[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.s7.6 # The Sultanate of Delhi, 711–1526 A.D. c19.s7.6 The Sultanate of Delhi, 711–1526 A.D. c19.s7.6 - **Language:** English ### [c19.s7.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.srivastava-1950.c19.s7.6) But there is another side of his character and personality. Ala-ud-din was not all good. He suffered from certain grave defects. His private life was marred by excessive indulgence in natural and unnatural sexual corruption. He was, by nature, selfish and had no regard for the ties of friendship or even filial relationship. He was cruel and almost savage in inflicting punishments. While Balban was ruthless in slaughtering the Hindus who resisted him in order to retain their freedom, Ala-ud-din did not spare Musalmans even. He awarded the barbarous punishments of mutilation and death for very ordinary crimes. He visited the sins of rebels and others on the heads of their innocent women and children Ala-ud-din was a believer in the policy of blood and iron. He resembled Bismarck, the German Chancellor, in subscribing to the theory that "the end justifies the means." He had no other consideration than the attainment of his objects by fair or foul means. In short, he was thoroughly unscrupulous and cruel. Some of the modern writers do not find fault with him for his policy of ruthlessness; for, according to them, certain amount of ruthlessness was necessary as he lived in an age of 'treachery and strife'. But this view is hardly correct. The masses of the Indian people were as innocent and free from guilt and even from rebellious tendencies as they are now or in any period of our history. The trouble was that the Sultans of Delhi were foreign rulers and, as such, it never entered into their scheme of things to win the affection, or even the goodwill, of the common people. The greatest defect in Ala-ud-din's work was that his administrative system lacked permanence, as it was based on naked force and not on the goodwill of the people. - [Previous: c19.s7.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.srivastava-1950.c19.s7.5) - [Next: c19.s7.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.srivastava-1950.c19.s7.7) - [Up: c19.s7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.srivastava-1950.c19.s7) --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.srivastava-1950.c19.s7.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.srivastava-1950.c19.s7.6) · Pramāṇa