No More Learning

The districts fell
one by one, as will be related in the following chapter, into the
hands of Mu'izz-ud-din Muhammand bin Sām, the World-burner's
nephew, who occupied Ghazni and ruled the southern portion of
the country now known as Afghānistān as the lieutenant of his
elder brother, Ghiyās-ud-din Muhammad, who governed the now
extensive dominions of his family from his capital, Fīrūzkūh in
Ghūr. In 1181 Mu'izz-ud-dīn Muhammad appeared before Lahore
and compelled Khusrav Malik to surrender, as a token of sub-
mission, his finest elephant, and as a hostage, his son. Muhammad
then marched to Sialkot, built the fort there and placed one of his
own officers in command of it. After his departure Khusrav Malik
plucked up courage and besieged Siālkot, but could not take it and
returned to Lahore. In 1186 Muhammad again appeared before
Lahore and Khusrav sued for peace. He left the city, under a
safe conduct, to arrange the terms, but Muhammad violated his
engagement, seized him, and occupied Lahore. Khusrav Malik was
sent to Ghiyās-ud-din at Firūzkūh, where he remained a prisoner
until 1192, when Ghiyās-ud-din and his brother were preparing for
hostilities against Sultān Shāh Jalāl-ud-din Mahmud of Khvārazm
and put him and his son Bahrām to death as dangerous incumbrances.
1 According to another account Bahrām, regarding the date of whose death
there are several discrepancies, died in 1152, before the burning of Ghazni, and had
been succeeded by Khusrav Shaḥ. The T. N. is followed here,


## p. 38 (#76) ##############################################

CHAPTER III
MU'IZZ-UD-DIN MUHAMMAD BIN SĀM OF GHOR AND
THE EARLIER SLAVE KINGS OF DELHI
The history of the Ghaznavids has given us occasional glimpses
of the princes of Ghur and of the circumstances in which, during
the conflicts of their powerful neighbours, they gradually rose to
prominence. They have usually been described, on insufficient
grounds, as Afghāns, but there is little doubt that they were, like
the Sāmānids of Balkh, eastern Persians. In 1163 Saif-ud-din
Muhammad, son and successor of the World-burner, was slain in
battle against the Ghuzz Turkmāns, and was succeeded by his
cousin, Ghiyās-ud-din Muhammad, son of Bahā-ud-dīn Sām, who
in 1173 expelled the Ghuzz Turkmāns frorn Ghazni and appointed
his younger brother Shihāb-ud-din, afterwards known as Mu'izz-
ud-din Muhammad, to the government of that province.
The relations between the brothers exhibit a pleasing contrast
to the almost invariable tale of envy, jealousy, and fratricidal strife
furnished by the records of other Muslim dynasties. Ghiyās-ud-din
commanded, until his death, the loyal assistance of his brother,
and in return reposed in him a confidence which was never abused
and permitted to him a freedom of action which few other eastern
rulers have dared to tolerate in near relation. Muhammad
acquired territory and wealth which would have enabled him, had
he been so minded, to overthrow his brother and usurp his throne,
and was described on his coins 'as the great and victorious Sultan',
but the place of honour was always assigned to his brother's name,
which was distinguished by epithets denoting his superiority.
In 1175 Muhammad led his first expedition into India. Ismā.
‘ilian heretics, long freed from the restraining hand of a powerful
and orthodox ruler, had for some years borne sway in Multān.
Muhammad captured the city, appointed an orthodox governor,
and marched to the strong fortress of Uch, which he took by a
stratagem. He promised to make the raja's wife, who was on bad
terms with her husband, the principal lady in his harem if she
would deliver the fortress to him. She declined the honour for
herself but secured it for her daughter, caused her husband to be
put to death, and surrendered the city. She gained little by her
,
unnatural treachery, for she and her daughter were sent to Ghazni,
a


## p. 39 (#77) ##############################################

CH. III ]
DEFEAT OF MUHAMMAD
39
ostensibly that they might learn the doctrines and duties of Islam,
and there she died soon afterwards, justly scorned by the daughter
whom she had sold. The unfortunate girl herself died two years
later, never having been Muhammad's wife but in name.
In 1178 Muhammad sustained his first reverse on Indian soil.
He rashly led an army by way of Multān, Uch, and the waterless
Indian desert against Anhilvāra, or Pātan, the capital of Bhim the
Vāghela, the young raja of Gujarāt. His army arrived before
Anhilvāra exhausted by its desert march and utterly unfit to en-
counter the fresh and numerous army of Bhīm. His troops fought
with the valour which religious zeal inspires but were defeated, and
compelled to retrace their steps across the inhospitable desert. The
sufferings of the retreat far exceeded those of the advance and it was
but a miserable remnant of the army that reached Ghaznī.
He was nevertheless able, in the following year, to lead an army
to Peshāwar, which he wrested from the feeble grasp of the governor
placed there by Khusrav Malik, and in 1181 he led to Lahore the
expedition of which the result was the establishment of a fortress at
Siālkot.
The later successors of the great Mahmūd had been unable to
maintain their position in India by the strength of their own arm
and the hostility of the rajas of Jammū had compelled them to ally
themselves to the Khokars. The support of Khusrav Malik enabled
these tribesmen to repudiate their allegiance to Chakra Deo of
Jammu and to resist his demands for tribute and the raja avenged
himself by inviting Muhammad to invade the Punjab and promising
him his assistance. Muhammad accepted the offer with an alacrity
which did little credit to his zeal for Islam, reduced Khusrav to
submission as has already been described, and at Chakra Deo's
suggestion built the fortress of Siālkot for the purpose of curbing the
Khokars. It was at the instance and with the assistance of these
tribesmen that Khusrav Malik attacked the fortress after Muhammad's
departure, and it was owing to Chakra Deo’s aid to the garrison that
the siege was unsuccessful. In 1186, when Muhammad invaded the
Punjab for the second time, Vijaya Deo, the son and successor of
Chakra Deo, aided him against Khusrav Malik, who was treacher-
ously seized and carried to Ghaznī as already described. ‘Ali
Karmākh, who had hitherto been governor of Multān, was appointed
to Lahore, and Muhainmad, having thus established himself in
India, proceeded, by a series of operations differing entirely from
Mahmūd's raids, to the conquest of further territory in that country.


## p. 40 (#78) ##############################################

40
[CH.
THE SLAVE KINGS
In the winter of 1190-91, the south-eastern boundary of his
dominions being then probably the Sutlej, he captured Bhātinda, in
the kingdom of Prithvi Rāj', the Chauhān raja of Delhi and placed
in command of it Qāzi Ziyā-ud-dīn with his contingent of 1200 horse.
Muhammad was preparing to return when he heard that Prithvi Rāj
was advancing with a vast army to attack him. He turned to meet
him and encountered him at Tarāorī, near Karnāl. The Muslims
were overpowered by sheer weight of numbers, and both their wings
were driven from the field, but the centre still stocd fast and
Muhammad, leading a furious charge against the Hindu centre,
personally encountered the raja's brother, Govind Rāi, and shattered
his teeth with his lance, but Govind Rāi drove his javelin through
the sultan's arm, and Muhammad, fearing to sacrifice his army by
falling, turned his horse's head from the field. The army was now
in full fight, and Muhammad, faint from pain and loss of blood,
would have fallen, had not a young Khalj Turk, with great presence
of mind, sprung upon his horse behind him until he reached the
place where the fugitive army had halted. Here a litter was hastily
constructed for him and the army continued its retreat in good
order. Prithvi Rāj advanced to Bhātinda and besieged it, but the
gallant Ziyā-ud-din held out for thirteen months before he
capitulated.
Muhammad's sole care, after reaching Ghaznī, was to organise
and equip such an army as would enable him to avenge his defeat,
and in 1192 he invaded India with 12,000 horse. He was not in
time to relieve Bhātinda, but he found Prithvi Rāj encamped at
Tarāorī, and adopted tactics which bewildered the Rājput, a slave
to tradition. Of the five divisions of his army four, composed of
mounted archers, were instructed to attack, in their own style, the
flanks and, if possible, the rear of the Hindus, but to avoid hand to
hand conflicts and, if closely pressed, to feign flight. These tactics
were successfully employed from the niorning until the afternoon,
when Muhammad, judging that the Hindus were sufficiently per-
plexed and wearicd, charged their centre with 12,000 of the flower
of his cavalry. They were completely routed and Prithvi Rāj de.
scended from his elephant and mounted a horse in order to flee more
rapidly, but was overtaken near the river Saraswati and put to death.
His brother was also slain and his body was identified by the disfigu-
rement which Muhammad's lance had inflicted in the previous year.
This victory gave Muhammad northern India almost to the
1 Calle i Rāi Pithaura by Muslim writers,


## p. 41 (#79) ##############################################

III
QUTB-UD-DIN AIBAK
41
gates of Delhi. Hānsī, Sāmāna, Guhrām and other fortresses sur-
rendered after the battle of Tarāori, and the sultan marched to
Ajmer, which he plundered, carrying away numbers of its inhabi-
tants as slaves, but the city, isolated by the desert, was not yet a safe
residence for a Muslim governor, and a son of Prithvi Rāj was
appointed, on undertaking to pay tribute, as governor.
Muhammad appointed as viceroy of his new conquests Qutb-
ud-dīn Aibak, the most trusty of his Turkish officers, who made
Guhrām his headquarters. Qutb-ud-din, the real founder of Muslim
dominion in India, had been carried as a slave in his youth from
Turkistān to Nīshāpūr, where he was bought by the local governor
and, being again sold on the death of his master, passed eventually
into the hands of Muhammad. He first attracted his new master's
attention by his lavish generosity, and rose to the highest rank in his
service. His name, Aibak, which has been the subject of some
controversy, means either ‘Moon-lord,' and may indicate that he was
born during an eclipse, or ‘Moon-face,' an epithet which in the East
suggests beauty, though we learn that he was far from comely. He
was also nicknamed Shal ('defective' or 'paralysed') from an injury
which deprived him of the use of one little finger. He was active
and energetic, an accomplished horseman and archer, and sufficiently
well learned, and the lavish generosity which had distinguished his
youth earned for him in later years, when wealth had augmented his
opportunities, the name of Lak-bakhsh, or giver of tens of thousands.
Muhammad trusied Aibak as he himself was trusted by his brother,
and left him untrammelled, not only in his administration of the new
conquests, but also in his discretion to extend them.
Towards the close of the rainy season of 1192 an army of Jāts
under a leader named Jatwān, who owed allegiance to Rāja Bhīm of
Anhilvāra, invaded the Hānsī district and compelled Nusrat-uddin,
the Muslim governor, to take refuge in the fortress. Aibak marched
to his relief and in September appeared before Hānsī. The Jāts had
fled, but he followed them so closely that they were compelled to
turn and meet him and were defeated and lost their leader. Aibak
returned to Guhrāın and almost immediately set out for Meerut,
captured the fortress from the Hindu chieſtain who held it, and thus
established an outpost to the east of the Jumna.
Delhi still remained in the hands of the Chauhān Rājputs and
was a nucleus of aggressive national and religious sentiment and a
formidable obstacle to the progress of the Muslim arms. From
Meerut, therefore, Aibak marched thither, and in December, 1192,


## p. 42 (#80) ##############################################

42
[CH.
THE SLAVE KINGS
>
or January, 1193, captured the city which was destined to be the
capital of the Islamic power in India. In 1193 he made it his head-
quarters, but allowed himself no repose there.
Meanwhile an officer subordinate to Aibak had been carrying
the banner of Islam further afield. This was Ikhtiyār-ud-din
Muhammad, son of Bakhtyār, of the Turkish tribe of Khalj, which
was settled in the Garmsir between Sīstān and Ghazni. His mean
and unprepossessing appearance and his ungainly build, which enabled
him, while standing upright, to reach with his hands the calves of his
legs, had long debarred him from employment commensurate with
his ambition and his merits, and he had entered the service of
Hijabr-ud-din Hasan Adīb, an adventurous officer who had con-
quered Budaun even before Muhammad had taken Bhātinda, and
afterwards that of Malik Hisām-ud-din Āghūl Bak, another leader of
the vanguard of Islam, who had established himself in Oudh, where
Ikhtiyār-ud-din received some fiefs between the Ganges and the Son.
From this advanced base he led raids into Bihār and Tirhut and took
so much booty that large numbers of his own tribe, eager to serve
under so fortunate a leader, joined him. With this accession of
strength he invaded Bihār, took its capital, Odantapurī, put to death
the Buddhist monks dwelling in its great monastery, and returned
with his plunder, which included the library of the monastery, to
make his obeisance to Aibak, now, in the summer of 1193, established
at Delhi. The honours bestowed upon him aroused much envy and
jealousy, and intriguers and backbiters were able to freeze the stream
of Aibak's favour into the ice of suspicion and aversion ; but their
malice overreached itself, ſor to compass Ikhtiyār-ud-din's destruction
they attributed to him a foolish boast, that he could overcome an
elephant in single combat, and persuaded Aibak that the vaunt
should be made good. It had never been uttered, but Ikhtiyār-ud-din
would not decline the challenge and, against the expectation of all,
put the beast to flight. His success regained the favour of Aibak,
who dismissed him with fresh honours to Bihār, after conferring on
him as a fief his past and future conquests.
After his departure Aibak marched into the Doāb and captured
Koil, and a month or two later joined his master with 50,000 horse.
Muhammad had invaded India for the purpose of attacking Jai-
chand, Raja of Kanauj and Benares, who according to Hindu
accounts, had been his ally against Prithvi Rāj, but on discovering
that the Muslims were determined to annex northern India, had
repented of his unpatriotic alliance and was preparing to attack
1


## p. 43 (#81) ##############################################

III ]
DELHI AND AJMER
43
the intruders. Muhammad halted near Kanauj and sent Aibak to
meet Jaichand, who was encamped at Chandwār, now Fīrūzabād,
on the Jumna, between Agra and Etāwah. The armies met on the
banks of the river, and the Muslims were on the point of giving way
when a fortunately aimed arrow struck Jaichand in the eye and he
fell dead from his elephant, whereupon the Hindus broke and fled,
and were pursued with great slaughter. Jaichand's body, crushed
beyond recognition, was found with difficulty, but his attendants
recognised it by means of the teeth, which had either been stopped
with gold or were false teeth fastened with gold wire. The victorious
army pressed on to the fortress of Āsī, near Manaich, where Jaichand
had stored his treasure, which was plundered. Thence it marched
to Benares where it destroyed several temples and took much booty,
and Muhammad then returned to Ghazni.
Muhammad's policy in Ajmer was not entirely successful. The
son of Prithvi Rāj whom he had installed there was illegitimate,
and the Rājputs, who resented his subservience to the foreigner,
made his birth a pretext for disowning him and elected in his place
Hemrāj, the brother of Prithvi Rāj. Hemrāj had molested Aibak
when he was besieging Meerut, but had been defeated and driven
off. In 1194 Rukn-ud-din Hamza, Qavām-ul-Mulk, who had cap-
tured and held Ranthambhor, reported that Hemrāj was in rebellion
and was marching to attack him. Aibak marched from Delhi to
the relief of the fortress, but Hemrāj eluded him and took refuge
in the hills of Alwar, the district then known as Mewāt. From this
retreat he attacked and captured Ajmer, compelling his nephew to
flee for refuge to Ranthambhor, and from Ajmer he dispatched a
force under a leader named Jhat Rāi against Delhi. A demonstra-
tion by Aibak was sufficient to drive Jhat Rāi back to Ajmer,
whither Aibak followed him. Hemrāj came forth to meet his enemy
but was defeated and driven back into the city, where he mounted
a funeral pyre and perished in the flaines, and a Muslim officer was
appointed to the government of the city and province.
In 1195 Aibak formed the ambitious design of avenging his
master's defeat in Gujarāt and punishing Rāja Bhim for having
molested Nusrat-ul din at Hānsi, and marched
-
to Anhilvāra.
Kunwar Pāl, the commander of Bhim's army, retired before him
but was compelled by a close pursuit to turn and stand. He was
defeated and slain, and while Bhīm took refuge in a remote corner
of his kingdom Aibak plundered his capital and the neighbouring
country and returned with much booty to Delhi by way of Hānsī.
Muhammad, on receiving Aibak’s dispatch announcing his success,


## p. 44 (#82) ##############################################

44
( CH.
THE SLAVE KINGS
summoned him to Ghazni, where he received himn with every
demonstration of approval and formally appointed him viceroy of
the Muslim dominions in India.
Aibak was
tained for some time
at Ghazni by a serious illness and shortly after his arrival at Delhi,
towards the end of 1196, was called upon to meet his master, who
had led an expedition into India, at Hansi. During this campaign
Bayāna was captured and was placed under the command of a
Turkish slave named Bahā-ud-din Tughril, and Muhammad ad-
vanced to Gwalior. He found the fortress too strong to be taken by
a coup de main and he could not spare the time for a regular siege,
but the raja was prepared to purchase immunity for himself and his
dominions, and in consideration of a promise to pay tribute and the
immediate payment of a first instalment he was permitted to retain
possession of his state and his fortress.
In the hot season of 1197, when Aibak was at Ajmer, the Mers,
who inhabited the neighbourhood of that city, rose in rebellion and
invited Rāja Bhim of Gujarāt to aid them in expelling the Muslims.
Aibak heard of these communications, and in spite of the great
heat of the season marched from Ajmer and attacked the Mers
early one morning before their ally had joined them, but their
superior numbers enabled them to maintain the conflict through-
out the day, and when the battle was renewed on the following day
Bhim's army arrived and overpowered the Muslims, driving them
back into the city. Here Aibak was besieged until the news that
a large army was marching from Ghazni to his relief caused the
Mers and Rāja Bhim's army to retreat. The reinforcements reached
Ajmer late in the year, and in December Aibak marched on Anhil-
vāra by way of Sirohi to avenge his defeat. He found Bhīm's army
awaiting him at the foot of the Abū hills in a position so strong
that he hesitated to attack it, and his caution enticed the Hindus
from the position which constituted their strength. Aibak, now on
equal terms with his enemy, attacked shortly after dawn and was
obstinately resisted until midday, when the Hindus broke and fled.
They suffered severely : 15,000 were slain and 20,000 captured and
twenty elephants and much other plunder were taken. Aibak ad-
vanced, unopposed, to Anhilvāra, plundered the city and returned
with much wealth, of which he transmitted a due proportion to
Muhammad and to Ghīyās ud-din.
During the next five years the two brothers were much occupied
with the affairs of Khurāsān, and Muhammad had so little leisure
to spare for India that the northern provinces enjoyed a period of
comparative repose, welcome to the troops after nine years' warfare,


## p. 45 (#83) ##############################################

in )
EARLY MUSLIM RULE
45
and beneficial to the country. We may imagine that the conquerors
employed this interval of peace for the establishment of their simple
system of government, but of this no details are given, for Muslim
historians are concerned almost exclusively with war and court
intrigue. There is no reason to believe that the system established
by the earlier conquerors differed from that which we find in
existence at a later date under Muslim rulers. Military fiel-holders
were responsible for the preservation of order, for the ordinary
executive duties of government, and for the collection of the
revenue when it was necessary to use any degree of force, but in
matters of detail full use was made of indigenous institutions.
Hindu accountants kept the registers in which was recorded the
landholder's or cultivator's normal liability to government, Hindu
village officials ordinarily collected such revenue as could be col-
lected without the employment of force, and Hindu caste tribunals
decided most of the disputes to which Hindus only were parties.
Disputes between Muslims were decided by Muhammadan qazis
and muftis, and differences between Hindus and their conquerors
either by these officials or by the strong hand of the fief-holder or
his deputy, whose natural predilection for their co-religionists would
be restrained sometimes by a sense of justice but more often by
their interest in repressing misconduct likely to lead to disorders.
It must not be supposed that this description applies uniformly
to the whole of the territory over which the Muslims pretended to
dominion. Extensive tracts often remained under the rule of Hindu
rajas or landowners who were permitted to retain their authority
on promising to pay tribute or taxes, which they paid when the
central authorities was strong and withheld when it was weak.
Both the extent and the boundaries of fieſs held by Muslim officers
were uncertain and a strong or ruthless fief-holder would extinguish
all vestiges of Hindu authority in his fief, and even beyond its
borders, while another, weak or accommodating, might deal with
lesser Hindu proprietors as the central government dealt with the
rajas and great landholders. The history of northern India exhibits,
until the middle of the sixteenth century, many instances of the
extent to which Hindus regained their power under a weak govern-
ment, as well as of their sufferings under despots strong enough to
indulge their bigotry without restraint.
The five years' interval of peace was limited to the provinces
in north-western India under Aibak's immediate control, for
Ikhtiyār-ud din's activity was not abated. After returning, in 1193,
from Delhi to Bihār he hatched schemes of conquest which should


## p. 46 (#84) ##############################################

46
[ck.
THE SLAVE KINGS
the sea
extend the dominion of the faithful to
on one side and
beyond the great mountain barrier of the Himālaya on the other.
Lower Bengal was now ruled by Lakshman, of the Sen dynasty,
who, having been a posthumous son, had succeeded at his birth to
his father's kingdom and was now an aged man dwelling peacefully
at Nabadwīpa or Nadiya, which his grandfather had made the
capital of Bengal. In 12021 Ikhtiyār-ud-din left Bihār with a large
body of horse, and marched so rapidly on Nadiya that he arrived
at the city with no more than eighteen companions. Nadiya was
partly deserted at this time, many of its wealthier inhabitants
having retired and settled further to the east, owing, it is said, to
predictions in ancient books that the city would be captured by
the Turks? , but their flight may be more reasonably attributed to
authentic stories of the activity and rapacity of the Muslims than
to ancient prophecy. Lakshman Sen, whether from apathy or from
confidence, had refused to leave his capital, and when the intruders,
who had been permitted to pass through the city under the im.
pression that they were horsedealers from the north, reached his
palace gates he was sitting down to a meal. The Muslims cut down
the guards and bystanders, burst into the palace, and at once all
was uproar and confusion. The raja, in the half-naked state in
which a Hindu of high caste is obliged to eat, left his unfinished
meal and escaped by boat, and the adventurers were able to hold
their own until the rest of the army arrived, when they plundered
the treasury of the accumulations of a peaceful reign of eighty
years and sacked and destroyed the city3. Ikhtiyār-ud-dīn retired
to Gaur or Lakhnāwati, where he established himself firmly as
governor of Bengal, founded mosques, colleges, and caravanserais,
and caused the Khutball to be recited in the name of Mu'izz-ud-din
Muhammad, who had succeeded as sole ruler on the death of his
elder brother, Ghiyās-ud-din, on February 11, 1203.
Lakshman Sen escaped to Vikrampur, near Sonārgāon and eight
miles south-east of Dacca, and from this town, which had been the
1 This date is not quite certain. Some authors place the expedition a year
later and one some years earlier.
* 2 The predictions, as recorded by Muslim historians, were strangely minute in
matters of detail, but these historians wrote after the event, and the original texts
which they cite cannot be traced.
3 Some suspicion rests on the details of this account, which is drawn from
Muslim sources.
4 This is a homily and bidding prayer recited in mosques on Fridays and
festivals and contains the name of the ruling sovereign, whose title it formally
acknowledges. Among Muslims it is one of the two symbols of sovereignty, the
other being the minting of money.


## p. 47 (#85) ##############################################

II ]
BENGAL
47
favourite residence of his great-grandfather Balāl Sen, ruled the
narrow remnant of his kingdom, in which he was succeeded by his
son Madhav Sen, who, again, was succeeded by his own son Sū Sen,
the last of the line.
The peace in northern India was broken by Aibak, who in 1202
attacked Parmāl, the Chandel raja of Kālinjar, whose ancestor had
paid tribute to Mahmud. Parmāl was defeated, and in order to
retain possession of his fortress accepted the position of a vassal, but
while he was collecting the stipulated tribute suddenly died, and his
minister Aja Deo, who aspired to his throne, refused to abide by the
treaty and, trusting to a spring which had never been known to fail,
resolved to stand the chances of a siege, but a few days after he had
closed the gates the hitherto inexhaustible spring dried up, and the
citizens, confronted with the prospect of death from thirst incautiously
admitted the besiegers without making fresh terms. Aibak punished
Aja Deo's treachery by treating the city as one taken by storm.
Plunder amounting to far more than the promised tribute was taken,
50,000 captives, male and female, were carried off as slaves, and the
temples in the city were converted into mosques. After capturing
Kālinjar, Aibak reduced without difficulty Mahoba, the civil capital
of the Chandel state, and on his way towards Budaun received
Ikhtiyār-ud-din, who presented to him the spoils of Nadiya.
Muliammad bin Sām sustained at the hands of the Turkmāns
of 'Alā-ud-din Muhammad Khvārazm Shāh, near Andkhūī, in 1205,
a defeat which dealt a fatal blow at his military reputation in India.
It was reported, and for some time believed, that he had been
killed, and his old enemies the Khokars and some other tribes to
the north of the Salt Range rose under the leadership of Rāi Sāl,
a petty raja who, having been converted to Islam, had since relapsed.
The rebels defeated the deputy governor of Multān and plundered
Lahore, and by closing the roads between that city and Ghaznī
prevented the remittance of revenue from the Punjab. Muhammad,
intent on avenging his defeat at the hands of Khvārazm Shāh,
ordered Aibak to deal with the rebellion in India, but this step
confirmed the rebels in their belief that the reports of his death
were true, for they did not understand the difficulties which con-
fronted him in Central Asia and could not believe that he would
entrust to a subordinate a task so important as the suppression of
their rebellion. Muhammad at length perceived the necessity for
taking the field in person, and on October 20, 1205, set out from
Ghaznī for India. He left Peshāwar on November 9 and fell


## p. 48 (#86) ##############################################

48
CĦ.
THE SLAVE KINGS
suddenly on the Khokars in a position of their own choosing between
the Jhelum and the Chenāb. They withstood him from daybreak
until the afternoon with such obstinacy that the tide of battle was
only turned by the arrival of Aibak with the army of Hindūstān.
The Muslims pursued the Khokars with great slaughter and took so
many alive that five Khokar slaves sold in the camp for a dinār. Of
the two leaders of the Khokars one, Sarka, was slain and the other,
Bakan, made his way to a fortress in the Salt Range but, being
pursued thither, saved his life by surrendering. A body of the more
determined rebels fled from the fortress into a dense jungle where
they perished miserably when the forest was fired by the Muslims.
Muhammad arrived at Lahore on February 25, 1206, and gave
his troops permission to return to their homes in order that they
might be ready to accompany him on his projected expedition to
Khvārazm. On his return towards Ghaznī he was assassinated, on
March 15, on the bank of the Indus.
The circumstances of his death are a vexed question. The legend
which attributes it to Prithvi Rāj who, according to the bards of the
Rājputs had not been slain at Tarāori but was wounded and taken
prisoner and remained, after having been blinded, a captive for the
rest of his life, is mentioned by one Muslim historian but may be
dismissed without hesitation as a fabrication. Other authorities
attribute the deed to some of the Khokars whose homes had so
recently been made desolate, but though these were perhaps privy to
the design, and, if so, certainly furthered it, the actual assassins
appear to have been fanatical Shiahs of the heretical Ismā'īlī sect. A
few years before this time these heretics had again established them.
selves in Khurāsān, where they are still numerous, and held possession
of that province until Muhammad crushed them in 1199, and
restored his brother's authority. A number of these bound them-
selves by an oath to slay the persecutor of their faith, and found on
this occasion their opportunity.
The body of the murdered sultan was carried to Ghazni and
there buried. His nominal successor was 'Alā-ud-din, cf the Bāmiyān
branch of his family, who was almost immediately supplanted by
Mahmūd, the son of Ghiyās-ud-din, but these princes were mere
pageants, and the real successors the provincial viceroys,
Tāj-ud-din Yildiz, governor of Kirmān, and Qutb-ud-din Aibak,
who assumed the title of Sultan at his master's death and was
acknowledged as sovereign by Ikhtiyār-ud-din of Bengal and by
Nāsir-ud-din Qabācha who, having distinguished himself at the
were


## p. 49 (#87) ##############################################

INI ]
DEATH OF MUHAMMAD B. SĀM
49
course.
disastrous battle of Andkhūi, had in 1205 been appointed governor
of Multān and Uch, and had married Aibak's daughter.
We may now conveniently revert to the course of events in
Bengal, where Ikhtiyār-ud-din, having firmly established himself in
Lakhnāwati, had begun to indulge in dreams of carrying his arms
beyond the Himālaya. He had already extended his influence to
the foot of these mountains among the Mongoloid tribes, Koch,
Mech, and Kachārī, and one chieftain, known after his conver-
sion as 'Alī the Mech, had exchanged his animistic belief for the
doctrines of Islam. 'Ali undertook to guide Ikhtiyār-ud-din through
the great mountains and about the middle of the year 1205 he set
out, with an army of 10,000 horse, on his perilous adventure. The
interest which this enterprise might have possessed is unfortunately
diminished by the impossibility of tracing the adventurer's foot-
steps, for the vague accounts of historians ignorant of geography
preserved in corrupted texts afford us no means of following his
Having entered into a treaty with the raja of Kāmrūp,
who agreed to refrain from molesting him and to assist him, at
least with advice, he marched from Debkot in the modern district
of Dinājpur, to the banks of a great river which seems to have
formed the boundary between his territory and Kāmrūp and
followed its course northwards for ten days until he reached a city,
perhaps Burdhankot, in the raja's dominions. Here the river was
spanned by a stone bridge, and Ikhtiyār-ud-din, leaving a force
to hold the bridge, set out, against the advice of the raja, who
counselled him to wait for the spring, for Tibet. In what direction
he marched, or what part of Tibet was his objective, is uncertain,
but after fifteen days' marching he reached a
strong fortress
standing in open country which was well cultivated and thickly
populated. The inhabitants joined the garrison of the fortress in
opposing the invader and though Ikhtiyār-ud-din held his ground
throughout the day his losses were very heavy and information
received from prisoners, who reported that large reinforcements
from a neighbouring city were confidently awaited, convinced him
of the necessity for an immediate retirement. During his retreat
he paid the penalty of his rashness in advancing so far into an un-
known country without securing his communications. The natives
had destroyed or obstructed the roads and burnt all vegetation, so
that neither fodder nor fuel was procurable and the army was
reduced to living on the flesh of its horses. When the river was
reached it was discovered that the inhabitants had taken advantage
of quarrels between the officers left to secure at least this point to
C. H. I. III.
4


## p. 50 (#88) ##############################################

50
[ ch.
THE SLAVE KINGS
а
destroy the bridge, that the river was unfordable, and that no boats
were at hand. The raja of Kāmrūp perfidiously aitacked the re-
treating army and drove it into the river. Ikhtiyār-ud-din succeed-
ed in reaching the opposite bank with about a hundred horsemen,
with which sorry remnant of his army he returned to Lakhnāwati.
This was the greatest disaster which had yet befallen the Muslim
arms in India. Armies had been defeated, but Ikhtiyār-ud-din's
force had been all but annihilated, and it would have been well for
him to have perished with it, for he could not show his face in the
streets of Lakhnāwati without encountering the gibes and reproaches
of the wives and families of those whom he had led to their death
and early in 1206 he took to his bed and died, of grief and mortifica-
tion, as some authorities assert, but he was in fact murdered by 'Ali
Mardān, a leading member of the Khaljī tribe.
On Ikhtiyār-ud-din's death the government was assumed by
Muhammad bin Shiran, a Khaljī officer who had acted as one of
his deputies during his absence in Tibet. 'Alī Mardān was im-
prisoned, but escaped and fled to Lahore, where he persuaded
Aibak, from whom he concealed his share in Ikhtiyār-ud-din's
death, to depute an officer from Oudh to make a fresh distribution
of fiefs among the officers in Bengal. In the course of the dissensions
which arose in connection with this redistribution Muhammad bin
Shīrān, 'Ali Mardān's principal enemy, was slain, and 'Alī Mardān
persuaded Aibak to appoint him governor.
Nāsīr-ud-din Qabācha's acknowledgement of his father-in-law,
Aibak, as his sovereign aroused the resentment of Tāj-ud-din Yildiz,
governor of Kirmān, who claimed the succession to Muhammad
in Ghazni and, in consequence, the sovereignty of the Punjab. He
sent an army against Qabācha and drove him from Multān but was
in turn attacked by Aibak, defeated, and driven back to Kirmān.
Aibak, elated by his success, entered Ghazni as a conqueror in
1208-09 and celebrated his victory with wine and revelry, while
his troops robbed and ill-treated the citizens. They secretly in-
formed Yildiz of the state of affairs and he suddenly marched on
Ghaznī and so completely surprised Aibak that he fled to Lahore
without striking a blow.
Early in November, 1210, Aibak's horse fell upon him as he was
playing chaugān or polo and the high pommel of the saddle pierced
his breast, inflicting a wound so severe that he died almost im-
mediately. The nobles, in order to avoid the confusion and strife


## p. 51 (#89) ##############################################

INI ]
ILTUTMISH
51
a
inseparable from a delayed or disputed succession, hurriedly pro-
claimed Ārām Shāh, sometimes described as Aibak's adopted son
but usually believed to have been a son of his body.
The death of Aibak affords us an opportunity of turning again
to the course of events in Bengal. 'Ali Mardān, on receiving the
news, adopted the style of royalty and the title of Sultan 'Alā-ud-
din. To his own subjects he was a ruthless and bloody tyrant, and
the Hindu rulers on his borders stood in such awe of him that the
tribute with which they conciliated him filled his treasury. The
rapid growth of his power and prosperity so unhinged his mind
that he believed himself to be monarch of all the known world and
bestowed upon his subjects and suppliants grants of thę most
distant kingdoms and provinces. To a poor merchant of Isfahān
who had been robbed of his goods in Bengal he made a grant of
his native city and province, and none dared to suggest that the
grant was but breath and paper. The violence of his temper
increased with his mania until neither the Khaljī noble nor the
humble trader of the bazar was secure, and when he had reigned
for about two years a party among the nobles conspired and slew
him and raised to the throne Hisām-ud-din 'Iwaz, governor of the
frontier district of Debkot.
On Aibak's death Qabācha also declared himself independent
in Multan, and nothing was left to Arām Shāh but Hindūstān and
a part of the Punjab, where the turbulence of the Hindus threatened
his rule and alarmed the stoutest hearts among the Muslims. From
Lahore the new king marched to Delhi but the nobles who had
remained in the capital when Aibak marched to Lahore, and had
had no voice in the election of Ārām, Shāh were loth to accept so
feeble a ruler, and invited Shams-ud-din Iltutmish, son-in-law of
Aibak and the foremost of his slaves, to ascend the throne. Iltutmish
marched from Budaun to Delhi, defeated and captured Ārām Shāh,
who met him in the plain before the city, and ascended the throne
in the latter half of 1211. Of Ārām Shāh, who reigned for less than
a year, nothing more is heard.
The new king, who is usually, but incorrectly, styled Altamsh
by European historians, was a Turk of the Ilbari 'tribe who, though
of noble birth, had, like Joseph, been sold into slavery by his
brothers. When he and another slave named Aibak Tamghāj were
first carried to Ghazni Muhammad would not pay the price
demanded for them, but afterwards permitted Qutb-ud-din Aibak
to purchase them at Delhi. Tamghāj was slain when Yildiz drove
Qutb-ud-din Aibak from Ghaznī, but Iltutmish advanced rapidly
4-2


## p. 52 (#90) ##############################################

52
[ch.
THE SLAVE KINGS
in his master's favour and held in succession the fiefs of Gwalior,
captured in 1196, Baran (Bulandshahr) and Budaun.
It was but a remnant of Aibak's wide dominions that Iltutmish
gained by his victory over Ārām Shāh. ‘Ali Mardān was independent
in Bengal, Qabācha seemed likely, besides retaining his indepen-
dence in Multān and Sind, to extend his authority over Lahore and
the upper Punjab, and Yildiz, who held Ghazni, pretended, as
Muhammad's successor, to suzerainty over all the Indian conquests
and asserted his claim by issuing to Iltutmish a commission as
viceroy. The position of Iltutmish was so precarious that he dared
not at once resent the insult, but he neither forgot nor forgave it.
Many of the Turkish nobles, even in Hindūstān, chafed against his
authority and he was for some time occupied in establishing it in
the districts of Delhi, Budaun, Oudh, and Benares, and in the sub-
montane tract of the Himālaya.
In 1214 'Alā-ud-din Muhammad Khvārazm Shāh drove Yildiz
from Ghazni, and the fugitive took refuge in Lahore and expelled
the officer who held the town for Qabācha. Iltutmish protested
against this act of aggression, and when the protest was disregarded
marched towards Lahore. Yildiz accepted the challenge and on
January 25, 1216, the armies met on the already famous field of
Tarāori. Yildiz was defeated and taken, and after being led through
the streets of Delhi was sent to Budaun, where he was put to death
in the same year.
After the overthrow of Yildiz, Qabācha again occupied Lahore,
but in 1217 Iltutmish expelled him from the city and recovered the
upper Punjab.
In 1221 the effects of the raids of the heathen Mughuls which
afterwards became a source of constant anxiety to the sultans
of Delhi, first made themselves felt in India. These savages, under
their leader, the terrible Chingiz Khān, drove 'Alā-ud-din Muham-
mad Khvārazm Shāh from his throne, and his son, Jalāl-ud-din
Mangbarni, took refuge in Lahore and sent an envoy to Iltutmish
to beg for an asylum in his dominions. The fugitive and his 10,000
troops were most unwelcome guests on the frontier, and Iltutmish,
having put the envoy to death on the pretext that he was attempting
to stir up sedition, replied that the climate of Lahore was likely to
be prejudicial to Mangbarni's health and offered him a residence
near Delhi. The offer was declined and Mangbarni retired towards
the Salt Range, where he first attacked and defeated the Khokars
but afterwards found it to his advantage to enter into an alliance
with them, and by a marriage with the daughter of their chief,


## p. 53 (#91) ##############################################

m]
MULTÀN
53
who had long been at enmity with Qabācha, acquired an interest in
an intestine feud. With his new allies he attacked Qabācha and
compelled him to comply with an exorbitant demand for tribute.
Rumours that Chingiz had discovered his retreat and purposed to
follow him thither seriously perturbed him, and by extorting a
further sum from Qabācha and plundering Sind and northern
Gujarāt he amassed treasure sufficient to enable him to flee, in 1224,
to Persia.
The defeat and humiliation of Qabācha had profited Iltutmish,
who was at leisure, after Mangbarni's flight, to turn his attention
to Bengal, where Hisām-ud-dīn 'Iwaz had assumed the title of Sultan
Ghiyās-ud-din, and in 1225 he led his army through Bihār. On his
approach 'Iwaz submitted to him, abandoned the use of the royal
title, acknowledged his sovereignty and presented to him, as tribute,
thirty-eight elephants and much treasure, and Iltutmish, after
appointing his eldest son, Năsir-ud-din Mahmūd, governor of Oudh,
and establishing his own governor in Bihār, returned to Delhi.
In 1226 Iltutmish recovered Ranthambhor, which, in the con.
fusion which followed Aibak's death, had fallen into the hands of
the Hindus, and in the following year took Mandāwar, a strong
fortress eight miles north of Bijnor held by Rahup, an Agarwāl
Baniya who had captured it from a prince of the Parihar dynasty.
Having thus established his authority in Hindūstān and Bengal he
decided that the time had come to deal with Qabācha, who still
maintained his independence in Sind and the lower Punjab and
had not abandoned his pretensions to the upper province. He
marched first towards Uch, and Qabācha withdrew to Ahrāwat on
the Indus and moored his boats near his camp, leaving his minister
to defend Uch. As Iltutmish approached Uch his lieutenant, Nāsir-
ud-din Aiyitim, advanced from Lahore and besieged Multān, and
Qabācha took to his boats and fled to the island-fortress of Bakhar,
in the Indus, leaving his minister to follow him with the treasure
stored at Uch. On February 9, 1228, Iltutmish arrived at Uch and
opened the siege, at the same time dispatching a force under his
minister, Kamāl-ud-din Muhammad Junaidi, entitled Nizām-ul-
Mulk, in pursuit of Qabācha, who in his despair sent 'Alā-ud-dīn
Bahrām Shāh, his son by Aibak's daughter, to make terms. Bahrām
was successful, and in accordance with the treaty Uch was sur-
rendered on May 4, but Junaidi was either not informed of the
1 This place cannot now be identified and is not to be sought on the Indus,
which has changed its coursc considerably since the thirteenth century.


## p. 54 (#92) ##############################################

54
(ci.
THE SLAVE KINGS
treaty or wilfully disregarded it, for he continued to besiege Bakhar,
and Qabācha was drowned in the Indus. The circumstances of his
death are variously related ; some writers say that he was accident-
ally drowned in attempting to escape, and others that he committed
suicide by throwing himself into the river. His death ended the
campaign, and his troops transferred their services to Iltutmish, who
returned to Delhi in August, leaving Junaidi to complete the con-
quest of lower Sind. Malik Sinān-uddin Chatīsar, eleventh of the
Sūmra line, a Rājput dynasty the later members of which accepted
Islam, submitted and was permitted to retain his territory as a vassal
of Iltutmish, whose dominions were thus extended to the sea.
Iltutmish, as a good Muslim, had, while still employed in estab-
lishing his authority, sought from the 'Abbasid Caliph of Baghdad
confirmation of his title and he was gratified by the arrival, on
February 8, 1229, of the Caliph's envoy, who invested him with a
robe of honour and delivered to him a patent which conveyed the
Caliph's recognition of his title as Sultan of India.
After the retirement of Iltutmish from Bengal in 1225 'Iwaz
rebelled, expelled the king's governor from Bihār and ill-treated
those who had acknowledged his authority. The governor fled to
Oudh and in 1227 Mahmūd, the son of Iltutmish, invaded Bengal
from that province to punish the rebel. 'Iwaz being absent on an
expedition ; he occupied Lakhnāwati without opposition, and when
'Iwaz returned he defeated him, captured him, put him to death,
and imprisoned the Khalji nobles who had formed a confederacy to
oppose the suzerainty of Delhi! .
Mahmūd now governed Bengal as his father's deputy, and made
the most of an opportunity which was closed by his early death in
April, 1229, for he defeated and slew raja Britu, possibly the raja of
Kāmrūp, who had, until that time, defeated the Muslims on every
occasion on which they had attacked him. On Mahmūd's death
Balkā, the son of 'Iwaz, caused himself to be proclaimed king of
Bengal under the title of Ikhtiyār-ud-din Daulat Shāh Balkā, and
it was not until the winter of 1230-31 that Iltutmish was able to lead
an army into Bengal to crush the rebellion. Balkā was captured and
probably put to death, and ‘Alā-ud-dīn Jāni was appointed governor
of Bengal.
a
1 According to another account 'Iwaz had died before this time and it was his
son Nāsir-ud-din who invaded Bihār and was afterwards defeated and slain by
Mahmūd, but this account and another, which describes Nāsir-ud-din as Balkā,
seem to be based on a confusion of the events of 1227 with those of 1229-31.


## p. 55 (#93) ##############################################

In ]
MĀLWA
55
The king's next task was the recovery of his fief, Gwalior,
which, since the death of Aibak, had been captured by the Hindus,
and was now held by the raja Mangal Bhava Deo, son of Māl Deo,
and in February, 1232, he invested the fortress, which he besieged
until December 12, when the raja Aled by night and succeeded in
making his escape. Iltutmish entered the fortress on the following
morning and, enraged by the stubborn resistance which he had en-
countered and by the raja's escape, sullied his laurels by causing
700 Hindus to be put to death in cold blood. On January 16, 1233,
he set out on his return march to Delhi, where, in this year, he
purchased the slave Bahā-ud-din Balban, who eventually ascended
the throne as Ghiyās-ud-din Balban.
Iltutmish had now established his authority throughout the
dominions which Aibak had ruled, and in order to fulfil the duty of
a Muslim ruler towards misbelieving neighbɔurs and to gratify his
personal ambition set himself to extend those dominions by conquest,
In 1234 he invaded Mālwa, captured the city of Bhilsa, and advance
ed to Ujjain, which he sacked, and, after demolishing the famous
temple of Mahākāli and all other temples in the city, carried off to
Delhi a famous lingam, an image of Vikramāditya, and many idols.
The lingam is said by some to have been buried at the threshold of
the Friday mosque of Old Delhi, and by others to have been
buried at the foot of the great column of red sandstone built by
Iltutmish.
This famous column, known as the Qutb Minār, was founded in
1231-32 in honour of the saint, Khvāja Qutb-ud-din Bakhtyār Kāki,
of Ush, near Baghdād, who, after residing for some time at Ghaznī
and Multān, settled at Delhi, and lived at Kilokhri, highly honour-
ed by Iltutmish, until his death on December 7, 1235. The name
of the column has no reference, as is commonly believed, to Qutb-ud-
din Aibak, the master and patron of Iltutmish.
After the king's return from Mālwa a serious religious distur-
bance broke out at Delhi, where a large community of fanatics of
the Ismāʻīlī sect had gradually established itself. They may have
been irritated by persecution but they appear to have believed
that if they could compass the king's death they might be able to
establish their own faith as the state religion. They plotted to
assassinate Iltutmish when he visited the great mosque for the
Friday prayers, which he was wont to attend unostentatiously and
without guards. One Friday, accordingly, while the congregation
was at prayers, a large body of Ismāʻīlīs ran into the mosque armed,
1 Otherwise Birbal Deo.


## p. 56 (#94) ##############################################

56
Ć CH.
THE SLAVE KINGS
a
drew their swords, and attempted to cut their way through the
kneeling multitude to the Sultan, but before they could reach him
he made his escape and, the alarm having been given, the people
crowded the roofs, walls, and gateways of the mosque and with
a shower of arrows and missiles annihilated the heretics. Such
adherents of the sect as remained were diligently sought and were
put to death.
In the winter of 1235-36 Iltutmish led an expedition against
the Khokars, whose hostility to the Muslim rulers of India had
survived the extinction of the dynasty of Ghūr, but on his way he
was stricken with an illness so severe that it was necessary to carry
him back to Delhi in a litter. As his life was ebbing the courtiers,
a
desirous of averting the horrors of a disputed succession urged him
to name his successor. Mahmūd, the only one of his sons who,
having reached maturity had shown any promise, was dead, and
the dying monarch named his daughter Raziyya. The courtiers,
scandalised by this suggestion, urged the insuperable objection of
her sex, and the king, languidly replying that they would find her
a better man than any of her brothers, turned his face to the wall
and died, on April 29, 1236, after a reign of twenty-six years.
Iltutmish was the greatest of all the Slave Kings. His achieve-
ments were hardly equal to those of his master, but he never had,
as Aibak had, the moral and material support of a great empire.
What he accomplished he accomplished by himself, often in the
face of great difficulties, and he added to the dominions of Aibak,
which he found dismembered and disorganised, the provinces of
Sind and Mālwa. That he was even more profuse than his master
is little to his credit, for the useless and mischievous prodigality of
eastern rulers is more often the fruit of vanity than of any finer
feeling, and at a court at which a neat epigram or a smart repartee
is almost as profitable as a successful campaign the resources of a
country are wasted on worthless objects.
The courtiers, disregarding their dying master's wishes, raised
to the throne his eldest surviving son, Rukn-ud-din Fīrūz, who had
proved himself, as governor of Budaun, to be weak, licentious and
worthless. The nobles assembled at the capital returned to their
.
fiefs with well-founded misgivings, and Fīrūz, relieved of the re-
straint of their presence, devoted himself entirely to pleasure, and
squandered on the indulgence of his appetites the treasure which
1 The oldest extant authority is here followed. Other historians give dates
corresponding with April 17, May 2, and May 5. One gives a date corresponding
with May 19, 1237, but this is certainly incorrect, and is probably due to a scribe's
error.


## p. 57 (#95) ##############################################

m]
RUKN-UD-DİN FİRÓZ
51
his father had amassed for the administration and defence of the
empire. He took a childish delight in riding through the streets on
an elephant and scattering gold among the rabble, and so neglected
public business that the direction of affairs fell into the hands of his
mother, Shāh Turkān, who, having been a handmaid in the harem,
now avenged the slights which she had endured in the days of her
servitude. Some of the highly born wives of the late king were put
to death with every circumstance of indignity and those whose lives
were spared were subjected to gross and humiliating contumely.
The incompetence and sensuality of Fīruz and the mischievous
activity of his mother excited the disgust and indignation of all, and
passive disaffection developed into active hostility when the mother
and son barbarously destroyed the sight of Qutb-ud din, the infant
son of Iltutmish. Nor was intestine disorder the only peril which
threatened the kingdom, for the death of Iltutmish had been the
opportunity of a foreign enemy. Malik Saif-ud-din Hasan Qarlugh,
a Turk who now held Ghaznī, Kirmān and Bāmiyān, invaded the
upper Punjab and, turning southwards, appeared before the walls of
Multān. Saif-ud-din Aibak, governor of Uch, attacked and routed
him and drove him out of India, but to foreign aggression the more
serious peril of domestic rebellion immediately succeeded. Ghiyās.
ud-din Muhammad, a younger son of Iltutmish, rebelled in Oudh,
detained a caravan of treasure dispatched from Bengal, and plun.
dered many towns to the east of Jumna, and 'Izz-ud-din rebelled in
Budaun. In the opposite direction the governors of Multān, Hānsī
and Lahore formed a confederacy which, to within a distance of
ninety miles from Delhi, set the royal authority at naught. In Bengal
no pretence of subordination remained. In 1233 'Izz-ud-din Tughril
Taghān Khān had succeeded Saif-ud-din Aibak as governor of the
province, but Aor Khān, who held the fief of Debkot, had established
his independence in the country to the north and east of the Ganges
and had recently attempted to expel Tughril from Lakhnāwati. He
had been defeated and slain, but neither antagonist had dreamt of
appealing to Delhi, and Tughril, who now ruled the whole of Bengal,
was bound by no ties, either of sentiment or interest, to the unworthy
successor of Aibak and Iltutmish.
When Firüz awoke to a sense of his danger his situation was
already desperate. He turned first to attack the confederacy which
threatened him from the north-west, but as he was leaving Delhi
he was deserted by his minister Junaidi, who fled and joined 'Izz-
ud-din Jāni at Koil, whence both marched to join the confederates


## p. 58 (#96) ##############################################

58
[ CH.
THE SLAVE KINGS
of the Punjab. Firüz continued his march, but had not advanced
beyond the neighbourhood when the officers with him and the slaves
of his household murdered two of his secretaries and other civil
officials, including Junaidi's son, and at the same time the news of
a serious revolt at Delhi recalled him to the capital. His mother
had made preparations for putting to death his half-sister Raziyya,
whose abilities she regarded as a menace to his authority, but the
populace, aware of the high esteem in which the princess had been
held by her father, rose in her defence, and before Fīrūz could reach
Delhi his mother was a prisoner in the hands of the victorious rebels.
Those who had defied his authority at Tarāori deserted him and
joined the people of Delhi in raising Raziyya to the throne, and
Firūz, who took refuge in Kilokhri was seized and put to death on
November 9, 1236, after a reign of six months and seven days.
The task which lay before the queen would have taxed even her
father's powers. Junaidi and the g. ,vernors of Multān, Hānsi, Lahore
and Budaun, who were marching on Delhi, had all been implicated
in excluding her from the throne, and still declined to recognise her.
She summɔned to her aid Nusrat-ud-din, who had been appointed
to Budaun after the defection of 'Izz-ud-din Jānī, but before he could
cross the Ganges he was defeated by the confederates, in whose hands
he died, and they besieged her in her capital, but she marched out
and encamped on the banks of the Jumna. She was not strong
enough either to give or accept battle, but she turned her proximity
to their camp to good account and by means of dexterous intrigues
fomented distrust and dissension among them. She induced 'Izz-ud-
din Jānī and Ayāz of Multān to visit her and to treat for the betrayal
of some of their associates, and then circulated in the rebel camp an
account of all that had passed at the conference. Consternation fell
upon all, no man could trust his neighbour, and Saif-ud-din Kūji of
Hānsī, 'Alā-ud-din Jāni of Lahore, and Junaidi, who were to have
been surrendered to her, mounted their horses and fled, but were
pursued by her cavalry. Jāni was overtaken and slain near Pāel,
Kūjī and his brother were taken alive and put to death after a short
imprisonment, and Junaidi fled into the Sirmur hills, where he died.
Raziyya's astuteness thus dissolved the confederacy and estab-
lished her authority in Hindūstān and the Punjab, where Ayāz was
rewarded for his desertion of his associates with the government of
Lahore in addition to that of Multān, and Khvāja Muhazzib-ud-din
Husain, who had been assistant to the fugitive minister, Junaidi,
succeeded him in his office and in his title of Nizām-ul-Mulk. The


## p. 59 (#97) ##############################################

in )
RAZIYYA
$9
queen's energy and decision secured for her also the adhesion of the
governors of the more distant provinces of Bengal and Sind, who
voluntarily tendered their allegiance, but she found it necessary to
send a force to the relief of Ranthambhor, where the Muslim garrison
had been beleaguered by the Hindus since the death of Iltutmish.
Qutb-ud-din Husain, who commanded the relieving force, drove off
the Hindus, but for some unexplained reason withdrew the garrison
and dismantled the fortress.
Raziyya now laid aside female attire, and appeared in public,
both in the court and in the camp, clothed as a man and unveiled.
This seems to have given no cause for scandal, but she aroused the
resentment of the nobles by the appointment of an African named
Jalāl-ud-din Yāqūt to the post of master of the horse, and by
distinguishing him with her favour. Later historians suggest or
insinuate that there was impropriety in her relations with him, but
the contemporary chronicler makes no such allegation, and it is
unnecessary to believe that she stooped to such a connexion, for the
mere advancement of an African was sufficient to excite the jealousy
of the Turkish nobles, who formed a close corporation.
Notwithstanding the vindictive zeal with which Iltutmish had
pursued Ismā'ilian and Carmathian heretics, some appear to have
escaped death, and Delhi now again harboured large numbers of
these turbulent fanatics, who had assembled from various provinces
of the kingdom and were excited by the harangues of a Turk named
Nūr-ud-din, a zealous preacher and proselytizer. On Friday, March
5, 1237, the heretics made a second organised attempt to overthrow
the established religion, and to the number of a thousand entered the
great mosque from two directions and fell upon the congregation.
Many fell under their swords and others were killed by the press of
those who attempted to escape, but in the meantime the Turkish
nobles assembled their troops and, aided by many of the congrega-
tion who had gained the roof of the mosque and thence hurled
missiles on their foes, entered the courtyard and slaughtered the
heretics to a man.
Discontent in the capital bred disaffection in the provinces. By
the death of Rashid-ud-din ‘Ali the command of the fortress of
Gwalior had devolved upon Ziyā-ud-din Junaidī, a kinsman of the
late minister. He was believed to be ill-disposed towards the
government, and on March 19, 1238, both he and the historian
Minhāj-ud-din were compelled by the governor of Baran to leave
Gwalior for Delhi. The historian cleared his reputation and was
restored to favour, but of Junaidi nothing more is heard. A more
a


## p. 60 (#98) ##############################################

60
(CH.
THE SLAVE KINGS
formidable rebel was Ayāz, governor of the Punjab, who, resenting
Yaqūt's influence at court, repudiated his allegiance to the queen.
Towards the end of 1239 Raziyya marched into the Punjab to reduce
him to obedience, and Ayāz submitted without a contest, but was
deprived of the government of Lahore and compelled to retire to
Multān. From this district he was shortly afterwards expelled by
Saif-ud din Hasan Qarlugh, who, having in 1230 been driven by the
Mughuls from Kirman and Ghazni, had retired into Sind, where he
had been awaiting an opportunity of establishing himself to the east
of the Indus.
Raziyya returned to Delhi on March 15, 1240, but on April 3
was again compelled to take the field. The Turkish nobles, headed
by the lord chamberlain, Ikhtiyār-ud-din Aitigin, resented the power
and influence of Yaqut and instigated Ikhtiyār-ud-din Altūniya,
governor of Bhātinda, to rebel. When the army reached Bhātinda
the discontented nobles slew Yāqūt, imprisoned Raziyya, whom they
delivered into the custody of Altūniya, and directed their confede-
rates at Delhi to raise to the throne Mu'izz-ud-din Bahrām, third
son of Iltutmish and half-brother of Raziyya. Bahram was pro-
claimed on April 22, and when the army returned to Delhi on May
5, its leaders formally acknowledged him as their sovereign, but made
their allegiance conditional on the appointment of Aitigin as regent
for one year. Aitigin married the king's sister and usurped all the
power and most of the state of royalty, and Bahrām, chafing under
the regent's arrogance and the restraint to which he was subjected,
on July 30 incited two Turks to stab, in his presence, both Aitigin
and the minister, Nizām-ul-Mulk. Aitigin was killed on the spot,
but the minister was only wounded, and made his escape. To save
appearances the assassins suffered a brief imprisonment, but were
never brought to punishment, and Bahrām appointed as lord
chamberlain Badr-ud-din Sunqar, a man of his own choice.
Meanwhile Altūniya was bitterly disappointed by the result of
his rebellion. The courtiers had made him their catspaw, and had
appropriated to themselves all honours and places, leaving him
unrewarded. Aitigin was dead, Nizām-ul-Mulk was discredited, and
there was nobody to whom the disappointed conspirator could turn.
He released Raziyya from her prison, married her, and, having
assembled a large army, marched to Delhi with the object of re-
placing his newly wedded wife on her throne, but on October 13
Bahrām defeated him near Kaithal, and on the following day he
and Raziyya were murdered by the Hindus whom they had sum-
moned to their assistance.


## p. 61 (#99) ##############################################

INI ]
'THE FORTY
61
The situation at court was now extremely complicated. Sunqar,
the new lord chamberlain, was as arrogant and as obnoxious to
his master as his predecessor had been. Nizām-ul-Mulk, who had
condoned the attempt on his life and still held office as minister,
resented, equally with Bahrām, Sunqar's usurpation of authority,
and allied himself with the king. Sunqar perceived that his life
would not be safe as long as Bahrām reigned and conspired to
depose him, but committed the error of confiding in Nizām-ul-Mulk.
He would not believe that the minister had really forgiven Bahrām
and could not perceive that he was subordinating his resentment to
his interest. He received Sunqar's emissary apparently in privacy,
but as soon as he had departed dispatched a confidential servant
who had been concealed behind a curtain to acquaint Bahrām with
what he had heard. Bahrām acted with promptitude and decision ;
he rode at once to the meeting to which Nizām-ul-Mulk had been
summoned and compelled the conspirators to return with him to
the palace. Sunqar was dismissed from his high office, but his
influence among the great Turkish nobles, or slaves, who were
now known as 'the Forty' saved his life for the time, and his
appointment to Budaun removed him from the capital. Three
other leading conspirators fled from the city, and in November,
1241, Sunqar's return from Badaun without permission gave the
king a pretext for arresting him and putting him to death. This
necessary act of severity greatly incensed the Forty.
The consideration of the position of the Forty affords a con-
venient opportunity for an explanation of the name by which the
dynasty under which they acquired their influence is known, for to
most Europeans the appellation 'Slave Kings' must appear to be
a contradiction in terms. In an eastern monarchy every subject is,
in theory, the slave of the inonarch and so styles himself, both in
conversation and in correspondence. To be the personal slave of
the monarch is therefore no disgrace, but a distinction, and, as
eastern history abundantly proves, a stepping-stone to dignity and
power. The Mamlūk or Slave Sultans of Egypt are a case in point.
The Turks were at this time the most active and warlike people of
Asia, and the Ghaznavids, themselves sprung from a Turkish slave,
the princes of Ghúr, and other houses, surrounded themselves with
slaves of this nation who, often before they received manumission,
filled the highest offices in the state. Loyal service sometimes
earned for them a regard and esteem which their master withheld
from his own sons, born in the purple and corrupted from their
cradles by flattery and luxury. A faithful slave who had filled with


## p. 62 (#100) #############################################

62
[CH.
THE SLAVE KINGS
credit the highest offices was sometimes rewarded with the hand
of his master's daughter in marriage, and was preferred to an un.
worthy or degenerate son or nephew. Alptigin had been the slave
of 'Abd-ul-Malik the Sāmānid and Sabuktigin the slave and son-
in-law of Alptigin. Qutb-ud-din Aibak was Muhammad's viceroy in
India for some time before he received manumission, and succeeded
his master in the Indian conquests. He was indeed succeeded by
his son, but Ārām Shāh was almost immediately compelled to
make way for Iltutmish, Aibak's son-in-law and the ablest of his
slaves. During the reign of Iltutmish the leading Turks formed
themselves into a college of forty, which divided among its members
all the great fiefs of the empire and all the highest offices in the
state. The commanding genius of Iltutmish preserved the royal
dignity intact, but in the reigns of his children the power of the
Forty was ever increasing. Raziyya lost her throne by her prefer-
ence for one who was not of their number and her brother Bahrām
was no more than their nominee. There can be no doubt that the
throne itself would ordinarily have been the prize of one of the
Forty had not the jealousies of all prevented them from yielding
precedence to one. They were thus content to own the nominal
authority of one or other of the offspring of Iltutmish, but their
compact with Bahrām at the time of his accession clearly indicated
their determination to retain all authority for themselves, and the
king, by destroying one of their number, sealed his fate.
Bahrām was friendless, for the crafty Nizām-ul-Mulk, who had
assumed the mask of loyalty for the purpose of destroying an
enemy, so dexterously concealed his betrayal of Sunqar's plot that
he retained the confidence of the Forty, whose resentment against
Bahrām was so strong that it was not even temporarily allayed by
the invasion of a foreign enemy who deprived the kingdom of a
province. The Mughuls, who had expelled the Qarlugh Turks from
Ghaznī, now appeared before Multān under their leader, Bahādur
Tāir, the lieutenant of Chaghatai Khān and of his grandson Hulāgū.
Kabir Khān Ayāz, who had expelled Saif-ud-din Hasan Qarlugh
and re-established himself in Multān, confronted them with such
resolution that they turned aside and marched to Lahore, a more
tempting prey. The citadel was ill-furnished with stores, provisions,
and arms and the citizens were not unanimous in opposition to the
invaders, for the merchants, who were accustomed to trade in
Khurāsān and Turkistān, were largely dependent on the goodwill
of the Mughuls and held their passports and permits, which were
indispensable in those countries and might even protect them at


## p. 63 (#101) #############################################

II ]
THE MUGHULS AT LAHORE
63
Lahore. The garrison was weak and the governor relied on assist-
ance from Delhi which never reached him.
The feeble-minded king had now entrusted his conscience to
the keeping of a darvish named Ayyüb, at whose instigation he put
to death an influential theologian who was highly esteemed by the
Forty, and thus still further estranged that influential body. On
learning of the Mughul invasion he ordered his army to march to the
relief of Lahore, but the nobles, fearing lest their absence from
the capital should give him an opportunity of breaking their power,
hesitated to obey. Procrastination served them for a time but they
were at length compelled to depart, and Nizām-ul-Mulk employed
their resentment and their apprehensions for the purpose of avenging
the king's attempt on his life. When the army reached the Sutlej
he secretly reported that the Turkish nobles were disaffected and
sought the king's sanction to their destruction. The shallow Bahrām,
suspecting no guile, readily consented, and the minister exhibited to
the Forty his order approving their execution, and easily persuaded
them to return to Delhi with a view to deposing him.
Qarāqush, the governor of Lahore, defended the city to the
best of his ability, but the dissensions among the citizens and the
misconduct of his troops caused him to despair of success, and after
burying his treasure he fled by night, leaving the city on the pre-
text of making a night attack on the besiegers' camp. On the follow-
ing day, December 22, 1241, the Mughuls took the town by storm.
They suffered heavy losses, including that of their leader, in the
street fighting which ensued, but before retiring they annihilated the
citizens and razed the walls to the ground. Qarāqush returned,
recovered his treasures and retired to Delhi.
The army, in open rebellion, arrived at Delhi on February 22,
1242, and besieged the king in the White Fort until the month of
May. He had received an accession of strength by the adhesion of
Qarāqush and one other faithful Turkish noble but he had fallen
under the influence of a slave named Mubārak Farrukhī, at whose
instance he committed the supreme folly of imprisoning these two
nobles, and the same pernicious influence restrained him from
coming to terms with the Forty, who were ready, after more than
two months' fighting, to secure their safety by an honourable com-
position. Nizām-ud-din seduced from their allegiance, by large
bribes, the ecclesiastics, who were the king's principal supporters,
and on May 10 the city and fortress were captured by the con-
federate nobles, and Bahrām was put to death five days later,
a


## p. 64 (#102) #############################################

64
[CH.
THE SLAVE KINGS
On the capture of the city 'Izz-ud-din Balban, entitled Kishlū
Khān, caused himself to be proclaimed king, but his action was
repudiated by his associates, who assembled at the tomb of Iltutmish
to determine the succession. Their choice fell upon 'Alā-ud-din
Mas'ūd, the son of Firüz Shāh, and Qutb-ud-din Husain was ap-
pointed regent.