NAME- ANANYA MANDOLA

COURSE- B.A (HONS) HISTORY, 2A

The Delhi Sultanate was created as a result of the Ghorian conquest. The main
source to study the Ghori period come from Tabaqat i Nasiri. The tribe
(Shishami) was the one from which military commanders and pahalwans were
drawn, further Kharmil was also another such tribe. With time the new
entrants were from Khalj, they were Turks who were cattle breeders. For
instance, Bakhtayar Khalji is said to be a Khalj of Ghor. After the second battle
of Tarain, Aibak was entrusted with administrative roles and rose to acquire the
status of Shihabuddin’s viceroy of India. Aibak relates to the early phase of
Delhi Sultane where the ruling class was primarily composed of Turkish military
elements who rose to prominence through their association with Ghorid
conquest. Further, Iltutmish was the founder of Delhi sultanate, he rose to
prominence due to the corps of Turkish slave. He also recruited a number of
Tazik/ persian speaking men. It is said that Iltutmish collected slaves from
private slave merchants, slaves comprised of various ethnicity. He used to give
prominent slaves the title Khan. A lot of important was also given to free born
as nobles as Minhaj I Siraj tells us that no slave of his held a single highest
central court office during his death. I t was the freeborn nobility which held
offices. The ruling class was a coalition of two different groups the Turks and
the Taziks, moreover after Iltutmish’s death his 40 slaves tend to become
Khans.
Coming onto to Tughlaqs, Barani and Battuta tells that Muhammad bin Tughlaq
was full of “contradictory qualities”, his reign follows an internal conflict in
Sultanate nobility which weakened the empire. Barani says sultan’s punishment
was the major reason, further Ibn Batutta talks about jealousy between
indigenous and foreign nobility. Promotion of Hindus to administrative posts
by the Sultane was also quite provocative in for Muslims. During Ghiyasuddin
Tughlaq’s reign there was suspicion amongst the nobility against the new
regime. His nobles also remained passive in supporting him against “ usurper”
Khusran Khan. Further, the nobility was also inherited by the Khaljis which was
not loyal to Tughlaqs. All of this led to the recruitment of new nobility for
instance, Ahmad ( son of Ayaz) , who became a bureaucrat and a financier, was
a Turk. It was also noted that Khudawandzada and his brothers gave number of
foreign born nobles at Muhammad bin Tughlaq’s court. Barani also tells about
Muhammad bin Tughlaq giving more attention to Mongol nobility and
commanders in order to introduce Mongol tactics and organization. Further,
Barani’s accounts tell us that Muhammad bin Tughlaq denounce men of low
origin but appointed men from low origin, one such example is that of Aziz
Khummar, he was a revenue officer of Amroha is said to be a bad-asl (base
born) by Barani. He also points out towards Hindus appointed at administrative
post. Therefore, we can see that Hindus, foreign born, and people from low
caste composed the nobility of Tughlaq era.
Il-Khanid chronicles tells us that Jalal- al din Khalji was a Mongol commander of
Binban. Even Juzani points out that Jalal al Khalji visited Delhi with a Mongol
embassy in 1206. Therefore, Khaljis origin as military commanders come from
their early association with the Mongols. It was noted that Persian literati
viewed frontier men as ‘rustics’. This is evident in the way that they looked
askance, at the people similar social and cultural background before these
frontier men became sultans. The Persian literati in particular favoured
aristocratic background and were quite apprehensive of the frontier men who
were associated with Mongol , particularly during Khalji regime. They had a
history of past service with Chinggisid subordinates, also Mongols were
potrayed as ‘marauding infidels’ In order to maintain a sense of stability in
Delhi sultanate Ghiyas al din Tughlaq called himself savior of Islam. The Persian
literati in the court was also accepting about practices like Ulagh/ Ulaq but
other Turko Mongol traditions were ignored. Alauddin Khalaji promoted non-
Turkish and lower-status people, including Afghans, Indian Muslims, and even
Hindus in the military and administration. He abolished the Chahalgani,
implemented strict spy networks, and controlled the economic privileges of
nobles to reduce their autonomy. The Khaljis is said to have reduced the noble
power and the concentration of power was more in the hands of the ruler.
Many Persian sources do not agree the Turkish Mongol origin of elites and
explain them of having a humble origin. The taking over of Khaljis has been
portrayed as a violent and illegitimate usurpation by non-Turks. This
perspective emphasizes the ethnic and genealogical dimensions of legitimacy
in the early Sultanate, where Turkic origin was often associated with rightful
rule. Kumar suggests that this view might be a retrospective construction, as
the Khaljis successfully established their rule and incorporated diverse groups
into their administration. Kumar's analysis suggests that the Khaljis pursued a
more aggressive expansionist policy in South India, which required a different
kind of military organization and resource mobilization.
Sunil kumar tells us that significance of slaves in military emerged not from
institutional positions or a misplaced application of the term "noble," but from
the unique mutual bond of loyalty and dependence between the slave and the
master, Sultan Iltutmish, through processes of parwarish (fostering) and
tarbiyat (education). Further, he critiques Irfan Habib saying that his application
of "noble" to those holding iqta's, highlighting the term's European feudal
baggage and its incongruity with the social realities of the Sultanate. Similarly,
Sunil Kumar critically examines Peter Jackson's comparative approach, which
uses the Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt as a "paradigm" for understanding the
Shamsi Bandagan. When it came to the 'chihilgani' or the 'forty slaves' of
Sultan Iltutmish, Jackson tried to find an explanation by looking at the Egyptian
Mamluk system. He suggested a possible resonation to the 'amir tablkhana',
who were commanders of forty horses in Egypt. The author’s engagement with
the medieval chronicler Diya’ al-Din Barani's account of the chihilgani is
particularly insightful. He accepts Barani's identification of an elite group within
the Shamsi Bandagan but persuasively argues that Barani's use of "forty" was
likely metaphorical. Moreover, he challenges Barani's claim that Ghiyas al-Din
Balban was part of this initial privileged group, citing evidence of Balban's later
purchase and initial lower status.
Kumar's analysis of Gavin Hambly's work on the chihilgani offers a more
nuanced critique. He acknowledges Hambly's important contribution in
identifying this group as a privileged cadre. However, Kumar astutely questions
Hambly's methodology for identifying its members, based on their inclusion in
Juzjani's Tabaqat-i Nasiri. Juzjani's explicit statement shows that his
biographical choices were driven by personal obligation. Moreover, about the
nobility under Sayyids and Lodis composed of men from Aghan origin, a lot of
prominence was given to Afghan tribes which often follows hereditary claim to
nobility.
Thus, we can see that throughout the span of Delhi sultanate the transition of
nobility was quite evident with respect to their origin and their role in military
power and court.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:
•Nobility under Muhammad Tughlaq- M. Athar Ali
•The ignored elites: Turks, Mongols and a Persian Secretarial class in the Early
Delhi Sultanate- Sunil Kumar
•Courts, capitals and kinship – Sunil Kumar
•When slaves were Nobles: The Shamshi Bandagan in Early Delhi Sultanate-
Sunil Kumar
•Formation of the Sultanate ruling class of the thirteenth century- Irfan Habib