Decline of delhi sultanate

The Star · #1 Sunday, October 25, 2009

DECLINE OF DELHI SULTANATE

INTRODUCTION

During the Sultanate period (1206-4526'A.D.), five dynasties ruled India. Since the Turks came from Central Asia, they, in the initial stage, were unaware of the Indian political and economic system. To maintain their rule, the Turks introduced many administrative practices which, by and large, continued for a long time with some changes. A study of the political history indicates that the rulers had to cope with internal strife and external dangers, especially the running struggle between the nobility and the Sultans which contributed towards the gradual decline of the Delhi Sultanate. Major factors which contributed in the decline of Delhi Sultanate are summarized below.

NO CLEAR AND WELL-DEFINED LAW OF SUCCESSION

No clear and well-defined law of succession developed in the Sultanate. Hereditary principle was accepted 'but not adhered to invariably’. There was no rule that only the eldest son would succeed (primogeniture). In one case, even a daughter was nominated (for example, Raziya Sultan). At any rate, a slave, unless he was manumitted, that is, freed, could not claim sovereignty. In fact, as it operated in the Sultanate, 'the longest the sword, the greater the claim'.

Thus, in the absence off any succession rule in the very beginning intrigues surfaced to usurp power: After Aibak's death, it was not his son Aram Shah but his slave and son-in-hw Iltutmish who captured the throne. Iltutmish's death (1236 AD.) was ' followed by a long period of struggle and strife when finally Balban, Iltutmish's slave of the "Forty" fame, assumed power in 1266 A.D. Balban attempted to give a new shape to the concept of kingship to salvage the prestige of the office of the Sultan, but the struggle for power that started soon after Balban's death confirms again that the 'sword' remained the main deciding factor. .Kaiqubad was installed at the throne against the claims of Balban's nominee, Kaikhusrau. Later, even he was slain by the Khalji Maliks (1290 A.D.) who laid the foundation of the Khalji rule. In 1296 A.D. Alauddin Khalji, killed his uncle, Jalaluddin Khalji and occupied the throne. Alauddin Khalji's death signalled civil war and scramble for power. Muhammad Tughluq's reign weakened due,to the rebellions of amirs. Rivalries that followed after Feroz Tughluq ultimately led to the .rise of the Saiyyids (1414-51 A.D.).

With the accession of the Lodis (1451-1526 A.D.) a new element,the Afghans was added. The Afghans had a certain peculiar concept of sovereignty. They were prepared to accept the position of a Sultan over them, but they sought to partition the empire among their clans (Farmulis, Sarwanis, Niyazh, etc.). After the death of Sultan Sikandar Lodi (1517 A.D.), the empire was divided between Ibrahim and Jalal. Even the royal privileges and prerogatives were equally shared by the clan members. For example, keeping of elephants was the royal privilege but Azam Humayun Sarwani is reported to have possessed seven hundred elephants. Besides, the Afghans entertained the concept of maintaining tribal militia which in the long run greatly hampered the military efficiency of the Central Government. It is true that Sikandar Lodi tried to keep the ambitious Afghan nobles in check, but it seems that the concept of Afghan polity was more tilted towards decentralization that created fissures in the end.

CONFLICT BETWEEN THE NOBILITY AND THE SULTANS

The political history of the Sultanate period testifies that consolidation and decline of the Sultanate were largely the result of constructive and destructive activities of the nobles (umara). The nobles always tried to maximise their demands in terms of the economic and political gains.

Under the Ilbarite rule (1206-90 A.D.), the conflicts usually revolved around three issues: succession, organization of the nobility and division of economic and political power between them and the Sultans. When Qutbuddin Aibak bacame the Sultan, his authority was not accepted by the influential nobles such as Qubacha (governor of Multan and Uchh), Yilduz (governor of Ghazni), and Ali' Mardan (governor of Bengal). This particular problem was inherited by Iltutmish who finally overcame it through diplomacy as well as by force. Later, Iltutmish organised the nobles in a ' corporate body, known as rurkan-i chihilgani ("The Forty' which was personally loyal to him. Naturally, other groups of nobles envied the status and 'privileges of the members of the "Forty", but this does not mean that' the latter were .free from their internal bickering. At the most they united in one principle: to plug the entry of non-Turkish persons in the charmed circle as far as possible. On the other hand, the "Forty" tried to retain its political influence over the Sultan who would not like to alienate this group, but at the same time would not surrender his royal privilege of appointing persons of other groups as officers. Thus, a delicate balance was achieved by Iltutmish which broke down after his death. For example, Iltutmish had declared his daughter, Raziya, as his successor during his life, but some nobles did not approve her succession after his death, because she tried to 'organize non-Turkish groups (Abyssinians and Indians) as counterweight to the "Forty". That was one main reason why a number of nobles of this group supported her brother, Ruknuddin whom they thought to be incompetent and weak, thereby giving them an opportunity to maintain their position. This spectacle continued during the reign of Nasiruddin Mahmud (1246-66 A.D.) also, as exemplified by the rise and fall of Immaduddin Raihan, an Indian convert. This episode coincided with ,the banishment of Balban who was the naib (deputy) of Sultan Mahmud (and also belonged to the "Forty' and his subsequent recall.

During Balban's reign (1266-87 A.D.), the influence of the turkan-i chihilgani was minimised. Since he himself was a member of the "Forty” before his accession, he was fully aware of the nobles' rebellious activities. Therefore, he eased out the "tallest poppies amongst them through assassin's dagger or poisoning, even including his cousin. On the other hand, he formed a group of loyal and trusted nobles called "Balbanl". The removal of many members of the "Forty” deprived the state of the services of veterans and the void could not be fulfilled by the new and not so experienced 'Bhlbani" nobles. This situation inevitably led to the fall of the llbarite rule, paving the way for the Khaljis. .

The reign of Alauddin Khalji (1296-1316 A.D.) saw a broadening in the composition of nobles. He did not admit of monopolization of the state by any one single group of nobles. State officers were open to talent and loyalty, to the exclusion of race and creed. Besides, he controlled them through various measures. Moreover, the enhancement of land revenue up to 50 per cent of the surplus produce must have pacified the nobles because an increase in the revenue of their respective iqta wbuld have raised their salarjf, too. Territorial expansion also provided enough resources towards recruiting persons with talent. The case of MaIik Kafur, an Abyssinian slave, is well-known. But this situation was shortlived: the death of Alauddin Khalji brought out once again the dissensions and conspiracies of the nobles, leading to the elimination of the Khaljis as rulers.

As for the Tughluqs, Muhammad Tughluq made attempts to organize nobles again and again, with turns and twists. But all his efforts failed to put them under check. Even the Khurasanis, whom he used to call "Aizzah"(the dear ones), betrayed him. The problems created by the nobles can be gauged from the fact that twenty-two rebellions took place during his reign with the loss of at least one territory, later known as Bahmani kingdom.

The crisis set in motion after Muhammad Tughluq's death seems to have gone out of hands. Under these circumstances, Feroz Tughluq could not be expected to be stern with the nobles. They were given many concessions. They succeeded in.making their iqtas hereditary. The appeasement policy of sultan pleased the nobles, but in the long run, it proved disastrous. The army became inefficient because the practice of branding (dagh) of the horses introduced By Alauddin Khalji was almost given up. It was not possible, henceforth, for his descendants or later rulers to'roll back the tide of decline of the Delhi Sultanate.

Under the Sayyids (1414-51 A.D.) and the Lodis (1451-1526 A.D.), the situation did not appear to be comfortable: the former were not at all fit for the role of saviors. Sikandar Lodi made the last attempt to prevent the looming catastrophe. But dissensions among the Afghans and their unlimited individual ambitions hastened the final demise, actually its murder, with Babur as the executioner.

DETERIORATION IN REVENUE ADMINISTRATION

lltutmish had introduced a sound system of revenue assignments (iqta) through which the vast bureaucracy was maintained. Feroz .Tughluq's reign, however, saw deterioration in its working. During his reign, revenue assignments tended to be hereditary and permanent. This applied even to the (royal) soldiers (yaran-I -hashm). "If a person died," says Afif, "his office would go permanently to his son; if he had no son, then to his son-in-law; if he had no son-in-law, then to his slave; if he had no slave then to his women." Sikandar Lodi (1489-1517 A.D.) stopped to reclaim the balance (fawazil). The tendency of the principal assignees to sub-assign their territories also increased greatly during his reign. All this had deep implications. It meant not only loss of vast revenue resources to the state exchequer but by making the assignments permanent the Sultan allowed the {assignees to develop strong local roots which led to wide-scale corruption and turbulence.

RISE OF REGIONAL STATES

Clashes between the nobles and the Delhi Sultans marred the Sultanate from the beginning of its foundation. But, so long as the centre was powerful to retaliate, the rebellions were successfully crushed. Signs of physical disintegration were witnessed for the first time during Muhammad Tughluq's reign in 1347 A.D. with the establishment of the Bahamani kingdom. But the Sultanate remained intact at least nearly for fifty years when finally the Timurid invasion (1398 A.D.) exposedthe weakness. It provided ample opportunity for the nobles to establish their own areas of influence, independent of the Sultan. Governors like Khwaja Jahan (Jaunpur) in 1394 Khwaja in 1394, Dilawar Khan (Malwa) in 1401, Zafar Khan (Gujarat) in 1407, and some regions in Rajasthan also declared their independence during the 15th century. Bengal was already .a semi-independent kingdom since the days of Bughra Khan .The Sultanate practically shrank to the radius of 200 miles around Delhi. It had deep implications. Loss of the fertile provinces of Bengal, Malwa, Jaunpur and Gujarat curtailed greatly the vast revenue resources of the state. That, in turn disabled the centre to wage long wars and organise campaigns against the refractory elements. The situation became so critical under the Sayyaids and the Lodis that even for regular revenue exactions the Sultans had to send yearly campaigns. For example, forces were sent repeatedly to suppress the Katehr and Mewati chiefs with frequent intervals from 1414 to 1432 A.D. Similarly, the chiefs of Bayana and Gwalior also showed their reluctance to pay revenue and, as a result, repeated campaigns followed from 1416 to 1506 A.D. All this shows that the control of the Sultans during the 15th century remained nominal and only minimum efforts would have sufficed to overthrow the Sultanate.

THE MONGOLS

To what extent the Mongol invasions could be held responsible for the decline of the Delhi Sultanate? the Mongol invasions continued up to the period of Muhammad Tughluq with intervals. Balban, Alauddin Khalji and Muhammad Tughluq were very much conscious of the Mongol assaults and resisted them successfully. True, much money and time had to be spent and thousands of soldiers were sacrificed, but it does not seem that these invasions enfeebled the Sultanate in any substantial manner. Occasional shocks were awesome but without any visible damage to the economy.of the state apparatus.

CONCLUSION

One political reason for the decline of the Sultanate was the absence of any well established and universally accepted law of succession. This was in line with the entire history of the Islamic polity. As long as a Sultan was strong and was able to gain the support of some groups of'nobles, he could continue with some superficial semblance of dynastic stability. Dissensions and conflicts amongst the ruling groups might remain apparently dormant in such circumstances; but at the slightest opportunity their internal struggle would come to the force often in a violent fashion. Initially, the iqta system served the central authority: its elements of transfer and non-permanence ensured the Sultan's power. On the other hand, the gradual disappearance of these principles, especially during Feroz Tughluq's rule, paved the way for the steady dissipation of the state's authority. The upshot was the emergence of autonomous and, then, independent political centers in different regions. The Mongols might have hammered the Sultanate off and on but, on the whole, their forays did not affect the Sultanate's political and economic fortune.

Sabah Hunzai · #2 Monday, October 26, 2009

thanx for sharing such a useful article,
can we know the authorship of this artilce?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Administration Of The Delhi Sultanate	The Star	History of Pakistan & India	5	Wednesday, July 15, 2009 10:26 PM
Delhi Sultanate	Nonchalant	History of Pakistan & India	0	Thursday, June 18, 2009 06:11 PM
Beginning of the Delhi Sultanate	marwatone	History of Pakistan & India	5	Sunday, May 04, 2008 01:51 AM
indo-pak relations	atifch	Current Affairs	0	Monday, December 11, 2006 09:01 PM

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to The Star For This Useful Post:
naila85 (Friday, October 30, 2009), Sabah Hunzai (Monday, October 26, 2009)