It is contended that when Ala-ud-Din had gone to Devagiri, the advisers of the Sultan tried to impress upon him that Ala-ud-Din was a very ambitious person and had his eye on the throne and timely action should be taken against him. The only reply of Jalal-ud-Din was that he loved Ala-ud-Din as his son and was prepared to do anything for him.
Ulugh Khan, brother of Ala-ud-Din tried to impress upon the Sultan that Ala-ud-Din was anxious to present to the Sultan the wealth he had got from Devagiri but he was afraid of coming to Delhi as he had undertaken the expedition to Devagiri without the consent of the Sultan.
Disregarding the warnings of his advisers', Jalal-ud-Din decided to go to Kara to meet his son-in-law there. The Sultan left Delhi for Kara. Ala-ud-Din crossed the Ganges to Manikpur. While keeping his army in readiness, he sent his brother Ulugh Khan to persuade the Sultan to fall into the trap laid for him.
Ulugh Khan met the Sultan and persuaded him not to allow his army to cross the eastern bank of the river Ganges as Ala-ud-Din was still afraid of the Sultan and might either commit suicide or take refuge by flight. The Sultan acted accordingly in spite of the protests of his followers. Jalal-ud-Din went to meet his son-in-law with a few unarmed attendants.
Jalal-ud-Din embraced Ala-ud-Din but the latter gave a signal to Muhammad Salim who gave two sword-blows to the Sultan. Jalal-ud-Din
I. Striking his hands together, Ahmad Chap cried: "If you return to Delhi, you slay us with your own hand."
tried to escape crying "Ala-ud-Din, wretch ! What have you done?" It was then that another follower of Ala-ud-Din cut the head of the Sultan from his body.
The other followers of the Sultan were also put to death. The head of Jalal-ud-Din was put on a spear and paraded through the provinces of Kara, Manikpur and Avadh. It was in this way that "one of the basest murders in history" was perpetrated.
According to Dr. A. C. Banerjee, "So far as the case of the Muslim rulers of India is concerned, military force proved to be a more potent source of sovereignty than the doctrines of the Ulama.
Theoretical speculations had very little influence on the rough Turkish soldiers who made themselves master of India. They conquered the country by force, they maintained their authority by force, and they lost their position when they failed to command adequate force.
All their followers-soldiers, poets and Ulama alike-understood the situation thoroughly well and never cared or dared to investigate the legal claims of their de facto master. When Ala-ud-Din Khalji
treacherously murdered his uncle and occupied the throne to which he had not a shadow of claim either by divine or by human law, not only the 'unthinking rabble', but the best minds of the day- the great poet, Amir Khusrau, for instance-bowed down before the realities of the situation.
And while we shed our tears for the old Sultan who was so basely struck by one whom he loved so much it is necessary to remember that he himself had assassinated his master to seize the throne."'
As regards an estimate of Jalal-ud-Din, he was a successful general before becoming king but gave up the policy of aggression after becoming the Sultan. He followed a policy of peace and reconciliation towards all.
He was very modest. It is stated that he did not ride in the courtyard of the palace of Balban and also refused to sit upon it on the ground that he used to stand before it as a servant. The Mongols were successfully repulsed by the Sultan.
However, the Sultan was intolerant towards the Hindus. He destroyed and desecrated their temples and broke their images. He was responsible for the death of Siddi Maula.
Dr. K. S. Lai gives his estimate of Jalal-ud-Din in these words: "Failure as a king, Firoz was a perfect gentleman and one of the most pious Musalmans of his times. Fortune as well as merit had raised him to the highest pinnacle of greatness; still his elevation had not made him proud. God fearing and indulgent, affectionate to his family and kind to all, he behaved with his nobles not as a king but as a friend.
Jalal's span of kingship was short but he ruled over his subjects as a father in a family. He declared himself incapable of tyranny. If his simplicity and his kindness were ridiculed by the worldly people, his age and benevolence were revered by all."