In the same year another danger threatened Balban from the rich province of Bengal, the distance of which often tempted its governors to defy the authority of Delhi, especially when it grew weak. This was the rebellion of Tughril Khan, the Sultan’s deputy in Bengal. Tughril was an active, courageous and generous Turk and his administration in Bengal was marked with success. But ambition soon gained possession of his mind. The old age of the Delhi Sultan, and the recrudescence of Mongol raids on the northwest frontier, encouraged him to raise the standard of revolt at the instigation of some counsellors.
The rebellion of Tughril Khan greatly perturbed Balban, who at once sent a large army to Bengal under the command of Alptigin Mu-i-daruz (long-haired), entitled Amir Khan. But Amir Khan was defeated by the rebel governor and many of his troops were won over by the latter by lavish gifts. The Sultan became so much enraged at the defeat of Amir Khan that he ordered him to be hanged over the gate of Delhi. Next year (1280) another army was sent to Bengal under Malik Targhi, but this expedition, too, was repulsed by Tughril. Highly exasperated at this turn of affairs, Balban “now devoted all his attention and energy to effect the defeat of Tughril”. He decided to march in person to Lakhnauti, the capital of Western Bengal, with a powerful army, accompanied by his son, Bughra Khan. In the meanwhile, Tughril, on learning of the approach of the infuriated Sultan, had left Lakhnauti and fled into the jungles of Jajnagar. The Sultan advanced into Eastern Bengal in pursuit of the runaway rebel and his comrades, who were accidentally discovered by a follower of Balban named Sher Andaz. Another of his followers, named Malik Muqaddir, soon brought Tughril down with an arrow-shot; his head was cut off and his body was flung into the river. His relatives and most of his troops were captured. On returning to Lakhnauti the Sultan inflicted exemplary punishments on the relatives and adherents of Tughril. Before leaving Bengal he appointed his second son, Bughra Khan, governor of the province, and instructed him not to indulge in pleasure but to be careful in the work of administration.
Soon a great calamity befell the Sultan. The Mongols invaded the Punjab in A.D. 1285 under their leader Tamar, and the Sultan’s eldest son, Prince Muhammad, who had been placed in charge of Multan, proceeded towards Lahore and Dipalpur. He was killed in an ambush, while fighting with the Mongols, on the 9th March, A.D. 1285. This sacrifice of life earned for him the posthumous title of Shahid, “the Martyr”. The death of this excellent prince gave a terrible shock to the old Sultan, then eighty years of age. It cast him into a state of deep depression and hastened his death. The Sultan first intended to nominate Bughra Khan as his successor, but the latter’s unwillingness to accept the responsibilities of kingship made him nominate Kai Khusrav, his grandson. Balban breathed his last towards the close of the year A.D. 1287 after a reign of about twenty-two years.
As has already been noted, the Delhi Sultanate was beset with danger and difficulties at the time of Balban’s accession, which could not be removed, to borrow Carlyle’s phrase, “by mere rose- water surgery”. The Sultan therefore, adopted a policy of sterness and severity to those whom he considered to be the enemies of the State. It must be admitted to his credit that, by his firmness towards ambitious nobles, rebel subject and unruly tribes, and by his constant vigilance against the Mongols, he saved the Sultanate from impending disintegration and gave it strength and efficiency. But in two case, that is in doing away with Sher Khan and Amir Khan, suspicion and anger triumphed over prudence and foresight. Referring to the death of Amir Khan, Barni observes that his “condign punishment excited a strong feeling of opposition among the wise men of the day, who looked upon it as a token that the reign of Balban was drawing to an end”.
Balban did his best to raise the prestige and majesty of the Delhi Sultanate. After his accession to the throne, he adopted a dignified mode of living. He remodelled his court after the manner of the old Persian kings and introduced Persian etiquette and ceremonial. Under him the Delhi court acquired celebrity for its great magnificence, and it gave shelter to many (not less than fifteen) exiled princes from Central Asia. The famous poet Amir Khusrav, surnamed the “Parrot of India”, was a contemporary of Balban. The Sultan had a lofty sense of kingly dignity. He always appeared in full dress even before his private attendants. He excluded men of humble origin from important posts.
Balban considered the sovereign to be the representative of God upon earth, but he believed that it behoved him to maintain the dignity of his position by performing certain duties faithfully. These were, according to him, to protect religion and fulfil the provisions of the Shariat, to check immoral and sinful actions, to appoint pious men to offices and to dispense justice with equality. “All that I can do,” he once, remarked, “is to crush the cruelties of the cruel and to see that all persons are equal before the law. The glory of the State rests upon a rule which makes its subjects happy and prosperous.” He had a strong sense of justice, which he administered without any partiality. To keep himself well informed about the affairs of the State he appointed spies in the fiefs of the Sultanate.
Balban’s career as a Sultan was one of struggle against internal troubles and external danger. He had, therefore, no opportunity to launch aggressive conquests with a view to expanding the limits of his dominions. Though his courtiers urged him to these, he remained content with measures of pacification, consolidation and protection. He did not embark upon any administrative reorganisation embracing the different spheres of life. In fact, he established a dictatorship whose stability depended upon the personal strength of the ruler.
End of the so-called Slave Dynasty : Kaiqubad
The truth of the observation was illustrated by the reign of his weak successor, Mu’iz-ud-din Kaiqubad, son of Bughra Khan. This young man of seventeen or eighteen years was placed on the throne by the chief officers of the State in disregard of the deceased Sultan’s nomination.
During his early days Kaiqubad was brought up under stern discipline by his grandfather. His tutors “watched him so carefully that he never cast his eyes on any fair damsel, and never tasted a cup of wine”. But his wisdom and restraint disappeared when he found himself suddenly elevated to the throne.
He “plunged himself at once into a whirlpool of the pleasure and paid no thought to the duties of his station”. The ambitious Nizam-ud-din, son-in-law of Fakhr-ud-din, the old Kotwal of Delhi, gathered all power into his hands. Under his influence, the old officers of the State were disgraced. Disorder and confusion prevailed through the whole kingdom, and confusion was made worse confounded by the contests of the nobles, representing the Turkish party and the Khalji party, for supremacy in the State.
The Khaljis, under the leadership of Malik Jalal-ud-din Faruz, gained the upper hand and killed Aitamar Kachhan and Aitamar Surkha, the leaders of the Turkish party. Kaiqubad, now a helpless physical wreck, was done to death in his palace of mirrors at Kilokhri by a Khalji noble whose father had been executed by his orders. Kaiqubad’s body was thrown into the Jumna. Firuz ascended the throne in the palace of Kilokhri, on the 13th June, 1290, under the title of Jalal-ud-din Firuz Shah, after doing away with Kayumars, an infant son of the murdered Sultan. Thus the work of Balban was undone and his dynasty came to an end in an ignominious manner.
Nature of the Rule
The Ilbari Turks ruled in India for about eight decades (1206- 1290), but under them the kingdom of Delhi “was not a homogeneous political entity”. The authority of the Sultans was normally recognised in the territory corresponding to the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, Bihar, Gwalior, Sind and certain parts of Central India and Rajputana. The Bengal Governors were mostly inclined to remain independent of their control, and the imperial hold over the Punjab was occasionally threatened by the Mongols. The fiefs on all sides of Delhi were indeed nuclei of Muslim influence, but there were many independent local chieftains and disaffected inhabitants always inclined to defy the authority of the central government. The Sultans of the line, whose deeds are recorded above, certainly did not refrain from acts of severity in their attempt to establish strong government in the newly conquered territory. But the estimate of their character by historians like Smith lacks justification. Several kings including Balban were men noted for their strength of character. Though they were bent upon suppressing the defiant chieftains, many of the original inhabitants who submitted to them were employed in military as well as civil offices. “On the whole it may be assumed,” remarks Sir Wolseley Haig, “that the rule of the Slave Kings . . . was as just and humane as that of the Norman Kings in England and far more tolerant than that of Philip II in Spain and the Netherlands.”