Assessment of Theories of Kingship and Legitimization in Lieu of the Political Scenario

The kernel of Delhi’s enduring legacy as a center of Islamic authority dates back to the Ghurid ruler
Mu’izz-al-Din Muhammad bin Sam and his victory at the battle of Tarain which led to the capture of
Delhi in 1192.

Over time, Delhi evolved from a peripheral outpost in a disintegrating imperial realm to become the focal
point of a vast empire that would last, in one guise or another, until Amir Timur’s invasion. It was the
shrine and witness of arguably the most interesting socio-political scenario in Indian history.

The Sultanate, with its seeds in Mu'izz al-Din Muhammad’s (also known as Muhammad Ghori ) conquest
and rule, has always been much famous for its varied range of dynasties and their different and prominent
theories of kingship; theories of legitimizing one’s own rule.

Philosophy and theory behind kingship have always been pretty simple in its core with the one most
potent and worthy ruling a group of fellow humans and their property with force, fear, or charisma. But as
history shows us, these potent rulers have always sought the help of some political, theological, or social
theories to legitimize their rule to hold their position in common people’s minds and also establish oneself
as the legitimate and the worthy specimens.

In the Sultanate, there has been a dramatically high number of kings who gained the throne in a rather
thrilling manner, often ignoring morality; and have found it important to have legitimacy and a strong
theory of kingship in the eyes of people. The political scenario also demanded the legitimization of the
ruler in that turbulent time, and without any principle of succession in the Islamic world, it became all the
more necessary.

In light of the wide-ranging political transformations of the thirteenth century, many scholars of that age
participated in deeply contentious debates on an array of questions concerning the legitimacy of the
political and religious foundations of the Delhi Sultanate. Based on readings of often-conflicting medieval
histories, advice literature, and legal texts, scholars of Islam have struggled to understand the expressed
relationships between religious authority and political power in Muslim societies to look for answers we
need to delve deep into the social, political, and religious background.

Sultanate and the Political Background

Mu’izzuddin, throughout his rule, tried to get the glory of Mahmud of Ghazni and to have an empire as
vast as his. To ensure that he had a huge slave following and a network to be precise. He had almost the
whole of North West from Kabul to Benaras of the Indian peninsula. Before dying, he freed some of his
favorite slaves or mamluks (also referred to as Amirs). He positioned them as governors of provinces, like
Yildiz in Gazna, Naseer-Uddin Quabacha in Sindh, and Qutbu I-Din Aibak in Delhi. They were named
Naib-us-Sultanate by Mu’izz. After Mu’izz’s assassination, Aibak declared him the sultan of Delhi,
Lahore, and Ajmer; he rose to the throne by personal merit. Somewhat later, he received from Sultan
Mahmud who had succeeded his father, Ghiyasuddin, at Ghur, a deed of manumission (freeing him from
his slave status, legally, a slave could not be a sovereign), and a chatr, recognizing his position as a
sovereign. This finally ended the legal claim of Ghazni over the Turkish conquests in Hindustan. The
early break with Ghazni and Central Asian affairs had long term consequences. But this accession was not
smooth at all, eventually, Aibak emerged more or less supreme, though he had to come to terms with
Quabacha and probably never declared himself as the Sultan again. Aibak’s demise while playing Polo in
1210 gave rise to a new series of political turbulence. Aram Shah, the son of Aibak (often cited as an
illegitimate one at that, to make sultanate succession history look smooth and also altered by the ruler to
legitimize himself ) accessed the throne. Still, he was killed by Aibak’s far-sighted and resolute ghulam
Iltutmish. But to cement his right to the throne, he had to establish himself as worthy. Iltutmish re-
established the territorial integrity of the Delhi sultanat created by Muizzuddin and which was in danger
of being split up. He defeated efforts of ambitious rivals such as Yalduz and Qubacha to divide the
sultanat. In the process, he displayed a great deal of tact, patience, and far-sightedness. Thus, he bided his
time till he was in a position to take decisive action. This was displayed in his dealings with Qubacha as
well as Jalaluddin Mangbarani. Early in his reign he had realized that his policy must be one of steady
consolidation rather than rapid expansion. He proceeded against the Khalji Maliks of Lakhnauti only
when he had consolidated his position in the north-west. His authority was recognised by the Abbasid
Caliph of Baghdad in c.1229 CE as he received the mansur (the letter of recognition/ Investiture), by
which he became the legal sovereign ruler of India.

After 26 years of fruitful reign, he was succeeded by five descendants, the last of whom died in 664/1266,
but usurpation and murder more often determined the succession at Delhi. The fall of Raziya paved the
way for the ascendancy of ‘the Forty’. In the next few years there ensued a struggle for supremacy
between the Sultans and the nobles. Initially, the nobles helped Bahram to ascend the throne but gradually
these nobles became disordered and constantly bickered among each other. It was during this period of
unrest that he was murdered by his own army in c.1242 CE. Alauddin Masud Shah (c.1242–46 CE) Son
of Ruknuddin Firuz Shah and nephew of Raziya Sultan. After his predecessor Bahram, was murdered by
the army, the chiefs chose him to become the next ruler. By c.1246 CE, the chiefs became upset with his
increasing hunger for more power in the government, and replaced him with Nasiruddin Mahmud.

In the year 1266, Iltutmish’s goals and member of the forty minsters, Ghiyasuddin Balban seized the
throne in grim splendor and amid the trappings of ‘Sasanian’ kingship ( Nizami, 1961, pp. 95-105).
Balban was undoubtedly one of the main architects of the Delhi Sultanate, particularly of its form of
government and institutions. He asserted and enhanced the power of the monarchy. According to Balban,
the Sultan was God’s shadow on earth (Zil-i-Ilahi) and the recipient of divine grace (Nibyabat-i-Khudai).
He ruled in an autocratic manner and worked hard to elevate the position of the Sultan. Balban introduced
rigorous court discipline and new customs such as sijada (prostration) and paibos (kissing the Sultan’s
feet) to prove his superiority over the nobles. In order to impress the people with the strength and awe of
his – – – – – government, Balban maintained a magnificent court and also introduced the Persian festival
of Nauroz. He refused to laugh and joke in the court, and even gave up drinking wine so that no one may
see him in a non-serious mood. He called himself Nasir- amir-ul-momin (Caliph’s right hand man) and
instructed the ulemas to confine themselves to religious affairs and not to interfere in political activities.
The assumption of the throne by Balban at Delhi (1266) marks the beginning of an era of strong,
centralized government. Balban sought to increase the prestige and power of the monarchy, and to
centralise all authority in the hands of the sultan because he was convinced that this was the only way to
face the internal and external dangers facing him. For the purpose, he harkened back to the Iranian theory
of kingship. According to the Iranian theory, the king was divine or semi-divine in character, and
answerable only to God, not to any set of intermediaries, i.e. religious figures. As such, there was a
fundamental difference between the ruler and the nobles, the latter being dependent on the sultan's favour,
and in no way equal to him. These ideas, which were to some extent shared by the Hindus, had to be
reconciled with the Islamic theory of sovereignty

; after his death his grandson and great-grandson were soon ousted and the throne was taken by Turkish
or Turkicized Khaljis.

After treachoursly murdering Jalaluddin Khalji, Allaudin Khalji ascended the throne. Alauddin adopted
the title of Sikander-i-Azam. His theory of kinship was secular and he proclaimed “Kingship knows no
Kinship” and “I do not know if this is lawful or unlawful, I do whatever I think to be good for the state.”
Refuted the suzerainty of the Caliph and did not allow any power independent of the state to guide his
policy. According to Barni, Alauddin wanted to join a new religion.

After the murder of the last of the line, Mubarak Shah who Declared himself Caliph and took title of Al
Wasiq Billah by his favorite the sultanate was restored by Ghazi Malik, the governor of Dipalpur( Punjab
), who mounted the throne as Ghiyasuddin Tughlaq and founded the Tughluqid dynasty under which the
sultanate of Delhi reached its greatest extent but also experienced the beginning of fragmentation into
smaller states. Ibn Battuta described Ghazi Malik as a Qara’una Turk from southern Afghanistan, though
in India the term may have meant descendants of Turks by Indian mothers(Ibn Battuta, III, p. 649 ).
Under the Tughluqids, especially Muhammed Bin Tughlaq and Firoz Shah Tughlaq, the Delhi sultanate
reached the zenith of its splendor.

FST He strictly followed the advice of the ulemas in running the administration. As per the Islamic law,
he levied the taxes. Jaziya was strictly imposed on non-Muslims. He also prohibited Muslim women from
going to worship at the grave of saints and also persecuted a number of heretical Muslim sects (Shia
Muslims and Sufis). Had great regard for Caliph of Egypt and styled himself as his deputy and twice
received robes of honour from him. Even before Tīmūr’s devastating raid on Punjab and Delhi in
800/1398-99, however, the Tughluqid state had contracted to a mere shadow of its former self, and the
adventurers who ruled after Tīmūr’s withdrawal, Mallū Khan, Dawlat Khan Lōdī, and Ḵhizr Khan Before
his departure from India, Timur appointed Khizr Khan as the governor of Multan. He captured Delhi and
founded the Sayyid dynasty in c.1414 CE. However, he did not assume the title of Sultan but was
comfortable with Rayat- i-Ala. Coins were struck and khutba was read in name of Timur, and after his
death, in the name of his successor Shahrukh.

Khizr khan had had no claims to legitimacy and controlled little more than the countryside immediately
surrounding Delhi. Khizr Khan’s successors came to be known as the Sayyed dynasty (817-55/1414-51),
probably because of spurious claims of descent from the Prophet Moḥammad ; they were eventually
swept away by the Lōdīs (855-932/1451-1526), themselves part of a larger infiltration of Afghan tribes
into Punjab and the Ganges plain, from which local dynasties also eventually emerged in Bengal and
Malwa.

The title of ‘Sultan’ was started by Turkish rulers and Mahmud of Ghazni was the first to assume the title
of Sultan. The Delhi Sultanate was an Islamic state with its religion as Islam. The Sultans considered
themselves as representatives of the Caliph. They included the name of the Caliph in the khutba or prayer
and inscribed it on their coins. This practice was even continued by Balban, who called himself the
shadow of God. Iltutmish, Muhammad bin Tughlaq, and Firoz Tughlaq obtained mansur (letter of
investiture) from the Caliph. The office of the Sultan was the most important in the Sultanate and he was
the ultimate authority for the military, legal, and political matters. The dispensation of justice was another
important function performed by the Sultan and he acted as a court of appeal. For instance, Balban
dispensed justice with extreme impartiality, not sparing even the high officers of state. Muhammad bin
Tughlaq even gave harsh punishments to ulemas, who were previously exempted.

During the 7th/13th and 8th/14th centuries in the Delhi Sultanate, historians intertwined themes of justice
('adl) and punishment (siyāsa) to legitimize Muslim political authority.

- Justice was deemed crucial to kingship, because the concept was rooted in pre-Islamic Persian
ideas of kingship formalized in a set of rules called zawabit. These rules afforded the sultan a
wide range of discretion in executing the prerogatives of his high office.
- while Punishment was a central aspect of Muslim rule. This second structure was defined by
shari'a, and was built upon Islamic constructions of authority and codified in a restricted body of
legal principles which was monitored by the "ulamā", who were viewed as its ultimate arbitrators.
But one pattern that can be seen throughout the sultanate is that all rulers have been in a constant
endeavor to legitimize themselves and authenticate their rule through religion, history, or even literature.

Legitimization and Theories of Kingship

Questions of legitimacy, religion, and power have proven thorny in a variety of pre-modern historical
contexts. And as there was no definite rule of succession in Islam as mentioned. And that creates a huge
problem in terms of statesmanship and politics.

In the context of the Delhi sultanate, it becomes much more vicious with those added political problems
acting as catalysts. Ira Lapidus acknowledges that “there are ambiguities concerning the distribution of
authority, functions, and relations among institutions.”

K.A Nizami, offers a sweeping assessment of the relationship between religion and politics in Muslim
societies, “All Muslim governments from the time of the Umayyads have been secular organizations”
Nizami postulates the fundamental illegitimacy of the Sultanate: “It had no sanction in Shari’at; it was a
non-legal institution”. He held on to that view as he reiterated it in an essay after a gap of thirty years.
Nizami’s views can also be found in the scholarship of other prominent historians.

Mohammad Habib wrote of the Delhi Sultanate, “It was not a theocratic state in any sense of the word. Its
basis was not the Shari’at of Islam but the zawabit of state-laws made by the king”.

Not only that, Muslim jurists were equally uncertain about the foundations of Islamic political power in a
post-caliphal world.

However, their concerns were addressed, to the satisfaction of many. In the works of individuals like
al-Marwadi and al-Juwayni, the legitimacy of power (sultan) and leadership beyond the Caliph was
established. In a Sunni context, and relation to the power and authority of God’s caliph, sultans were the
right hand of God’s caliph. They were in an absolute sense the arbitrators of justice and punishment,
nothing less than God’s shadow on earth ( zill i Allah). This idea of Islamic power and authority was
invented and sustained in prominent writings produced in the fifth/eleventh century. It contributed to the
understanding of the Delhi Sultanate not as “expediency”, but as an ideal of Islamic power embodied and
united in the figure of the sultan.

On the other side of the legitimacy debate, some scholars have staked out a “shari’ah position’.

Bold proclamations such as, “The Sultanate of Delhi was a theocracy and not a secular state” are
frequently found in secondary literature on the subject.

This lack of recognition has resulted in a polarized view of how religious authority and political power
were interconnected in historical contexts. To better understand this relationship, it suggests looking at
the way historians wrote about it, known as historiography. The authors of historical accounts used
specific approaches to shape the image of the Sultan in the Delhi Sultanate. These approaches often
involved presenting an idea of Islamic heritage that reflected changed and reinterpreted notions of
Muslim authority. It is important to examine historical writings and the portrayal of rulers to gain a more
nuanced understanding of the connection between religion and political power in the Delhi Sultanate. On
a fundamental level, they were the architects of the rhetoric of the Islamic empire.

To seek legitimacy, some like Iltutmish, Mohammad bin Toglaq, and Firoz Shah Toglaq got a letter from
the Caliph at Baghdad; Iltutmish even declared himself to be the “Helper of Caliph”. Balban’s kingship
ideology was based on the Iranian theory that the king was semi-divine and only answerable to God. He
underlined the theory that the sultan was the shadow of the almighty Zil-i-Allah and emphasized it by
insisting people perform Sijda and Paibos, which according to theologians were reserved alone for God.

But otherwise, the rulers tried to find legitimacy through literature and Muslim historiography. They've
often tried to bring references from Shari’ah or sometimes, by even opposing it. In Fatwa-i Jahandari of
Ziya al-Din Barani, state legislation or zawabit was seen to be opposed to Shari’ah. On the other hand, in
the literature produced in the Persian world, the adab or later akhlaqi literature had Greco-Hellenic
shadows and talked about kingship in that manner. Following that, many of the rulers declared themselves
as descendants of some mythical king who, in certain cases, might not even have existed.

Conclusion

In that era of decay and reform of Islam, a new kingdom that would last for over 300 years grasping for
legitimization, is a fascinating topic to talk about. From a slave’s desperation to a woman’s proof of worth
to avoiding Mongol invasion while implementing a blood and iron policy, the sultanate journey had been
captivating, This need for legitimization has led to the creation of splendid medieval literature and even
the adaptation of Greco-Hellenic culture into Indian polity.