The wonder that was india

Passing through the Jharkhand jungles in the south of Bihar in 1204—5, Bakhtiyar rushed to Nadia or Navadvip, one of the two capitals of Lakshmana Sena, the King of Bengal. His army was unable to keep up with him, and, according to the Tabaqat-i Nasiri, only eighteen horsemen were with him when he forcibly entered the palace. Lakshmana Sena, who is reported to have just sat down to his midday meal, fled through a postern door to the eastern region

22

of his kingdom, where he ruled for some years. The story of the eighteen horseman conquering Bengal is hotly disputed by Bengali authors, but it is not unlikely that Bakhtiyar's lightning raid with a small force under him struck such a terror in the king's heart as to make him fly without resistance. Bakhtiyar plundered Nadia and acquired immense booty.

Retreating northwards, Bakhtiyar took up his quarters in the Sena's western capital, Lakhnauti or Lakshmanavati, near the present site of Gaur. He established another outpost at Lakhanor or Nagar in the Birbhum district, thereby connecting Bihar with Orissa. To the north-east an outpost was established at Devakot near Dinajapur. His spectacular conquests prompted him to seize Karmapattan (possibly Kumrikotah in Bhutan) and Tibet. The enterprise was designed to ensure the supply of horses from that region. At the head of 10,000 horsemen, Bakhtiyar followed the Brahmaputra and, ignoring the advice of the Raja of Kamrup not to proceed beyond his territory, reached Karmapattan. The subsequent news of the arrival of an army of 50,000 men from the mountains of Tibet disheartened Bakhtiyar's troops. He retreated to Kamrup, where the local forces made short work of his soldiers. He himself with great difficulty reached Devakot. Bedridden as a result of his hardships, Bakhtiyar was assassinated by one of his own commanders.34

Meanwhile, Ghiyasu'd-Din had died at Hirat in 1202-3. In 1204 Mu'izzu'd-Din was defeated at Andhui on the Oxus by the allies of the Khwarazm rulers and, except for Hirat, lost the whole of Khurasan. The news of the disaster encouraged the Gakkhar tribes of the Panjab to regain control over the Lahore—Ghazni route. Mu'izzu'd-Din, joined by Aybak, crushed their uprising and then marched to Lahore. After a short stay there, he sent Aybak to Delhi and himself returned to Ghazni. On 15 March 1206 he was assassinated by a Gakkhar at Damyak on the bank of the Jhelam (near modern Sohawa).35

The motives for Mu'izzu'd-Din's conquests were no different from those of Mahmud of Ghazni. Both were in need of plunder from India to maintain their slave armies and to attract the wandering bands of Islamicized mercenaries known as ghazis to their forces. The Islamicization of India was not their main objective, although some tribal leaders, such as the Gakkhars, were encouraged to embrace Islam. The exaggerated accounts of Muslim historians and poets of the slaughter of infidels in the spreading of Islam are designed to give a religious colour to wars which were basically waged for political domination and plunder. Mu'izzu'd-Din's achievements were more permanent than those of Mahmud.

23

Before his death, the strategic centres of India from Ghazni to the borders of Assam had been conquered and the forts efficiently garrisoned.

The factors surrounding the Turkic victory are highly controversial. Hindu historians such as A. L. Srivastava divide 'causes of our defeat' under two headings. Under general causes, Srivastava says: 'lack of political unity and proper organisation and capable leadership must, therefore, remain the most important general cause of our helplessness and defeat'. As regards the particular causes, he says: 'Our rulers did not care to find loop-holes in the organisation of their common enemy.'36 Srivastava's comments seek to impose modern nationalist sentiments on twelfth- and thirteenth-century India; but such sentiments did not exist in India until the nineteenth century. On the other hand, according to modern Muslim scholars, such as Muhammad Habib and K. A. Nizami:

The real cause of the defeat of the Indians lay in their social system and the invidious caste distinctions, which rendered the whole military organization rickety and weak. Caste taboos and discriminations killed all sense of unity - social or political. Even religion was the monopoly of a particular section, and the majority of the Indian people were never allowed a glimpse of the inside of a high caste Indian temple. Thus for the bulk of the Indian people there was hardly anything which could evoke patriotic responses in them when face to face with the Ghurid invader.37

This theory also presupposes the existence of modern patriotic feelings or religious solidarity in other parts of the world, when even in Muslim-dominated regions they did not exist. Nizami has himself quoted the great poet Sa'di, who wrote: 'the lashkari [professional soldier] fought for the wages he got; he did not fight for king, country or religion'.38 The same was true of India, and Indian caste taboos cannot be blamed for the Rajput defeat. India was then ruled by Rajput rulers who were proud of their ancient Kshatriya blood, reckless swordsmanship, and chivalric sense of honour. Their political and social systems were feudal. They fought for the safety of their own boundaries and constantly feuded with their neighbours. The Panjab, Multan, and Sind, ruled by the Muslims from the eighth century onwards, did not concern them. It was not until 1150 that Vasala Deva (Vigraharaja III) of Ajmir, who had seized Delhi from the Tomars, was prompted also to take Hansi from the Ghaznavids. The time was then ripe to wipe out the tottering Ghaznavid kingdom of the Panjab. Neither Mularaja of Anhilwara, who defeated Mu'izzu'd-Din in 1178, nor Prithviraja had the good sense to pursue and attempt to annihilate the Ghurid

24

invaders after delivering a crushing defeat on them. The two major defeats of Mu'izzu'd-Din show that Rajput military strength was quite formidable; their fault lay in their adherence to fighting a defensive war and their inability to take full advantage of a victory. The ponderous war machinery of the Rajputs with their slow-moving elephants was no match for the mobility and lightning attacks of the Central Asian Turkic guerrilla warriors. Separated from their homes by long distances and committed to obtaining victory for their own enrichment, the Turkic troopers fought with vigour and desperation. No such personal stake was involved for the Rajputs. Political independence and nationalism in the twentieth-century sense meant nothing to the twelfth-century Hindus and Muslims. Nevertheless, as we shall see, the resistance of the Hindu, in order to save his hearth and home, was unending.

THE ILBARI TURKS

Mu'izzu'd-Din had no sons. According to the Tabaqat-i Nasiri, he had bought a large number of slaves but he did not nominate any particular one as his successor.39 The most prominent slave was Taju'd-Din Yilduz, whose daughters were married to Aybak and Qabacha. Yilduz was therefore recognised as the ruler of Ghazni and, although the Indian territories had been conquered and consolidated by Aybak, Yilduz considered them his dependencies. Aybak consequently moved from Delhi to Lahore and proclaimed himself the independent ruler of the Indian territories. Yilduz thereupon invaded the Panjab but was defeated, and Aybak seized Ghazni. When Yilduz reappeared before Ghazni, however, Aybak fled to Lahore. There he remained, busily consolidating his administration, until his death in 1210 following a fall from a horse during a polo game. Aybak was a far-sighted military commander and had tactfully controlled the heterogeneous racial groups of soldiers who hailed from Khurasan, Ghur, Khalj, and India. He is also remembered for his munificence.40

Aram Shah, who succeeded his father Aybak, was a weakling. Meanwhile, Qabacha had consolidated his rule in Multan, Uch, Bhakkar, and Sehwan and had extended his kingdom as far as Lahore. Another contestant in the struggle for power was Iltut-mish, who had been bought as a slave by Aybak in Delhi and had become his son-in-law. He commenced his career as a sar-jandar (head of the royal bodyguard) and controlled the prized iqla' of Bada'un. Iltutmish seized Delhi without much difficulty, defeating

25

Aram Shah, whose supporters quickly surrendered. Since he belonged to the Ilbari tribe, his successors up to 1290 are known as the Ilbari Turks. They are also called ghulam or mamluk rulers, both of which terms mean 'slaves'.

Iltutmish devoted the first ten years of his reign to securing his throne from rivals. He acted with considerable caution and patience. When Yilduz marched on Lahore and occupied the greater part of the Panjab, Iltutmish turned the ensuing war between Qabacha and Yilduz to his advantage. In 1215 Yilduz was driven out of Ghazni by Khwarazm Shah and took refuge in Lahore. His claim to overlordship there precipitated a war against Iltutmish, who was well prepared. On the battlefield of Tara'in, Iltutmish defeated Yilduz and sent him captive to Bada'un, where he was beheaded. Iltutmish then restored Lahore to Qabacha, but two years later marched against him. Qabacha fled to Mansura, and Iltutmish followed and defeated him.41

Chingiz Khan (b. 1167), the founder of the Mongol world empire, had meanwhile become supremely powerful. In the summer of 1215 the Mongols captured Peking and five years later conquered Transoxiana. In 1221 the last Khwarazm ruler, Jalalu'd-Din Mingburnu (1220-31), defeated a Mongol force in the Ghazni region. Chingiz rushed with lightning speed to avenge the defeat and chased Jalalu'd-Din as far as the Indus. Jalalu'd-Din retreated to the upper Sind Sagar doab in the western Panjab and there married the daughter of a local Khokkhar chief. Qabacha's "rule over Sind Sagar doab ended. Jalalu'd-Din reached Lahore but could not persuade Iltutmish to send reinforcements. Fortunately for Iltutmish and Jalalu'd-Din, Chingiz turned back at the Indus and resumed the route he had been following. Jalalu'd-Din also left 'India in 1224, but, until Chingiz's death in August 1227,42 Iltutmish did not interfere with Qabacha, who remained a buffer between the Mongols and his own kingdom.

In 1228 Iltutmish ordered his governor in Lahore to invade Multan while he himself marched on Uch. Qabacha fled to the inland fortress of Bhakkar on the lower Indus. Uch was taken after a three-month siege. The vigorous assault on Bhakkar frightened Qabacha, and he was drowned crossing the Indus while fleeing for safety. Multan and Sind were thus annexed to the Delhi sultanate.

After Chingiz's departure from the Indus, Iltutmish reasserted his control over the district of Bihar south of the Ganges. In 1225 Husamu'd-Din 'Iwaz Khaljl, who had established an independent Bengal sultanate, submitted to him. As soon as Ututmish's back was turned however, 'Iwaz again rebelled. The Sultan's son, Nasiru'd-Din Mahmud, thereupon swooped down from his base in

26

India in 1236

27

Avadh on Lakhnauti and defeated and killed 'Iwaz. Nasiru'd-Din Mahmud died in Lakhnauti in March or April 1229, and Bengal again rose in rebellion. This time Iltutmish suppressed it personally in 1229.43

The Sultan also effectively quashed the uprisings by the Rajas-than chiefs. In 1226 he recovered Ranthambhor; two years later the Chauhan chief of Jalor also agreed to pay tribute. Ajmir and Sambhar were subsequently reoccupied, and Nagaur reconquered. In 1231 Gwalior surrendered again; Malik Ta'isl, a slave of Mu'izzu'd-Din, was made its commander. Contingents from Kanauj and Mahaban were also placed at his disposal, and he seized areas from Kalinjar to Chanderi. In 1234—5 Iltutmish led an expedition against Malwa and captured Bhilsa. The conquest of Ujjain was followed by the demolition of the ancient Maha-kal temple.44

Iltutmish's military expeditions in Bada'un, Kanauj, and Banaras completely undermined the local rajas' independence. Kati-har (modern Rohekhand) was one of the few areas to offer stiff resistance before submitting. Iltutmish's son, Mahmud, whom he had appointed governor of Avadh in 1226, however, met strong opposition from the local chief Britu or Prithu. According to Minhaj Siraj, 120,000 Muslims were killed fighting Britu. This number is exaggerated, but Hindu strength in the region remained Undisputed.45

Sultan Iltutmish died on 30 April 1236. He was the greatest ruler of thirteenth-century India and a wise statesman. He transformed Mu'izzu'd-Din's Indian conquests into a cohesive hereditary monarchy. The receipt of the deed of investiture from the 'Abbasid caliph in February 1229 gave legal status to Iltutmish's kingship. Iltutmish was welcoming and generous to the talented people, both Turkic and non-Turkic, driven from their homelands in Iran and Central Asia by Chingiz Khan's invasions. They quickly became pillars of the central administration and many settled in the areas between Lahore and Avadh. The Turkic military commanders also supported the Delhi sultanate, as well as extending its boundaries. The land tax from the territorial units know as iqta's was usually assigned to them. He appointed his own officials ('amils) to collect revenue from the areas which had not been assigned as iqta's. These were known as khalisas. He also assigned villages to troopers of his own central army. These too were known as iqta's.

Iltutmish organized court etiquette on the Samanid and Ghaznavid patterns, which made special provision for the 'ulama' (scholars of Islamic theology) and sufis. According to sufi anecdotes, Iltutmish's services to them in his youth were responsible for his

28

subsequent rise to the throne.46 Historically the stories are untenable; nevertheless the Sultan's relations with the contemporary sufis were based on respect, and they, in their turn, supported him, counterbalancing the 'ulama' pressure groups in the bureaucracy. Iltutmish had promoted his intelligent daughter Raziyya over his incompetent sons. In 1231 he appointed her his deputy in Delhi while he was away on his Gwalior expedition. His decision was not welcomed, and perhaps he himself finally doubted its wisdom.47

After Iltutmish's death, Shah Turkan, the mother of Iltutmish's eldest surviving son, with the help of a section of the 'ulama' and the Turkic commanders, had her son crowned as Ruknu'd-Din Firuz. Turkan was an arch-intriguer but not an administrator. She unleashed a reign of terror and vengeance on her rival queens and their supporters, while Firuz sank into a life of licentiousness. Consequently the ruler of Ghazni mounted an invasion of Sind.48 Another son of Iltutmish rebelled in Avadh, and other iqta' holders united to overthrow the new Sultan. Ruknu'd-Din Firuz marched out of the capital to suppress the rebellion. This gave Raziyya the opportunity to seize the throne. Firuz was imprisoned and put to death in November 1236. He had ruled for only some seven months.49

Minhaj Siraj, who was a distinguished 'alim (singular of 'ulama), comments: 'Raziyya was endowed with all the admirable attributes and qualifications necessary for kings; but, as she did not attain the destiny, in her creation, of being computed among men, of what advantage were all these excellent qualifications to her?'50 Minhaj, however, was not hostile to her, and the other 'ulama' did not oppose her; but Nizamu'1-Mulk Junaydi, Iltutmish's vizier, rebelled, winning many important Turkic noblemen to his side. Raziyya marched out of Delhi against the rebel group and succeeded, by negotiations, in breaking the coalition. Nizamu'1-Mulk fled and died. Some important rebel leaders were killed. Raziyya then appointed Muhazzabu'd-Din, a Tajik, as deputy vizier and elevated many other Tajiks to high positions. Her subsequent appointment of Malik Jamalu'd-Din Yaqut, an Ethiopian, as superintendent of the royal horses, aroused resentment in a majority of the already disgruntled Turkic commanders. Raziyya ignored their opposition and began to appear unveiled in public, wearing a short tunic and conical hat. The people of Delhi supported her, but hostility mounted among the iqta' holders. In 1239-40 she crushed some of the rebellious iqta.' holders, but one of them, Altunia, who .held Bhatinda. killed Yaqut, took Raziyya prisoner, and had her incarcerated. The ruling party in Delhi ignored Altunia and placed Iltutmish's third son, Bahram, on the throne. Raziyya, exploiting

29

the situation to her own advantage, married Altunia. They marched against Delhi together, but their principal supporters now deserted them. They were both killed on 14 October 1240 by Hindu robbers.51

Raziyya ruled successfully for three and a half- years. She combated intrigues competently, displayed a remarkable insight into military tactics, resourcefully implemented her independent decisions, and diplomatically reconciled the recalcitrant iqta' holders. Her chief merit was her ability to rise above the prejudices of her age. The romantic tragedy of this remarkable woman is something unique in the history of India.

Raziyya's fall made the clique of Turkic maliks (military commanders), and amirs dominant in the government. Baram calls them chihalgani, or the 'family of forty', and they embarked on a scramble for supremacy.52 They did not form any organized groups, however, and did not even number forty. Minhaj Siraj gives the biographies of merely twenty-five of Iltutmish's leading maliks, who each struggled to dominate the government. They controlled various strategic forts, and their personal jealousies and rivalries destroyed them. They were able neither to raise one of their members to the throne nor to strengthen the royal power. The leading nobles who had placed Iltutmish's third son, Mu'izzu'd-Din Bahrain Shah (1240-2) on the throne made him create the position of regent (malik na'ib or nd'ib-i mamlakat).53 The regent was intended to be the de facto ruler, the sultan merely a figurehead. Intrigue and chaos ran riot during the reigns of Bahrain Shah and his successors. The palace ladies also formed factions, and the 'ulama' too took the opportunity to fish in troubled waters.

In 1241 the Mongols crossed the Indus and reached the gates of Lahore. No help arrived from Delhi. The Mongols smashed the fort ramparts, and the governor fled. Although the citizens fought valiantly, and the Mongols suffered heavy losses, they eventually sacked the city and laid it waste. When they left, the Khokkhar tribesmen entered and plundered it mercilessly. Bahrain Shah now attempted to assert his authority over the dominant Turkic chiefs but failed.54 He was taken captive and in May 1242 put to death. Malik 'Izzu'd-Din Balban Kishlu Khan, a leading Turkic slave commander, tried to make himself sultan, but he lacked support, and was forced to accept the governorship of Nagaur. 'Ala'u'd-Din Mas'ud, son of Ruknu'd-Din Firuz, was eventually made king. Mas'ud ruled from 1242 to 1246. Tughan Khan, who had been acknowledged as the governor of Lakhnauti by Raziyya, now proclaimed his independence and annexed Bihar and Avadh to his Bengal kingdom. The King of Jajnagar (Orissa) then invaded

30

Bengal.55 Meanwhile the Mongols had crossed the Indus and besieged Uch. An army under Balban, now governor of Nagaur, was sent to Lahore, and the Mongols retreated to their own territory. After his return Balban and his supporters conspired with Nasiru'd-Din Mahmud's mother, Malika-i Jahan, to overthrow Mas'ud. Nasiru'd-Din was the eldest son of Iltutmish's son, Nasiru'd-Din Mahmud, who had died in Lakhnauti. Mas'ud was deposed and thrown into prison, where he died.56

Sultan Nasiru'd-Din is wrongly described as a very God-fearing, pious, and amicable person. Born in 1229, he was not more than seventeen years old when he ascended the throne. He knew the fate of his predecessors and had no alternative but to leave the administration in Balban's hands. The sultanate was in a critical condition. The Mongols had devastated the country west of the river Jhelam, and no food was available in the Panjab. In 1246-7 Balban mounted an expedition as far as the Salt Range to chastise the Khokkhars, who acted as guides to the Mongols. During the. following two years he overran Kalinjar, Ranthambhor, and Mewat. In August 1249 the Sultan married Balban's daughter and made him the nd'ib-i mamlakat (regent of the kingdom). He was also awarded the title Great Khan (Ulugh Khan), and all the important positions.were given to his relations. Balban was now ruler in all but name.58

Before long, however, the Sultan grew resentful of Balban's power. In 1253 'Imadu'd-Din Rayhan, a Hindu convert, who was supported by both Indian Muslims and a section of Turks, managed to have Balban transferred to his iqta' of Nagaur. Balban's principal supporters were also dispersed and sent to distant iqta's. They were appalled at the rise of an Indian Muslim to power and assembled with their forces near Hansi for a trial of strength. The Sultan, accompanied by Rayhan, arrived with his army, but the Turk and Tajik leaders succeeded in persuading him to transfer Rayhan to Bada'un. In December 1254 Balban was reconciled to his son-in-law and returned to Delhi with the Sultan.59

Balban's efforts to assert the authority of the centre and to suppress rebellion were not successful. His repeated expeditions to Bengal failed to maintain Delhi's control over the region. Even Avadh did not remain loyal, and Bahraich followed Avadh's example. Hasan Qarlugh, the Khwarazmi prince who had ruled Multan and Uch for some years, had been expelled earlier by Balban. Kishlu Khan, who had been made governor there, was forced to surrender Sind to Hulagu Khan (1256-65), the founder of the Il-Khanid Mongol dynasty of Iran. Jalalu'd-Din Mas'ud, the

31

Sultan's brother, fled from Hulagu to the court of Mengu Khan of Qaraqorum, who ruled Mongolia and China. A strong Mongol contingent helped him to seize areas extending from the Salt Range to Lahore.60 Mas'ud, however, was not a competent ruler, and even Mongol help could not keep him on the throne. Sher Khan, the ambitious governor of Bhatinda, who was the Sultan's cousin, was ambivalent and alternately attended the courts of Hulagu and Mongke, the ruler of south Russia and Qipchaq. Balban, however, came to an understanding with Hulagu, and the Mongol invasions were confined to the region beyond the Beas. In 1260 Hulagu's emissary was received in Delhi with a flamboyant demonstration of the sultanate's military strength.61 The Tabaqat-i Nasiri abruptly ends with the events of early 1260. Only 'Isami, who completed his Futuhu's-Salatin in 1350-1, tells us that Balban poisoned Sultan Nasiru'd-Din's drink. Some modern historians disbelieve 'Isami because of Balban's close family connections with the Sultan.62 This is hardly a valid argument, for the murder of relations to gain throne and position was then the order of the day.

Balban was now proclaimed Sultan. His perception of the Delhi sultanate's problems was very realistic, and he solved them successfully. He knew that the real threat to the monarchy came from the Turkic nobles' intrigues and their scramble for power. He introduced rigorous court discipline, such as prostration before the king and kissing his feet, in order to reduce the nobles to abject servility. A picked body of fearsome soldiers with drawn swords protected the throne. The court was an austere assembly where jest and laughter were seldom heard. The Sultan was himself a paragon of severity and harshness. He persistently brought home to his sons and noblemen that the monarch was the vicegerent of God and next in sanctity only to the prophets. The Sultan was God's shadow on earth and the recipient of direct divine guidance. Only the most servile of noblemen and commanders survived; the rest were eliminated on flimsy pretexts. Malik Baqbaq, the governor of Bada'un, who had had one of his servants beaten to death, was publicly flogged. Haybat Khan, governor of Avadh, who had killed a man while drunk, was flogged and handed over to the victim's widow to dispose of as she wished. Malik Itigin Mu'i Daraz (Amin Khan), the governor of Avadh, when defeated by Tughril, the rebel governor of Bengal, was hanged at the gate of Avadh. Sher Khan, the ambitious governor of Bhatinda, was poisoned and died.63 Only those junior Turkic officers who were servile to the Sultan were promoted to high positions.