Their allegiance was not along ethnic lines, and their dedicated patronage allowed them to incorporate themselves into the military hierarchy as trusted officers and commanders.
The Sultanate bought Turks in order to develop a strong cavalry arm and in particular to amass a corps of mounted archers.
[7] As one Sufi saint noted "they were slaves, not learned in the secretarial or Islamic sciences, they were rude, bellicose and vain and their military calling undoubtedly led to unjust killing of innocent people".
Authority was derived mostly from their patronage, and while they were deployed as military slaves it did not hinder their ability to seize political power.
This is a subtle continuity of the hierarchical class structure based on birth from the Indian caste system[citation needed].
Social and cultural history of Muslim society, and the reproduction of authority within the Delhi Sultanate can be attributed to these slaves.
Their ambition was often degraded by their social status, through the scope of the existing ideals of the Persian Chroniclers and the institutionalized caste system of the Hindus.
Skills and expertise in battle acted as a catalyst to gain favor, reverence, that lead to high ranking positions which placed them as an authority in a heterogeneous society.
In the broader context of learning about South Asian history, one can find an inconclusive range of facts surrounding the portrayal of day-to-day life.
To do this, the authors thought outside the box and looked beyond court scribes, into memoirs, personal letters, and documents indirectly linked to the topic.
Turkic slaves provide a narrative of capitalizing on opportunity, building authority, and creating a reputation so large that its true origins had to be hidden, for they may tarnish views on their accomplishments.