The sultans of Delhi did not have any strong and effective concept of kingship to rule over the masses. However, with the help of military power they enjoyed power and authority but their kingship had no moral, religious or political bases. As a result, there arose mismanagement in governmental affairs, lack of discipline and order throughout the state.

The masses were not loyal to their sultans and did not respect their status and intrigued against them. However, these people could not rebel openly as they feared the military and the harsh punishments they could get as a result.

Ghiyas-ud-din Balban (1200-1287)

After assuming power he realised that it was important to restore the dignity of a ruler and stabilise his position in the eyes of the masses. Therefore, he made efforts to provide the institution some historical and political bases in order to legitimise his rule. He traced his lineage from Afrasiyab, the ancient king of Iran, to prove his right to rule as an inheritor of a great king. Next, he restored his image as not merely the head of the state but strict and brutal in terms of maintaining discipline and order in the society. He showed no mercy to rebels and intriguers. As a result, people became afraid of the punishments that he applied against the enemies of the state.

Zia-ud-din Barani

The author of Tarikh-i-Firuzshai argues about the theory of kingship that the rulers, who maintained glory and grandeur of court by impressing royal people, in fact, create fear among their subjects which consequently raise the status and prestige of a king. Therefore, it was necessary for the rulers to create fear by showing their power and glory among common people as well as the nobles.

Ala-ud-din Khilji (1290-1316)

He also realised the importance of maintaining the high image of a king in the state and in the eyes of the people. Although he was illiterate, he had extraordinary knowledge of the art of politics.

Zia-ud-din Barani writes that the sultan once described his theory of kingship by telling that though he was not an educated man and did not study books, he had been careful to prevent rebellions against him. He always implemented rules which were in favour of common people in one way or the other. And if people did not obey his orders and ignored laws, he took stern action against them because his main concern was to maintain peace and order for the welfare of people.

Both Balban and Ala-ud-din following their concept of kingship, thus they successfully ruled over the people.

Editorial

Updated 13 Aug, 2026

AJK outlook

AS the staggered polls for the AJK Legislative Assembly enter their final stretch, it appears that the PML-N is in a...
13 Aug, 2026

Food costs

THE State Bank’s warning that domestic food prices could rise more than expected in the near term deserves urgent...
13 Aug, 2026

Denied a future

FIVE years after the Taliban returned to Kabul, the world is still issuing statements while a generation of Afghan...
Updated 12 Aug, 2026

Mideast outreach

OVER the past few days, Pakistan has been going the extra mile to assure Iran that the Makkah Joint Defence ...
12 Aug, 2026

Nutrition emergency

MALNUTRITION has become one of the biggest obstacles to Pakistan’s development. Around 40pc of children under five...
12 Aug, 2026

Housing deficit

THE federal cabinet’s zoning directive has the potential to be the most consequential decision in the redefinition...