Chandela chief of Kalinjar. In 1251 he led an expedition against the Hindu ruler of Gwalior. But he made no attempt to establish Turkish rule in Malwa and Central India.

Death of Nasir-ud-Din Mahmud

c16.s5.t4.1

No information is available about the last days of Nasir-ud-din Mahmud's reign. The *Tabqat-i-Nasiri*, the only first-rate authority on the period, comes to an abrupt end about the middle of the year 1260, and our next authority, namely, Zia-ud-din Barani's *Tarikh-i-Firozshahi* commences its account from the accession of Balban. The Sultan, however, seems to have lived a peaceful life and died a pre-mature death in 1265 without leaving any male issue. He was succeeded by Balban.

Cites (2)