The Administration of the Sultanate of Dehli c7.100

c7.100

‘Alā-u’d-dīn followed Rukn-u’d-dīn Ibrāhīm’s example. He preserved the title assumed by his cousin and added to it *yamīn-u’l-khilāfat*—the right hand of the caliphate.⁴ Both these titles would show that he did not aspire to the caliphate himself. But Ḥasan and Amīr Khusraw gave him the title of caliph.⁵ The latter, in the following passage, definitely says that ‘Alā-u’d-dīn proclaimed himself caliph: “He once again raised, in accordance with the principles of justice, through the insignia of his own caliphate, the Abbasid standards which had broken into little fragments by the fall of heavy calamities.”⁶ This statement as well as the references in the poems could be dismissed as mere rhapsodies of court poets but for the fact that the *Khazā'in-u'l-futūḥ* is meant to be a book of sober history and Khusraw is a conscientious recorder of historical events. Besides, he uses the word 'caliph' only for two rulers among all his royal patrons: one of them is 'Alā-u'd-dīn and the other Quṭb-u'd-dīn Mubārak Shāh.¹ Militating against this evidence is the fact that Ḥasan uses the title of *yamīn-i-khilāfat* as well; but probably the poems into which the lower title is incorporated are earlier in date.² The numismatic and epigraphic evidence does not support Khusraw's statement. Why should 'Alā-u'd-dīn assume the office if he did not consider it worthwhile to proclaim the assumption through his coins and inscriptions? The only explanation that suggests itself is that there had probably grown up a party at the court which favoured the assumption of the title of caliph by the sultan. They could make out a very strong case for this step. The Abbasid dynasty had fallen; the pretender in Egypt commanded neither power nor respect; while the Indian Empire was the strongest bulwark of Islam in the area which formerly owned allegiance to the House of 'Abbās; the Indian sultan's court was the asylūm of all who had fled away from the persecution and terrorism of the barbarian. What if Balban had strongly advised his son Bughrā Khān to seek recognition from the Abbasids?³ He had probably entertained some hope of their revival; circumstances, however, had worked out in a different manner; in any case, Balban's wish could not bind his successors. It is doubtful if Dehlī even knew that the Abbasid caliphate had been revived in Egypt.¹ It is also significant that the plotters against Jalāl-u’d-dīn Khaljī had intended to instal Sayyidī Maulā as the caliph.² He was a descendant of the Prophet; his reputation for piety and miraculous sanctity would have gained considerable support. Even the mild and good-natured Jalāl-u’d-dīn realized the magnitude of the danger and executed the main plotters as well as their candidate.³ It could, therefore, be argued that the absence of a caliph was not only canonically undesirable but also politically dangerous. In spite of these arguments the sultan did not formally assume the title, for there were practical as well as canonical difficulties. The Khaljīs were not Quraish, nor could they claim to be the rulers of the central regions of Dār-u’l-Islām. ‘Alā-u’d-dīn could not be certain of success in meddling with religious affairs he, therefore, hesitated in assuming the title formally, but did not stop his courtiers and poets from calling him caliph. Thus Ḥasan and Khusraw introduced the title into their writings; possibly ‘Alā-u’d-dīn was wise enough to foresee that their writings were more enduring than his own coins and buildings. Besides, he could always disclaim any responsibility for the effusions of his court poets. ‘Alā-u’d-dīn, however, struck some pieces from a mint called Dār-u’l-Islām.⁴ It has been suggested that a college of that name in old Dehlī was given the right of