[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 # The Sultanate of Delhi, 711–1526 A.D. c19.s7: Last days and death The Sultanate of Delhi, 711–1526 A.D. c19.s7 - **Language:** English ### Last days and death ### [c19.s7.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.srivastava-1950.c19.s7.1) Ala-ud-din’s last days were clouded with trouble and disappointment. Owing to hard work and excessive indulgence, his health was undermined and he was obliged to take to his bed. His wife and sons neglected him altogether and his malady was still further aggravated. The queen, who had been neglected by her husband, enjoyed herself with festivities in the palace, while Khizr Khan, his eldest son, could not spare time from his pleasures. The disappointed Sultan, therefore, summoned Malik Kafur from the Dakhin and Alp Khan from Gujarat and complained to them about the treatment of his wife and sons. Kafur, perceiving that the Sultan’s end was near, hatched a conspiracy of putting away his rivals from his path of ambition and to seize the throne for himself. He made Ala-ud-din believe that Khizr Khan, the queen and Alp Khan had entered into a plot to take his life. Khizr Khan, therefore, was sent to the prison fortress of Gwalior and the queen was imprisoned in old Delhi. Alp Khan was put to death. The result of these tyrannical measures was very bad. Alp Khan’s troops rose in rebellion in Gujarat. The Rana of Chittor drove away the Muslim garrison and reoccupied his capital. Harapala Deva, the successor of Shankar Deva in Devagiri, declared himself independent and banished the Turkish garrison from his country. The news of these rebellions aggravated Ala-ud-din’s disorder and he died on 2nd January, 1316. ### [c19.s7.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.srivastava-1950.c19.s7.2) Historians hold diametrically opposite views about the character and achievements of Ala-ud-din Khalji. According to Elphinstone, his reign was glorious, and, inspite of many absurd and oppressive measures, he was, on the whole, a successful monarch and exhibited a just exercise of his powers. V. A. Smith, on the other hand, considered Elphinstone’s judgment as too lenient. According to him, “facts do not warrant the assertion that he exhibited a just exercise of his powers and that his reign was glorious.” He concludes by saying: “In reality he (Ala-ud-din) was a particularly savage tyrant with very little regard for justice and his reign, though marked by the conquest of Gujarat and many successful raids, like the storming of the two great fortresses, was exceedingly disgraceful in many respects.” ### [c19.s7.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.srivastava-1950.c19.s7.3) It is, however, universally admitted that Ala-ud-din was a very brave soldier and a successful general. His basic qualities were ambition, energy, courage, daring and resourcefulness. He could command the most faithful service from his subordinates and make them serve his interest. He was, besides, an able administrator and statesman. He was possessed of originality of a high order. He did not rest satisfied with administering the institutions that came to him as an inheritance from his predecessors; he was anxious to reform them. He even brought new institutions into existence for the benefit of himself and his kingdom. He was the first Turkish Sultan of Delhi to lay the foundation of a powerful standing army and to do away with corruption that had crept into the organisation. To him belongs the credit of being the first Turkish ruler in the land to reform the revenue rules and regulations and to introduce a system of measurement as a preliminary to fixing the State demand of the produce of the soil. He was, again, the first to revolutionise the conservative branch of revenue administration by his successful policy of putting an end to the privileges of the hereditary revenue officers and assignees of land. His successful control of the market and the tariff system had no parallel before or after him throughout the medieval period of our country's history. He was, also, the first Turkish conqueror who set his foot beyond the Vindhyachala mountains. He subjugated the whole of the Dakhin, making it subservient to the crown of Delhi. He thus gave political unity to almost the whole of the sub-continent of India. He completed Balban's work of consolidation by bringing the provinces under a more rigorous control of the central government and giving the Sultanate some measure of administrative uniformity. He had the wisdom and the courage to brush aside the interference of the Muslim \*ulema\* in the affairs of the State and to avow openly that in political and administrative matters secular considerations alone must prevail. Such an attitude was unknown to all his predecessors on the throne of Delhi. ### [c19.s7.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.srivastava-1950.c19.s7.4) Ala-ud-din may be called the first Turkish empire-builder in this country. Turkish imperialism reached its highest watermark under this ruler. While all his predecessors, including Balban, had shrunk from the task of defending the Sultanate of Delhi from the ever-recurring Mongol invasions and, at the same time, carrying on aggressive warfare in the interior of the country, Ala-ud-din successfully accomplished this twofold task. This alone entitles this Khalji ruler to a place higher than that occupied by any of his predecessors in the thirteenth century. He may, therefore, rightly be called the first Turkish emperor of India. Throughout his reign the country enjoyed complete peace and order. Brigandage was stamped out. "Justice was executed with such rigour that robbery and theft, formerly so common, were not heard of in the land. The traveller slept secure on the highway and the merchant carried his commodities with safety from the Sea of Bangal to the mountains of Kabul and from Telingana to Kashmir." ### [c19.s7.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.srivastava-1950.c19.s7.5) Though himself illiterate, Ala-ud-din was a great patron of learning and fine arts. There were many first-rate poets and scholars at his court, including such literary lights as Amir Khusrav and Amir Hasan of Delhi. He was a lover of architecture and one of his buildings, known as \*Alai Darwaza\*, which is an extension of the Qutubi mosque in Delhi, is, in the eyes of critics, the most beautiful and perfect specimen of early Turkish architecture. He built palaces and mosques also, such as the fort of Siri and the 'Palace of a Thousand Pillars', called Hazar Situn. ### [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. ### [c19.s7.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.srivastava-1950.c19.s7.7) A balanced view of Ala-ud-din's work and achievements must give him a high place among the rulers of Delhi during the medieval age. He was, unquestionably, the ablest Sultan during the entire period of the Sultanate of Delhi. Only one ruler of the period, namely, Muhammad bin Tughluq, challenges comparison with him in constructive ability and breadth of vision. But Muhammad Tughluq failed disastrously, while Ala-ud-din Khalji achieved success in everything that he undertook. ## Cites (1) - [Sīrī](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.siri) --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.srivastava-1950.c19.s7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.srivastava-1950.c19.s7) · Pramāṇa