[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.s8.t6 # The Sultanate of Delhi, 711–1526 A.D. c19.s8.t6: Mubarak murdered The Sultanate of Delhi, 711–1526 A.D. c19.s8.t6 - **Language:** English ### Mubarak murdered ### [c19.s8.t6.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.srivastava-1950.c19.s8.t6.1) Khusrav had realised that it would not be possible for him to seize the throne without an army of his own. He sought the king's permission to raise a corps of 40,000 horse, consisting mostly of the Bharvars of Gujarat, a tribe to which Khusrav himself belonged. Mubarak agreed. Next, Khusrav requested that his relations and friends should be permitted to enter the palace gates and see him inside the palace, if they had any urgent work with him. This request was also granted. Khusrav had now his plan ready for the assassination of the king. A warning, however, was given to Mubarak by his former tutor. The Sultan paid no heed to it. On the night of April 14, 1320, when Khusrav's conspiracy had matured, his troops entered the palace and cut down the royal guards. The noise reached the upper storey of the palace and the Sultan enquired from Khusrav as to what it was about. Khusrav replied that men were trying to catch some horses which had broken loose. As Khusrav spoke these words his followers reached Mubarak's apartment. The Sultan sprang up in terror and ran towards the female apartments of the palace; but Khusrav seized him by the hair, while one of his followers named Jaharia stabbed him to death. Mubarak's head was severed from the body and thrown down into the courtyard. ### [c19.s8.t6.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.srivastava-1950.c19.s8.t6.2) Qutub-ud-din Mubarak was the last king of the Khalji dynasty, and he was also the most worthless. He did not lack ability or courage, as he displayed both during the first year of his reign in his campaigns in the Dakhin. But his character was completely undermined by his excess in venery and prostitution. He was so infatuated by his favourite, Khusrav, that he failed to see the inordinate ambition of this low-born convert. Mubarak suffered a just penalty for his profligacy, folly and wicked conduct. ### [c19.s8.t6.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.srivastava-1950.c19.s8.t6.3) It was reserved for this licentious and good-for-nothing Khalji ruler to get rid of the age-long tradition of theoretical unity of the Muslim world. He kicked the idea of Khilafat and assumed the title of Khalifa, the viceregent of God of heaven and earth. ### [c19.s8.t6.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.srivastava-1950.c19.s8.t6.4) NASIR-UD-DIN KHUSRAV SHAH,⁶ 15th April—5th Sept., 1320 ### [c19.s8.t6.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.srivastava-1950.c19.s8.t6.5) ⁶ See Appendix A. ### [c19.s8.t6.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.srivastava-1950.c19.s8.t6.6) Immediately after Mubarak’s murder, Khusrav summoned the chief nobles to the court and obtained their approval to the \*fait accompli\*. With their consent he ascended the throne under the title of Nasir-ud-din Khusrav Shah (15th April, 1320). He confirmed most of the old officers and nobles in their posts; but those of them who were known to be partisans of the Khaljis were removed. Some of them were put to death. Khusrav married Deval Devi, the widow of Khizr Khan. He proceeded to win over as many of the nobles and officers as possible by a lavish distribution of honours and rewards. Wahid-ud-din Quraishi, who was a minister of Mubarak, was given the title of \*Taj-ul-mulk\* and was allowed to retain his post. Ain-ul-mulk Multani was confirmed and further promoted and given the titles of Alam Khan and \*Amir-ul-Umara\*. Fakhr-ud-din Muhammad Jauna was appointed master of the horse, while his father, Ghazi Malik, remained governor of the Panjab and warden of the marches. Several other Turkish officers, such as the governor of Multan, the governor of Samana named Malik Yaklaki, and the governor of Siwistan, gave their allegiance to the new ruler. Some of the most renowned and pious \*shaikhs\*, particularly the celebrated Shaikh Nizam-ud-din Auliya of Delhi, were won over by distribution of money. They supported the new reign. Khusrav’s own followers, who were mostly members of his tribe from Gujarat and Hindu by religion, were richly rewarded for their co-operation and services. ### [c19.s8.t6.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.srivastava-1950.c19.s8.t6.7) But Khusrav was an Indian Musalman, one who had become a convert to this religion but had originally been a Hindu of Bharvar or shepherd caste from Gujarat. This was intolerable to the racial pride of the arrogant Turks who had so far monopolised power and who would not brook the idea of an Indian Musalman appropriating to himself the sovereignty of the kingdom. Hence some of the Turkish \*maliks\* and \*amirs\* raised the cry that Islam was in danger in Hindustan. They charged Khusrav with being a half Hindu and with insulting Islam and promoting idolatrous worship in the palace.⁷ ### [c19.s8.t6.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.srivastava-1950.c19.s8.t6.8) ⁷ For Hindu worship in the palace, some of Khusrav Shah's relations, who were Hindus, were responsible. This is clearly recorded in \*Tabqat-i-Akbari\* (Persian Text), Vol. I, p. 187. ### [c19.s8.t6.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.srivastava-1950.c19.s8.t6.9) Zia-ud-din Barani, the historian, who belonged to their fraternity, has indulged in bitter invective and tried to show that Khusrav was thoroughly unpopular with all the nobles and the people. The fact, however, is that he was supported by a large number of influential Muslim commanders and officers and had the moral support of important Muslim divines, such as Shaikh Nizam-ud-din Auliya. Only a small minority, for racial as well as for personal reasons, was opposed to him. Ghazi Malik, the warden of the marches, had his own ambition. He was, moreover, representative of the thirteenth century Turkish oligarchs who were bitter opponents of the claims of Indian Musalmans to have a share in the government of the country. So he put himself at the head of a movement against Khusrav and made an attempt to win the support of the governors of Siwistan, Multan and Samana, but without success. He invited Ain-ul-mulk Multani to join the party. None of these, however, gave their support to Ghazi Malik, probably because they did not see any danger to Islam. Having failed in this Ghazi Malik resorted to intrigue and instigated the lower officers in the above three provinces against the new king and fomented a rebellion. This plan was successful. The reactionary officers in alliance with the fanatical population of these three provinces were easily won over. ### [c19.s8.t6.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.srivastava-1950.c19.s8.t6.10) While this move was going on silently, Fakhr-ud-din Muhammad Jauna, son of Ghazi Malik, escaped secretly one night from Delhi and joined his father at Dipalpur. When all was ready, Ghazi Malik marched against Delhi. Malik Yaklaki, governor of Samana, opposed him, but was defeated. He was again encountered at Sirsa by Hisam-ud-din, the new king's half-brother; but the latter was defeated and put to flight. As Ghazi Malik approached Delhi, Khusrav came out of the capital and met the rebels near Indraprastha. Before the battle Ain-ul-mulk withdrew along with his troops to Malwa. Yet Khusrav fought boldly on 5th September, 1320, but was defeated and killed. ### [c19.s8.t6.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.srivastava-1950.c19.s8.t6.11) Since the establishment of the Turkish Sultanate in northern India only two attempts were made by Indian Muslims to seize power. The first notable Indian Musalman to aspire \*de facto\* control of government was Imad-ud-din Rayhan, who ruled as prime minister for a period of one year only. But he fell a prey to the racial arrogance of the Turkish monopolists. Khusrav was the second Indian Muslim to aspire for power, not as a minister but as a full-fledged sovereign; but he, too, became a victim of Turkish intrigue and racial intolerance. Khusrav was a Musalman. It did not matter what he had been before his conversion to that religion. As Islam claims to be a democratic religion and believes that kingship is not the monopoly of any privileged class but belongs to those who have the power and ability to hold it, there was no reason why Khusrav should have been debarred from enjoying the position he had won. The charge that he insulted Islam and allowed idolatrous worship and ‘the use of the copies of the \*Quran\* as seats and stools’ was nothing more than an interested propaganda designed to cloak the ambition of Ghazi Malik and his son, Jauna Khan. The \*Shaikh-ul-Islam\* (Nizam-ud-din Auliya) at Delhi should have been a better judge of the king’s religious conduct than the military governor in a far-off province. If Khusrav was a murderer of his benefactor, so was Ala-ud-din Khalji and, possibly, Balban also. It is a pity that modern writers of our medieval history have become dupes of exaggerated denunciations indulged in by Barani and copied by later historians. Ghazi Malik was successful and captured the throne of Delhi in September 1320. ## Cites (1) - [Tārīkh-i Fīrūzshāhī](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tarikh-i-firuzshahi-afif) — Shams-i Sirāj ʿAfīf, Persian --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.srivastava-1950.c19.s8.t6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.srivastava-1950.c19.s8.t6) · Pramāṇa