History of India IV:

Assignment
-Submitted by Sasanbha Lytan,
2nd Year, B.A. History (hons).

Q. Critically analyse the composition and character of the nobility under the Delhi Sultanate during
the 13th century.

The 13th century witnessed the Ilbari rulers laying the foundation of the Delhi Sultanate and the
century concluded with the replacement of their authority by Khalji rule. During this period, the
nobility (umara) saw its evolution from Muizzudin Ghori’s “organized army camp” (Niqain) to a
formalised civil bureaucracy. The main sources for the study of the Sultanate period are the Persian
political chronicles, of which the most important are Minhaj-us-Siraj Juzjani’s Tabaqat-i-Nasiri, which
covers the period up to Balban; Zia-ud-Din Barani’s Tarikh-i-Firozshahi and Fatawa-i-Jahandari which
continues the narrative till Firuzshah Tughluq’s period; and later works like Isami’s Futuhus Salatin
and the works of Amir Khussain. However these works are to be used cautiously keeping their
chronological context and inherent biases in mind. These accounts are also not free from excessive
use of religious terminology, owing to the background of the writers. These accounts can be
supplemented with the accounts of Arab travellers; mystic or Sufi literature; and local, regional
bardic literature, mainly Rajput, which, though they too glorify Rajput resistance, courage and
chivalry, yet they give an insight into the period and provide a different point of view. Texts can be
used in correlation with archaeological evidence from monuments, coins, inscriptions etc.

Though the Sultanate was a monarchical institution established by the Muslim, it was neither
mentioned in the Quran nor the Hadis. It evolved as a necessary institution, to maintain stability,
from the time of the Ummayads, reaching its culmination when Mahmud of Ghazni declared himself
as a Sultan, independent of the Abbasid Caliphate at Baghdad. It was influenced by the Pre-Islamic
Sassanid traditions. Nevertheless, the institution was still ‘un-Islamic’. Therefore, to legitimize the
Sultan’s position, kingship was associated with divinity. The largely tribal political structure and the
absence of law of succession based on heredity in in the Quran or Hadis led to the issue being
decided on one’s ability to assume and maintain power by force. Amir Khusrau writes that it
depended not on the birth of a person, but his ability to wield the sword. Amongst the early Ilbaris
especially, the tribal or nomadic influence was very strong. This endowed the nobility in the 13th
century with the predominant characteristic of functioning on the principle of “primus inter pares”
wherein the Sultans were regarded as “first among equals” in realtion to the nobility. The sources
mention two terms relevant to this: “khwaja-tash” implying that all nobles were equal in power,
status and privilege because they were slaves of the same master; and “sultani” meaning ‘slaves of
the master who they have put on the throne’. This indicates that they had an important say in
matters of royal succession. This thus provided a ground for the Crown to come into a conflict of
interests with the nobility. In practice, the resentment against the rise of one noble or even the
excessive assertion of power by the Sultan led to complications in the evolution of the nobility.
The ruling class comprised of four groups – the Sultan or the Crown; the nobility or the umara; the
ulama; and the local chieftains. The relationship between all of them was one of conflict and tension,
yet marked by cooperation and co-dependence. The word ‘Sultan’ comes from ‘sult’, meaning
‘power’. The umara or nobility held a very powerful position in the state and actually conducted the
work of administration and governance. Minhaj describes them as “Arakin-i-daulat wa, Sutun-i-
sultanate”, meaning ‘members of the state and pillars of the Sultanate’. The word ‘ulama’ (sing.
alim) comes from ‘ilm’, meaning knowledge. It was not an organized group and included anyone who
was well-versed in religious learning and Islamic Law. There was a tacit relationship between the
Sultan and the ulama; one of interdependence. The ulama helped legitimize the actions of the
Sultan. In return, the state patronized them. The local chieftains included the displaced political
authority, as well as chiefs at the regional, district and village level. The local intermediaries, were
crucial for the functioning of the state because they were responsible for land revenue collection, on
which the state was based. This was because, unlike the Turks, they had a personal relationship with
the peasantry and knowledge of the local agrarian conditions and local languages

The nobility was not one unified group. Traditional scholars like Nizami and Nigam have presented
the nobility as consisting of 2 monolithic groups – the Turks and the non-Turks of high lineage (Tajiks
who were men of Persian speech, mostly free-born). The nobility was undoubtedly dominated by
Turkish ghulams (slaves). An understanding of the institution of the Ghulams is intrinsic to an
analysis of the composition and character of the nobility. In the absence of a law of succession in the
Sultanate, these Turkish slaves, described as "king makers" by Nigam, came to play a very pivotal
role in the accession of a Sultan to power. But recent scholarship by Hambly and Sunil Kumar has
argued that this is a simplistic representation, and there was a more complex structure in place. We
have evidence of the existence of other groups like free-born Turks, Khaljis, Ghuris, Afghans,
Mongols, black African slaves (Habashi, literally ‘Abyssinian’), and later Indian converts
(shaikhzadas), who gradually became important and competed for power. Also, the Turkish slaves
also had their own internal differences and their loyalty did not necessarily extend to their masters'
successors. For instance, between the slaves of Muizzuddin (Muizzi slaves), Aibek (Qutbi slaves), and
Iltutmish (Shamsi slaves), who owed allegiance only to their master. There was also a conflict
between senior and junior slaves of the same master. Later, dissensions also developed between
Delhi and provincial nobles, as is seen in the time of Raziya. Thus nobility consisted of diverse
elements, all in competition with each other. Sometimes the Sultan would himself promote these
divisions, in order to weaken the nobility and strengthen his own position. Peter Jackson argues that
the Sultanate polity of the 13th century was based largely on slavery. Jackson had done a
comparative study between the mamluk institution in Egypt and India and pointed out that the
bandagan was distinguished by a hierarchy. The bandagan was an institution of special slaves
purchased for military service. It was the practice of building one's personal elite guard of militarily
trained slaves who were bound unequivocally to their owner by a bond of role and personal loyalty.
The debate amongst scholars on the character and role of the Turkish slave-nobility shall be brought
out in the course of the essay.

For proper understanding of the composition and character of the 13th century nobility, it becomes
necessary for us to chronologically trace the circumstances which led to the creation and
establishment of the Delhi Sultanate, for the character and the composition of the governing class
changed from period to period and ruler to ruler. The establishment of the Delhi Sultanate was a
culmination of the campaigns of Muizzuddin Ghori, who first invaded India in 1175 and conquered
most of North India. The army of the first Ghurid campaigns initially consisted mainly of Ghurid
notables and the Khaljis, which were gradually replaced. After the 2nd Battle of Terrain (A.D. 1192),
the Ghurian commanders increasingly came to play a secondary role to his Turkish slaves. The
ghulam system, which had begun under the Abbasids, who had started the practice of recruiting and
training Turkish slaves for purposes of war and administration, was continued by Muizzuddin. He
conducted most of his campaigns in India through his Turkish slaves, mainly Yalduz, Qubacha and
Qutb-ud-din Aibak, in order to keep the territories as his own personal possessions. Thus, the
conquest of India was possible only through the joint efforts of these slaves and thereby there was a
dominance of the slave elements in Muizzudin’s regime

The accession of Qutub ud-Din Aibak (1206-1210 A.D.) with the death of Muizzudin Ghori over the
two other prominent ghulams: Tajuddin Yalduz and Nassirudin Qabacha is significant in that he was
confronted far fewer and there were lesser problems posed by his own nobility (the Qutbis) than the
Muizzi nobles. Therefore this nobility with its transformation into a formal bureaucracy indicated
that a conflict for privileges began. According to Nigam, the Turkish nobility was indelibly marked by
the absence of legal right or a religious saviour to support Qutub ud-Din's sovereignty.

The accession to the throne of Shams ud-Din Iltutmish (a Qutbi Ghulam and Aibak’s son in law) in
1210 was supported by the Delhi nobility over Qutbi nobles’ claim for a son of Aibak's - Aram Shah.
This was an important development in the evolution of the nobility. Not only did the nobility gain a
more structured form in this period but this event also asserted their right to select a leader and
weakened further any underdeveloped principle of nomination and heredity. This was also an
assertion of the greater power influence that the Delhi nobles would enjoy over the provincial
nobles. It was under Iltutmish that the nobility was organised under a formal administrative
structure. He also collected a large number of Tajik officers. His wazir Nizam-ul-Mulk Junaidi was a
Tajik as well.

His survival as a first among equals was because of the shrewd placement of himself above his fellow
slave-nobles by the creation of his own personal corps of elite slaves. These were the Bandagan-i-
Turk-Chihilgani or "group of forty slaves". The status and composition of these slaves is a matter of
some debate. It is Barani who mentions them by this name and Minhaj, while making no similar
reference, however wrote twenty five biographies of Shamsi nobles who were probably a part of the
Chihilgani. Traditional writers like Nigam and Nizami wrote that they were a tightly knit group, who
held all important positions, and were bound together by their need to protect the monopoly from
other factions of the nobility. Recent writers have questioned this view. Peter Jackson notes that in
contemporary Egypt there were amirs commanding units of forty royal mamluks and concludes that
perhaps the chihilganis formed a parallel group of commanders within the ranks of Iltutmish’s
Shamsi slaves. M. Habib says that 40 was merely a formal number, they were most likely lesser. The
number may also be used in the biblical sense of meaning a large number, or as in the Quranic
context where forty is a synonym for many. Jackson and Habib also point out the ethnic and
geographical diversity of Iltutmish's slaves who comprised Rumis (Greeks or slaves from the
Byzantine territories), Quipchaq tribesmen from Central Asia, the Qara-khita of Mongol origin as well
as the Ilbaris. However neither explores this heterogeneity any further. The Chiligani were probably
a privileged corps in the hierarchy of the Shamsi bandagan. This hierarchy was based on the degree
of trust and confidence of the Sultan enjoyed by each slave.

Hambly took up three existing theories regarding the status of the Chihilgani. Firstly, Stanley Lane
Pode's contention that they were a 'selfish oligarchy' whose function was the monopoly of state
offices. Secondly, Ibn Hasan and Mabibullah's view that they were a cohesive group created by
Iltutmish to contain the ambitions of Ghurid military commanders and for the imposition of a
specific institutional character as the sultanate. Thirdly, the theory of Nizami, who like Pode,
believed them to be a group bound together by the need to protect their monopoly of state from
Indian elements and Central Asian refugees coming in as a result of the Mongol threat.
Hambly feels that possibly all forty slaves were manumitted at the same time. He concludes that
though we do not the know the origin or definite meaning of this term, but they were a group of
nobles, very powerful, who assumed a dominant role after Iltutmish’s death and controlled the
succession of weak rulers, who were, in effect, mostly puppets in their hands. 'Chihil' (forty) may also
have been interpreted too literally he feels with the possibility that Barani might have used it in the
Imami sense of a large number not one that can be ruled out. Their legal status is indicated only by a
reference in Barani’s Tarikh-i-Firuzshahi. It is significant that Barani makes mention of the bandagan-
i-Shamsi as well as the chihilgani. The difference between them seems to be in the phrase which
Barani uses when he mentions the chihilgani for the first time, including Balban “among the forty
Turkish slaves freed…” Barani says that the Turkish chihilgani were equal in privileges and power. He
also refers to their unwillingness to submit to any leader, even from amongst themselves.

Iltutmish also started the practice of nominating his successor, and for some time after his death, the
Crown did remain in his family. It is on Iltutmish's death that significant changes in the distribution of
power amongst the ruling class occurred with the chihilgani coming into prominence. According to
Barani, the turmoil of power struggle in this period eroded the majesty associated with the
sovereign office. The Tajiks were removed from pre-eminence and tensions also intensified amongst
the slaves. According to Irfan Habib however, a common hostility towards the outsider maintained a
'composite character' of the ruling class. The period was marked with great instability, as Sultans
came to power in quick succession and mostly for a brief period. Of the sovereigns, only Balban is
known with certainty to have died a natural death. Power was increasingly being controlled by the
Turkish nobility. Initially, Iltutmish had nominated Raziya as he felt that none of his surviving sons
was competent enough. Later, though, he seems to have changed his mind in favour of his eldest
son, Ruknuddin Firuz Shah. His mother, Shah Turkan, wielded real power during his 7-month reign,
which was dominated by a revolt on the part of a group among Iltutmish’s senior amirs, including
the wazir. According to Isami, Firuz tried to curtail the power and even physically eliminate
prominent Turkish slaves, and excessively relied upon Tajiks, whom the Turks massacred in the
course of the Sultan’s campaign against the rebel Kabir Khan. So he was deposed and Raziya was
enthroned in his place.

Raziya’s period is important for several reasons. She was not only the first and only female Sultan,
but her period also saw the emergence of a new kind of factionalism within the nobility – between
the Delhi nobles and the provincial nobles. She had come to power mainly with the support of the
former. This was resented by the latter, who felt that they too should be consulted in matters of
succession. As a result, she had to face many rebellions in places like Bhatinda. Raziya resorted to
creating divisions in the hostile camp by cleverly turning them against each other. She also tried to
strictly implement the iqtadari regulations, which also made them resentful. Her accession can be
taken to show the indifference of the ulama (religious section of nobes), as the elevation of a woman
to royal authority was contrary to Islamic practice. It can also be attributed to the Central Asian
background of the ruling class, where women enjoyed greater freedom. Also, perhaps the nobles felt
that being a women, she could be a puppet in their hands. Many junior slaves of Iltutmish were
promoted, e.g. Balban, who became the amir-i-shikar (incharge of hunting expeditions). But Raziya
soon began to exercise independent authority and tried to break the Turkish nobles’ monopoly by
introducing new elements in the nobility. A prominent Tajik, Khwaja Muhazzuddin, was appointed
the wazir. Her appointment of Yaqut, an Abyssinian slave to the rank of chief of cavalry (amir-i-
akhur) alienated the Turks, in particular, the amir-hajib, Aitigen. She was then deposed in favour of
her brother Bahram Shah and was killed in 1240 in a vain bid to recover the throne, despite entering
into a matrimonial alliance with an important noble Altunia.
Bahram Shah was involved in the conspiracy against Raziya. But his elevation to the throne was
conditional to his agreeing to create a new office, the naib-i-mamlikat (regent) to whom he was
made to delegate all his powers by a written proclamation. Aitigen was appointed to this post,
Muhazzabuddin, was the wazir. But when Aitigen assumed some royal prerogatives, like keeping an
elephant and playing the naubat at his gate, Bahram had him executed. Not only did he threaten the
nobles, he also became unpopular with the ulama, who participated in an abortive conspiracy to
dethrone him. Bahram Shah was overthrown in 1242 when, under the influence of one of his
courtiers, he contemplated the wholesale removal of the Turkish slave officers.

Ala-ud-din Masud or Masud Shah, the very young son of Firoz, was raised to the throne. Soon the
wazir came to exercise all power and so he was murdered. A more submissive wazir was found and
the amir-i-hajib’s office was given to Balban, where he appropriated all power. Masud tried to build
support from his own family and other minor ranks of nobility; and also promoted the Abyssinians.
He was deposed and was succeeded by his uncle Nasiruddin Mahmud. Balban and Mahmud
probably had a hand in this. Balban was, by now, very powerful. He even thought of directly
assuming power but stopped when he realized that the nobility was as yet not ready and it could
lead to an even more serious conflict between the Tajiks and the Turks.

Nasiruddin Mahmud, Iltutmish’s son, had a very long reign of twenty 20 years probably because by
his time, most members of his family had been eliminated. So the nobility had to continue with him.
His was a nominal rule; Ulugh Khan Balban wielded the real power. Balban’s daughter married the
Sultan in 1249 and soon he was appointed as the naib. All key positions came to be held by his men.
Minhaj speaks of Mahmud as a saintly king, who devoted his life to religion. But he also had some
political ambitions. In 1253, he dismissed Balban and, in order to further reduce the power of the
Turkish nobility, redistributed other offices to important Tajiks. He also appointed Imad-ud-din
Raihan, an Indian convert, as his wakil-i-dar. This shows that the Indian element in the nobility,
though small, was becoming important. Indian converts were considered even more dangerous as
they could get local support. So the Turkish amirs, though jealous of Balban’s power, now rallied
around him in order to protect their interests, although there were some who also joined Raihan.
The Sultan compromised and Balban was reappointed. This amounted to a virtual surrender of royal
authority to Balban and his clique.

Balban assumed power in 1266 A.D. This did not evoke a very strong reaction from the because by
now Balban had built up a sizeable support base for himself in the nobility. Moreover, he was also
been related to Iltutmish’s family, having married his daughter. He also claimed to be from the ruling
line of khans of Iltutmish’s own clans. His reign is significant for several reasons – the consolidation
of the Sultanate, as opposed to expansion; his theory of kingship; further development of
administrative institutions like the iqtadari system; and his tackling of the Mongol problem by
building a strong defence on the north-west frontier.

Balban had been a part of the powerful nobility himself and knew the extent of their influence and
authority. Barani describes their attitude as “tu keeste keh man na am, wa tu ke baashee ke man
nabaash am”, which meant ‘what are you that I am not and what have you been that I have not
been’. This implies again that they saw themselves equal in status. So, to curtail their power and
assert royal authority, he developed a theory of kingship. He associated divinity with kingship and
adopted titles like niyabat-i-khudai (vice-regent of God). This was to show that the king derived his
authority from God, not the nobles, and was above them in position. According to Barani, he also
maintained a distinction based on birth, and kept distance from the masses. However, Peter Hardy
has shown that these views may well be those of Barani himself, found in his Fatawa-i-Jahandari. He
sought to increase personal prestige by claiming descent from the mythical Turkish hero, Afrasiyab.
He also re-organized the court etiquette and insisted on the sijda and the paibos (prostration and
kissing the monarch's feet). He displayed the grandeur of his court to inspire awe among nobles.

Balban also took certain measures to centralize authority in the hands of the Sultan. He freely
eliminated his rivals, like his cousin Sher Khan, through the use of ‘dagger and poison’. He tried to
build his own group of loyal nobles, whether Turks or Khaljis, and employed a network of spies and
informers to monitor the activities of his amirs. He also strictly implemented the iqtadari regulations.
Fawazil was also regularly collected. When he found that many of the iqtas were held by people
either no longer rendering state service, or by the family members of original wajhdar who had died,
he cancelled all such iqtas and gave grants to only those who had title deeds. This was to convey to
the nobility that the iqtas could be enjoyed by them only as long as the state desired it; and so they
derived their power from the king. The army was also re-organized to enable the state to regulate
the governing class.

Balban also faced many rebellions in this period. In dealing with these, for the first time, we also
hear of the use of Afghan military commanders. Although they were confined to the lower levels,
there is now evidence of their involvement in administration as well. Towards the latter half of his
reign, he also faced a rebellion from his iqtadar in Bengal, Tughril Khan, who declared independence
in 1275. This was a serious challenge to the king’s authority. Balban sent 2-3 expeditions to bring him
to submission. However, all were defeated. Balban led the fourth expedition personally. This was
successful and the rebel was killed. Bughra Khan, his son, was appointed to the province and also
warned him of the consequences of rebellion against Delhi.

Thus, we see that Balban was able to consolidate the Sultanate and resolve the conflict between the
Crown and the nobility during his reign. However, the solution had no permanent basis. In his time
he faced no serious challenge from the nobility. But after his death, the problem returned again and
the disintegration of the empire began. Moreover, it is said that his extreme racialism led him to
make the Sultanate an exclusively Turkish concern. On one occasion, he revoked the selection of a
native Muslim, Kamal-i-Mahyar, for a clerical post in Amroha. Yet the number of pure-born Turks
was steadily declining due to the Mongols severing Delhi’s contact with Turkestan. So it was
impossible for them to maintain predominance. The composition of the ruling class certainly
broadened under Balban. The kotwal of Delhi, Fakhruddin, was a Tajik. There was an influx of
Mongol notables in this period. He also had to recruit the Khaljis under Jalaluddin Khalji to fight the
Mongols. We also hear that his servitors included a certain Hatya Paik, presumably a Hindu
aristocrat. After a campaign in the Salt Range, Balban brought back with him two sons of their Raja,
who adopted Islam. The appearance of these princes, together with Kamal-i-Mahyar, among the
maliks of his successor, can be seen to show the rise of an Indian Muslim aristocracy, even prior to
the Khalji era, with which it is traditionally associated. Some historians
hold Balban responsible for sapping the roots of Turkish power in India. It is said that his policies
weakened the Turkish nobility. This paved the way for the rise of the Khaljis as there were no
powerful Turkish nobles left to seriously counter-challenge their authority. But Balban can only in
part be held responsible for the ‘Khalji Revolution’.

Balban had nominated his eldest son, Muhammad, as successor. But he died fighting against the
Mongols in 1286. His other son, Bughra Khan was irresponsible, so he had no choice but to nominate
Muhammad’s young son for succession. But after his death, a party headed by the influential kotwal
Fakhruddin, who had been on bad terms with Muhammad, ignored Balban’s nomination and
enthroned Bughra Khan’s son Muiz ud din Qaiqabad. Bughra Khan advanced westwards to challenge
Kaiqubad, but was reconciled with his son at a meeting on the banks of the river Sarju. Under
Qaiqabad, the non-Turkish elements increased significantly in power. Barani refers to Mongol
converts who had settled in Delhi and had close family ties with leading Turkish nobles and held high
position in Qaiqabad’s court. But it was the dadbeg (amir-i-dad), Nizamuddin, who dominated the
state. After Qaiqabad had him poisoned, he himself was deposed in favour of his son Shamsuddin
Kayumars. The regime was undermined– there was a rivalry among the maliks, with none strong
enough to triumph. The regency was only a transitional arrangement; the 13th century Sultanate
had, for all practical purposes, come to an end. Jalaluddin Khalji, Qaiqabad’s commander of army,
rallied his followers, seized control of Kayumars and became naib, and after a short interval,
occupied the throne himself thus marking an end of the Ilbari period and the beginning of the Khalji
Period.

On the outset what is apparent is the complexity of the evolutionary process of the nobility as a class
and the highly fluid definitions of its composition and characteristics at any point in time. It emerges
in the final analysis as a dynamic class, incredibly adept at self-preservation through adaptation,
connected over time by a movement towards a more formalized structure and consolidation of its
position as one of the most important ruling institutions of the Delhi Sultanate.

Bibliography:-

1. Peter Jackson - The Delhi Sultanate: A Political And Military History

2. Mohammad Habib And K. A. Nizami (Ed.) - A Comprehensive History Of India, Volume 5: The
Delhi Sultanat (A.D. 1206-1526)
3. S. B. P. Nigam – Nobility Under The Sultans Of Delhi (A.D. 1206-1398)
4. K. A. Nizami – Some Aspects Of Religion And Politics In India During The 13 th Century
5. K. A. Nizami – State And Culture In Medieval India
6. K. A. Nizami (Ed.) - Politics And Society During The Early Medieval Period: Collected Works Of
Professor Mohammad Habib, Volumes I and II
7. A. B. M. Habibullah – The Foundation Of Muslim Rule In India (A History Of The Establishment
And Progress Of The Turkish Sultanate Of Delhi: 1206-1290 A.D.)
8. Satish Chandra – Medieval India: From Sultanat to The Mughals, Part One: Delhi Sultanat (1206-
1526 A.D.)
9. Irfan Habib (Ed.) – Medieval India 1, Researches In The History Of India (1200-1750)
a. Formation Of The Sultanate Ruling Class Of The Thirteenth Century – Irfan Habib
b. Social Mobility In The Delhi Sultanate – Iqtidar Husain Siddiqui

10. ARTICLES –
a. The Mamlūk Institution In Early Muslim India – Peter Jackson
b. Role Of The Ghūlams In The Ghaznavid And Seljūqid States: A Consideration Of Some
Aspects – Sunil Kumar
c. When Slaves Were Nobles: The Shamsi Bandagan In The Early Delhi Sultanate – Sunil
Kumar
d. Who Were The Chihilgānī, The Forty Slaves Of Sultān Shams Al-Dīn Iltutmish Of Delhi? –
Gavin Hambly