Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7
Who Were the Chihilgn, the Forty Slaves of Suln Shams Al-Dn Iltutmish of Delhi? " data-type="pdf-document" id="pdf-document">

British Institute of Persian Studies

Who Were the Chihilgānī, the Forty Slaves of Sulṭān Shams Al-Dīn Iltutmish of Delhi? Author(s): Gavin Hambly Source: Iran, Vol. 10 (1972), pp. 57-62 Published by: British Institute of Persian Studies

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4300465 .

Accessed: 28/03/2013 13:12

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. . British Institute of Persian Studies is collaborating with

British Institute of Persian Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Iran.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.3 on Thu, 28 Mar 2013 13:12:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

WHO WERE THE CHIHILGANI, THE FORTY SLAVES OF SULTAN SHAMS AL-DIN ILTUTMISH OF DELHI ?

By Gavin Hambly

The three decades

which separate

the death of Sultan Shams al-Din Iltutmish2 in 633/1236 from

quite exceptional

to the

all

slave commanders known as the

period, emphasized by

throughout these thirty years appear

relatively

feeble rulers who

they

unfortun-

the seizure of the throne

political instability in the early history of the Delhi Sultanate, especially during the years prior

accession of

historians, is Sult.n the dominant role assumed

chihilgdni, the Forty to have exercised a were, for the most

by Ghiyath al-Din Balban in 664/1266 form a period of

Mahmfid in 644/1246.

One feature of this

by

a group of prominent

who

Ndsir al-Din

Slaves of Sultan Shams al-Din Iltutmish,

more or less uninterrupted

part, mere puppets

control over a succession of

in their hands.3

the

fulfilled in this

struggling

ately the sources for the period

from giving free rein to their imagination when approaching the subject. One of the most cautious,

when the study of the Delhi Sultanate was still in its infancy, but

of historians of Muslim India

his

which eventually found its way into

were, quite

It would be useful to know who

chihilgdni were and precisely

upon the very fringes

what role

Muslim state so recently established

of the Ddr al-Isldm, but

say very little about them,

of

although this has not prevented historians

Stanley Lane-Poole, wrote at a time

view of the chihilgdniexemplifies the attitude

the older generation

The CambridgeHistoryof India.4

In Lane-Poole's view, the chihilgdni

simply, overweaning Praetorians:

The slave system had grown stronger by the successful careers of Aybek and Altamish.

of Turkishmamliksknownas " the

Forty", and these men, profitingby

The latter had formed

a corps

The free-bornmen who had served

Altamishwith greatability in variousofficeswere removed, and all controlwasin the handsof " the Forty".5

hand, shared among themselvesthe wealth and power of the kingdom.

the removalof the master's

Over thirty years later the young scholar, Ibn Hasan, reacted strongly against

direct

this traditional over-

one for which,

simplified assumption,

unfortunately,

and offered a most interesting alternative theory-although

evidence is lacking:

Shams-ud-dinalso createda body of

loyal supporters to the throneand kept

it at the centre. It was

intended as a check

upon the powers and ambitions of the military chiefs, who

divided the resources of the

country and the armyamong themselves.This body of loyalists is knownas " The Forty ".

1 An expanded

paper was read at a meeting of the

Pacific Coast Branch of the American Historical Association at

San Diego, California, in August 1969.

the form of this Sultan's name

has surely been finally laid to rest by Simon Digby in his paper,

" Iletmish or Iltutmish?

the Dehli Sultan ", in Iran VIII

version of this

2 Controversy on the subject of

A Reconsideration

of the Name

of

(1970), pp. 57-64.

3 The order of succession of the Shamsi Sultans was:

4 The CambridgeHistory of India, edited by Sir Wolseley Haig

1928), III, p. 61. I. H. Qureshi maintains

(Cambridge,

substantially the same view in

edited by P. M. Holt, Ann K. S. Lambton and Bernard Lewis

(Cambridge,

6 S. Lane-Poole, MediaevalIndia underMohammedanRule (London,

The

CambridgeHistory of Islam,

1970), II, pp. 6-7.

1903), p. 76.

(I)

Shams al-Din Iltutmish (607-633/121 x0-1236)

I

(2)

Rukn al-Din Firfz

(633/1236)

(5)

'Ald' al-Din Mas'fd

(639-644/1242-1246)

I

(3)

Raiiyya

(633-637/1236-1240)

I

I

(4)

(6)

Mu'izz al-Din Bahrdm

Nasir al-Din

Mahmad

(637-639/1240-1242)

57

(644-664/1246-1266)

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.3 on Thu, 28 Mar 2013 13:12:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

58

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

It was a very useful device, and it worked

and,

in

to the

The

always

Muslim element

and a tradition of dynastic rule was established. But the success of the

party at court, together with the provincial military

and the domination of the Forty was later on resented and opposed by other

very

well under the Slave dynasty.

It

gave

full

support

family.

were

spite

dynasty,

changes

replaced by stronger and more capable

of the

device and the

chiefs. This became

impossible, sections of the ruling class.6

of the weakness of Shams-ud-din's successors, the throne remained in his

kings

were made in the interest of the kingdom and the throne, and weak and worthless

ones.

The experiment

limited the ambitions of the

kingdom to a very small group,

experiment depended upon

the

unity

of the

More recently, A. B. M. Habibullah

has given an added dimension

to this theory although,

again,

without

A large progeny was not favourable to a king's interests, while a number of tried and efficient slaves having no

capacity

of his sons and the only way to counteract the opposite tendency seemed to lie in organizing his personal

retainers into a party who would stand by his family and thereby uphold his absolutist monarchy.

Muizzi and Qutbi slaves, the Shamsi slaves were thus allowed to form

after his death, received the collective name of the " Forty ".

former

Like the

other interest than to serve the master's family, was a sure asset. Iltutmish had no illusions about the

any data to support it.

themselves into a political group which, the adherents of

By absorbing or destroying

kings they were enabled to reign supreme after his death.

Thus there came into being a curious phenomenon, a party of bondsmen pledged to support the power of

considered the state a vast household in which outsiders could have no place.

The

their master's family who

Sultanate was converted into a kind of household polity.'

sees the chihilgdni as a

cohesive

lest their monopoly of office be threatened either, on the one

Central Asian immigrants fleeing the emergence of an indigenous

the growing assertion of the

maliks to organize We have here slave-commanders

from those offices in the state which they claimed as their monopoly;

deliberately

specific institutional character; that they were a tightly-knit faction bound together by their need to

protect

interlopers

a

K. A. Nizami

has adopted

an altogether

within

different position. a larger ruling

He apparently

group of slave commanders

l1ite, bound

hand,

together

by mutual

concern

by the intrusion

holocausts,

of free-born

into India in the wake of the Mongol

Muslim

or, on the other, by " It was probably

elite born and bred in the sub-continent.

Indian elements in the body politic ", he suggests, " which led the Turkish

were a band of Turkish

themselves into a corporate body known as Chahlganian".a

three distinct theories regarding the chihilgdni: that they

who formed a selfish oligarchy of which

into

being

of office

by Shams

al-Din

hitherto

enjoyed

the raison d'etre was the exclusion of outsiders

that they were a cohesive group

to impose

upon

the infant

Sultanate

Turkish

slave

commanders

from

class of native-

brought

monopoly

(e.g.

Iltutmish

by the

the

Sultan's

free-born refugees from Central Asia and Iran,

and the expanding

born Muslims).

lacking in general plausibility,

In fact, however, all three interpretations, although neither mutually exclusive nor

rest on a

very

thin foundation

of fact.

dynasty of Ghir

Jiizjani, the chronicler of both the Shansabanid

and of the so-called " Slave Kings "

at whose court he wrote the Tabaqdt-i JVisiri, makes no mention of the chihilgdni. It seems

of Delhi,

probable, therefore, that the earliest known reference to them occurs in the Ta'rikh-i Firiz Shchi

al-Din Barani and completed sometime between the accession of Sultan Firfiz Shah

Tughluq

the accession to the throne of Ghiyvth al-Din Balban. It is from Barani, or from later writers of the

Mughul period who drew upon Barani as a source, that modern historians have derived what little is known regarding the chihilgani. That Jtizjani, their contemporary and an intimate with at least one

written by Ziya'

in

752/1351 and his own death around 758/1357, or, in other words, almost ninety years after

6 Ibn Hasan, The CentralStructure of the Mughal Empire (Oxford,

I936), PP. 44-45.

'A. B. M. Habibullah,

al-Mulk,

The Foundations of Muslim Rule in India 345-346. The assumption that the

(Allahabad, i961), pp.

members of a ruler's family were, on balance, less to be trusted

than his personal slaves was clearly stated by the Saljiiq vazfr,

Nizim

in the eleventh century:

One

obedient

slave is better than three hundred sons;

For the latter desire their father's death, the former long life for his master.

Siyar al-Mulak (Siydsat-ndma), edited

1962), p. I50, tr. idem, The Book of Government, or Rules for Kings

(London,

by H.

Darke

(Tehran,

g96o),p.

8 K. A. Nizami,

Some Aspectsof Religion andPolitics in India during

121.

the 13th Century(Aligarh, I961), p. 127.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.3 on Thu, 28 Mar 2013 13:12:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

WHO

WERE

THE

CHIHILGiNI?

59

of them (Balban), should have avoided using the term is

a

those who associated with the

brium, as it may It is probably

contemporaries who, like himself, would

preceding

families. Dr.

it is an

important example consideration.9 Whether

historiography

writing he regarded as the scandal of rulers

elastic

have been in

perhaps

not

altogether surprising.

capital

It may well

lips

origin

popular nickname,

of

of

ruling elite, especially if, from the outset, it was an expression of oppro-

his own

derived much of their knowledge of the events of the

the old Delhi

bandied about the streets of the

but not on the

upon

constantly

ghuldms.

people

well have been. as an

expression

opprobrium

have

that Barani uses it, conscious of its effect

generation

to

Shdhi, that

generation among

it " is not an

century from oral traditions preserved from

Hardy's warning regarding of didactic

the Ta'rikh-i Firaz

annal or chronicle;

into

in Islam ", needs to be taken

period,

to low-born

of his own lifetime or of an earlier

his maternal

and later was in

during the

slavery

Baraniwas outraged by what

upstarts, a category

Not a

of some

had been vakil-i ddr to one of

entrusting offices of responsibility

perhaps

enough great deal is known about the history of Barani's

prominence

Balban's most trusted amirs and, later, shahnaof Lakhnawti in

second son of Sultan Jalil al-Din Firiz

the Dtab;

mad

Asian

people

viewed with jaundice

to include both infidel Hindus and

century:

Khalji

all but a handful of Muslim

been

family but they had certainly

grandfather

Bengal;

charge

at Baran

in Delhi at the turn of the

his father had been nd'ibto the

(now Bulandshahr) in

Muham-

and an uncle had been kotwdl of Delhi itself

there was no

background

of

reign of Sultan 'Ala' al-Din

in the

family

Tughluq,

With this

Khalji.lo Presumably be

emigre'origin may

of obscure

origin

exceeding

sweeping

also his

and a free-born Central

strewn with denunciations of the kind of

supposed. His Fatwd-yi Jahdnddri is

favoured

by

the late

Sultan, Muhammad ibn

and no doubt he

the administration on a

Sultan Firfz Shah Tughluq's employment of ghuldms in

anything

known since before the rule of the Khaljis.

scale perhaps

mind,

background

in

Barani's

condemnation of the abuse of power and office by the slave-commandersof a

significance, for in castigating the misrule of the chihilgdni he surely had

by

readers-the

implications

for their own time of this tale of oppression

references to the chihilgdnd, of which

two refer specifically

to individual

century earlier assumes a deeper

in mind-as

all-powerful ghuldms. Barani makes six separate

would

of the section dealing with the reign of

Ghiyath al-Din Balban where he states that the Sultan himself had been

one of the Shamsi Turkish slaves

slaves [e.g., a slave belonging to Sultan Shams al-Din Iltutmish] and among the forty .xx

Further on, referring to the decay of the Sultanate following the death of Shams al-Din Iltutmish,

he describes how under young and inexperienced

in the hands of the Shamsi slaves who had been made khdns, and during the reign of

those Sultans " those Turkish slaves who were called the chihilgdni became all-powerful in their control

of the government

Shams al-Din Iltutmish the chihilgdni were successful in everything which they undertook.13

stresses their unwillingness

accounts for much of the hostility provoked by Balban's rise above the level of his peers. Barani writes:

because the Shamsi slaves were all officers of the Household [the term khwdja tash refers to personal attendants of the Sultan] and because all forty were trained [together] in the same way, not one would take orders from or obey another.'4

had accumulated

ghuldms. Of the remaining

four, the first comes at the beginning

rulers, devoted

to self-indulgence,

power and wealth

" at the

expense of the free-born amirs and maliks.12 Following the death of Sultan

to submit to any leader, even from among their own number,

Barani also a fact which

9 P.

art. " Barani ", Encyclopaediaof Islam, new edn.

in the historio-

graphical

Peter

K. A. Nizami adopts a rather different point of view in " Ziya-

ud-Din Barani " in

in

(Leiden,

Hardy,

I960),

II,

p.

Io36.

Barani's

India

is

place treated at length

tradition

of Muslim

Hardy's

Historians of Medieval India (London,

1960).

Historians of Medieval India, edited by M.

Hasan

(Meerut,

al-Din

1969),

37-52.

pp.

cit.

10 Encyclopaediaof Islam, loc.

11 2iyv'

A.hmad Khan (Calcutta,

Barani,

Ta'rikh-i Firaz ShUhI, edited by Sayyid

Balban ki banda-yi az

1862), p. 25:

bandagdn-i shamsi bad va dar maydn-ibandagdn-i turk-i chihilgdnf dzdd shuda.

12 Ibid.,

p.

26:

Bandagdn-i turk fshdn-rd chihilgdni miguftand bar

umar-i

gashtand.

mamlakatf mustaulf shudand va bd quwwat va shaukat

13 Ibid., p. 27: Va ba'd-i naql-i

turk-i chihilgdni a kdmydbgashtand.

Sul.tdn Shams al-Din bandagdn-i

14 Ibid., p. 28:

Va az dnki bandagdn-i shamsi khwdja tdshbadava har

chihil banda ba-yak karrat buzurgshudandyaki mar digarl-rdsarfura naydvardi va i.ta'at nakardi.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.3 on Thu, 28 Mar 2013 13:12:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

60

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

This is, in effect, virtually

all the information available to us and it does not amount to

of

Iltutmish, who had all served

much.

forty Turkish ghuldms(Barani uses the term banda) who had

together as being the equal of the

in the Sultan's

very

To sum up, the chihilgdni were a group

originally belonged

entourage

remaining thirty-nine.15

to Sultan Shams al-Din

and who all attained the rank of khdnso that each regarded himself

of the bandagin-i Shamsiin in what

It is significant that Barani makes mention

general as well as of the

chihilgdni differed from

phrase

the forty

in

chihilgdni in particular,

the other Shamsi

Iltutmish, also attained

Barani uses when he mentions

and it is perhaps useful to enquire

respect the

appears

slaves, some of whom, in the years following

positions

of

great authority.

The

only

"16

the death of Sultan Shams al-Din

which

clue

to be that

the chihilgdni for the first time, including

Balban " among

Turkish slaves

Throughout

the entire period when ghuldms were extensively

as slave commanders

employed

of

India, Iran and Central Asia the

contemporary sourceshave little or nothing to say with regard to the

or

most practical purposes, of course, .hejib the

sufficient number of

question

amir, their formal manumissionwas more or less automatic. For

question of legal status was irrelevant if a ghuldm commanded the loyalty of a

troops or had at his disposal the resourcesof a rich

circumstances is still far

Iltutmish was the slave of Qutb al-Din

Muhammad ibn Sam of (as Qutb al-Din Aybak

death when there arose the

of manumission and whether,

from clear.

Ghiir)

were promoted to the rank

Precisely what

slave status meant under such

iq.td'. slave could

a

Apparently

Aybak

own another slave (Shams al-Din

Mu'izz al-Din

who was in turn the slave of Sultan

Iltutmish).

Perhaps

the time

and a master sometimes gave one of his daughters to a favourite slave

when servile status

question of how his

did with Shams al-Din

mattered most to a should be

property

Balban's manumission

sold as a slave in

Mahmfid and de facto master of Delhi.

concern so far as

the chihilgini

belonged to Sultan Shams al-Din Iltutmish. It is possible-in

manumitted at the same time, perhaps on some famous occasion of state long remembered by the

all forty were

from other slaves who

high-ranking ghuldm was at his

disposed of. Jtizjani, for example, never makes any reference to Ghiyath al-Din

although he describes his career in great

detail from the time when he was first

down to the time when he became the father-in-law of Sultan Nasir al-Din

Apparently formal manumission was not a matter of great

slave-commanderswere concerned. When, therefore, Barani describes

surely indicating what set them apart

my view, most likely-that

for the fact

that the sobriquet

Bagdad

high-ranking

as freed Shamsi slaves he is

inhabitants of Delhi, and during Barani's lifetime.17

Sultan Shams al-Din Iltutmish or,

Rukn al-Din Firfiz or Ratiyya

an act of

piety, frequently that this celebrated band

thereby accounting

was still in circulation

If so, the event may have occurred during the closing years of the reign of

conceivably, may

have marked the accession to the throne of either

regarded as

by a master on his deathbed, it is not unreasonable to suppose

Shams

however, the manumissionof slaves was

in 633/1236. Since,

authorized

may well have obtained their freedom upon the death of Sultan

al-Din

Iltutmish

in 633/1236.

preceding century

from hearsay of his father and grandfather,'8 and we thereforecannot be quite certain that he is correct

On his own admission, Barani derived much of his knowledge

of events in the

15 It should be noted that the historians of the Mughul period appear to have been content merely to elaborate upon Barani's

original

describing Balban's accession

Akbarf, edited by B. De (Calcutta,

statements.

one

Thus

Khwaija

the

Nizam al-Din throne in the

1913), p.

to

Ah.mad,

Tabaqdt-i

78, simply states:

as the chihilgdnf.

Sultan Ghiydth al-Din was the slave of Sultan Shams al-

Din,

Sultan Shams al-Din had forty Turkish slaves each one of whom reached the rank of amirand this band was spoken of

as the chihilgdnf.

of the band

of slaves known

Ta'rikh-i Ffriz Shdhi,

This is clearly taken straight from the which Khwaja Nizdm al-Din Ahmad lists

but

Muntakhabal-Tawdrikh. At the beginning of the seventeenth

century Firishta in his Gulshan-i Ibrdhifm expanded

statement, at the same time taking considerable licence with his sources. The translation here used is that of J. Briggs, History

among his sources,

Badd'fini

in

his

this brief

the

same

is true

of

'Abd

al-Qadir

of the Rise of the MahomedanPower in India, London, 1829, 4 vols., I, p. 249.

of his

Toorky slaves, who were in great favour, entered into a

In

the

reign

of Shums-ood-Deen

Altmish,

Forty

solemn covenant to

death to divide the empire

and dissensions afterwards arose among them, and pre-

vented this

support each other, and on the King's

among

themselves.

Jealousies

project from being carried into execution.

16 Barani, op. cit., p. 25.

17

A

manumitted

Mutawakkil (232-247/847-861)

of his

Curiousand Entertaining Information. The Latd'if al-ma'drif of

1968), pp. Ioo-loI.

The Book of

famous

son

occasion

upon was the feast given by the 'Abbisid

al-Mu'tazz.

See

C.

which

one

thousand

slaves

were

Caliph al-

to celebrate the circumcision

E.

Bosworth,

Tha'dlibf (Edinburgh,

18 Barani, op. cit., p. 25.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.3 on Thu, 28 Mar 2013 13:12:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

WHO

WERE

THE

CHIHILGXNI?

61

when he assertsthat the

was not used merely in the Biblical sense of

argument that

commanders who constituted a more or less cohesive

decade or so later the group

palace-revolutions which, following the disappearance of Rukn al-Din

was still

chihilgdni were a group originally composed

numerically

Bahrdm

of

forty slaves, and that the term But assuming for the sake of

slave-

unrealistic to suppose that a

the

meaning a large a band of

633/1236

number.

there was in existence around

first of

Mu'izz

al-Din

forty recently-manumitted

group, it is surely

intact and was

collectively stage-managing

Firriz and Raiiyya, resulted in

then

of

'Ala'

al-Din

Mas'iid

the

elevation

(637-639/1240-1242),

(639-644/1242-1246),

and finally of Nisir al-Din

CambridgeHistoryof

India

to the throne. Sir

after Balban's sucession the

nobles of the court were to

But on grounds of mathematical probability alone, this would seem

slave com-

Iltutmish, this pre-

Mahmaid (644-664/1246-1266)

presupposes

that even

Wolseley Haig

chihilgdni still existed as a cohesive group and that, indeed, most of the great

be counted among

highly unlikely.

manders,

supposes that

in The

their number.19

If it be assumed that the

original chihilgdni were

already high-ranking

and amirs, around the time of the

death of Sultan Shams al-Din

in his S3ydsat-ndma that

century Delhi Sultanate,

.hdjibs

they were already in their mid-thirties. Two centuries earlier the

had

expressed

early

the opinion

Saljfiq vazir, Nizim

thirty-five

was

a

ghuldms

al-Mulk

(408-485/1oI8-IO92),

suitable age for promoting a ghuldm of outstanding ability to the rank of amir,20 and although it would

be dangerous to apply without qualification Nizam al-Mulk's cursushonorumfor the training of

in eleventh

century that the little we know about the

indeed around this murder

Balban-by

he was

who were still alive cannot have been

life of a

handful of the

forty

successful of their number to their former master's throne.

Iran to the circumstancesof the thirteenth

the fact remains

that it was

age that they obtained independent commands and high office. In 664/1266, when

last succeeded his son-in-law,

career of Balban and his

contemporaries suggests

or by default of a candidate with a better claim-at

Turkish warlord,

band of

already a sexagenarian,

thirteenth century

original

albeit an active one, but such other members of the

But in

original chihilgdni

of

any younger.

that more than a

survived to witness the elevation of the most ruthless and most

any case, given the probable expectation

suppose

it would seem unrealistic to

specifically to the

chihilgdni-Balban himself; the Sultan's cousin, Shir Khan Sunqur, governor

and a certain Tamar Khan, who was granted some of Shir Khan Sunqur's

is known of Tamar

Khan beyond this single fact, and in designating him one of the chihilgdni it is not impossible that

Barani has confused him

Awadh who died in 644/1246.

governor of

In his account of Balban's

reign Barani names only

three amirsas belonging

of Lahore and

Bhatinda;

iq.td's after the latter's death.

Khan-i Qiran, a

Shir Khan Sunqur is, of course, a comparatively well-known figure, but nothing

with the great Qipchaq

amir, Malik Tamar

Apart from these three, no other amirsare described as belonging to the

available

assigns

to him,

chihilgdni,although re-

of whom,

band. Had, for example, Barani,

ference is made to former Shamsi slaves as well as to slaves

for no very obvious reason, Sir Wolseley Haig

belonging to Balban himself-all to that select

Shamsi

slaves

such

as 'Adil

on the basis of the information

reckoned

Khan

and

Tabar Khan, who were on terms of intimacy with Balban, among the chihilgdni, he would have surely

said so. On the other hand, given the nature of the sources available to him, it is probable that while

Barani may have heard a good deal concerning the

the names of a handful of them. Thus he mentions two amirs who, in my view, should probably be

included among the chihilgdni: Arslan Khan Sanjar, the rebel governor of Bengal who died in 662/1264 and whose son, Tattr Arslan Khan, promptly submitted to Balban upon the latter's accession; and Balban's own brother, Malik Kishli Khan. However, neither of these are allocated a place among the Forty.

chihilgdni collectively,

he may only have ever known

Mention

has already been made of the fact that Jiizjmni never uses the term chihilgani at all.

is to include

in the Tabaqdt-i NJcsiri a section,

approaching

What

of

he does do, however,

perhaps one-tenth

the whole

work, which

principal

Shamsi

maliks.

is a tadhkirat or collection

of short biographical

All

these twenty-five

were

Turks-Qipchiqi,

sketches of the twenty-five

Ilbari,

etc.,-with

only

one

"9 The CambridgeHistoryof India, III, pp. 74-78.

20 NizaIm

al-Mulk,

op. cit., p.

I34,

tr.

p.

Io7.

See also

C.

E.

Bosworth, The Ghaznavids(Edinburgh, 1963), pp. Io02-10.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.3 on Thu, 28 Mar 2013 13:12:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

62

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

possible exception, without

exception rise to prominence;

or more of the Shamsi Sultans. It is not clear

of these

particular makes mention of the

a

all

had been slaves of Sultan Shams al-Din Iltutmish and had owed to him their initial

under one

his tadhkiratthe lives

Malik Hindi

Khan Mehtar-i Mubdrak, who

way or another, had played

upon

what basis

a

may

part

have been of Indian

of some

consequence

unquestionably one,

origin;

and all, in one

Juizj*ni selected for

wholly arbitrary. Although

maliks, but the choice cannot have been

gratitude to benefactors (among

it would

probably

be

wrong

past favours

he himself

perhaps

was made, at least wholly, as

whom Balban was

and

principal one)

means of

(in the

to assume that the selection

returning

or seeking future preferment. At the time when

out of the

twenty-five

malikswere

Jfizjani was writing

already dead,

al-

conspicuously

maliksbecause

day

but whose

early part

of the

twelve-sixties), eighteen

though

recorded.

they had been the core of the chihilgdni, whose deeds were still remembered in Barani's

names,

remainder of the

twenty-five

conceivably their families would have been honoured to have had their names so

One

hypothesis

worth

considering

is that

Jiizjani

selected these

except

for one or two, had long

original Forty-but

since been

forgotten. Presumably

or disappeared

who

some would have died

or early twelve-forties, leaving these

fit Barani's broad

description

interesting

twenty-five

of the

to note that of the three

and Shir Khan