In a battle near Ghaznin, 'the umara of Ghor and the great mailks' were killed by the 'Turkish Army'(lashkar-i

turk),
led by Tajuddin Yilduz.47While Yilduz seized Ghaznin, the entire Indian dominions of Shihabuddin passed into the
hands of Qutbuddin Aibak.48

When Aibak died in 1210, there was a brutal conflict between the two groups of Turks for the inheritance. Illtumish
from the Ilbari tribe of the Turks, a slave of Aibak and muqti of Badaun, seized Delhi, to set himself up as Sultan.

Minhaj’s long biographical notices of 25 of the slaves (Shamsi maliks) and Barani’s vivid account of their emergence is
quite well recognised,53 even if it has not yet received adequately detailed analysis. Secondly, an aspect on which
equal emphasis has not, perhaps, been laid - he collected a large number of Tazik or Persian speaking officers
including scions of Ghor-Khalj nobility.

Iltumish Collected his slaves by purchase from all sources from professional slave merchants who died in war captives
and other slaves,54 as well as from private owners.55 Of the 25 ‘Shamsi’ slaves whose biographical notices are given by
him Minhaj gives the regional or tribal origins of nineteen.58 The largest number (six) are Qipchaq, the Turkish tribe of
the steppes extending from the north of the Jaxartes to the Vokga. Next in number (five) are the Qara Khita of
Sinkiang, the ‘Black Chinese’, who had defeated Shihabuddin at Andkhud. There are three Rumis, i.e. either Saljuqs or
Greeks. Three again are Ilbaris, a tribe in Turkistan (Iltumish’s own).58 One slave was a Turk of Georgia (Turk-I Garji),
and another a native of Khwarizm (Khiva).

Minhaj’s information is still of some help in indicating position of Iltumish’s slaves had acquired by the time of his
death.61 At least three or four of these slaves had reserved to be of such status that Iltumish gave them the title
‘Khan’.62 This title is not found attached to the name of any Ghorian noble or slave of Shihabuddin. Iltumish Turkish
slaves are not known to have occupied a single highest central or court offices at his death however the large
territories they held in iqta. This should help us to realise that the freeborn element in Iltumish’s mobility was by no
means inconsiderable. Minhaj gives account of Iltumish’s reign had twenty leading nobles(muluk). 65 Three of them
belonged to Shamsi Malik, three others were slave officers with their designations Bahai and Nasiri. Another noble
was called Turk and against these seven there are three Ghorians,66 two Khaljis and a native of Kulab. Of the
remaining none has a Turkish name and they too could well have been free-born.

Nizamu’l Mulk Muhammad Junaidi was the Wazir of Iltumish at the time of his death, 67 and was a Tazik.68 The office
of Dabir o Mushrif-I Mamalik was held by Taju’l Mulk Mahmud. Wakil-I dar and Barbak, both concerned with the
court, were held by Izzuddin Salari and Qutubuddin Hasan Ghori.71

From the point of view of Iltumish himself the fact that leading nobles of Kingdom of Ghor should swear fealty to him
a slave of a slave of a Ghorian ruler was an important factor in establishing his moral authority. Immigrants came
from various regions, and Firuz Shah Iltumish, Prince of Khwarizm and Malik Jani, Prince of Turkistan were probably
only the highest among a number of fugitives granted officers by Iltumish.85

The army of Delhi Sultans and their mobiles are largely Ghor Khalj that is non-Turkish component. Its presence must
always have been a source of strength to free and non-Turk elements in the ruling class.

Iltumish accordingly presided over nobility in which his own corpse of Turkish slaves who held a large number of iqtas
and freeborn immigrants who occupied high officers at court and also held some iqtas for almost evenly matched the
ruling class could appear as a coalition of two different groups the Turks and the Tajiks.