The Age of Wrath: A History of the Delhi Sultanate (19 page)

Another major concern of Ala-ud-din was the maintenance of law and order in the empire, for that was essential for the success of all his reforms. India was at this time infested with numerous wild bandit tribes, who disdained the authority of the state, and threatened to hamper the success of the socioeconomic reforms of the sultan. As in everything else, Ala-ud-din dealt with this problem decisively, so that, according to Barani, ‘dacoits and lawless men themselves turned into the guards of the roads. Not a single thread of travellers was ever reported to be lost. Peace and safety like this and to this extent were not found in any other period.’

ALA-UD-DIN IS SOMETIMES accused of unfair persecution of Hindus. Indeed, he was very severe in his treatment of them. But it was political expediency, not religious bigotry, that was the prime determinant of his policies and actions towards Hindus. He treated Hindus harshly not because of their religion, but because they, as a disaffected subject people, were a major source of disquiet in the kingdom.

Ala-ud-din believed that it was wealth that fomented disaffection and rebellion among Hindus, and he therefore decided that it was an imperative political necessity that they should be reduced to poverty. ‘I know that Hindus will never become submissive and obedient till they are reduced to poverty,’ he maintained. ‘I have therefore given orders that just sufficient shall be left to them from year to year, of corn, milk and curds, but that they shall not be allowed to accumulate wealth and property.’

Ala-ud-din’s measures to keep Hindus subservient were, according to Barani, so effective ‘that contumacy and rebellion, and riding on horses, carrying of weapons, wearing of fine clothes, and eating betel, entirely ceased among chaudharys (land owners) and other opulent men … It was in fact not possible for a Hindu to hold up his head, and in the houses of Hindus there was not a sign of gold and silver and articles of luxury … In consequence of their impoverished state, the wives of the landed proprietors and chief men even used to come to the houses of the Mussulmans and do [domestic] work there, and receive wages for it.’

There is no doubt considerable exaggeration in these reports of Barani; they quite probably reflect what the orthodox cleric would have liked to see, not the reality. This is equally true of an approbatory comment on the prevailing conditions of Hindus that Barani attributes to a kazi: ‘As soon as the revenue collector demands the sum due from him, [the Hindu] pays the same with meekness and humility, coupled with utmost respect, and free from reluctance, and he, should the collector chooses to spit into his mouth, opens the same without hesitation, so that the official may spit into it …’

ALA-UD-DIN WAS ONE of the most extraordinary rulers in Indian history, indeed in world history. He was a radical reformer, and was exceptionally successful in all that he did, though many of his reforms were several centuries ahead of his time.

This success of Ala-ud-din elicited admiration from even so adverse a critic as Barani—the sultan, he writes, was ‘brilliant … [in his] political and administrative measures … During his reign, either through his agency or the beneficent ruling of providence, there were several remarkable events and matters which had never been witnessed or heard of in any age or time, and probably will never again be seen.’ Barani then goes on to list ten major achievements of Ala-ud-din’s reign: 1/ Cheapness of all the necessities of life; 2/ invariable success in military campaigns; 3/ rout of the Mongols; 4/ maintenance of a large army at a small cost; 5/ political stability resulting from the suppression and prevention of rebellions; 6/ safety on roads in all directions; 7/ honest dealings of the bazaar people; 8/ erection and repair of mosques, minarets, and forts, and the excavation of tanks; 9/ the prevalence
of ‘rectitude, truth, honesty, justice, and temperance in the hearts of Muslims in general during the last ten years of his reign’; and 10/ the flourishing of many learned and great men ‘without the patronage of the sultan.’ Ala-ud-din, observes Ibn Battuta, ‘was one of the best of sultans, and people of India eulogise him highly.’

People by and large enjoyed peace and security, even prosperity, during the reign of Ala-ud-din. As a kazi once remarked, Ala-ud-din had driven criminals into ‘mice holes, and has taken cheating, lying and falsifying out of them … [And he] has managed the bazaar people as no king ever has done since the days of Adam.’ ‘None dared make any babble or noise,’ states Afif, a fourteenth century chronicler. ‘None dared to pick up [even] a fallen jewel from the street,’ claims Amir Khusrav.

Ala-ud-din was a compulsive workaholic, and he drove his officers as hard as he drove himself. Indeed, royal officers played a crucial role in the achievements of the sultan. As Barani states, ‘During the whole period of Sultan Ala-ud-din’s reign, the situation of the county was very good and prosperous due to the bravery, mutual cooperation and farsightedness of officials and soldiers. Administration was carried on efficiently and successfully.’ A part of the credit for the success of Ala-ud-din’s reign should therefore go to his officers—but all the credit for laying down impeccable government regulations, finding talented officers, earning their loyalty, and getting the best out of them, should go to the sultan.

Another remarkable aspect of Ala-ud-din’s reign was that he, despite his authoritarianism and ruthlessness, also showed a genuine concern for the welfare of the common people, and sought to free them from exploitation by tax collectors and village headmen. And in his tax policy he sought to ensure that, as Barani states, ‘heavy burdens were not placed upon the poor.’ Further, in times of poor harvest, and when there was a general scarcity of provisions, Ala-ud-din made sure that ‘if in such a season any poor … person went to the market, and did not get assistance, the overseer [of the market] received punishment whenever the information reached the king’s ears.’

People on the whole led a better life under Ala-ud-din than under any other king of the Delhi Sultanate. ‘No more prosperous times than his had ever fallen to the lot of any Muhammadan sovereign,’ states Afif. Ala-ud-din was on the whole a beneficent ruler to his subjects.

But he was not a benign ruler. Rather, he was singularly brutal in extirpating all who stood in his path. Even in that sanguinary age, Ala-ud-din’s reign stood out for its excesses. All that can be said in extenuation of the sultan in this is that he could not have achieved much of what he did without such ruthlessness.

The last years of Ala-u-din’s life were dismal. ‘The prosperity of Ala-ud-din at length declined,’ writes Barani. ‘Success no longer attended him. Fortune proved, as usual, fickle, and destiny drew her poniard to destroy him.’ The sultan was also plagued by debilitating health problems at this time. He suffered from acute oedema, and ‘day by day his malady grew worse … Under his mortal disorder the violence of his temper increased tenfold.’ Instead of the carefully calculated and decisive actions that had characterised his reign till then, he now became petulant and impulsive. ‘Cares assailed him on many sides … He drove away his wise and experienced ministers from his presence, and sent his councillors into retirement … The reins of government fell into the hands of slaves and worthless people. No wise man remained to guide him.’

Presently the grand political edifice that Ala-ud-din had built up with sagacity and perseverance over many years began to crumble. And succession manoeuvres now turned the royal court into a snake-pit, with rivals rearing up, hissing and spitting venom on each other. In 1312 Ala-ud-din nominated his oldest surviving son, Khizr Khan, as his successor, and that led to the prince’s mother (Malika-i-Jahan) and her brother (Alp Khan, the governor of Gujarat, who was also the father-in-law of the prince) becoming the prime manipulators in the court. Khizr Khan played virtually no role in all this—he was, according to Barani, a weakling, an indolent voluptuary addicted ‘to pleasure and debauchery … [over whom] buffoons and strumpets had gained mastery’

Ala-ud-din’s confidant and chief advisor at this time was Malik Kafur, but he was uncomfortable in the vicious, noxious environment then prevailing in
the royal court. He evidently despised Khizr Khan, and the prince, as well as his mother and father-in-law, were no doubt wary of Kafur. There was also ‘a deadly enmity’ between Malik Kafur and Alp Khan. Because of all this, Kafur wanted to get away from Delhi, and he persuaded the sultan to send him on a military campaign into peninsular India, and he spent three years there, engaged in various battles, till he was called back to Delhi, because of the sultan’s failing health.

Back in Delhi, Kafur gained complete ascendancy over the ailing sultan, and he planted in his mind the suspicion that Alp Khan was planning some political move in concert with Malika-i-Jahan. Kafur then, according to Barani, ‘induced the sultan to have Alp Khan killed … [and] he caused Khizr Khan to be made a prisoner and sent to the Gwalior fort, and he had the mother of the prince turned out of the Red Palace.’ The ensuing turbid political environment in Delhi led, as usual, to rebellions in the provinces, particularly in Gujarat, Chitor and Devagiri. In the midst of these unsettling developments, in early January 1316, the great sultan, who had for twenty years ruled the empire with awesome authority, passed away. ‘The rule of the sultan was tottering when death seized him,’ comments Barani. Ala-ud-din, according to Amir Khusrav, died ‘partly through bodily infirmity and partly through mental distress.’ The future looked bleak indeed for the Khalji dynasty.

‘ON THE SECOND day after the death of Ala-ud-din, Malik Kafur assembled the principal nobles and officers in the palace, and produced a will of the late sultan which he had caused to be drawn up in favour of Malik Shihab-ud-din (a son of Ala-ud-din by the Devagiri raja Ramadeva’s daughter), and removing Khizr Khan from being the heir apparent,’ reports Barani. ‘With the assent of the nobles he then placed Shihab-ud-din upon the throne. But as the new sovereign was just a child five or six years old, he was a mere puppet in the hands of … Malik Kafur, [who] himself [then] undertook the conduct of the government.’

Kafur had entered the royal service in 1298, the second year of Ala-ud-din’s reign, and had risen rapidly in official position, mainly because of his proven ability as military commander and wise counsellor—the sultan, according to Isami, favoured Kafur because ‘his counsel had always proved appropriate and fit for the occasion.’ Besides, Ala-ud-din, according to Barani, ‘was infatuated with Malik Kafur, and made him the commander of his army and vizier. He distinguished him above all his other helpers and friends, and this eunuch and minion held the chief place in his regards.’ And in the closing days of the sultan’s reign, he became the virtual ruler of the empire. Kafur ‘did not allow anyone to see the emperor, and he himself began to … administer the realm,’ states Isami.

Barani is severely critical of Kafur, but his excoriations are not quite credible, for he was deeply prejudiced against Malik Kafur, whom he invariably described as a ‘wicked fellow,’ presumably because he was not a Turk but an Islamised Hindu and a eunuch. The resentment against Kafur among the Turkish nobles intensified when he blinded Khizr Khan and his brother Shadi Khan—Kafur, writes Barani, ‘sent his barber to blind Shadi Khan … by cutting his eyes from their sockets with a razor’—and imprisoned the other sons of Ala-ud-din, except the boy sultan who was his protégé. ‘His great object was to remove all the children and wives of the late sultan, all the nobles and slaves who had claims for the throne, and to fill their places with creatures of his own.’

But court politics was an unfamiliar, perilous arena for Kafur. He was a brilliant military commander, but quite unskilled in manipulative politics, and was vulnerable to the manoeuvres of his rivals. His fall was therefore inevitable. The final scene in this drama was enacted one night when Kafur sought to blind Mubarak Khan, the imprisoned third son of Ala-ud-din. The soldiers whom he sent to do this were bribed by the prince with the jewelled necklace he was wearing, and he, reminding them of their long service under Ala-ud-din and of their duty to his dynasty, induced them to go back and assassinate Kafur. So they ‘went with drawn swords to his sleeping room and severed his wicked head from his foul body,’ reports Barani. ‘They also killed his confederates.’

KAFUR’S DE FACTO RULE lasted only thirty-five days. On his assassination, the nobles in Delhi released Mubarak from prison and installed him as the regent of Shihab-ud-din, the child sultan, though he himself was only seventeen or eighteen years old then. After a few months, Mubarak imprisoned and blinded Shihab-ud-din, and himself ascended the throne, no doubt with the connivance of the ever opportunistic and scheming nobles.

In some ways Mubarak was like his father, and he, following Ala-ud-din’s policy of never to trust defectors, had the assassins of Kafur, who were then strutting about as king-makers, dispersed and their leaders executed, even though the throne he occupied was their gift. And, again like Ala-ud-din, he had no compunction whatever to ruthlessly exterminate his political rivals, including his brothers and close relatives. However, he lacked his father’s unwinking attention to governance; besides, he was addicted to sensual pleasures, and spent most of his time and energy in debauchery.

‘Still he was a man of some excellent qualities,’ notes Barani. And in the early part of his reign, he was a popular ruler. A major reason for his popularity was that he reversed many of the exacting policies of Ala-ud-din. ‘On the very day of his accession he issued orders that the [political] prisoners and exiles of the late reign, amounting to seventeen or eighteen thousand in number, should all be released in the city and in all parts of the country …,’ reports Barani.
‘[Further,] six months’ salary was given to the army, and the allowances and grants of nobles were increased … The sultan from his good nature relieved the people of heavy tributes and oppressive demands; and penalties, extortions, beatings, chains, fetters, and blows were set aside in revenue matters.’

All this was partly deliberate policy, and partly an expression of Mubarak’s indolent nature. ‘Through his love of pleasure, extravagance and ease, all the regulations and arrangements of the late reign fell into disuse; and through his laxity in business matters all men took their ease, being saved from the harsh temper, severe treatment, and oppressive orders of the late king,’ notes Barani. ‘Men were no longer in … fear of hearing, “Do this, but don’t do that;” “Say this, but don’t say that;” “Hide this, but don’t hide that;” “Eat this, but don’t eat that;” “Sell such as this, but don’t sell things like that;” “Act like this, but don’t act like that” … All the old regulations were now disregarded … and an entirely new order of things was established. All fear and awe of the royal authority vanished.’

Nearly all the ‘regulations of Ala-ud-din came to an end on his death, for his son … was not able to maintain even a thousandth part of them,’ continues Barani. The only reform of Ala-ud-din that Mubarak retained was prohibition, but even that only nominally so, for he was quite negligent in enforcing it. ‘Such was the general disregard of orders and contempt for restrictions that wine shops were publicly opened, and vessels of wine by hundreds came into the city from the country.’ As Ala-ud-din’s market regulations were discarded by Mubarak, prices of all things rose. And so did wages. Traders ‘rejoiced over the death of Ala-ud-din; they now sold goods at their own price, and cheated and fleeced people as they pleased … The doors of bribery, extortion, and malversation were thrown open, and a good time for the revenue officers came around … Hindus again found pleasure and happiness, and were beside themselves with joy…. [They] who had been so harassed … that they had not even time to scratch their heads, now put on fine apparel, rode on horseback, and shot their arrows. All through the reign of Mubarak, not one of the old rules and regulations remained in force, no order was maintained.’

‘DURING THE FOUR years and four months [of Mubarak’s reign] the sultan attended to nothing but drinking, listening to music, debauchery and pleasure, scattering gifts, and gratifying his lusts,’ states Barani. ‘The sultan plunged into sensual indulgences openly and publicly, by night and by day, and the people followed his example … His whole life was passed in extreme dissipation and utter negligence. Debauchery, drunkenness, and shamelessness proved his ruin … He cast aside all regard for decency, and presented himself decked out in the trinkets and apparel of a female before his assembled company. He gave
up attendance at public prayer, and publicly broke the fast of the month of Ramadan.’ He made one of his cronies, a Gujarati named Tauba, supreme in his palace, and encouraged him to insult the great nobles in foul language, and to ‘defile and befoul their garments … Sometimes he made his appearance in company stark naked, talking obscenity.’

But Mubarak was lucky, for during his reign there was ‘no deficiency in the crops, no alarm from Mongols, no irreparable calamity … No revolt or great disturbance arose in any quarter, not a hair of anyone was injured, and the name of grief or sorrow never entered the breast, or passed from the tongue of anyone.’ The many troubles that arose in the last years of Ala-ud-din and immediately after his death ‘began to abate on the accession of Mubarak. People felt secure,’ concludes Barani. Though there were a couple of provincial rebellions during this period, they were minor affairs, and were easily suppressed.

Mubarak was a bizarre amalgam of wild debauchery and bestial violence. He was highly eccentric, was perhaps insane. Ferishta describes him as ‘a monster in the shape of man.’ There was indeed a demon lurking inside him, which at the slightest provocation burst out into the open and committed the most appalling savageries. Thus when a conspiracy to murder him was discovered, he not only had the principal plotter, Asad-ud-din, a cousin of Ala-ud-din, and his brothers and co-conspirators beheaded, but had even their children of tender years ‘slaughtered like sheep,’ and the women and girls of the families driven out into the streets.

The sultan was at this time swirling in a state of convulsive insecurity. He saw a traitor in every shadow, and that led him to order a series of executions of his potential rivals and enemies. Thus when he heard a rumour that some amirs were conspiring to replace him with the young son of his brother Khizr Khan, he, according to Battuta, ‘seized him (the boy) by the feet and dashed his head against a stone till his brains were scattered.’ He then executed his three surviving brothers, who had all been already blinded and were lodged in the Gwalior prison—their heads were hacked off, and their bodies flung into a ditch. Mubarak even executed his father-in-law, Zafar Khan, the governor of Gujarat.

‘Acts of violence and tyranny like this became his common practice … The good qualities which the sultan had possessed were now all perverted,’ comments Barani. ‘He gave way to wrath and obscenity, to severity, revenge and heartlessness. He dipped his hands in innocent blood, and he allowed his tongue to utter disgusting and abusive words to his companions and attendants … A violent, vindictive spirit … possessed him.’ Mubarak was like a moth dancing around the candle flame, courting self-destruction, but no one dared to caution or counsel him, fearing the consequences.

MUBARAK, AS RIZVI describes him, was ‘passionately homosexual’, and was ‘deeply in love’ with a slave officer from Gujarat named Hasan, whom he designated as Khusrav Khan and made him his closest aide. Khusrav is described with great contempt by Barani as a Parwari, which is sometimes taken to be the name of the untouchable Hindu caste of scavengers in Gujarat. But Barani’s disdain for Khusrav seems to be more an expression of a Turk’s prejudice against Islamised Indians (many of whom were indeed of low caste origin) than of Khusrav’s actual caste origin. According to Amir Khusrav, another contemporary chronicler, Khusrav belonged to Baradus, a Hindu military caste that served as the commandos of rajas. In any case, Khusrav proved himself to be a man of considerable military acumen and prowess, as he demonstrated in his successful campaigns in the peninsula, which took him, in imitation of Kafur’s campaigns, deep into the Tamil country.

The sultan, notes Barani, ‘granted a canopy to Khusrav Khan, and raised him to a dignity and distinction higher than that had ever been attained by Malik Kafur. In fact, his infatuation for this infamous and traitorous Parwari exceeded that of Ala-ud-din for Malik Kafur … Khusrav Khan was a base, designing, treacherous, low-born fellow … [But the sultan raised him] from one dignity to another … He was made the commander-in-chief, and all the affairs of the army were in his hands.’