The Sultanate of Delhi, 711–1526 A.D. c19.s2.t4: His theory of kingship
The Sultanate of Delhi, 711–1526 A.D. c19.s2.t4
- Language
- English
His theory of kingship
c19.s2.t4.1
As soon as he had established himself firmly, Ala-ud-din decided to revive Balban's theory of kingship. Like Balban, he believed in the majesty of the monarch and in his being God's representative on earth. He had the firm conviction that greater wisdom was given to the Sultan than to any other human being and that his will should be the law. He believed in the maxim that 'kingship knows no kingship' and that all the inhabitants of the country must be either his servants or his subjects. He decided that he would not be influenced by any individual or party in laying down his policy for the State. Throughout the thirteenth century two powerful groups had exercised influence on the Sultan of Delhi. The one was the nobility and the other was the order of the *ulema*. Ala-ud-din was not prepared to suffer the old aristocracy to set itself as a power in the State. He would not like them to influence his policy. He wanted to reduce them to the position of mere servants who could be appointed and dismissed by the Sultan at will. He inspired so much awe that no courtier had the courage to give him advice or to ask for any favour. The only man who could presume to advise the king was his old friend, Ala-ul-mulk, the kotwal of Delhi. As regards the second group, namely that of the *ulema*, Ala-ud-din declared for the first time in the history of the Sultanate that he would not allow them to dictate to the Sultan in the administration of the State. He said that he knew much better than the religious divines to what was necessary and useful for the welfare of the state. He enunciated his policy in the following words: “I do not know whether this is lawful or unlawful; whatever I think to be for the good of the state or suitable for the emergency, that I decree; and as for what may happen to me on the Day of Judgment, that I know not.” Thus to Ala-ud-din belongs the credit of being the first Turkish Sultan of Delhi to bring the Church under the control of the State and to usher in factors that might make the State secular in theory. Unfortunately, this policy was not followed up by his successors and the Turkish State in India, therefore, reverted to a theocracy soon after his death. Though he thus prevented the interference of the *ulema* in matters of administration, he did take advantage of Muslim fanaticism in his wars against the indigenous chiefs and people. In fact, he incited them to a high pitch of bigotry whenever he stood in need of the support of the Muslim public opinion or their military co-operation. Ala-ud-din did not cease to be a Musalman. He did not lose faith in the Muslim law and did not act against it. In fact, he remained as good a Musalman as any of his predecessors on the throne of Delhi.
c19.s2.t4.2
Ala-ud-din did not think it necessary to invoke the sanction of the Khalifa’s name for strengthening his claims to sovereignty. He did not apply for an investiture from the Khalifa. Yet he styled himself only as an assistant or a deputy of the Khalifa (*Yamin-ul-Khilafat Nasiri Amir-ul-Mumnin*). His object in doing this was not to pay homage to the Khalifa as to a political superior, but only to keep the tradition of theoretical Khilafat alive.
c19.s2.t4.3
As regards the Hindus, Ala-ud-din does not seem to have looked upon himself as their king in the same sense as of the Muslims and responsible for their welfare. His policy, which was one of repressing them completely, was not due to a momentary vagary, but formed part of his settled ideology. He consulted the famous qazi Mughis-ud-din of Bayana about the position which the Hindus should be allowed to enjoy in his kingdom. The qazi replied: “The Hindus are designated in the Law as payers of tribute (*kharaj* *guzar*); and when the revenue officer demands silver from them, they should, without question and with all humility and respect, tender gold. If the officer throws dirt into their mouths, they must, without reluctance, open their mouths wide to receive it. By these acts of degradation are shown the extreme obedience of the *zimmi*, the glorification of the true faith. God Himself orders them to be humiliated, (as He says, till they pay the *jizya*) with the hand and are humbled .... the Prophet has commanded us to slay them, plunder them and to make them captive .... no other authority except the great *Imam* (Abu Hanifa), whose faith we follow, has sanctioned the imposition of the *jizya* on the Hindus." According to all other theologians, the rule for the Hindus was "either death or Islam". Ala-ud-din heartily agreed with the qazi. He was happy that he had been following the above policy in regard to the overwhelmingly vast Hindu population in his dominions.