Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Sultanate of Delhi, 711–1526 A.D. c17: 11. Balban and his Successors

The Sultanate of Delhi, 711–1526 A.D. c17

Language
English

Contents

11. Balban and his Successors

Balban, 1265-1287

Early life

c17.s1.t1.1

The original name of Balban was Baha-ud-din and, like Iltutmish, he was an Ilbari Turk. His father was a Khan of 10,000 families. In his early youth Balban was captured by the Mongols, who carried him to Ghazni and sold him to one Khwaja Jamal-ud-din of Basra. The Khwaja took him to Delhi where he was purchased by Iltutmish. Baha-ud-din showed signs of future promise. Iltutmish enrolled him as a member of the famous corps of 'the Forty Slaves'. His intelligence, ability and loyalty won recognition and he was promoted to be *amir-i-shikar* (lord of the hunt) by Raziah. He offered his co-operation to the nobles who formed a faction against Raziah and assisted them in deposing the queen. Bahram, the next ruler, granted him the fief of Rewari in Gurgaon district in the Panjab. Very soon after, the district of Hansi was added to it. Balban's wise administration of the district seems to have improved the material condition of the people in his charge. He organised an expedition against the Mongols and compelled them to raise the siege of Uch in 1256. He seems to have been responsible for the deposition of Masud and raising Nasir-ud-din Mahmud to the throne. In 1246 he became the principal adviser of the new Sultan. A few years after, he established relationship with the Sultan by marrying his daughter to him. He was now given the title of Ulugh Khan and appointed *naib-i-mamlikat*. His position was further strengthened by the failure of Rayhan's intrigue against him, and he was now the most important man in the Sultanate of Delhi.

c17.s1.t1.2

Balban's work as the naib of Nasir-ud-din Mahmud has already been given. He usurped all authority, but exercised it in the interest of the crown. As the royal deputy, he infused vigour into the administration and checked the forces of disintegration. He successfully resisted Hindu attempts to recover their lost dominion and freedom, and he checked the Mongol progress in the direction of [Figure: INDIA IN 1287A.D. Bahauddin Balban.

c17.s1.t1.3

Delhi. His services to the Sultanate of Delhi as naib were indeed great.

His accession

c17.s1.t2.1

Later writers, like Ibn Battuta and Isami, hold that Nasir-ud-din Mahmud was poisoned by Balban who was anxious to usurp the throne. This story is discounted by some modern scholars. Although Balban was already the *de facto* ruler and Nasir-ud-din Mahmud had no son, he was old and would not wait indefinitely to satisfy his ambition of wearing the crown. He is said, as is hinted by his own son, Bughra Khan, to have poisoned the youthful sultan to attain to his cherished desire. Be that as it may, on Nasir-ud-din Mahmud’s death, in 1265, Balban, who was already in possession of power, carried out his enthronement and assumed the title of Ghiyas-ud-din Balban.

Restoration of the Crown’s prestige; Balban’s theory of kingship

c17.s1.t3.1

Balban’s immediate task was to restore the prestige of the crown. His long political experience had shown him that without the destruction of the pretensions of the Turkish nobility, the crown would enjoy no authority and command no prestige from its subjects. He had seen that the Turkish military aristocracy, of which he was a member, had degraded the Sultan to the position of a mere peer. The historian Barani tells us that during the last days of Nasir-ud-din’s rule the office of the Sultan enjoyed no prestige and that people had lost all fear of, and respect for, the king. “Fear of the governing power,” remarks the historian, “which is the basis of all good government and the source of the glory and splendour of the State, had departed from the hearts of all men, and the country had fallen into a wretched condition.” Balban had resolved to put an end to this sorry state of affairs and to raise the power and prestige of the crown so as to inspire fear in the hearts of all his subjects. Balban believed in a theory which was akin to the theory of divine right of kings. He expounded his views on the subject to his son, Bughra Khan, in these words: “The heart of the king is the special repository of God’s favour and in this he has no equal among mankind.” On another occasion he emphasised the sacredness of the king’s person. He believed in his inherent despotism. His conviction was that unalloyed despotism alone could exact obedience from his subjects and ensure the security of the State. In order, therefore, to be a successful despot, he sought increased personal prestige for himself by claiming descent from the mythical Turkish hero, Afrasiyab of Turan, and keeping himself in studied aloofness, and cultivated dignified reserve. On his accession he gave up drinking wine and all jovial company. He maintained a very grave demeanour and refused to speak to common people. He regulated the court ceremonial after the Persian model and copied the court etiquette of the Seljuqs and Khwarizmi kings of Central Asia. He appointed tall and fearsome bodyguards who were to stand round the king's person with their swords drawn and dazzling in the sun. He instituted the *sijda* (prostration) and *paibos* (kissing the monarch's feet) in the court as normal forms of salutation for the king. He introduced the annual celebration of the Persian Nauroz to heighten the splendour of his court. He prohibited the drinking of wine by his courtiers and officials, prescribed for them a special dress and a fixed ceremonial from which no deviation was permitted. No one was allowed to laugh or even smile in his *darbar*. Balban submitted himself to these rigid formalities while in public. He would not meet and talk to smaller nobles, to say nothing of ordinary people. He despised men of low birth. A rich merchant of Delhi sought an interview with the Sultan and offered him all his wealth, but Balban refused to see him. When the news of the death of his eldest son, prince Muhammad, reached him, he remained firm and unmoved and went as usual through the daily routine of administration, though in his private apartment he wept bitterly. Thus, by rigid ceremonial and dignity, Balban restored the prestige of the crown. The fact that the Sultanate of Delhi in his days was the only first-rate Muslim State left intact inspite of the Mongol fury and havoc added to Balban's prestige.

The destruction of 'the Forty'

c17.s1.t4.1

Balban realised that one great impediment in the way of the Sultan's absolute despotism was the presence of the Turkish aristocracy at the head of which stood a select body known as 'the Forty'. This body of the leading Turks had reduced the crown to a mere figurehead and divided amongst its members all the great fiefs of the Sultanate and all the highest offices in the State. It had come into existence in the time of Iltutmish and, in fact, all the members of this body were originally Iltutmish's slaves. The Sultan had succeeded in preserving the royal dignity and keeping ‘the Forty’ under proper control. But after his death there was a bitter struggle between ‘the Forty’ and the Sultan. It was ‘the Forty’ that won and imposed its will on Iltutmish’s successors. In order to make the throne safe for himself and for his descendants, Balban wanted to destroy this organisation. First of all, he promoted junior Turks to important positions and placed them on a position of equality with ‘the Forty’. Then he inflicted condign punishments on the members of this group for slight faults in order to repress them and reduce their importance in the eyes of the people. Malik Baqbaq, governor of Badaun and a great noble and a member of ‘the Forty’, caused one of his servants to be beaten to death. When a complaint was made against him, Balban ordered Malik Baqbaq to be publicly flogged. Another great noble, named Haibat Khan, who was governor of Awadh, was found guilty of killing a man while dead drunk with wine. Balban ordered Haibat Khan to be flogged with 500 stripes and then to be delivered to the widow of the victim. Haibat Khan purchased his freedom by paying 20,000 tankas to the widow and was so overcome with shame that he remained confined to his house till the day of his death. The Sultan ordered Amin Khan, governor of Awadh, who was defeated by Tughril of Bangal, to be hanged at the gate of the city of Ayodhya (Awadh). Balban is said to have poisoned his cousin, Sher Khan, who was an able and prominent member of ‘the Forty’ and was governor of Bhatinda, Bhatner, Samana and Sunam. The Sultan was jealous of his ability and ambition. After his death there was no potential opponent to the execution of Balban’s policy of despotism. By such crooked and barbarous measures he destroyed ‘the Forty’, and cowed down those of its members that escaped death and dismissal.

Organisation of the spy system

c17.s1.t5.1

Balban’s policy of despotism could be carried out successfully as he was correctly and promptly informed about the happening at the capital and in the provinces and about the ambitious schemes of his nobles and officials. In fact, the efficient working of administration depended upon Balban’s spy system on whose organisation he spent much time and money. The king placed secret reporters in every department and appointed secret news-writers in every province and, in fact, in every district. He took great pains in ascertaining the character and loyalty of the news-writers. He gave them good salary and made them independent of governors and commanders. They were required to transmit to him every day the news of important occurrences. If a news-writer failed to do his duty, he was given exemplary punishment. The news-writer of Badaun who had failed to report the conduct of Malik Baqbaq, was hanged over the city gate. The well-organised system of espionage, thus, became one of the most important instruments of Balban's despotism.

Reorganisation of the army

c17.s1.t6.1

The main prop of Balban's despotism was his powerful army. He concentrated his attention on its reorganisation. From the time of Qutub-ud-din Aibak, Turkish soldiers had been granted assignments of land in lieu of their services. Some of them had been allotted fiefs before these were conquered and annexed to the Sultanate of Delhi. Iltutmish had followed the old practice of granting land to many soldiers on condition'of military service. The successors of these soldiers continued to enjoy their lands although many of them did not perform any military duties, and a good number of them were irregular in rendering service to the state. They looked upon these lands as belonging to them by right. Balban ordered an enquiry into the history of these service-tenures and he found that much of the land was in the hands of old men who were unfit for military service. In many cases widows and orphans held land, but performed no service whatever. He ordered the resumption of these lands from old men and from widows and orphans and gave thein pensions in cash. As regards youngmen who were fit for military service, he allowed them to retain their assignments; but the collection of revenue of their villages was to be made by the central government and payment made to them in cash. These orders evoked loud protests from the assignees who approached Fakhr-ud-din, the aged *kotwal* of Delhi and a friend of the king, to intercede on their behalf. The *kotwal’s* pleading obliged Balban to cancel the order regarding the aged holders of land. The reform, therefore, did not prove to be effective. The policy of grant of land to the soldiers in lieu of cash payments continued as before. The custom of sending proxies—ill-equipped, hired men—by the troopers, however, came to an end.

c17.s1.t6.2

Balban placed the army under the charge of Imad-ul-mulk, a very competent and vigilant officer, and appointed him army minister (*diwan-i-ariz*). He was made independent of the finance minister's control. Imad-ul-mulk took special interest in matters relating to recruitment, salary and equipment of troops. He enforced military discipline and, by honest and wise policy, made the army a powerful instrument of force. There was, of course, no revolutionary change introduced in military organisation, but Balban's vigilance and strictness and the army minister's attention to details raised the efficiency and tone of the fighting machine upon which the strength of the Sultanate depended.

Suppression of rebellions

c17.s1.t7.1

Students of medieval Indian history have missed a patent fact, namely, that during the entire period of the so-called Slave rule no addition of territory was made by any of the Turkish rulers from Qutub-ud-din Aibak down to the death of Kaiqubad in 1290. Their time and energy were quite exhausted in reconquering what Muhammad of Ghur had conquered but had been lost to his successors. When Balban became king he was faced with the old question, namely, whether he should make fresh conquests of territory from Hindu rulers and annex it to Delhi. Some of his close friends advised him to follow the above course; but the Sultan, who was a realist, felt that it would mean taking an undue risk and exposing Delhi to the Mongols and subjecting the state to internal disorder. He, therefore, decided not to make fresh conquests but to regain the old and to consolidate what the Sultanate already possessed.

c17.s1.t7.2

Even this task was stupendous. Our people had practically thrown off the Turkish yoke in most parts of Hindustan. They had expelled the Turkish governors and soldiers and were following the policy of ravaging the Turkish territory and preventing cultivation of land and collection of revenue by the Turkish officers. In the Doab and in Awadh there was perpetual rebellion. The Sultan's men could not collect any revenue in Katehar (modern Rohilkhand). The Rajputs made the roads unsafe by their depredations. Rebellious Rajput chiefs had their strongholds in Badaun, Amroha, Patiali and Kampil from where they issued out, committed excesses, prevented the cultivators from cultivating the land, plundered the way-farers and then returned to their hiding places. The area round the capital city of Delhi was infested by robbers who plundered the people of Delhi practically every day and the city gates had to be closed after the afternoon prayers. The condition in the distant provinces, such as, Bangal, Bihar and Rajasthan, was much worse. Our patriotic leaders in that age cleverly followed the policy of plunder and devastation, so as not to give sufficient time to the Turks to consolidate their hold in the country. There was, however, lack of first-rate leadership which prevented them from uniting together and mustering adequate forces to fight and expel the Turks from the country.

c17.s1.t7.3

Balban was not deterred by the enormity of the task from carrying out his resolution of putting down rebellions. In the very first year of his accession, he succeeded in making the vicinity of Delhi safe from robbers and rebels. He punished them with a heavy hand and cleared the jungles and built four forts in the rural area around Delhi and garrisoned them with ferocious Afghan troops. Next year, he undertook operations in the Doab and in Awadh. He divided the area into a number of military commands and appointed energetic officers to clear the forests and to conduct a ruthless drive against the local Hindu chieftains and their robber, though liberty-loving, bands. He established military posts at Bhojapur, Patiali, Kampil and Jalali, all of which were garrisoned with semi-barbarous Afghan troops. Thereafter, Balban proceeded to Katehar. There he ordered his men to attack the villages, to set fire to the houses and to slay the entire adult male population. Innocent women and children were dragged into slavery. By these barbarous methods he struck terror into the hearts of the people and depopulated the entire region. In every village and jungle heaps of human corpses were left rotting. The remnants of the people, lurking here and there, were thoroughly cowed down. We are told by the historian, Barani, that the Kateharias never after raised their heads and the entire region became safe for the traveller, the peasant and the government officer.

c17.s1.t7.4

Expeditions were sent to reduce the rebellious territories in Rajputana and Bundelkhand, but the exertions of the Delhi army met with only partial success.

Recovery of Bangal

c17.s1.t8.1

As usual, Bangal gave considerable trouble to Balban. In 1279, encouraged by the Mongol threat on the north-west and the old age of the Sultan, Tughril Khan, the governor, who had sent in his submission during the first year of his reign, raised the standard of rebellion. He assumed the title of Sultan, struck coins and caused the *khutba* be read in his name. Balban despatched Amin Khan, governor of Awadh, to reduce the rebel to obedience. Amin Khan was, however, defeated and Balban was so enraged that he ordered him to be hanged over the city gate of Awadh. He then sent another army under Tirmiti. He fared no better than his predecessor. A third army is said to have been similarly beaten and driven off. Balban's patience was now exhausted and he made preparations to march to Bangal in person. At the head of an army, two lakhs strong, and accompanied by his second son, Bughra Khan, he appeared in the vicinity of Lakhanauti, which was, however, abandoned by Tughril who had fled towards East Bangal. Balban pursued the rebel and reached Sonargaon near Dacca. Tughril was captured far away from Dacca by Bektars and put to death by him at Hajinagar in East Bangal. The Sultan then turned to Lakhanauti and there inflicted a terrible punishment upon Tughril's followers. "On either side of the principal bazaar," writes the historian Barani, "in a street more than two miles in length, a row of stakes was set up and the adherents of Tughril were impaled upon them. None of the beholders had ever seen a spectacle so terrible, and many swooned with terror and disgust." His revenge being thus satisfied, the Sultan appointed Bughra Khan governor of Bangal and advised him to remain faithful to Delhi. "Understand me," he said to his second son, "and forget not that if the governors of Hind or Sindh, of Malwa or Gujarat, of Lakhanauti or Sonargaon, shall draw the sword and become rebels to the throne of Delhi then such punishment, as has fallen on Tughril and his dependants, will fall upon them, their wives, their children and all their adherents." Satisfying himself that Bangal would not henceforth rise into a rebellion, Balban returned to Delhi. He then took steps to punish the deserters of the Delhi army who had joined Tughril but were now captives in the Sultan's hands in the same manner as he had punished his adherents at Lakhanauti. But, at the intercession of a qazi, he modified his plan. Of the offenders, those who were ordinary men were pardoned, those who enjoyed a slightly higher status were punished for a temporary period and those who held still higher positions were thrown into prison. But the officers among them were mounted on buffaloes and paraded through the streets of Delhi.

The Mongol invasion

c17.s1.t9.1

Reference has been made to the threat of the Mongol invasion on the north-western frontier of the Sultanate which prevented Balban from following an aggressive policy of conquest. For some time past Mongols had been appearing on our north-western frontier and had brought Lahore under their sphere of influence. In that direction only Multan and Sindh remained in the hands of Delhi's agents, and even these two provinces were exposed to invasions from the north-west. Balban's policy was to strengthen the north-western frontier of the Delhi kingdom by building a line of forts along that frontier and garrisoning them with able-bodied Afghan troops. He placed the entire region under the charge of his warrior cousin, Sher Khan Sanqar, whose courage struck terror into the hearts of the Mongols and frightened turbulent tribes like the Khokhars. His death, in or about 1270, removed a competent warden of the marches. Balban now divided the entire frontier region into two parts. The province of Sunam and Samana was placed under the charge of his younger son, Bughra Khan, while Multan, Sindh and Lahore were given to his eldest son, prince Muhammad Khan. Prince Muhammad was an able soldier, a competent administrator and, above all, a man of great literary taste. In his service two of the greatest poets of India writing in Persian, named Amir Khusrav and Amir Hasan, began their literary career. He even extended an invitation to the greatest Persian poet of the time, Shaikh Sadi, but the latter politely declined the honour on the ground of old age. Prince Muhammad took effective measures to check the advance of the Mongols. But the latter ravaged the upper Panjab and succeeded in crossing the river Satlaj. The two princes, Muhammad and Bughra Khan, sent their contingents and their united troops defeated and drove away the invaders. But the Mongols re-appeared early in 1286, and this time prince Muhammad was killed in a contest with them in February the same year. The news of the death of his eldest son completely prostrated Balban, then aged above eighty; but the old Sultan continued his policy of taking interest in the defence of the north-western frontier. He reoccupied Lahore; but otherwise his success against the mongols was not great. The authority of Delhi did not extend beyond Lahore. The region west of the river Ravi continued to be under the control of the Mongols.

Death of Balban

c17.s1.t10.1

Reference has been made to the death of prince Muhammad, the eldest son of the Sultan, in whom had centred all the future hopes of the dynasty. The prince had already been nominated for the succession. His death administered a fatal shock to the old Sultan. On receipt of the news, Balban continued discharging his kingly duties without apparent concern; but during the night in the seclusion of his private apartment, he wept bitterly. Indeed, he never recovered from the shock. Perceiving that his end was approaching fast, he summoned Bughra Khan, his second son, to stay with him during his illness; but Bughra Khan was an irresponsible man and was afraid of his father’s stern nature. So he slipped away to Lakhanauti. Balban now nominated prince Muhammad’s son, Kai Khusrav, as his heir. Within a few days of this nomination, he died about the middle of 1287.

An estimate of Balban

c17.s1.t11.1

Balban held the reins of government for about forty years, first as deputy of Sultan Nasir-ud-din Mahmud and then as Sultan. Throughout this long period he had one single aim, namely, that of consolidating the infant Turkish state in Hindustan. There is no doubt that in this task he attained a great success. He restored internal peace and protected the Sultanate from the Mongols by making admirable arrangements for the defence of the north-western frontier. He eschewed aggressive conquest of the territory of the neighbouring Hindu chiefs, not because he was against violating the sanctity of independent states, but because he believed, and rightly too, that aggressive warfare for further addition of territory would impair the efficiency of the Sultanate and would unnecessarily strain the limited resources and manpower of the Turks in a foreign country. Balban raised the prestige of the crown which had fallen low in the days of his predecessors. He crushed the big feudal lords of the Turkish aristocracy and, thereby, gave a new colour to the Turkish state in the country. He was, without doubt, an able and stern administrator and a successful ruler.

c17.s1.t11.2

He achieved his object by ruthlessness and by striking terror all round. His punishments were unnecessarily harsh and cruel and even barbarous; but it must be admitted that they were well calculated to achieve the objective Balban had at heart. Balban was a rigid Sunni Musalman. He punctiliously discharged all the religious duties enjoined by Islam. He was fond of the company of pious Muslim divines. It is said that he always dined in their company and conversed with them on Muslim law and religion. He was fanatically inclined and was intolerant of the religion of the vast majority of his subjects. Devoid of human sympathy, he had no regard for age, rank or sex.

c17.s1.t11.3

Balban was a great patron of learning. He gave refuge to many learned men and princes from Central Asia. These had fled from their homeland to save themselves from the clutches of the Mongols. They were granted liberal maintenance allowances and allotted separate quarters in the capital. Balban’s court was a centre of Islamic culture and learning. He loved architecture. Like all his predecessors, he was not a constructive genius. He possessed an orderly, but not an inventive intellect. He did not bring into existence new civil or military institutions; but he made the old ones work more smoothly and efficiently by his constant vigilance and attention. Balban’s theory of kingship was akin to that of divine right of kings, and the key-note of his policy was unalloyed despotism. He was a believer in the theory of the racial superiority of the Turks. He did not like to associate non-Turks with his administration and was altogether against the employment of Indian Muslims in State service. He administered a sharp rebuke to an officer for having employed a native Musalman as a clerk in the district office at Amroha. He had faith in the superiority of ‘blue blood’. He looked down upon common people and did not condescend to talk to those whom he considered to be men of low birth. By temperament, training and conviction he was incapable of understanding the people’s point of view and winning their goodwill.

c17.s1.t11.4

Balban’s most notable achievement was ensuring the safety of the Turkish state and giving it a new lease of life. His next great success lay in raising the prestige of the crown. His third achievement was giving absolute peace and order. These were no ordinary achievements considering the difficulties and dangers that beset the Turkish state in that critical age. His place among the so-called Slave kings is next only to that of Iltutmish.

Kaiqubad, 1287-1290

c17.s2.1

After Balban’s death his nobles, led by Fakhr-ud-din, the kotwal of Delhi, set aside the aged monarch’s nominee, Kai Khusrav, and placed Bughra Khan’s son, Kaiqubad, on the throne. The new ruler assumed the title of Muiz-ud-din Kaiqubad.

c17.s2.2

At the time of his accession Kaiqubad was seventeen years old. He had been brought up under the strict guardianship of his puritanical grandfather, Balban. He was not allowed to cast ‘a glance at a fair face’ or to taste wine. Now that he found himself quite free and master of a big kingdom, his pent-up desires and passions found expression in unrestrained indulgence in wine, women and gaiety. His example was followed by his courtiers who had become sick of the restraint imposed upon their emotions by the late king. Such a young, inexperienced and pleasure-loving Sultan was bound to neglect administration which was left to shift for itself. Power passed into the hands of an unscrupulous intriguer, named Nizam-ud-din, who was the son-in-law of Fakhr-ud-din, the kotwal of Delhi. Kaiqubad became a puppet in his hands. The Mongols took advantage of the change and invaded the Panjab under their leader, Tamur Khan, and advanced as far as Samana. Fortunately, Malik Baqbaq defeated them near Lahore and brought a thousand of them prisoners to Delhi where they were put to death. Within the kingdom, law and order were disregarded by ambitious people. Nizam-ud-din sedulously tried to remove all competent rivals from his path of ambition with a view to seize the throne for himself.

c17.s2.3

Kaiqubad’s father, Bughra Khan, who was governor of Bangal since the days of Balban, having been informed of the developments at Delhi, proceeded towards the imperial capital at the head of a powerful army. It is said that his intentions were to seize the throne from the feeble hands of his son. According to another authority his only desire was to administer a wholesome advice to Kaiqubad to give up the pursuit of pleasures and to attend to business. Be that as it may, he reached the Ghaghra near Ayodhya in 1288. Kaiqubad proceeded against him at the head of an equally big force. Nizam-ud-din did his best to prevent a meeting between the father and the son and to instigate Kaiqubad to fight; but some faithful servants of the time of Balban successfully exerted their influence to bring about a reconciliation between the two. It was decided that Bughra Khan would pay homage to the Sultan of Delhi who was the over-lord of the ruler of Bangal. Bughra Khan agreed and paid homage to Kaiqubad. At the end of the ceremony Kaiqubad broke down, fell at his father’s feet and conducted him to the throne. They remained together for some days and, at the time of parting, Bughra Khan advised his son to mend his ways and to get rid of such an evil counsellor as Nizam-ud-din. After this meeting they returned to their respective places. Kaiqubad heeded his father’s advice for a short time only. He temporarily gave up indulgence and had Nizam-ud-din despatched by poison. Thereafter, he relapsed into his old lethargy and devotion to sensual pleasures. After Nizam-ud-din’s death a Khalji noble, named Jalal-ud-din Firoz, was given the important fief of Bulandshahr and was appointed commander of the Sultan’s army. This appointment brought about a rift at the court. The Turkish nobles, who looked down upon the Khaljis as non-Turks, were hostile to Jalal-ud-din. Soon after this Kaiqubad was struck down with paralysis. The Turkish nobles, therefore, raised to the throne his infant son under the title of Shams-ud-din Kayumars. They organised the Turks and wanted to put Jalal-ud-din Khalji to death, but Jalal-ud-din was on his guard. He forestalled their design and occupied Delhi. The victor caused Kaiqubad to be murdered and set himself up as regent of the new infant king. The regency was only a transitional arrangement and it could not work. Jalal-ud-din set aside Kayumars, put him to death and ascended the throne in March 1290. The so-called Slave dynasty thus came to an end.

Cites (2)