Sinhabahu

Sinhabahu (Sinha = Lion, Bahu = Arm) is a legendary king of ancient India, mentioned in Sri Lankan texts. He was father of Vijaya of Sri Lanka and king of Sinhapura. He was the son of Supadevi, a Vanga Kingdom princess.
According to the Mahavamsa's folklore (the chronicled history of Sri Lanka), Sinhabahu's father was a lion and his mother a princess of Vanga. His hands and feet were like a lion's paws.
When Sinhabahu was sixteen, he escaped with his mother and sister, Sinhasivali, and arrived in the capital of Vanga. He later killed his father for a reward and was offered the throne of Vanga.
He refused the throne, instead founding the city of Sinhapura, in the country of Lata. He lived there with his sister Sinhasivali, whom he made his consort. They had two children, of whom Vijaya was the eldest and Sumitta the second.


Rusa IV

Rusa IV (died 585 BC) was king of Urartu from 590 BC to 585 BC. Rusa IV was the son and a successor of Rusa III, and the successor of Sarduri IV. His name is mentioned on a number of clay tablets found at Karmir Blur (near Yerevan, Armenia), including tablets bearing his own royal inscriptions. However, almost nothing is known about his reign. He is possibly the Hrachya (Armenian: Հրաչյա) mentioned by the Armenian historian Moses of Khorene.


Punggawa

Punggawa is a title for a traditional local administrator, used in various parts of Indonesia. On Bali and by extension Lombok, the punggawa held the function of a hereditary vassal lord of a district, subservient to the raja. The term originally applied to the northern kingdom Buleleng, the southern district chiefs being known as "manca" or "manca agung". With the Dutch conquest of Bali in 1906-1908, the term was applied by colonial administration to the entire island. On Sulawesi, too, the term was used for chiefs serving a major lord, in the form "pongawa". In Javanese culture the punggawa is a court official in shadow plays (wayang).


Western Chalukya society

The Western Chalukyas (Kannada:ಪಶ್ಚಿಮ ಚಾಲುಕ್ಯರು) were a prominent South Indian Kannadiga dynasty who ruled most of western Deccan India during the 10th century - 12th century. They are also known as Kalyani Chalukya after their capital at Kalyani, known today as Basavakalyan in Karnataka state. Later Chalukya is another commonly used name for this empire from the popular theory that they were related to the 6th century Chalukya dynasty of Badami.
Chalukya society.
The rise of Veerashaivaism was revolutionary and challenged the prevailing Hindu caste system which nonetheless retained regal patronage. The role of women in society was varied and largely depended on their economic status and level of education in a period that may generally be considered liberal. This freedom was, however, more easily available to women in royal and affluent urban families. Records describe the participation of women in the fine arts, such as Chalukya queen Chandala Devi and Kalachuri queen Sovala Devi's skill in dance and music, compositions of thirty Vachana poets including the 12th century Virashaiva mystic Akka Mahadevi whose devotion to the "bhakti" movement is well known.
Contemporary records indicate some royal women were involved in administrative and martial affairs such as princess Akkadevi, (sister of King Jayasimha II) who fought and defeated rebellious feudals. Some important literary works of the time related to music and musical instruments were "Sangita Chudamani", "Sangita Samayasara" and "Sangitha Ratnakara". Inscriptions emphasise public acceptance of widowhood indicating that Sati though present was on a voluntary basis. Ritual deaths to achieve salvation are known with Jains preferring to fast to death (Sallekhana), while people of some other communities chose to jump on spikes ("Shoolabrahma") or walking into fire on an eclipse.
In a Hindu caste system that was conspicuously present, Brahmins enjoyed a privileged position as imparters of knowledge and local justice. These Brahmins were normally involved in careers that revolved around religion and learning, with the exception of a few who achieved success in martial affairs. They were patronised by kings, nobles and wealthy aristocrats who induced learned Brahmins to settle in specific towns and villages by making them grants of land and home. Relocation of Brahmin scholars was calculated and in the interest of the kingdom as they were seen as a people of detachment from wealth and power and their knowledge was useful to impart education, ethical conduct and discipline in local communities. Brahmins were also actively involved in solving local daily problems by functioning as neutral arbiters ("Panchayat").
In food habits, Brahmins, Jains, Buddhists and Shaivas were strictly vegetarian while consumption of different kinds of meat was popular with other communities. Vendors in the marketplace sold meat from domesticated animals such as goats, sheep, pigs and fowl as well as exotic meat from partridges, hares, wild fowl and boars. People found indoor amusement by attending wrestling matches ("Kusti") or watching animal fights such as cock fights and ram fights or by gambling. Horse racing was a popular outdoor past time. In addition to these leisurely activities, festivals and fairs were plenty and often made entertaining by travelling troupes of acrobats, dancers, dramatists and musicians.
Schools and hospitals are mentioned in records and these were built in the vicinity of temples. Market places served as open air town halls where people gathered to discuss and consider local issues. Choirs, whose main function was to sing devotional hymns, were maintained at temple expense. Young men were trained to sing in choirs in schools attached to monasteries such as Hindu "Matha", Jain "Palli" and Buddhist "Vihara". These institutions provided advanced education in religion and ethics and were well equipped with libraries ("Saraswati Bhandara"). Learning was imparted in the local language and Sanskrit. Schools of higher learning were called "Brahmapuri" (or "Ghatika" or "Agrahara"). Teaching Sanskrit was a near monopoly of Brahmins who received royal endowments in their cause.
Inscriptions prove that the number of subjects taught varied from four to eighteen. The four subjects popular with students from royalty were Economics ("Vartta"), Political Science ("Dandaniti"), Veda ("trayi") and Philosophy ("Anvikshiki"), subjects that find mention as early as Kautilya's "Arthashastra". Other subjects ("Vidya") were the four Vedas, six auxiliary subjects ("Angas") namely Phonetics, Prosody, Grammar, Etymology, Astronomy and Ritual ("Purana"), Logic ("Tarka"), Exegesis ("Mimamsa") and Law ("Dharmasastra"). To this were added Medicine ("Ayurveda"), Archery ("Dhanurveda"), Music ("Gandharvaveda") and Politics ("Arthashastra") to complete what seems a comprehensive list of subjects. Well known centers of learning (from a present-day geographical perspective) were at Bagevadi, Kadalevad and Manigavalli in Bijapur district, Nargund and Hottur in Dharwad district, Balligavi in Shimoga district, and Nagayi in Gulbarga district.


Someshvara II

Someshvara II (; ) who was administering the area around Gadag succeeded his father Someshvara I (Ahavamalla) as the Western Chalukya king. He was the eldest son of Someshvara I. During his reign Someshvara II was constantly under threat from his more ambitious younger brother Vikramaditya VI. Eventually Someshvara was deposed by Vikramaditya VI.
Around 1070 AD Someshvara II expanded his empire and brought Malava under his control.
Chola invasion.
Almost immediately after coming to power, Someshvara II had to face an invasion by the Chola forces led by Virarajendra Chola. The Chola army invaded the Chalukya country and laid a siege to the town of Gutti in (Kurnool district) and attacked Kampili. Instead of assisting his brother in order to save the Chalukya kingdom, Vikramaditya turned the troubles of his brother into his opportunity to capture the Chalukya throne.
Vikramaditya's Opportunism.
Vikramaditya saw the opportunity presented by the confusion in the kingdom due to the Chola invasion. Vikramaditya seduced Someshvara's feudatories from their loyalty towards the monarch, and with their aid, entered into negotiations with the Chola king Virarajendra.
Vikramaditya made his alliance with Virarajendra.
Chalukya civil war.
The political situation drastically changed when Virarajendra died in 1070 and his son Athirajendra Chola came to the Chola throne. Kulothunga Chola I eventually came to the Chola throne in a confusion created by civil disturbances in which Athirajendra was assassinated. As Vikramaditya was antagonistic towards Kulothunga, Someshvara II went into an alliance with Kulothunga and prepared to attack Vikramaditya.
The conflict eventually occurred in 1075 when Kulothunga launched an attack on Vikramaditya. Someshvara aided Kulothunga Chola by attacking Vikramaditya's rear. What resulted was a brief civil war in which Someshvara suffered heavy defeats and his fate is unknown after the defeat.. Vikramaditya captured the Chalukya king and imprisoned him. Vikramaditya VI proclaimed himself the Chalukuya king in 1076.


Atagozuka Kofun (Mibu)

 is a Kofun period burial mound located in the town of Mibu, Shimotsuga District, Tochigi Prefecture in the northern Kantō region of Japan. It received protection as a National Historic Site in 1926.
Overview.
The Atagozuka Kofun is a , which is shaped like a keyhole, having one square end and one circular end, when viewed from above. It is located on the west bank of the Kurokawa River, in the northeast of the town center of Mibu Town, and is part of a group of tumuli, which include the nearby Kurumazuka Kofun and Ushizuka Kofun, which have different shapes, and which have separate National Historic Site designations. The tumulus is constructed in two tiers and has a total length of 77 meters for the bottom tier and 53 meters for the upper tier. This construction is typical of "kofun" in this region and period for the rectangular portion to be larger and taller than the circular portion. The tumulus was surrounded by a moat with a width of over twenty meters, portions of which survive.
The tumulus has never been excavated and details of the burial chamber are unknown, but from the design of the tumulus and from fragments of "haniwa" (including one of a man in armor) and Sue ware pottery which have been recovered from the vicinity, it is estimated to date from the mid-6th century AD. This was a period of transition between the Kofun period when the Shimotsuke area was ruled by independent local kings and the Asuka period, when the centralized Yamato state dominated. Its size, and location near other large tumuli and the site of the Shimotsuke Kokubun-ji indicate the importance of this region in Kofun period Shimotsuke.
The top of the tumulus is occupied by a Shinto shrine (the Atago Shrine) from which the "kofun" gets its name. This shrine was built in 1694 by Matsudaira Terusada, "daimyō" of Mibu Domain, as it was located in the "Kimon", or "unlucky direction" from Mibu Castle.
The Atagoyama Kofun is about a 15 minute walk from Mibu Station on the Tōbu Railway Tōbu Utsunomiya Line.


Tokhara Yabghus

The Tokhara Yabghus or Yabghus of Tokharistan (), were a dynasty of Western Turk-Hephtalite sub-kings, with the title "Yabghus", who ruled from 625 CE in the area of Tokharistan north and south of the Oxus river, with some smaller remnants surviving in the area of Badakshan until 758 CE. Their legacy was extended to the southeast until the 9th century CE, with the Turk Shahis and the Zunbils.
Territorial expansion.
The Turks initially occupied the area of north of the Oxus (Transoxonia, Sogdiana) following their destruction of the Hephthalites in 557–565 CE through an alliance with the Sasanian Empire. The Sasanians, on the other hand, took control of the area south of the Oxus, with Chaganiyan, Sind, Bust, Rukhkhaj, Zabulistan, Tokharistan, Turistan and Balistan being transformed into vassal kingdoms and principalities. After this time, a tense Turco-Persian border existed along the Oxus, which lasted several decades. The area south of the Oxus contained numerous Hephthalites principalities, remnants of the great Hephthalite Empire destroyed by the alliance of the Turks and the Sasanians.
First offensive into Tokharistan (569-570 CE).
In 569-570, the Turks launched an offensive against the Sasanian Empire, and conquered the Hephthalite principalities south of the Oxus belonging to the Sasanian Empire. At that time the Sasanian Empire was embroiled in a war in the west, with the Byzantine Empire. It seems the Turks reached the Kabul–Gandhara area in 570. The principalities of the Hephthalites, formerly vassals of the Sasanian Empire, accepted Turk supremacy and became vassals of the Western Turk qaghan, and the Alchon Huns continued to rule in Kabul and Gandhara, but the Turks apparently did not permanently occupy the territory south of the Oxus. The Hephthalites aspired to independence from the Turks, and in 581 or 582 CE, they revolted in alliance with the Sasanians against the Turk Kaghan Tardu.
Second offensive into Tokharistan (588-589 CE).
In 588-589, the Turks under Bagha Qaghan entered into a direct conflict with the Sasanians, in the First Perso-Turkic War. The Turks invaded the Sasanian territories south of the Oxus, where they attacked and routed the Sasanian soldiers stationed in Balkh, and then proceeded to conquer the city along with Talaqan, Badghis, and Herat. But the Turks were defeated by the Sasanians under Bahram Chobin, who entered the area north of the Oxus and killed the Turkish Khagan.
War against the Sasanians Empire (616–617 CE).
A war war broke out between the Sasanians and the Hephthalites in 606-607 or 616–617 CE, the Second Perso-Turkic War. At that time, the Türk kaghan sent an army to help the Hephthalites, and was able to bring a great defeat upon the Sasanians, advancing his troops as far as Ray and Isfahan, but Sheguy Kaghan recalled his armies without pressing his advantage.
Occupation of Tokharistan under Tong Yabghu Qaghan (625 CE).
The Turks definitely intended to take control of the territories south of the Oxus, but were only ready sometime later, and took the opportunity when the Sasanian Empire again entered into conflict with the Byzantine Empire.
In 625, Tong Yabgu invaded Tokharistan and forced the Hephtalite principalities to submit. He went as far as the Indus river and took control of all the intervening principalities, replacing Hepthalite rulers by Turk ones. The Turks were victorious, partly because the Sasanian Empire was into a difficult war with the Byzantine Empire, the Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628.
According to Cefu Yuangui, these principalities were Zabulistan, Kapisa-Gandhara, Khuttal, Chaghaniyan, Shignan, Shuman, Badhgis, Wakhan, Guzgan, Bamiyan, Kobadiyan and Badakhshan. The areas of Khuttal and Kapisa-Gandhara had remained independent kingdoms under the easternmost "Hephthalites" (actually Alchon Hun) under kings such as Narendra, before being taken over as vassals by the Western Turks. The appearance of the "crown with a bull's head" on the coin portraits of the last rulers of Kapisa-Gandhara Narendra II, can be considered as a sign of recognition of Turk sovereignty, since the title "buqa" (bull) had been in use from 599, when Khagan Tardu united the Turk Empire.
Tong Yabghu Qaghan then installed his son Tardush Shad (), as the first yabgu (sub-king) of Tokharistan, controlling all the new Turk realm south of the Oxus, from his capital at Kunduz.
Reign of Tardush Shad (625-630).
Tardush Shad () was installed in Tokharistan, and ruled in Kunduz with title of Tokharistan Yabgu (). He was married two times - both a daughter of Qu Boya (麴伯雅) - ruler of Qocho. When Xuanzang visited Kunduz, he also brought a letter from his brother-in-law and ruler of Qocho Qu Wentai (麴文泰) to Tardu. Yabgu received him despite being in ill condition. It was Tardu to advise him to make a trip westward to Balkh (modern Afghanistan), to see the Buddhist sites and relics. Xuanzang also witnessed a palace scandal when Tardu's firstborn son Ishbara Tegin fallen in love with his new step-mother (also aunt) and poisoned Tardu in 630.
Reign of Ishbara Yabgu (630-650).
Ishbara Yabgu () was the son of Tardu Shad, and took over as Tokharistan Yabgu. He was the first Tokharistan Yabghu to mint coins. In these coins, in Sasanian style, he effigy represents him bearing a crown decorated with the bull's head and two wings. In one of the issues, the legend is: šb’lk’ yyp MLK’ ("Išbara Jeb ˇ [= yabghu] šah", on the obverse) and pnˇcdh. h. wsp’ ("[minted in his] 15th [regnal year at] Khusp", on the reverse). This would date the coin to 645 CE, with a location for the mint at Khusp, Kuhistan. Other known mints are Herat and Shuburgan.
After 650 however, the power of the Yabghus of Tokharistan fragmented, as they came, as least partially, under Tang suzerainty. A Türk yabghu of Tokharistan recorded under the name of "Wu-shih-po of the A-shih-na dynasty" was the first yabghu to be confirmed by the Chinese Emperor.
In 652–653 CE, the Arabs under Abdallah ibn Amir conquered the whole of Tokharistan and captured the city of Balkh, as part of the Muslim conquests of Afghanistan.
The Western Turkic Khaganate itself was destroyed by the Tang Dynasty in 657 CE, and most of his territories became protectorates of the Tang Empire, and organized into regional commanderies. Kunduz became the site of the Yuezhi Commandery (月氏都督府, "Yuèzhī Dūdùfû") under administration of the Anxi Protectorate.
During the rule of the Umayyad caliph Ali (656–661), the Arabs were expulsed from eastern Iran, as far as Nishapur and the Sasanian Peroz III was able to establish some level of control with the help of the yabghu of Tokharistan in Seistan.
Reign of Pantu Nili (c.705 CE).
In 705, P’an-tu-ni-li, the yabghu of Tokharistan, is recorded as having sent a mission to the Chinese court. He ruled from Badakshan, as the area of Balkh and the central areas of his territory were occupied by the Arabs, including Shuburgan, Khusp and Herat.
Suzerainty over the territories north and south of the Hindu-Kush.
According to the chronicles of the Chinese "Cefu Yuangui", a young brother of Pantu Nili named Puluo (僕羅 "púluó" in Chinese sources) again visited the Tang court in 718 and gave an account of the military forces in the Tokharistan region. Puluo described the power of "the Kings of Tokharistan", explaining that "Two hundred and twelve kingdoms, governors and prefects" recognize the authority of the Yabghus, and that it has been so since the time of his grand-father, that is, probably since the time of the establishment of the Yabghus of Tokharistan. The territory of Guzgan was also mentioned among the territories controlled by the Yabghus. Puluo finally reaffirmed the loyalty of Yabghu Pantu Nili towards the Tang Dynasty.
Part of the Chinese entry for this account by Puluo is:
This account also shows that the Yabghu of Tokharistan ruled a vast area circa 718 CE, formed of the territories north and south of the Hindu Kush, including the areas of Kabul and Zabul.
Contacts with the Byzantine Empire.
The East Roman Emperor Leo III the Isaurian who had defeated their common enemy the Arabs in 717 CE, sent an embassy to China through Central Asia in 719 CE which probably met with the Tokhara Yabghus and the Turk Shahis, who in honour of the Byzantine Emperor even named one of their own rulers "Caesar of Rome" (which they rendered phonetically as King "Fromo Kesaro"). The Chinese annals record that "In the first month of the seventh year of the period Kaiyuan [719 CE] their Lord [拂菻王, "the King of Fulin"] sent the Ta-shou-ling [an officer of high rank] of T'u-huo-lo [吐火羅, Tokhara] (...) to offer lions and ling-yang [antelopes], two of each. A few months after, he further sent Ta-te-seng ["priests of great virtue"] to our court with tribute."
Chinese sources.
Turk ("T’u-chüeh") kingdoms were in the territories of Gandhara, Kapisa and Zabulistan around 723-729 CE, according to the testimony the Korean pilgrim Hui Chao. Huei-chao also mentioned that in 726 CE, the Arabs occupied Balkh, and the Turks were forced to flee to Badakshan:
Chinese sources mention a few years later yabghus who sent missions to the Tang court: Ku-tu-lu Tun Ta-tu (Qutluγ Ton Tardu) asked for help against the Arabs in 729 CE, Shih-li-mang-kia-lo (Sri Mangala) asked for help against the Tibetans in 749 CE, and received this help from the Chinese, and in 758 CE Wu-na-to (Udita?) visited in person the Chinese court and participated in the fight against the rebel An Lu-shan.
Kapisa-Gandhara.
In the area of Kapisa-Gandhara, the Turk Shahi (665–850 CE), a probable political extension and vassals of the neighbouring Yabghus of Tokharistan, remained an obstacle to the eastward expansion of the Abbasid Caliphate.
Circa 650 CE, the Arabs attacked Shahi territory from the west, and captured Kabul. But the Turk Shahi were able to mount a counter-offensive and repulsed the Arabs, taking back the areas of Kabul and Zabulistan (around Ghazni), as well as the region of Arachosia as far as Kandahar. The Arabs again failed to capture Kabul and Zabulistan in 697-698 CE, and their general Yazid ibn Ziyad was killed in the action.
From 719 CE, Tegin Shah was the king of the Turk Shahis. He then abdicated in 739 CE in favour of his son Fromo Kesaro, probable phonetic transcription of "Caesar of Rome" in honor of "Caesar", the title of the then East Roman Emperor Leo III the Isaurian who had defeated their common enemy the Arabs in 717 CE, and sent an embassy through Central Asia in 719 CE. Fromo Kesaro appears to have fought vigorously against the Arabs, and his victories may have forged the Tibetan epic legend of King Phrom Ge-sar.
The Turk Shahis eventually weakened against the Arabs in the late 9th century CE. Kandahar, Kabul and Zabul were lost to the Arabs, while in Gandhara the Hindu Shahi took over. The last Shahi ruler of Kabul, Lagaturman, was deposed by a Brahmin minister, possibly named Vakkadeva, in c. 850, signaling the end of the Buddhist Turk Shahi dynasty, and the beginning of the Hindu Shahi dynasty of Kabul.
Local art at the time of the Yabghus of Tokharistan (7-8th century CE).
These was a relatively high level of artistic activity in the areas controlled by the Yabghus of Tokharistan during 7-8th centuries CE, either as a result of the Sasanian cultural heritage, or as a result of the continued development of Buddhist art. The works of art of this period in Afghanistan, with a sophistication and cosmopolitanism comparable to other works of art of the Silk Road such as those of Kizil, are attributable to the sponsorship of the Turks.
Buddhism.
Buddhism in Tokharistan is said to have enjoyed a revival under the Turks. Several monasteries of Tokharistan dated to the 7th-8th centuries display beautiful Buddhist works of art, such as Kalai Kafirnigan, Ajina Tepe, Khisht Tepe or Kafyr Kala, around which Turkic nobility and populations followed Hinayana Buddhism. The Turks were apparently quite tolerant of other religions.
Bamiyan murals and their devotees.
The mural paintings of Bamiyan display male devotees in double-lapel caftans, also attributable to the local sponsorship of the Western Turks.


Hyllus (river)

Hyllus or Hyllos () was the ancient name of a river of Asia Minor. It is a tributary of the river Hermus, in Lydia, flowing into Hermus from the north. In the time of Strabo, the river was called Phrygius.


Somsak Jeamteerasakul

Somsak Jeamteerasakul (; ) is a former history lecturer at the Faculty of Liberal Arts, Thammasat University. His academic field is contemporary political history, especially recent Thai history from 1930. He is a critic of Thailand's monarchy and its lèse majesté law. He has lived in self-imposed exile in France since the 2014 Thai coup d'état, following violent attacks and lèse majesté charges.
Background.
Somsak Jeamteerasakul was born on 22 June 1958. He graduated from secondary school at Suankularb Wittayalai School and Thammasat University. Somsak has been interested in politics since he was a student representative during his secondary education. He was a student leader and present at the campus during the 6 October 1976 Thammasat University massacre. He was arrested and later spent two years in jail.
Somsak Jeamteerasakul earned a PhD degree from Monash University in Australia. His doctoral thesis "The communist movement in Thailand" was published in 1991. During the 1990s and early-2000s Somsak wrote extensively and critically about the role of the monarchy. He has been openly critical of both Rama VII and Rama IX both of whom Somsak perceives as having obstructed the development of democracy in Thailand. Royalist groups have accused him of trying to "overthrow the monarchy". Somsak has denied the accusation in a press statement in which he explicitly states, "Each and every one of my public statement and written work is premised on the assumption of the continuation of the monarchy."
Research and political activism.
Somsak's research deals primarily with recent Thai history and its interpretation, especially regarding the role of the Thai monarchy in politics since the Siamese revolution of 1932, the death of King Ananda Mahidol, and the events of 14 October 1973 and 6 October 1976. Considered one of the experts in the subject of the Thai monarchy, Somsak often presents viewpoints contrary to the mainstream understanding prevalent in Thai society, including frequent criticism of the monarchy and calls for its reform.
Academically, Somsak is known for having an independent, outspoken style, including harsh criticisms that have led to conflict with other progressive scholars such as Charnvit Kasetsiri, Nidhi Eoseewong, Thongchai Winichakul, and Giles Ji Ungpakorn. Similarly, although Somsak has strong sympathies towards the Red Shirt movement, he is not affiliated with the associated Pheu Thai Party or the governments of Thaksin Shinawatra and Yingluck Shinawatra, and has directly criticized Thaksin and Pheu Thai.
Criticism of monarchy.
In 2010 Somsak Jeamteerasakul posted eight proposals to change Thailand's monarchy. One of the suggestions called for removing an article from Thailand's constitution that speaks of the king as "enthroned in a position of revered worship". Another proposal calls for abolishing "one-sided public relations and educational activities related to the monarchy." Somsak advocates the abolition of Privy Council of Thailand and abolition of Crown Property Bureau, which has been estimated to hold US$37 billion or more in assets and according to Thai law can be spent "at the king's pleasure". Somsak also advocates the abolition of article 112 of Thailand's criminal code, the lèse-majesté law, which he described as: "against the principles of democracy and even against common sense. "You cannot regard the monarchy as always right all the time."
Somsak's eight-point proposal to reform Thailand's monarchy:
On 28 July 2019, the birthday of King Vajiralongkorn, Somsak reiterated his call for reform of the monarchy.
Somsak Jeamteerasakul has been critical of King Bhumibol Adulyadej for his role in Thammasat University massacre. Somsak argues Bhumibol's involvement in drumming up anti-communist hysteria and his support of far-right royalist paramilitaries makes him partly responsible of the brutal beatings, rape, and murder of the students on the day of the massacre.
Lèse Majesté complaints.
In May 2011, the Royal Thai Army filed a lèse majesté complaint against Somsak Jeamteerasakul due to an open letter he had written and published on the internet in response to a Princess Chulabhorn TV interview. In the open letter, Somsak criticized the princess for attending the funeral of a pro-monarchy demonstrator in 2008, but not mentioning in her interview the deaths of anti-government protesters in the 2010 Thai military crackdown. Somsak denied the lèse majesté charges and argued that Section 112 of the Criminal Code, dealing with lèse majesté, only applies to the king, queen, heir-apparent, and regent.
In 2014, the Thai military junta reportedly filed another lèse majesté complaint against Somsak. In response to the junta's lèse majesté accusations, Somsak wrote: "It is clear that I would never have the opportunity to be treated fairly in accordance with the laws. Therefore, I have the legitimate right to preserve my life, body, and liberty by refusing to allow the military junta, who committed the treasonous act of seizing power, to arrest and harm me under the excuse of lese majeste."
In February 2016, Royal Thai Police were reported to be investigating statements made by Somsak Jeamteerasakul in a 2013 TV interview as possible lèse majesté violations. In the interview Somsak expressed his opinion that the Thai royal family's influence and power exceeds that of a modern constitutional monarchy.
Somsak's followers on social media have been summoned and questioned by the military junta. Thailand's Technology Crime Suppression Division has informed them that sharing or liking content from Somsak Jeamteerasakul may constitute a lèse majesté offence.
Post-2014 military coup.
After the 2014 Thai coup d'état and military junta's established National Council for Peace and Order, Somsak Jeamteerasakul was one of the first academics summoned to receive what the military called "attitude adjustment". After refusing to comply with the summons, the military junta issued an arrest warrant for Somsak and revoked his passport. During this period, Somsak went into hiding and later confirmed he hadn't lived in his house since a February 2014 gun attack. He reappeared on social media again in November 2014. He said to have changed his place of stay frequently during this period. It was later confirmed that Somsak had fled to France.
Somsak explained his self-imposed exile by writing: "In the situation that individuals who severely violated the laws have installed themselves as rulers of the country by illegal means, and aimed to cause harm to my life, body, and liberty in such a direct manner, I regard it as the rights and duty of a bureaucrat, citizen, and member of the Thammasat community to disobey, oppose, and reject their effort to jail and harm me."
In July 2015 the Thai military junta made an extradition request for Somsak and other critics of the monarchy living in France. France granted Somsak and other lèse majesté suspects refugee status in 2015.
Status at Thammasat University.
In February 2015, Somkit Lertpaithoon, the Rector of Thammasat University, signed an order to end the employment of Somsak Jeamteerasakul. Thammasat University lecturers publicly criticized the decision as unfair and politically motivated. Thammasat economist Associate Professor Pichit Likitkijsomboon said: "It’s apparent that university administrators are ready to use legal means to threaten those who have differing political opinions". “One can look at it as an attempt to set an example for other [academics] who come out to make a [pro-democracy] move. It’s likely about his political stance,” Thammasat political scientist Pongkwan Sawasdipakdi said.
The rector defended the decision as not politically motivated but because Somsak had failed to show up to work for 15 consecutive days. Somsak responded that he had attempted to seek for a sabbatical leave and then offered to resign his position but both of these requests were denied. University administrators stated that while they did receive Somsak's letter of resignation it should have been submitted 15 days prior to his departure under university's regulations.
The administrative court ruled on July 2016 that the termination of Somsak from his position at the Thammasat University was illegal. The court commented in its decision that Somsak had "extraordinary reasons" that prevented him from resigning his position at the university. Termination from his university position would have meant a loss of pension and other benefits gained over a career of over 20 years.


Under-occupied developments in China

Under-occupied developments in China are mostly unoccupied property developments in China, and mostly referred to as "ghost cities" or "ghost towns". The phenomenon was observed and recorded as early as 2006 by writer Wade Shepard, and subsequently reported by news media over the decades.
Terminology.
Media outlets often label under-occupied development areas in China as "ghost cities" or "ghost towns". However, the two terms are technically misnomers since the term "ghost town" describes places that previously had economic activity but have since become defunct and abandoned, while many under-occupied developments in China are new installations that have yet to receive resident immigration.
Additionally, some reported cases of "ghost cities" are not in and of themselves administrative entities but instead districts built in the suburban region of functioning cities to provide accommodation for a growing urban population.
Background.
The way in which property values are structured in China plays a role in the creation of "ghost cities", according to author Wade Shepard, who has traveled widely to research the phenomenon of China's underoccupied cities. "Economically affordable housing" must be lived in by the owner, and can not be bought and sold as an investment. The developer is only permitted to sell "economically affordable housing" at 5% over the cost of construction. By contrast, "commodity housing" can be bought and sold as an investment. Because housing is a physical object, and China's large population guarantees an ongoing demand for housing, commodity housing is considered a more secure way to store money. Except in some Tier 3 and Tier 4 cities, which have different government regulations, "commodity housing" generally sells as an investment. In addition, these homes typically serve as future homes for the buyer's offspring to live in when they get married.
Construction of "commodity housing" is driven by the disparity between urban and rural land prices. Rural land, which must be collectively owned, is redesignated by a municipality as urban-construction land, which can then be resold by the municipality at as much as forty times the price. Shepard explains that municipalities must pass on about 40% percent of their tax revenues to Beijing and are responsible for about 80% of their expenses. Hence, there is an incentive to seek non-tax-income streams. According to Shepard, as of 2015, "40% of the revenue that local governments in China make is from land sales." In 2012, this type of development created $438 billion (394 billion euros) for China's local governments.
Developers acquire new plots of land from local governments and are mandated to construct something more or less immediately. Developers can't sit idly on vacant land and wait for the surrounding area to develop until it's economically viable. This creates the quick-buck mentality in developers to rapidly build in the new area without the necessary demand for housing.
Criticism.
The "ghost city" moniker has been criticized for "calling the game at halftime". Many developments initially criticized as ghost cities did materialize into economically vibrant areas when given enough time to develop, such as Pudong, Zhujiang New Town, Zhengdong New Area, Tianducheng and malls such as the Golden Resources Mall and South China Mall. While many developments failed to live up to initial lofty promises, most of them eventually became occupied when given enough time.
A common assumption by foreign media is that local officials are strictly incentivized to start construction on this newly created urban land to boost GDP growth and look good within the Party. However, Wade Shepard points out many places which started becoming ghost cities were under the jurisdiction of an area with already strong GDP growth. He argues that these developments are seen as an investment for the future and promote development with timescales of over 20 years.
Ordos Kangbashi is often seen as one of the first and most prominent examples of the international Chinese ghost city phenomenon and fascination. Some journalists have pointed to the Ordos Kangbashi ghost city stories as an example of media hastily and often misinformed reporting of developments in China. Such reporting may not convey the perspectives of local officials and experts, and may seek to attract readers unfamiliar with China’s development model and bemused at China's perceived backwardness. As of 2015, it was reported that Ordos Kangbashi has a population of 100,000 people, 80 percent of which are full time residents, with the remainder commuting daily from nearby Dongsheng for work.
Wade Shepard, author of "Ghost Cities of China", visited a number of the so called 'ghost cities' several years after they had come under publicity, and noted that:
After investigation, Chicago-based photographer Kai Caemmerer also noted the discrepancy between the news reports and actual situation. The cities are product of plan-driven economy that many cities are not expected to be complete or vibrant after 15 years of construction. He noted:


Kebon Kopi II inscription

Kebonkopi II inscription or Pasir Muara inscription or Rakryan Juru Pangambat inscription is the oldest inscription that mentioned the toponymy "Sunda" dated from 854 Saka (932 CE), discovered in Kebon Kopi village, Bogor, near Kebon Kopi I inscription, and named as such to differ it from this older inscription dated from Tarumanagara era.
Archaeologist F. D. K. Bosch, that had studied the inscription, wrote that this inscription was written in Old Malay, stated that a "King of Sunda has been reinstalled on the throne" and interpreting this event took place in the year 932 CE. Unfortunately this inscription was lost, stolen during the tumult of early World War II around the 1940s.
Location.
Kebonkopi II inscription was discovered in Pasir Muara hamlet, Ciaruteun Ilir village, Cibungbulang, Bogor Regency, West Java, in the 19th century during the forest clearing to make way for a new coffee plantation. This inscription is located approximately 1 kilometre from the Kebon Kopi I inscription (Tapak Gajah inscription).
Content.
Transcription:
Translation:
Interpretation.
The inscription chandrasengkala (chronogram) written 458 Saka, however some historians suggested that the year of the inscription must be read backward as 854 Saka (932 CE) because the Sunda kingdom could not have existed in 536 CE, in the era of the Kingdom of Tarumanagara (358-669 CE).
This inscription was written in Kawi alphabet, however curiously the language being used is Old Malay. Bosch proposed that the use of Old Malay suggests Srivijayan influence on Western Java. He also draw comparison between the period of 932 CE of this inscription with the year 929 which coincide with the shift of political center of Medang Kingdom from Central to East Java.
French historian, Claude Guillot from École française d'Extrême-Orient proposed that the Kebonkopi II inscription was a declaration of independent (possibly from Srivijaya) of the newly established Kingdom of Sunda. Australian historian M. C. Ricklefs also supported this suggestion in his book "A History of Modern Indonesia since c. 1200".
The name of Sunda was first mentioned in this inscription. However, this inscription stated "“berpulihkan hajiri Sunda”", can be interpreted that previously there had been a king of Sunda before, and his office (authority) was finally restored. While the name "Pangambat" means "hunter", thus can be interpreted that the King was a skillful hunter.
Other inscription that mentioned the toponymy "Sunda" was Sanghyang Tapak inscription I and II (952 Saka or 1030 CE), and Horren inscription (Southern Kediri) dated from Airlangga reign in East Java .


Equality and Democracy Party

Equality and Democracy Party ("Eşitlik ve Demokrasi Partisi", EDP) was a left-libertarian and social liberal political party in Turkey. It was founded on 14 March 2010 by . Halis, of Alevi descent, was a former MP for the Social Democratic People's Party (SHP) and Minister of Employment and Social Security.
A significant segment of the Libertarian Left Movement, which had broken away from the Freedom and Solidarity Party, played an active role in the formation of EDP from the start, along with many other independent individuals. Individuals who later resigned from the Freedom and Solidarity Party in the Izmir, Istanbul, Ankara, Tokat, Manisa and Aydin provinces also joined the EDP.
In short, the EDP was able to fulfill the requirements for a party to participate in the general elections, namely having organised in a certain number of provinces and undergone a number of party congresses. The Supreme Electoral Council of Turkey thus granted the party the right to participate in the 2011 Turkish general election along with 26 other parties. However, the party decided to support the Labour, Democracy and Freedom Bloc and therefore did not present a list of candidates to the SEC.
The party disbanded itself and launched the Greens and the Left Party of the Future on 25 November 2012 together with the Greens and some independent individuals.


Tanyus Shahin

Tanyus Shahin Saadeh al-Rayfouni (also spelled "Tanios Chahine Saadé Al Rayfouné", given name also spelled "Taniyus" or "Tanius") (1815–1895) was a Maronite muleteer and peasant leader from Mount Lebanon. He led a peasants' revolt in the area of Keserwan in 1859, during which he drove out the area's Maronite nobility, the feudal Khazen lords, and declared a peasants' republic. While he had a reputation as a ruffian and provocateur among members of the Maronite clergy and European consuls, Shahin became a popular figure among Christian commoners, many of whom considered him the guardian of their interests, a view which Shahin promoted.
Following his victory in Keserwan, Shahin and his fighters launched intermittent raids against villages in nearby regions, such as Byblos and Matn, often in the name of defending the rights of local Christians. The assaults and their repercussions served as catalysts of the 1860 Mount Lebanon civil war, particularly the battle of Beit Mery between local Maronites and Druze, in which Shahin was a principal belligerent. Although he claimed he could raise an army of 50,000 to combat the forces of the Druze feudal lords, he did not participate further in the war. Following the war's end, he was defeated by Youssef Karam in a struggle over political influence in Maronite affairs. Shahin subsequently relinquished his republic and worked in the judiciary of his home village, Rayfoun.
Early life and character.
There are sparse biographical details available about Shahin. He was born to a poor Maronite Christian family in the village of Rayfoun in the Keserwan district of Mount Lebanon in 1815. According to the historian Elizabeth Thompson, Shahin may have been literate as indicated by his early career as an artisan and an entrepreneur, while Lebanese historian Kamal Salibi describes him as "half-literate". Before leading the 1859 peasant revolt in Keserwan, Shahin was a blacksmith and a muleteer who transported goods throughout Keserwan. He became associated with the Lazarist school of Rayfoun, whose contacts there attained for him credentials from Beirut's French consulate. Shahin's letters' bearing his seal or signature may have been penned by village clergymen with whom he kept close ties.
Shahin was tall and of muscular build. According to Thompson, Shahin "was more a man of spoken word than the pen, famous for powerful, sermon-like speeches at village meetings", and for his violent temper, according to Salibi. He acted as a local "shaykh shabab" (leader of young men), a title that carried honor and typically denoted a village strongman who derived power from his following of armed men. He was admired and respected by the peasants of Keserwan, some of whom considered him their "redeemer". According to a local chronicler, residents "prepared grand receptions for him amid joy and celebrations" when he entered a local village. Various European diplomats described him as a "ruffian of despicable character" and as dishonest, while some clergymen also regarded him as deceitful. Anecdotal accounts gathered by writer Yusuf Mubarak indicate that Shahin's piety, including his twice-daily prayers and refusal to consume meat except on Sundays and Christian holidays. In one of his surviving letters to the clergy in the Keserwan village of Aramoun, Shahin admonishes wine and arak drinkers at Christian festivals and threatens one-month's imprisonment for drunken behavior at such festivals.
Leadership of peasants' revolt.
Uprising in Keserwan.
Peasant anger in Keserwan had been building since the mid-19th century, due to a number of factors, including the burdens of corvée (unpaid labor for a landlord) that had been imposed during the rule of Emir Bashir Shihab II, general economic hardship, and the decreasing availability of land. The Maronite Khazen family traditionally served as the sheikhs (chiefs) of Keserwan, although their power had been significantly diminished during Emir Bashir's rule. To meet Emir Bashir's increased tax demands and finance their move to gain further control over Keserwan's silk production, the Khazens took loans from Beirut lenders and accumulated significant debts. Several became destitute in the 1830s and 1840s and Khazen influence over the Maronite Church waned. To compensate for their economic, social and political stagnation, the Khazens increased their pressure on the peasants of Keserwan in the late 1850s, while also spending extravagantly. The Khazens opposed the creation of the "Double Qaimaqmate" in Mount Lebanon in the 1840s, which divided Mount Lebanon into Druze and Christian-run sectors, and were incensed at the appointment of a sheikh from the mixed Druze-Christian Abu'l Lama family as the "qaimaqam" (deputy governor) of the Maronite section of the Qaimaqamate. The Khazens feared that such an appointment would formally subordinate them to the Abu'l Lama sheikhs. Following the Abu'l Lama sheikh's death in 1854, his successor Bashir Ahmad Abu'l Lama attempted to further reduce the Khazens' influence, prompting the Khazens to stir the peasants to revolt against Bashir Ahmad. The revolt against Bashir Ahmad soon turned against the Khazen sheikhs and their feudal allies. The peasant subjects of the Khazen sheikhs had long been wary of their rule due to the excessive taxes they imposed as well as the additional gifts the peasants were virtually obligated to give the sheikhs, which many peasants considered humiliating.
In early 1858, a group of peasants from Keserwan lodged a formal complaint against the Khazens to Khurshid Pasha, the Ottoman governor of Beirut. Later, in March 1858, the Khazens held a summit for the people of Keserwan to garner support for their nomination of a new "qaimaqam". Instead, the peasants participating in the summit voiced their dissent against the Khazens and in October, several villages in Keserwan entered into an alliance against the Khazen sheikhs. Shahin was chosen by this alliance of peasants as their leader in December, and was declared the "wakil awwal" (first delegate).
In January 1859, Shahin intensified the armed revolt against the Khazen sheikhs and with 800 of his peasant fighters, he besieged the Khazens during a summit they were holding in Ghosta. The siege prompted the sheikhs to flee the village, and the peasants under Shahin subsequently plundered the Khazens' estates. Shahin and his men proceeded to attack the Khazens in other villages with little blood spilled in the process, with the exception of the wife and daughter of a Khazen sheikh who were killed in Ajaltoun in July during a raid on their home by the peasants. The Maronite patriarch, Paul Peter Massad, condemned their killing as a "horrific crime". Silk and wheat warehouses belonging to the sheikhs were plundered and the goods were redistributed among the peasants of Keserwan. By July, the Khazens had been routed and between 500 and 600 family members had fled to Beirut in an impoverished state. Shahin broadened the peasants' main demands of tax relief and refunds for the illegal payments they had previously paid to the Khazen sheikhs to also include political and legal reforms. Shahin cited the Edict of Gülhane, which mandated equality for all Ottoman citizens.
Establishment of republic.
Following his victory over the Khazen sheikhs, Shahin and the peasants of Keserwan formed a government, with Shahin declaring a "jumhuriyya" (republic). He became known as the "wakil 'amm" (general delegate), and in the fall of 1859 moved the headquarters of the rebellion from the coastal village of Zouk Mikael to his hometown of Rayfoun in the mountains. Although revolts were relatively commonplace in Mount Lebanon, the ousting of a noble family by their peasant subjects was unprecedented. Shahin's government consisted of a 100-member council made up of representatives from the villages of Keserwan. Over half of the representatives were peasants who did not own land, 32 were relatively well-to-do farmers, ten were clergymen and three were merchants or lenders. Shahin, who by this point oversaw a 1,000-strong militia, exercised power by seizing arms, ensured the upholding of the law and established security on the roads. He disciplined dissidents suspected of betraying the government and issued decrees in the name of the public. He also entered into negotiations with the Khazen sheikhs, but they reached a stalemate.
The main villages that supported Shahin's government were Rayfoun, Ajaltoun, Ashqout, Qleiat and Mazraat Kfardebian. The representatives of these villages were able to gain the solidarity of other villages by persuading their inhabitants through both peaceful and coercive means that as Christians they were all a part of single community with a united purpose. The leaders of some villages, such as those of Ghosta, Aramoun, Ghazir and Ftuh opposed Shahin and his revolt. Shahin's popularity among the Christian peasants of Mount Lebanon grew as he came to be viewed as their savior from both the Druze nobles and the traditional Maronite elites. This reputation was further solidified after Shahin's men backed Christian residents in a clash with Druze residents in the mixed village of Beit Meri in Matn in August 1859.
The Khazens demanded the restoration of their rule in Keserwan and lodged complaints to the Ottoman government about property stolen or damaged by the peasantry. The Ottomans launched an investigation in Keserwan, but in their interviews with the peasants, all claimed that they were unaware of looting and other crimes, while representatives of Shahin denied that they were rebels, insisting that they only sought the implementation of the Tanzimat reforms and the restoration of law and order. In petitions to the Maronite Patriarchate, the peasants demanded compensation by the Khazens for taxes that were illegally extorted from them, an abolition to the traditional gift-giving required of the peasants, the abolition of marriage taxes levied by the Khazens and an end to the practice of beating peasants, among other demands. Shahin nominally recognized the Maronite Patriarchate as the ultimate arbiter of disputes, but consistently urged them to honor their obligations to the "ahali" (commoners). In one incident he or his men fired shots toward the patriarch's headquarters in Bkirki for hosting a number of Khazens who were seeking refuge there. In March 1859, Shahin rebuffed the church's request to make an agreement with the Khazen sheikhs, citing the need to first "consult with all the "ahali" and all the villages".
Shahin's rise generally confused the Ottoman government because Shahin used the Tanzimat to legitimize his revolt. The Ottomans did not consider the religious equality called for by the Tanzimat reforms to translate into class equality, which is how Shahin interpreted it. Moreover, the Ottomans did not countenance that a semi-literate Arabic-speaking peasant from a rural region such as Keserwan would serve as a representative of the Tanzimat. They reacted to Shahin's revolt negatively, although the provincial Ottoman authorities of Beirut generally felt powerless to act against the peasant rebels due to a lack of funds and forces on the ground. Khurshid Pasha sympathized more with the Khazen sheikhs and in a letter to the Patriarchate accused Shahin of using "deceit to lead astray the minds of the people and to seduce them into following his evil ways". The principal focus of the Ottoman authorities in Lebanon was containing Shahin's revolt. However, later historians of Lebanon accused Khurshid Pasha of at least tacitly supporting Shahin in order to break communal solidarity.
Khurshid Pasha dispatched Emir Yusuf Ali Murad, a Maronite sheikh from the Abu'l Lama family, to rein in peasant rebels in Byblos, but Shahin sent a letter warning Emir Yusuf not to "intervene in the affairs" of Bybos because the "Christians of Jubail [Byblos] were united with the "ahali" of Keserwan" and claimed that "all the Christians of Syria have made common cause". He condemned Emir Yusuf for aligning himself with the ousted sheikhs and his "Druze relatives" and accused him of attempting to "subjugate the Christians after we achieved our [freedom]". He threatened Emir Yusuf to "return without delay" and that if he "desires a fight, we are more eager than you, and we are not afraid". Shahin's confidence in the support he received from the Christian peasantry of Keserwan and other parts of Mount Lebanon and his challenge to Emir Yusuf through a populist sectarian approach alarmed the Maronite elites, the church and the Ottoman authorities.
In response to a Maronite priest's complaints about harassment by Shia Muslims against Christians, Shahin's men attacked and plundered Shia villages and travelers in Byblos and demanded that Shia villages convert to Christianity to avoid assault. The Shia residents of Byblos protested these assaults in June 1859. While Shahin's actions further frustrated the local elites, Christian, Muslim and Druze alike, his reputation as the defender of Christian rights was bolstered at the popular level.
Civil war in Mount Lebanon.
The increased assertiveness of Maronite peasants as a result of Shahin's revolt and confidence in their demographic majority in Mount Lebanon alarmed the Druze feudal lords; the latter resolved to arm their peasant fighters. Likewise, Maronite peasants, wary of growing Muslim hostility toward Christians in Ottoman Syria, were also being armed, in particular by Maronite bishop Tobia Aoun. Tensions turned into violence, and between March and May 1860, several retaliatory tit-for-tat killings and attacks of sectarian nature between Druzes and Christians occurred throughout Mount Lebanon and its immediate environs. In late May, Shahin and some 300 of his men entered the village of Naccache in the mixed Druze-Maronite Matn district to seize silk owned by a noble family of Keserwan. However, instead of returning to Rayfoun, they proceeded to enter the nearby Maronite village of Antelias. Shahin's incursion into Antelias was considered a provocation by the Druze who feared that the presence of Shahin's fighters in that village threatened the Druze residents of Matn. Many Christians in turn viewed the deployment of Khurshid Pasha's troops in Hazmiyeh on 26 May as a provocation because they suspected Khurshid Pasha of being allied with the Druze and that this was the signal for the beginning of the Druze counter-attack. Shahin's stated purpose for entering Antelias was to protect the Christian Shihab emirs based in the village of Baabda.
The Shihab emirs requested Shahin and his men withdraw from Baabda's vicinity to avoid conflict. However, on 29 May, clashes occurred in the Matn village of Beit Mery between its Druze and Christian residents, which led to the participation of their respective coreligionists from other villages in the vicinity. By 30 May, the Druze had defeated the Keserwan fighters in Beit Meri. Fighting subsequently spread throughout Matn, with 35–40 Christian villages being burned. According to Lebanese historian Leila Tarazi Fawaz, the Keserwan fighters proved to be undisciplined and ineffective against the more experienced, unified and better organized Druze forces.
The fighting in Matn spread throughout Mount Lebanon and its surrounding area, becoming a civil war mainly between the Druze and the Christians, which later spilled over into other parts of Syria. Shahin claimed that he could raise 50,000 fighters to fight the Druze, and Christians from areas outside of Keserwan appealed for his intervention. However, when his men were halted by Ottoman forces in Matn, Shahin and other Maronite militia leaders largely restricted their operations to guarding their areas of origin. In mid-June, when Zahle, the last Christian stronghold, was besieged by the Druze, Shahin did not send reinforcements and the town fell. This all but consolidated a Druze victory in Mount Lebanon. On 29 July, under pressure from Bishop Aoun, Shahin agreed to openly declare his obedience to the Ottoman sultan. Although the peasants' revolt had not been directly against the Ottoman state, Shahin's declaration served as a virtual repudiation of the revolt's legitimacy. In his declaration, Shahin asserted that he was forced to revolt by the treacherous "men of corruption".
Later life and death.
French-led international intervention ended the civil war and order was restored by 1861. Shahin's movement was in a precarious state in the war's aftermath; Shahin could not financially support his impoverished peasant partisans, the Maronite clergy was disillusioned with him, and Ottoman officialdom and the local nobility were arrayed against him. The Ottomans, the clergy and the nobility resolved to bring an end to Shahin's movement because it represented the last obstacle to their political reorganization of Mount Lebanon into the Mount Lebanon Mutasarrifate. Shahin threatened to convert to Protestantism together with his partisans if the Khazen sheikhs were restored to Keserwan, while Patriarch Massad of the Maronite Church was prepared to excommunicate Shahin and his supporters.
Meanwhile, Youssef Karam, a Maronite leader from Ehden who acquired a degree of popularity during the war and backing from the Maronite Patriarchate and the French government, was appointed acting "qaimaqam" of the Christian areas of Mount Lebanon by Fuad Pasha after the war's end. Shahin opposed Karam, who in a bid to reconcile the Maronite community, issued orders directed to the peasants of Keserwan to restore properties seized from the Khazens and compensate the latter for their losses. Shahin was backed by Emir Majid Shihab, who sought to replace Karam as "qaimaqam". Tensions between Shahin and Karam in Keserwan in late March 1861 culminated in a battle between their forces in an area between Rayfoun and 'Ashqout, in which Shahin was defeated and fled. Karam subsequently raided Shahin's home in Rayfoun, imprisoned some of Shahin's supporters and posted a number of his own troops in villages that supported Shahin's movement.
Fuad Pasha advised Karam to pursue and capture Shahin, while the British consul communicated his desire to see Karam restore the Khazens to their former position in Keserwan. Shahin ultimately reconciled with Karam on 12 April under the mediation of the French general Charles de Beaufort. Shahin agreed to submit to the Qaimaqamate's authority without conditions. Later in 1861, Shahin relinquished the republic that he established in Keserwan. Subsequent to his retirement from politics, Shahin served as a judicial official in Rayfoun. There, in 1895, he died in relative obscurity. He left no memoirs about his role in the civil war.


Iltutmish

Shams ud-Din Iltutmish, () was the third of the Mamluk kings who ruled the former Ghurid territories in northern India. He was the first Muslim sovereign to rule from Delhi, and is thus considered the effective founder of the Delhi Sultanate.
Sold into slavery as a young boy, Iltutmish spent his early life in Bukhara and Ghazni under multiple masters. In the late 1190s, the Ghurid slave-commander Qutb al-Din Aibak purchased him in Delhi, thus making him the slave of a slave. Iltutmish rose to prominence in Aibak's service, and was granted the important iqta' of Badaun. His military actions against the Khokhar rebels in 1205-1206 gained attention of the Ghurid Emperor Mu'izz ad-Din, who manumitted him even before his master Aibak was manumitted.
After Mu'izz ad-Din's death in 1206, Aibak became a practically independent ruler of the Ghurid territories in India, with his headquarters at Lahore. After Aibak's death, Iltutmish dethroned his unpopular successor Aram Shah in 1211, and set up his capital at Delhi. He married a daughter of Aibak, subjugated several dissidents, and gained control over much of the territory that had been lost after Aibak's death. He did not immediately claim a sovereign status, acknowledging the nominal authority of Taj al-Din Yildiz, another former slave who had gained control of the Ghurid capital Ghazni. Subsequently, a Khwarazmian invasion prompted Yildiz to move from Ghazni to India, and to demand control of the former Ghurid territories in India. Iltutmish refused to oblige, defeating and killing Yildiz at the Battle of Tarain in 1216. He also fought with Nasir ad-Din Qabacha, another former Ghuird slave, for control of Lahore. In 1221, a Mongol invasion prompted the Khwarazmian ruler Jalal ad-Din Mingburnu to move to the Indus Valley region, which became embroiled in conflicts involving Jalal ad-Din, Qabacha, and the Mongols. Iltutmish largely remained away from this region until the departure of the Mongols and Jalal ad-Din, engaging in minor skirmishes only when he saw a danger to his own territories in India.
After the departure of Jalal ad-Din from India in 1224, Iltutmish turned his focus towards eastern India, where Aibak's former subordinates had carved out an independent kingdom headquartered at Lakhnauti. Iltutmish extracted tribute from the local ruler Ghiyasuddin Iwaj Shah in 1225, and annexed the region in 1227 after an unsuccessful rebellion by Ghiyasuddin. During this period, he also asserted his authority over Ranthambore (1226) and Mandore (1227), whose Hindu chiefs had declared independence after Aibak's death.
In 1228, Iltutmish invaded the Indus Valley region, defeated Qabacha, and annexed large parts of Punjab and Sindh to his empire. Subsequently, the Abbasid Caliph Al-Mustansir recognized Iltutmish's authority in India. Over the next few years, Iltutmish suppressed a rebellion in Bengal, captured Gwalior, raided the Paramara-controlled cities of Bhilsa and Ujjain in central India, and expelled Khwarazmian subordinates in the north-west. His officers also attacked and plundered the Chandela-controlled Kalinjar area.
Iltutmish organized the administration of the Sultanate, laying the foundation for its dominance over northern India until the Mughal invasion. He introduced the silver "tanka" and the copper "jital" - the two basic coins of the Sultanate period, with a standard weight of 175 grains. He set up the Iqtadari system: division of empire into Iqtas, which were assigned to the nobles and officers in lieu of salary. He erected many buildings, including mosques, "khanqahs" (monasteries), "dargahs" (shrines or graves of influential people) and a reservoir ("hawz") for pilgrims.
Names and titles.
The name "Iltutmish" literally means "maintainer of the kingdom" in Turkic. Since vowel marks are generally omitted in the historical Persian language manuscripts, different 19th-20th century writers read Iltutmish's name variously as "Altamish", "Altamsh", "Iyaltimish", and "Iletmish". However, several verses by contemporary poets, in which the Sultan's name occurs, rhyme properly only if the name is pronounced "Iltutmish". Moreover, a 1425-1426 (AH 829) "Tajul-Ma'asir" manuscript shows the vowel "u" in the Sultan's name, which confirms that "Iltutmish" is the correct reading of the name.
Iltutmish's inscriptions mention several of his grandiloquent titles, including:
In Sanskrit language inscriptions of the Delhi Sultanate, he has been referred to as "Lititmisi" (a rendering of "Iltutmish"); "Suritan Sri Samasadin" or "Samusdina" (a rendering of his title "Sultan Shamsuddin"); or "Turushkadhipamadaladan" ("the Turushka Lord").
Early life.
Outside India.
Iltutmish was born in an affluent family: his father Ilam Khan was a leader of the Ilbari Turkic tribe. According to Mihaj's "Tabaqat-i Nasiri", he was a handsome and intelligent boy, because of which his brothers grew jealous of him; these brothers sold him to a slave dealer at a horse show. Minhaj's narrative appears to be inspired by the Quranic story of Hazrat Yusuf (Joseph), who was sold into slavery by his jealous brothers.
According to Minhaj, as a young boy, Iltutmish was brought to Bukhara, where he was re-sold to the local "Sadr-i Jahan" (officer in charge of religious matters and endowments). There are several anecdotes about Iltutmish's childhood interest in religious mysticism. According to a story narrated by Iltutmish himself in Minhaj's book, once a family member of the "Sadr-i Jahan" gave him some money and asked him to bring some grapes from the market. Iltutmish lost the money on the way to the market, and started crying fearing punishment from his master. A dervish (Sufi religious leader) noticed him, and bought the grapes for him in exchange for a promise that he would treat religious devotees and ascetics well upon becoming powerful. The writings of Isami and some other sources suggest that Iltutmish also spent some time in Baghdad, where he met noted Sufi mystics such as Shahab al-Din Abu Hafs Umar Suhrawardi and Auhaduddin Kermani.
Minhaj states that the family of "Sadr-i Jahan" treated Iltutmish well, and later sold him to a merchant called Bukhara Haji. Iltutmish was subsequently sold to a merchant called Jamaluddin Muhammad Chust Qaba, who brought him to Ghazni. The arrival of a handsome and intelligent slave in the town was reported to the Ghurid king Mu'izz ad-Din, who offered 1,000 gold coins for Iltutmish and another slave named Tamghaj Aibak. When Jamaluddin refused the offer, the king banned the sale of these slaves in Ghazni. A year later, Jamaluddin went to Bukhara, and stayed there for three years with the slaves.
In Qutb al-Din's service.
Subsequently, Iltutmish's master Jamaluddin returned to Ghazni, where Mu'izz ad-Din's slave-commander Qutb al-Din Aibak noticed Iltutmish. Qutb al-Din, who had just returned from a campaign in Gujarat (c. 1197), sought Mu'izz ad-Din's permission to purchase Iltutmish and Tamghaj. Since their sale had been banned in Ghazni, Mu'izz ad-Din directed them to be taken to Delhi. In Delhi, Jamaluddin sold Iltutmish and Tamghaj to Qutb al-Din for 100,000 "jitals" (silver or copper coins). Tamghaj rose to the position of the muqta (provincial governor) of Tabarhinda (possibly modern Bathinda), while Iltutmish became the "sar-jandar" (head of bodyguard).
Iltutmish rose rapidly in Qutb al-Din's service, attaining the rank of "Amir-i Shikar" (superintendent of the hunt). After the Ghurid conquest of Gwalior in 1200, he was appointed the "Amir" of the town, and later, he was granted the iqta' of Baran. His efficient governance prompted Qutb al-Din to grant him the iqta' of Badaun, which according to Minhaj, was the most important one in the Delhi Sultanate.
In 1205-1206, Sultan Mu'izz ad-Din summoned Qutb al-Din's forces for his campaign against the Khokhar rebels. During this campaign, Iltutmish's Badaun contingent forced the Khokhars into the middle of the Jhelum river, and killed them there. Mu'izz ad-Din noticed Iltutmish, and made inquiries about him. The Sultan subsequently presented Iltutmish with a robe of honour, and asked Aibak to treat him well. Minhaj states that Mu'izz ad-Din also ordered Iltutmish's deed of manumission to be drawn on this occasion, which would mean that Iltutmish - a slave of a slave until this point - was manumitted even before his own master Aibak had been manumitted. However, Iltutmish's manumission doesn't appear to have been well-publicized because Ibn Battuta states that at the time of his ascension a few years later, an ulama deputation led by Qazi Wajihuddin Kashani waited to find if he had obtained a deed of manumission or not.
Ascension and consolidation of power.
After Mu'izz ad-Din's death in 1206, Qutb al-Din became the ruler of the Delhi Sultanate, which evolved independent of the former Ghurid Empire. In 1210, when Qutb al-Din Aibak died unexpectedly in Lahore during a sport game, the local nobles appointed Aram Shah as his successor to prevent instability in the kingdom. However, the nobles in other parts of the Sultanate opposed this decision, and proposed Iltutmish as an alternative, because Aibak used to call him a son, and because he had a distinguished record of service. These nobles, led by the military justiciar ("Amir-i Dad") Ali-yi Ismail, invited him to occupy the throne.
Iltutmish marched to Delhi, where he seized the power, and later defeated Aram Shah's forces. Some nobles rebelled against his seizure of power, but Iltutmish subjugated them, and had many of them beheaded.
Minhaj-i-Siraj states that after Aibak's death, the former Ghurid dominions of India ("Mamalik-i-Hindustan") had been divided into four parts, centred at:
Delhi's dependencies.
Several Muslim officers, who administered Delhi's dependencies during Aibak's reign, did not recognize Iltutmish's authority. According to Minhaj, Iltutmish re-asserted Delhi's control over Badaun, Awadh, Banaras, and Siwalik in a series of campaigns. For example, Iltutmish captured Banaras after defeating Qaymaz, who was presumably a former officer of Aibak.
By the time of Iltutmish's ascension, Delhi's hold over various Hindu chiefs had weakened, and some of them - such as those of Ranthambore and Jalor - had declared independence. During the first few years of his reign, Iltutmish other preoccupations appear to have prevented him from campaigning against these chiefs. Hasan Nizami refers to an undated expedition against Jalor, which may have taken place sometime after his victory over Aram Shah.
Defeat of Yildiz.
The Ghurid capital of Ghazni was controlled by Taj al-Din Yildiz, a former slave who claimed to be the rightful successor to the Ghurid emperor. After Iltutmish suppressed the rival claimants to the throne, Yildiz sent him a royal umbrella ("chatr") and a baton ("durbash"): these gifts implied that Iltutmish was a subordinate ruler. Iltutmish did not want an immediate confrontation, and accepted these gifts. Iltutmish's earliest inscription, dated October 1211, styles him as a subordinate king - "al-Malik al-Mu'azzam" ("the great chief"), rather than as an imperial "Sultan".
Meanwhile, taking advantage of the succession conflict between Aram Shah and Iltutmish, Qabacha had captured Lahore in 1211. Shortly after this, a Khwarazmian invasion forced Yildiz to leave Ghazni. Yildiz migrated eastwards, displaced Qabacha from Lahore, and captured parts of the Punjab region. Iltutmish became concerned that Yildiz would ultimately try to occupy Delhi, and marched against him.
Yildiz sent a message to Iltutmish, declaring that he was the real successor of Mu'izz ad-Din and thus, had claims to the former Ghurid territories in India. According to Isami's "Futuh-us-Salatin", Iltutmish replied that the days of such hereditary claims were over:
Iltutmish offered to engage in a negotiation provided both men came to the meeting unaccompanied by any warriors. Yildiz refused the offer, resulting a battle at Tarain on 25 January 1216, which resulted in Iltutmish's victory. Isami states that Yildiz managed to escape to Hansi, while the earlier chronicler Hasan Nizami states that he was injured by an arrow and captured on the battlefield. Yildiz was later taken to Iltutmish's stronghold of Badaun, where he was killed. Iltutmish's success in this conflict reinforced the Delhi Sultanate's independent status.
Initial conflict with Qabacha.
Iltutmish's victory over Yildiz did not result in any substantial increase in his territory. He did not immediately assert his control over the Punjab region, and Qabacha regained control of Lahore. By this time, Qabacha had assumed the sovereign title of Sultan, and controlled a vast territory that included coastal Sindh, Swistan, Bhakkar, and Multan.
Subsequently, Qabacha tried to conquer a greater part of Punjab: according to Firishta, he sought to extend his authority as far as Sirhind in the east. This prompted Iltutmish to march against him in 1217. Qabacha initially retreated, but Iltutmish's army chased him and defeated him at a place called Mansura, which was located on the banks of the Chenab River. Iltutmish then captured Lahore in the winter of 1216-1217, and appointed his son Nasiruddin Mahmud to govern it. Lahore remained contested in the subsequent years; for example, at the time of Khwarazmian invasion of the region (see below), it was under the control of Qabacha's son.
Qabacha seems to have posed a serious threat to Iltutmish, as suggested by Muhammad Aufi in "Lubab ul-Albab". Aufi, writing shortly before the Khwarazmian invasion, expresses hope that his patron Qabacha will soon conquer the whole of Hindustan. Aufi also mentions that Ahmad Jamaji, who was Iltutmish's governor of Bahraich, defected to Qabacha in 1220.
Khwarazmian threat.
The Khwarazm kings, who had taken over the western part of the former Ghurid Empire, suffered a Mongol invasion in 1220. After being defeated at the Battle of Indus in 1221, the Khwarezmian prince Jalal ad-Din Mingburnu escaped to the Punjab region. He entered into a matrimonial alliance with the local Khokhar chief Rai Khokhar Sankin, and defeated other regional rulers, including Qabacha.
The Mongol leader Genghis Khan briefly considered returning to Mongolia through a shorter route which involved crossing the Himalayan foothills. He sent envoys to Iltutmish, asking for the Delhi Sultan's permission to pass through India. No extant sources provide any information about the result of this embassy, but it appears that Genghis Khan abandoned his plan to pass through India. According to the Persian historian Ata-Malik Juvayni, Genghis Khan advanced eastwards into India, but failed to find a suitable route, and therefore, exited the country via Peshawar. It is possible that Genghis Khan, through his envoys, aksed Iltutmish to not aid Jalal ad-Din: Iltutmish seems to have obliged.
Meanwhile, Jalal ad-Din established himself in the Sindh Sagar Doab in the Punjab region, and captured the fort of Pasrur. He sent his envoy Ainul Mulk to Iltutmish, seeking an alliance against the Mongols, and requesting for a safe place to stay. According to Juvayni, after deliberating over the matter for several days, Iltutmish refused to provide him a residence on the excuse that no place in his kingdom have a suitable climate or a locality fit for a king. Iltutmish also had the envoy killed, and sent troops to aid Qabacha against Jalal ad-Din . Minhaj, another Persian historian, states that Iltutmish himself led an army against Jalal ad-Din. Only the vanguards of the two armies clashed, and the two rulers withdrew after exchanging friendly messages.
Meanwhile, Qabacha - who had earlier accepted Jalal ad-Din's suzerainty - rebelled against him, and this conflict kept Jalal ad-Din busy. Jalal-ad-Din carried out some more campaigns in India, including a raid in Gujarat, but none against Iltutmish. He left the Indian frontier in 1223-1224; according to his biographer Shihab al-Din Muhammad al-Nasawi, he did so because he received the news that Iltutmish, Qabacha, and several Hindu chiefs ("rais and thakurs") had formed an alliance against him. The Mongols also maintained a presence in the region: for example, Genghis Khan's general besieged Qabacha in Multan in 1224, before retreating because of hot weather.
Until Genghis Khan's death in 1227, Iltutmish chose not to get involved in the politics of the Indus valley region to avoid a potential conflict with the Mongols.
Territorial expansion.
Eastern India and Rajasthan.
Iltutmish's predecessor Aibak had appointed Ali Mardan Khalji as the governor of Sultanate's territories in eastern India. After Aibak's death, the region became independent, with Lakhnauti as its capital, and Ali Mardan's successor Ghiyasuddin Iwaj Shah (alias Husamuddin Iwaz Khalji) styled himself as a sovereign Sultan. While Iltutmish was busy at the north-western frontier of his empire, Ghiyasuddin captured parts of present-day Bihar, and also extracted tribute from the smaller states of Jajnagar, Tirhut, Bang (in Bengal region), and Kamrup.
Iltutmish's forces captured Bihar in the 1210s, and invaded Bengal in 1225. Ghiyasuddin led an army to check Iltutmish's advance, but then decided to avoid a conflict by paying him tribute and accepting his suzerainty. Iltutmish accepted the offer, and returned to Delhi after appointing Malik Jani as the governor of Bihar.
In 1226, Iltutmish captured the Ranthambore Fort, which was reputed to be impregnable. The next year, he captured the fort of Mandore, also in present-day Rajasthan.
Meanwhile, in eastern India, Ghiyasuddin re-asserted his independence and occupied Bihar. In 1227, Iltutmish directed his son Nasiruddin Mahmud, who held the iqta' of neighbouring Awadh region at this time, to invade Bengal while Ghiyasuddin was away on a plundering campaign in Kamrup. Nasiruddin captured his capital Lakhnauti, and defeated and executed him on his return to Bengal. Following this conquest, the coinage in the Bengal region was issued in the name of Iltutmish, and the khutba in Lakhnauti was also read in his name.
Annexation of Qabacha's empire.
During the first half of the 1220s, Iltutmish had avoided Indus River Valley, which was contended by the Mongols, the Khwarazm kings, and Qabacha. After the decline of the Mongol and the Khwarazmian threat, Qabacha gained control over this region. Shortly after, during 1228-1229, Iltutmish invaded Qabacha's territory. By this time, the conflicts the Khwarazmians and the Mongols had weakened Qabacha's power.
The writings of Hasan Nizami and Muhammad Aufi suggest that Qabacha had earlier signed some treaties with Iltutmish, probably to secure his support against the Khwarazm prince Jalal ad-Din. These treaties probably involved Qabacha's recognition of Iltutmish's sovereignty, or promises to surrender some territories to the Delhi Sultan. Qabacha's failure to abide by these treaties may have prompted Iltutmish to wage a war against him.
Iltutmish's forces captured Tabarhinda, Kuhram, Sarsati (or Sursuti), and Lahore from Qabacha. Iltutmish appointed Nasir al-Din Aytemur al-Baha'i as his provincial governor ("muqta") of Lahore. He then sent Nasir al-Din to capture Multan, while he himself invaded Uch. Nasir al-Din captured Lahore, and Iltutmish captured Uch after a three-month long siege, on 4 May 1228.
Qabacha fled to Bhakkar, pursued by an army led by Iltutmish's wazir "Nizam al-Mulk" Junyadi. Finding himself in an unwinnable situation, Qabacha sent his son Malik Alauddin Bahram to Iltutmish, to negotiate a peace treaty. Iltutmish offered peace in exchange for Qabacha's unconditional surrender, but Qabacha preferred death to these terms, and committed suicide by drowning himself into the Indus River on the night of 26 May 1228. Iltutmish then placed Multan and Uch under his own governors, and had his forces occupy several strategic forces, expand his authority up to Makran in the west. Malik Sinanuddin, the wāli (governor) of coastal Sindh, also recognized Iltutmish's authority, and thus Iltutmish's empire spread as far as the Arabian Sea. Qabacha's son and surviving followers also accepted Iltutmish's suzerainty.
Later years.
Caliph's recognition.
In 1220-1221, the Abbasid Caliph Al-Nasir sent his Indian-born ambassador Radi al-Din Abu'l-Fada'il al-Hasan bin Muhammad al-Saghani to Delhi. The ambassador returned to the Abbasid capital Baghdad in 1227, during the reign of Al-Mustansir. In 1228, the new Caliph sent the ambassador back to Delhi with robes of honour, recognizing Iltutmish's authority in India and conferring on him the titles "Yamin Khalifat Allah" ("Right Hand of the God's Deputy") and "Nasir Amir al-Mu'minin" ("Auxiliary of the Commander of the Faithful"). On 18 February 1229, the embassy arrived in Delhi with a deed of investiture.
Although the Caliphate's status as a pan-Islamic institution had been declining, the Caliph's recognition was seen as a religious and political legitimization of Iltutmish's status as an independent ruler rather than a Ghurid subordinate. The Caliph's recognition was a mere formality, but Iltutmish celebrated it in a big way, by decorating the city of Delhi and honouring his nobles, officers, and slaves. Iltutmish's own court poets eulogize the event, and the 14th century Moroccan traveler Ibn Battuta describes him as the first independent ruler of Delhi. Iltutmish is the only ruler of India to have the Caliph's recognition. Ghiyasuddin Iwaj Shah, the ruler of Bengal defeated by Iltutmish's forces, had earlier assumed the title "Nasir Amir al-Mu'minin", but he did so unilaterally without the Caliph's sanction. The Caliph probably saw Iltutmish as an ally against his Khwarazmian rival, which may have prompted him to recognize Iltutmish's authority in India.
After the Caliph's recognition, Iltutmish began inscribing the Caliph's name on his coins, including the new silver "tanka" introduced by him.
Other campaigns.
In March–April 1229, Iltutmish's son Nasiruddin Mahmud, who had been governing Bengal since 1227, died unexpectedly. Taking advantage of this, Malik Ikhtiyaruddin Balkha (or Bilge Malik), who seems to have been a former officer of Iltutmish, usurped the authority in Bengal. Iltutmish invaded Bengal, and defeated him in 1230. He then appointed Malik Alauddin Jani as the governor of Bengal.
Meanwhile, Mangal Deva, the Parihara chief of Gwalior in central India, had declared independence. In 1231, Iltutmish besieged the city, and captured it after 11 months of conflict, on 12 December 1232. After Mangal Deva fled, and Iltutmish left the fort under the charge of his officers Majdul Mulk Ziyauddin Muhammad Junaidi and Sipah Salar Rashiduddin.
In 1233-1234, Iltutmish placed Gwalior under Malik Nusratuddin Taisi, who was also assigned the iqta's of Sultankot and Bayana, and made in-charge of the military contingents at Kannauj, Mehr, and Mahaban. Shortly after, Taisi attacked the Chandela fort of Kalinjar, and subsequently plundered the area for around 50 days. During this campaign, he acquired a large amount of wealth: Iltutmish's share (one-fifth) of the loot amounted to 2.5 million "jitals". While Taisi was returning to Gwalior, the Yajvapala ruler Chahada-deva (called Jahar by Minhaj) ambushed him, but Taisi able to fend off the attack by dividing his army into three contingents.
Subsequently, Iltutmish raided the Paramara-controlled cities of Bhilsa and Ujjain in 1234-35. Iltutmish's army occupied Bhilsa, and destroyed a temple whose construction - according to Minhaj - had taken three hundred years. At Ujjain, his forces damaged the Mahakaleshwar temple and obtained rich plunder, but made little effort to annex the Paramara territory. The jyotirlinga at the site was dismantled and believed to be thrown into a nearby 'Kotiteerth Kunda' (a pond neighboring the temple) with the Jaladhari (a structure supporting the Lingam) stolen during the invasion.
By 1229-1230, the north-western boundary of Iltutmish's kingdom appears to have extended up to the Jhelum River, as Nasawi states that he controlled the area "up to the neighbourhood of the gates of Kashmir". During this period, Iltutmish invaded the territories controlled by the Khwarazmian subordinate Ozbeg-bei, in present-day Pakistan. Ozbeg-bei fled to the Khwarazmian ruler Jalal-ad-Din in Iraq, while Other local commanders - including Hasan Qarluq - surrendered to Iltutmish. Qarluq later changed his allegiance to the Mongols. During his last days, in 1235-1236, Iltutmish is known to have aborted a campaign in the Binban area: this campaign was probably directed against Qarluq.
"Hammira-mada-mardana", a Sanskrit play by Jayasimha Suri, mentions that a mlechchha (foreigner) called Milachchhrikara invaded Gujarat during the Chaulukya reign. The Chaulukya minister Vastupala used diplomatic tactics to create many difficulties for the invader, who was ultimately defeated by the general Viradhavala. Some historians have identified Milachchhrikara with Iltutmish, thus theorizing that Iltutmish unsuccessfully tried to invade Gujarat. However, others have dismissed this identification as inaccurate.
Death and succession.
In 1236, Iltutmish fell ill during a march towards Qarluq's stronghold of Bamyan, and returned to Delhi on 20 April, at the time chosen by his astrologers. He died shortly after, on 30 April 1236. He was buried in the Qutb complex in Mehrauli.
The death of Iltutmish was followed by years of political instability at Delhi. During this period, four descendants of Iltutmish were put on the throne and murdered. In the 1220s, Iltutmish had groomed his eldest son "Malikus Sa'id" Nasiruddin Mahmud as his successor, but Nasiruddin died unexpectedly in 1229. While leaving for his Gwalior campaign in 1231, Iltutmish had left Delhi's administration to his daughter Razia. Her effective administration prompted him to declare her as his heir apparent in 1231, upon his return from Gwalior. However, shortly before his death, Iltutmish seems to have chosen his surviving eldest son Ruknuddin Firuz as his successor. When Iltutmish died, the nobles unanimously appointed Ruknuddin as the new king.
During Ruknuddin's reign, his mother Shah Turkan took control of the state affairs, and started mistreating her rivals. Their execution of Qutubuddin, a popular son of Iltutmish, led to rebellions by several nobles, including Malik Ghiyasuddin Muhammad Shah - another son of Iltutmish. Amid these circumstances, Razia seized the throne in November 1236, with support of the general public and several nobles, and Ruknuddin was executed. Razia also faced rebellions, and was deposed and killed in 1240. The nobles then appointed Muizzuddin Bahram - another son of Iltutmish - on the throne, but subsequently deposed and killed him in 1242. Next, the nobles placed Ruknuddin's son Alauddin Masud on the throne, but he too, was deposed in 1246.
Order was re-established only after Iltutmish's grandson Nasiruddin-Mahmud became Sultan with Iltutmish's prominent slave, Ghias-ud-din-Balban as his deputy ("Naib") in 1246. Balban held all the power at the time and became Sultan in 1266. Balban's descendants ruled Delhi until they were overthrown by the Khaljis.
Religion.
Iltutmish was a devout Muslim, and spent considerable time praying at night. His court poet Amir Ruhani describes him as a "holy warrior and Ghazi". He revered several Sufi saints, including Qutbuddin Bakhtiar Kaki, Hamiduddin Nagauri, Jalaluddin Tabrizi, Bahauddin Zakariya, and Najibuddin Nakhshabi.
Iltutmish held religious discourses by orthodox ulama - such as Sayyid Nuruddin Mubarak Ghaznavi - in his court, but disregarded their advice while formulating the imperial policies. He understood the limits to which the Islamic shariah law could be implemented in largely non-Muslim India. When a group of ulama advised him to vigorously pursue the religious conversion of Hindus, he dismissed the idea as impractical. He did not consult the ulama while making the unorthodox decision of nominating his daughter Raziya as his successor. This balance between the shariah and the practical needs of the time became a feature of Turkic rule in Delhi.
Legacy.
Iltutmish laid down the foundation of the Delhi Sultanate as a truly independent kingdom, freeing it from a subordinate position to Ghazni. The Caliph's investiture, although a mere formality, reaffirmed his status as an independent sovereign among the Muslims. By the time of his death, the Delhi Sultanate had emerged as the largest and the most powerful kingdom in northern India.
Iltutmish was most probably the first ruler to organize a centrally recruited, centrally paid and centrally managed army in the Delhi Sultanate. His courtier Fakhr-e Mudabbir composed "Adab al-harb wa-l-shaja'a", a book on the art of warfare.
Iqtas.
Iltutmish implemented the "iqta" system of administrative grants in the Delhi Sultanate. This system, borrowed from the earlier Islamic dynasties of the Middle East, involved dedicating the revenues from a certain region to a subordinate in exchange for military service and political loyalty. Iltutmish used this "iqtas" to consolidate his empire by dismantling the existing feudal order of the Indian society.
Iltutmish assigned several regions to his Turkic subordinates in form "iqtas". The larger "iqtas" - which were effectively provinces of the empire - were assigned to high-ranking men, who were expected to administer the regions, maintain local law and order, and supply military contingents in times of need. The holders of the smaller "iqtas" were only expected to collect revenues from their regions, in exchange for providing military service to the emperor. To ensure that this "iqta" system remained bureaucratic - rather than feudal - in nature, Iltutmish transferred the "iqta" holders from one region to another, refused to grant them legal immunity, and discouraged localism in administration.
Both free amirs as well as "bandagan-i-shamsi" (as opposed to "bandagan-i-khass" during Mu'izz ad-Din's times) were used by Iltutmish over an extended, long process involving rotation of the "iqtas" assigned to each noble every once in a while to ensure that there was no question of claims on a specific region by a specific noble. Besides these, princes were used as well in almost the same capacity, but in more important roles.
Coinage.
Iltutmish introduced two coins that became the basis for the subsequent coinage of the Delhi Sultanate: the silver "tanka" and the copper "jital".
His predecessors, including the Ghurid rulers, had maintained the local coinage system based on the Hindushahi bull-and horseman coins minted at Delhi. Dehliwala, the standard coin, was a silver-copper alloy with a uniform weight of 3.38 grams, of which 0.59 grams was Silver. The major source of silver for the Delhi mint were coin hoards from Central Asia. Another source was European silver which made its way to Delhi via the Red Sea, Persian Gulf through the ports of Gujarat. By the 1220s, supply from Central Asia had dried up and Gujarat was under control of hostile forces.
In response to the lack of silver, Iltutmish introduced a new bimetallic coinage system to Northern India consisting of an 11 grams silver "tanka" and the billon "jital", with 0.25 grams of silver. The Dehliwala was devalued to be on par with the "jital". This meant that a Dehliwala with 0.59 grams of silver was now equivalent to a coin with 0.25 grams of silver. Each Dehliwala paid as tax, therefore produced an excess 0.34 grams of silver which could be used to produce "tankas". The new system served as the basis for coinage for much of the Sultanate period and even beyond, though periodic shortages of silver caused further debasement. The "tanka" is a forerunner to the Rupee.
Islamic culture.
During Iltutmish's reign, the city of Delhi emerged as the centre of Islamic power and culture in India. He patronized several scholars, including historian Minhaj-i-Siraj and the Sufi mystic Qutbuddin Bakhtiar Kaki. Minhaj states that Iltutmish's patronage attracted several scholars and other prominent people to Delhi, especially from Persia, which had fallen to the Mongols. Iltutmish's court to have had raised seats for distinguished scholars and saints, as opposed to lower seats for others. This is suggested by "Fawa'id-ul-Fu'ad", a near-contemporary work, which describes a quarrel between Shaikh Nizamuddin Abul Muwayyid and Sayyid Nuruddin Mubarak Ghaznavi over choice of seats in Iltutmish's presence.
"Fawa'id-ul-Fu'ad" mentions an anecdote about Iltutmish's patronage to scholars: Nasiri, a poet in need of a royal award, composed a "qasida" in praise of Iltutmish. However, while he was in the middle of reciting the poem, Iltutmish left the recital to attend an urgent administrative matter. A dismayed Nasiri thought Iltutmish would forget him, and lost all hope of getting the royal award. But as soon as Iltutmish was free, he came to Nasiri, recited the first line of the "qasida" from his memory, and asked Nasiri to complete his recital.
Architecture.
Iltutmish invested in numerous waterworks, mosques, and civil amenities in Delhi. He completed the construction of the Qutb Minar, which had been started by Qutb al-din Aibak. He also commissioned the Hauz-i-Shamsi reservoir to the south of Qutb Minar, and the madrasa (school) around it.
He built several khanqah (monasteries) and dargahs (graves) for Sufi saints. He commenced the structure of Hamid ud-din's Khanaqa, and built the "Gandhak ki Baoli", a stepwell for the Sufi saint, Qutbuddin Bakhtiar Kaki, who moved to Delhi during his reign.
In 1231, he built the Sultan Ghari funerary monument for his eldest son Nasiruddin, who had died two years earlier. This was the first Islamic mausoleum in Delhi, and lies within fortified grounds, which also include the graves of other relatives of Iltutmish.