[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.s2.t4.1 # The Sultanate of Delhi, 711–1526 A.D. c19.s2.t4.1 The Sultanate of Delhi, 711–1526 A.D. c19.s2.t4.1 - **Language:** English ### [c19.s2.t4.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.srivastava-1950.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. - [Previous: c19.s2.t3.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.srivastava-1950.c19.s2.t3.3) - [Next: c19.s2.t4.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.srivastava-1950.c19.s2.t4.2) - [Up: c19.s2.t4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.srivastava-1950.c19.s2.t4) --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.srivastava-1950.c19.s2.t4.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.srivastava-1950.c19.s2.t4.1) · Pramāṇa