A PROJECT FILE IS SUBMITTED TO

RAYAT COLLEGE
OF LAW

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENT OF
COURSE B.A. LL.B (HONS.)
SEMESTER II SECTION B
SUBJECT: HISTORY
1|Page
PROJECT ON
“ THEORIES OF KINSHIP ”

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

DR. MAHENDER SINGH YASHASHVI SINGH
PROFESSOR B.A. LL.B (HONS.)
OF HISTORY SEM II SECTION B
ROLL NO. 18123

2|Page
 CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY

This is to certified that the project entitled “ THEORIES OF

KINSHIP ” has been done by YASHASHVI SINGH of B.A.
LL.B (HONS.) during semester II from RAYAT COLLEGE
OF LAW, RAYAT GROUP OF INSTITUTION under the
supervision of DR. MAHENDER SINGH.
All sources used for this Project file has been fully and
properly cited. It contains no material which to a substantial
extent has been accepted for the award of any other such paper
by any college or any university, except where due
acknowledgement is made in this Project file.

3|Page
ACKNOWLEDMENT
I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my
teacher Dr. Mahender Singh who gave me the golden
opportunity to do this wonderful project on the topic “Theories
of Kinship”, which also helped me in doing a lot of Research
and I came to know about so many new things I am really
thankful to them. Secondly I would also like to thank my
parents and friends who helped me a lot in finalizing this
project within the limited time frame.

Yashashvi Singh

4|Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS
S.NO. TOPIC PAGE
NO.
1. INTRODUCTION 6
2. BALBAN’S THEORY OF KINSHIP 7-11
3. ALA-UD-DIN’S THEORY OF KINSHIP 12-15
4. MUHAMMAD BIN TUGHLUQ THEORY OF 16-19
KINSHIP
5. AFGHAN THEORY OF KINSHIP 20-21
6. CONCLUSION 22
7. BIBLIOGRAPHY 23

5|Page
INTRODUCTION
The ideal of kingship in the Delhi sultanate was derived from the Islamic
world and the rulers claimed divine origion for themselves. The turkish
rulers of Delhi sultanate had faith in divine right theory of kingship and
they acted not only as the representative of god on earth but they also
believed in absolute monarchy.
The period between 1206 A.D. and 1526 A.D. in India's history is known
as the Delhi Sultanate period. The Delhi Sultanate was a Muslim sultanate
based mostly in Delhi that stretched over large parts of the Indian
subcontinent for 320 years (1206–1526).Five dynasties ruled over the
Delhi Sultanate sequentially: the Mamluk dynasty (1206–90), the Khalji
dynasty (1290–1320), the Tughlaq dynasty (1320–1414), the Sayyid
dynasty (1414–51), and the Lodi dynasty (1451–1526). The sultanate is
noted for being one of the few states to repel an attack by the Mongol
Empire and enthroned one of the few female rulers in Islamic history,
Razia Sultana, who reigned from 1236 to 1240.
The Theory of Kingship was formulated by Ghiyas-ud-din-Balban. He was
the ninth sultan of the Mamluk Dynasty and he ruled from 1266 to 1287.
Before becoming a sultan, Balban was a slave bought by Iltutmish who is
considered as the effective founder of the Delhi Sultanate.
Balban’s Theory of Kingship led to the adoption of the policy of Blood and
Iron.

6|Page
BALBAN’S THEORY OF KINSHIP
The stern, harsh and violent policy adopted by Balban to suppress the
internal revolts and meeting with the challenges posed by foreign
invaders of Mongols is known as the policy of blood and iron.
The theory of kingship propounded by Balban led to the adoption of the
policy of blood and iron. Balban was convinced that the only way to face
the internal and external dangers was to increase the power and prestige
of the Sultan (King).
‘Sword’ was the chief weapon of Balban to achieve his objectives. He used
this weapon with a great vengeance against his rivals, rebels, robbers,
thieves and the invaders. By following this policy, he wanted to create
terror in the minds of the people that whosoever dared to challenge the
authority of the Sultan, he would not be spared.
On account of this policy he was able to remain at the helm of affairs for
about 40 years i.e. 20 years as the Naib/Prime Minister of Nasir-ud-din
Mohmud and then after as the Sultan of Delhi. He executed his policy of
blood and iron very successfully and raised the prestige and power of the
Sultan in the eyes of the nobles and his subjects.
Balban laid stress on two main points in his theory of kingship. First,
monarchy is bestowed upon a person by the grace of God; hence it is
divine, and secondly, a Sultan must be a despot. He used to say, “King is
the representative of God on earth (Niyabat-i-Khudai) and in his dignity
he is next only to prophethood and, therefore, his action cannot be judged
by nobles or the people.” Once he told his son Bughra Khan, “Kingship is
the embodiment of despotism,” and therefore, he was not answerable to
anybody for the discharge of his functions as Sultan. Thus he tried to

7|Page
enhance the power and prestige of the crown. Balban, in order to prove
his claim to divine origin of the sovereign, made a complete change in his
dress, behavior and manner. Declaring himself a descendant of Afrasiyab
dynasty, he gave up drinking, cut off from the jovial company of his
courtiers, maintained aloofness and stopped meeting the common people.
He did not permit his courtiers to take their seats so long as he remained
in the court. He appointed black, tall and fearsome guards around him.
They used to have naked swords in their hands. Whenever the Sultan
went outside the palace, they marched with him shouting Bismillah. This
show of power, pomp and splendor, no doubt, added to the prestige of the
Sultan and enhanced the glamour of the court.

Main principles of Balban’s theory of Kingship:

1. Divine right of Kings:

Balban said that the king was the representative of God on the earth and
Kingship was a divine institution. He declared this to make the nobles
believe that he got the crown or the Kingship not through their mercy but
by the mercy of God.

2. Royal descent:
Balban realized that people at that time believed that it was only the
prerogative of the ancient royal families to rule and exercise power, he
therefore declared that he was the descendant of the legendary Turkish
warrior Afrasiyab and that circumstances only had made him a slave.

8|Page
3. King as a despot:
He said to his son Bughra Khan that “Kingship is the embodiment of
despotism”. He believed that it is the “King’s super­human awe and status
which can ensure people’s obedience.

4. Word of difference between descendants of noble lineage

and commoners:
Historian Zia-ud-Din Barni has gone to the extent of remarking that
whenever Balban saw a man of low birth, his eyes started burning with
rage and anger and his hands reached his sword to murder him. This
view seems to be on the extreme side. However this much is believable
that because of this outlook of Balban, he dismissed all officials not born
of noble families, from all important posts.

5. Recognition of tripartite relationship:

Balban emphasized the relationship between God and the Sultan, Sultan
and the people and the God and the people. He considered himself the
representative of God on the earth to look after the welfare of the
people—people created by God. Accordingly he emphasized that treasury
should be used for the benefit of his subjects. Likewise the king should be
impartial in dispensing justice.

9|Page
Practical measures to translate the theory of Kingship into
operation:

1. Decorum and grandeur of the court:

Balban enforced strict discipline in the court. No one was allowed to
indulge in humour or loose talk. He maintained considerable distance
from the courtiers. He prescribed the court dress.

2. Adoption of several ceremonies:

Balban introduced the practice of ‘Sijada’ in which the people were
required to kneel and touch the ground with their forehead in salutation
to the king.

3. Appointment of guards:
Balban appointed fearsome and tall guards who were to stand round the
king’s person with naked swords in their hands. Whenever he used to go
outside the palace, his bodyguards marched with him with naked swords
and shouting ‘Bismillah-Bismillah.’

4. Following Persian traditions:

Balban was convinced that the glory of Kingship was possible only by
following the Persian traditions and he very carefully followed these
traditions in his personal and public life. He named his grandsons on the
pattern of Persian kings. He introduced several Persian etiquettes in his
court.

5. Always reserved:

10 | P a g e
Balban never expressed unusual joy or sorrow in public. It is said that
even when the news of the death of his eldest son, Mohammad was
conveyed to him, he remained unmoved and carried on the
administrative work though in his private apartment, he wept bitterly.

6. Strong army:
These is no doubt that a strong army is needed for the sustenance of a
powerful monarch. Balban, therefore, strengthened his army.

7. Policy of blood and iron:

A strong and absolute monarch is expected to follow a strict policy in
dealing with his enemies. Balban accordingly adopted this policy.

8. Protection from foreign invaders:

The strength of a despotic ruler is also measured by his ability to protect
his subjects from external danger. Balban in this regard took effective
steps.

Impact/Achievements of Balban:

 Balban’s theory of Kingship coupled with his policy of blood and iron
paid him good dividends.
 He enhanced the prestige of the Sultan.
 He crushed the powers of his opponents.
 He brought about peace and order.
 He saved the country from the invasions of the Mongols.

11 | P a g e
ALA-UD-DIN’S THEORY OF
KINSHIP
Ala-ud-Din maintained that the Sultan was God’s representative on earth.
Ala-ud-Din’s theory of kingship may be explained in the words of
historian, Ashraf,
“The Sultan of Delhi was in theory an unlimited despot, bound by no law,
subject to no material check, and guided by no will except his own.”
The Sultan used to say, “I do not know whether this is lawful or unlawful,
whatever I think to be for the good of the state or suitable for the
emergency, that I decree and as for what may happen to me on the
approaching Day of Judgment that 1 know not.”

Principles of Ala-ud-Din’s theory of kingship:

1. Kingship was the creation of God.

2. The king was God’s representative on earth.
3. The king was there to rule.
4. The king’s authority could not be challenged.
5. The king’s word was law.
6. The king was not bound by the advice of anyone.

12 | P a g e
7. The king was supreme in matters of religion. He was not to be guided
by the power of the Ulemas.
8. The king should expand his territories.
9. The king should devote himself to the good of the people.

Practical Implications of the Theory of Kingship:

1. All powers in one individual :

Ala-ud-Din combined in himself all powers. He was the Commander-in-
Chief, the Supreme Administrator, the Chief Justice and the Temporal
Head.

2. Desire for world conquest:

Ala-ud-Din’s desire to conquer the world was derived from his theory of
Kingship. Ala-ud-Din wanted to be the ruler of the entire world. Of course,
on the advice of the kotwal of Delhi, he gave up this idea but decided to
bring the whole of India under his sway.

3. Desire for founding a new religion:

Ala-ud-Din wanted to set up a new religion. However, again on the advice
of Qazi Ala-ul-Mulk who was also the Kotwal of Delhi, he gave up this
idea. Nevertheless he decided to work independently in matters of
religion and freed himself from the religious scholars (Ulemas).

13 | P a g e
4. Vast conquests:
Ala-ud-Din believed that a king should constantly extend his empire by
conquests so that his name might become immortal. He, therefore, made
all possible efforts to bring the whole of India under his influence.

5. Autocratic rule:
He believed that an autocratic rule was necessary for the stability and
consolidation of royalty. Accordingly, he took various severe measures to
check the powers of the nobles; He confiscated the property of several
nobles. He established an efficient spy system to keep himself well
informed of the affairs of the state.

6. Issue of regulations:
To prove that he was also a temporal head, he issued some regulations
regarding inflicting punishments which were not in accordance with the
Muslim law.
Dr. Ishwari Prasad in this regard has observed, “Ala-ud-Din was opposed
to the interference of the ‘Ulemas’ in matters of state and in this respect
he departed from the previous position of the Sultans of Delhi.
The law was to depend upon the will of the monarch and had nothing to
do with the law of the Prophet. This was the guiding maxim of the
monarch.”

7. Ministers’ advice:
The king was the head of the administration. In the discharge of his kingly
duties, Ala-ud-Din had certain ministers to assist him but their advice was
not binding on him.

14 | P a g e
8. Public welfare:
Though Ala-ud-Din believed in assuming all powers in accordance with
his theory of kingship, yet he was not averse to public welfare. In his
despotism where was no lack of concern for public welfare.

9. Dispenser of justice:
His theory of justice derived its inspiration from the theory of kingship
which proclaims that a king must do justice. He dispensed justice in the
open court.
According to Dr. Ishwari Prasad, “The reign of Ala-ud-Din represents the
high watermark of despotism.” Lane-Poole calls Ala-ud-Din “a bloody and
unscrupulous tyrant.
“In the words of Dr. V.A. Smith, “He was particularly a savage tyrant—
exceedingly disgraceful in many respects.”
Lane-Poole has summed up the personality and rule of Ala-ud-Din in
these words, “Though he might be wrong-headed and disdainful of the
low, he was a man of determination, who knew his own mind, saw the
necessity of the situation, met it by his own methods, and carried out
those methods, with persistence.”

15 | P a g e
MUHAMMAD BIN TUGHLUQ
THEORY OF KINSHIP
Three days after the death of his father either in February or March 1325
A.D., prince Jauna Khan alias Ulugh Khan ascended the throne of Delhi
and was called Muhammad Bin Tughluq. He remained at Tughluqabad for
forty days and then entered Delhi where he was heartily welcomed.
He too, on his part, lavishly distributed gold and silver among his subjects
and high offices to his loyal officers. Whatever might be the role of
Muhammad Tughluq in the death of his father but none opposed him
when he ascended the throne.
The character and achievements of Muhammad Tughluq have provoked
such a large scale controversy among historians as no other ruler of
medieval Indian history has claimed. It is not that contemporary records
are not available regarding his reign.
On the contrary, three eminent contemporary historians, viz., Isami,
Barani and Ibn Batuta have given detailed description of the events of his
reign. Yet, it is surprising that historians have failed to form unanimous
opinion about his character, achievements, and motives and even about
the order and dates of his works. Muhammad Tughluq is an attractive
figure of medieval Indian history. Not only his character and works but
also his ambitious schemes and their successes and failures too have been
regarded attractive and surprising. He inherited a vast empire from his
father and extended it further so much so that No other Sultan of Delhi
ruled over such vast territories as he did.Yet, with ten years of his

16 | P a g e
accession on the throne, his empire began to disintegrate and he failed to
keep intact even those territories which he had inherited. The same way,
though he inherited an
Overflowing treasury and enriched it further, yet, he faced economic
hardships. Besides, he innovated liberal principles and policies which
were ahead of his age. He was liberal in religious affairs, developed
diplomatic relations with distant countries like China. Iran and Egypt,
neglected all class and race distinctions, assigned offices strictly on merit
and carried out certain new schemes of reforms. Yet, he displeased his
subjects, faced the largest number of revolts of his subjects and nobles
and, ultimately, failed.

Theory of Kingship and Religious Concepts:

1. The theory of kingship of Muhammad Tughluq was divine theory of

kingship.
2. He believed that he became Sultan because of the will of God.
Therefore, he believed in absolute powers of the Sultan.
3. Ala-ud-din, Muhammad Tughluq did not permit any individual or
any class to interfere in his administration.
4. His ministers and officers were simply his subordinates to carry out
his orders. None of them wielded any independent power or dared to
advise him.
5. At times, the Sultan consulted only Barani, yet, his decision was
always his own. The Sultan did not permit even the Ulema class to
interfere in his administration.

17 | P a g e
6. During early period of his reign, he neither sought recognition of
Khalifa nor inscribed his name on his coins.
7. The Sultan did nothing against Islam nor did he desire to flout the
principles of Islam but he was not prepared to accept the Interference of
religion or that of any religious class in his administration.
8. The Ulema class enjoyed monopoly over administration of justice.
He broke up that monopoly and appointed Qazis outside this class of
people.
9. He used to change the decisions of Qazis whenever he found them
unjust and discriminating. If a religious man was found guilty of
Corruption or rebellion, he was punished like any further ordinary
person. Thus, nobody was above laws of the land.
That is why the Ulema class became antagonistic to Muhammad Tughluq
and spread discontentment against him. Muhammad Tughluq had to
compromise with this class during later years of his reign.
10. He inscribed the name of the Khalifa on his coins, sought recognition
of his office from him in 1340 A.D. and yet Sultan Muhammad paid him
respect out of proportion and gave him jagir and costly presents.

Achievements of Muhammad Tughluq:

Muhammad Tughluq was the first Sultan of Delhi who attempted for the
administrative and cultural unity of the north and south India.
1. He shifted his capital to Devagiri primarily to achieve this object.
2. Muhammad Tughluq permitted everybody to enter the services of
the state on merit.

18 | P a g e
3. He was the first Sultan of Delhi who assigned high posts not only to
the Hindus but also to people of humble families and castes.
4. Another novelty of Muhammad Tughluq was that he maintained
diplomatic relations with several foreign countries like China, Iraq, Syria,
etc. and exchanged ambassadors with some of them.
Thus, there is no doubt that Muhammad Tughluq pursued several
innovations in different fields. It is another matter that how far he
succeeded or failed in carrying out chose innovations.

Why contemporary Muslim historians commented against

him?
Muhammad Tughluq was tolerant towards his Hindu subjects. He was the
first Sultan of Delhi who distributed offices on merit and gave respectable
offices to the Indian Muslims and the Hindus also. In this field, he was
ahead of his time. Probably, this was one reason why contemporary
Muslim historians commented against him.
Yet, with his entire liberal at attitude, Muhammad Tughluq failed to get
admiration and sympathy of his subjects. But the reason was not his
attitude but the failure of his schemes and oppressive execution of his
policies.

19 | P a g e
AFGHAN THEORY OF KINSHIP
The Afghan theory of kingship differed from that of the Turks. The
Turkish theory of kingship was similar to the theory of Christian and
Hindu monarchs. The Turkish Sultans, right from Sultan Illtutmish to
Sayyid rulers, believed in absolute monarchy and some of them claimed
even divinity. They claimed that the Sultan was superior to all in the state
and all his nobles, governors, supporters, etc. were his subordinates.
Therefore, none could claim equality with the Sultan and no one had the
right to share in the administration of the state but with the consent or
orders of the Sultan.
The Afghans, on the contrary, regarded the Sultan as one among
themselves or only first among equals. They did not believe in the divinity
of the Sultan and therefore, claimed power and respect in matters of the
state. The Afghan theory of kingship, thus, believed in the Equality of
nobles with the Sultan and thus, more or less, supported an oligarchy.

The primary features of this theory were as follows:

1. The Afghans did not accept the nomination of the successor by the
Sultan. They believed in the election of the Sultan by the nobility.
2. Every Afghan noble claimed to be the commander of his forces and did
not accept his forces as a part of the army of the Sultan.
3. The Afghans accepted no privilege of the Sultan. They claimed all those
privileges for which the Sultan was entitled.

20 | P a g e
The result was that every Afghan noble kept his independent armies,
claimed extensive jagirs, enjoyed equal privileges with the Sultan and
could force him to depend on their power. In case of opposition from the
Sultan they could put up in the field equally powerful against him.
Bahlul Lodi was the first Afghan ruler of the Delhi Sultanate. He was the
founder of the Lodi dynasty and therefore, the nobles accepted him as
their leader. Yet, Bahlul compromised with spirit of equality and
independence of the Afghans.
He worked on the Afghan theory of kingship, regarded himself as only
first among equals, sat and ate with his important nobles on the same
carpet, called his nobility Masnad-i-Ali, visited one’s home if one felt
displeased or was sick, shared the booty equally with them, did not keep
personal bodyguards, received his food every day from the one or the
other noble and was offered horse by one of his nobles whenever he used
to ride.
According to Firishta, he said, “It is enough if my name is associated with
the kingdom.”
Mushtaqi, the author of Vakiyat-i-Mushtaqi wrote- “He never sat on the
throne and forbade his nobles to remain standing before him.”
Bahlul assigned extensive jagirs to his nobles and allowed them to
increase their power and influence.
Thus, Bahlul respected all Afghan traditions in dealing with his nobility
and kept them satisfied. He never asserted himself as the Sultan and
shared the coverof the state with his nobility.

21 | P a g e
CONCLUSION
So, it can conclude that, On account of this policy he was able to remain at
the helm of affairs for about 40 years i.e. 20 years as the Naib/Prime
Minister of Nasir-ud-din Mohmud and then after as the Sultan of Delhi. He
executed his policy of blood and iron very successfully and raised the
prestige and power of the Sultan in the eyes of the nobles and his
subjects. Balban’s theory of Kingship coupled with his policy of blood and
iron paid him good dividends. He enhanced the prestige of the Sultan. He
crushed the powers of his opponents. He brought about peace and order.
He saved the country from the invasions of the Mongols. The other
sultans of the delhi sultanate have also made many reforms and raised
the power and prestige of the king of the dynasty.

22 | P a g e
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

• www.Historydiscussion.net/history-of-india/balbans-theory-of -
kingship/2656

 Srivastava, Ashrivadi Lal (1929). The Sultanate of Delhi 711- 1526 AD.
Shiva Lal Aggarwala and Company.

 History of Medieval India by Satish Chandra

• Majumdar, R.C., Raychaudhuri, H, & Datta, K. (1951). An Advanced

History of India: 2. London; Macmillan.

• http://www.shareyouressays.com/essays/essay-on-the-balbans-
theory-of-kingship/114673

 https://www.historyforexam.com/2018/11/afghan-theory-of-
kingship.html

23 | P a g e