ake this sequence from The Age of Wrath that can be straight from an episode of Game of Thrones. Here, Eraly tells us of how Jalal-ud-din Khalji encountered his nephew Ala-ud-din, the governor of Kara, who had conducted a campaign without the permission of his uncle, the sultan. Jalal-ud-din, having a soft spot for his nephew (who was also his son-in-law), set out to Kara against the advice of his noblemen to "reassure" Ala-ud-din that he, the sultan, was not angry by his irreverent move. Eraly writes: "When the party reached Kara, they found Ala-ud-din's forces drawn up in battle array on the opposite bank, but this was explained by Almas Beg (Ala-ud-din's brother) as the preparation to offer a formal, ceremonial reception to the sultan, and he persuaded him to go over to the riverbank where Ala-ud-din was waiting."
The old and gullible sultan proceeded. In the words of Barani, the courtier-chronicler of Muhammad Tughluq, Ala-ud-din "fell at his feet, and the sultan, treating him as a son, kissed his eyes and cheeks, stroked his beard, gave him two loving taps upon his cheek, and said, 'I had brought up thee from infancy, why art thou afraid of me me?'(...) The sultan then took Ala-ud-din's hand, and at that moment the stony-hearted traitor gave the fatal signal (...) (and his officer assigned for the task) struck at the sultan with a sword. But the blow fell short and cut his hand. He again struck and wounded the sultan, who then ran towards the river, crying, 'Ah thou villain, Ala-ud-din! What hast thou done!'... (Then another officer) ran after him (the sultan), threw him down, cut off his head, and bore it dripping with blood to Ala-ud-din... 'The venerable head of the sultan was then placed on a spear and paraded about... And while the head of the murdered sovereign was yet dripping with blood, the ferocious conspirators brought the royal canopy and elevated it over the head of Ala-ud-din."
Another day of power politics in late-13th-century north India.
It's not all blood and treachery — although much of it is — with politics constantly charging through and making me wonder who's going to pull a "Hillary Mantel novel" out of the Delhi Sultanate. Eraly points to important features of why India was ripe for the taking not only for raids, but for occupation and then rule. For one, there was no concept of the invader as an "alien" at this point in India. "Ghazni was just another kingdom which, though militarily more dangerous and culturally divergent than the kingdoms in the subcontinent, was nevertheless merely another element in their normal political milieu," writes Eraly. He also points to the lack of regimental discipline in Indian armies and "political strategies and political attitudes... shackled to moribund traditions, not dynamically related to evolving historical realities."
But lest we still think purely in terms of Turkish outsiders ("them") overrunning and then conquering Indians ("us"), Eraly helpfully points out how we all become "Indians" — perhaps because the climate has an enervating effect on its people — "...all the invaders who settled in India were in turn, after a couple of centuries, defeated and displaced by fresh invaders — Arabs by Ghaznavids, Ghaznavids by Ghuris, Ghuris by Mughals, and Mughals by Persians and Britishers."
I certainly smell a lesson in this great, never-stopping daisy chain of history. As well as ready to pick up a footnote from Eraly for those gnashing their teeth about a new prime minister who's not a graduate: "Muhammad Tughluq was probably the most erudite of the Delhi sultans, but he was a pathetic failure as a ruler; on the other hand, Ala-ud-din Khalji was (like Akbar, the great Mughal emperor) illiterate, but was the most successful of the Delhi sultans." Go figure.