The Sultanate of Delhi, 711–1526 A.D. c19.s1.t7.1

c19.s1.t7.1

Jalal-ud-din was the first Turkish Sultan of Delhi who placed before him the ideal of benevolent despotism. Though a successful general with powerful army at his back, he gave up the policy of militarism which had been the motive force of his predecessors for about a century. He was very anxious to reconcile the hostile elements in the court and the kingdom by means of a generous policy. He allowed important Turkish officers, who were the followers of Balban's dynasty, to remain in places of power. He showed studied modesty almost to the extent of self-effacement. As has been said, the Sultan did not ride in the courtyard of Balban's palace and refused to sit upon the old throne because he had stood before it as a servant and had a new throne made for himself. It is too much to believe that a lifelong soldier and general like him possessed such natural modesty. Obviously, it was policy. Jalal-ud-din did not undertake any notable military expedition against the Hindu chiefs. Probably he thought that the interests of the State demanded consolidation. During the three years of the rule of Kaiqubad and Kayumars, the administration of Delhi had been thrown out of the gear. It required concentrated attention The charge of pusillanimity does not hold water, for he successfully defended the northwestern frontier of the Sultanate and inflicted a crushing defeat on the Mongols who had, therefore, to make peace and settle down in Delhi as peaceful citizens. His rule was not in any way remarkable; but it must be admitted that for the first time in the history of the Sultanate of Delhi there was a king who made some attempt at conciliating public opinion and reconciling the various elements of power among the Muslim population, Turkish, non-Turkish and Indian. Some historians are of opinion that owing to his policy of unbecoming leniency the State would have come to harm if his reign had been prolonged. They have, consequently, come to the conclusion that he was unfit to hold the sceptre in that age. This view seems to be erroneous, for Jalal-ud-din was not all kindness. He was as intolerant towards the religion of the vast majority of the people as his predecessors. He destroyed and desecrated temples and broke images at Jhain, as has already been shown. He could put even a Muslim saint to death, if he believed it to be desirable in the interest of the State. It is unfortunate that Barani picked up only those events of his reign which show him in bad light. That historian, [Figure: INDIA IN 1315A.D. Alauddin Khalji.