[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [General history and culture](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general) › [The Sultanate of Delhi, 711–1526 A.D.](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.srivastava-1950) › c19.s1.t7 # The Sultanate of Delhi, 711–1526 A.D. c19.s1.t7: Estimate of Jalal-ud-din Firoz The Sultanate of Delhi, 711–1526 A.D. c19.s1.t7 - **Language:** English ### Estimate of Jalal-ud-din Firoz ### [c19.s1.t7.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.srivastava-1950.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. ### [c19.s1.t7.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.srivastava-1950.c19.s1.t7.2) TRANS - OXIANA Bukhara Samarqand Balkh Qunduz Ghur AFGHANISTAN Herat Kabul Ghazni Kandahar MONGOLS Peshawar Nandnah Bhera KASHMIR Srinagar Sialkot Kangra Lahore Jalandar Sirhind Thaneshwar Mandawar Bijnor Amroha Badaun Lucknow Ayodhya Jaunpur Kara Kashi Allahabad Patna Gaya Rajmahal Nadia Lakhnauti Sonargaon Chittagong Dipalpur Pakpattan Samana Multan Uch Bhatner Hisar Hansi Delhi Siri Tilpat Mathura Agra Kalpi Kalinjar Khajuraho Jabalpur Bhilsa Ujjain Dhar Mandu Asirgarh Ellichpur Lasura Deogiri Jalna Kalyani Bidar Gulbarga Raichur Vijayanagar Kanchi Kampili Tanjore Madura Rameshwaram Colombo Dwarasamudra Calicut Mudgal Goa (Sandabur) Dabhol Poona Chaul Bombay Thana Navasari Daman Diu KATHIAWAR Cambay BAGALANA Anhilwara Abu 1311 VASSALS Jalor Siwana Chittor Ranthambhor Ajmer Jham Gwalior Chanderi Bayana Marta Nagaur Jaisalmer Amarkot Thatta Sehwan Bhakkor BALUCHISTAN Kalat PERSIA ARABIAN SEA YADAVAS DEOGIRI (1307) SEMI-INDEPENDENT TELINGANA (1303) KAKATIYAS Warangal Rajamundry Jajnagar ORISSA HOYSALAS (1310) PANDYAS CEYLON BAY OF BANGAL ANDAMAN IS. BURMA BENGAL KAMARUPA NEPAL TIBET CHINA ### [c19.s1.t7.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.srivastava-1950.c19.s1.t7.3) Boundary of the Empire Conquered, but Semi-independent. ### [c19.s1.t7.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.srivastava-1950.c19.s1.t7.4) Miles who is the sole authority on his reign, was biased against Jalal-ud-din and, in fact, against all Khaljis. The truth seems to be that he was not over-mild, but was anxious to keep a balance between the contending parties. A moderate ruler is generally disliked by various parties by reason of his modesty and impartiality. Barring a few instances, such as the one of letting off the thieves by taking a promise from them not to commit theft again, the history of his reign shows that Jalal-ud-din knew when it was necessary to be firm and when not. --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.srivastava-1950.c19.s1.t7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.srivastava-1950.c19.s1.t7) · Pramāṇa