Modern historians have extensively analyzed the process of state formation during the Delhi Sultanate period (1206–1526 CE), using various frameworks such as political theory, socio-economic change, and administrative transformation. The Delhi Sultanate, which saw the rule of multiple dynasties including the Mamluks, Khaljis, Tughlaqs, Sayyids, and Lodis, marked a critical phase in the development of medieval Indian polity. Historians have interpreted this period not merely as a foreign imposition but as a complex, evolving structure that integrated different administrative and cultural traditions.
One of the earliest interpretations was shaped by colonial historians like Elliot and Dowson, who viewed the Delhi Sultanate primarily through the lens of conquest and religious conflict. These narratives depicted the sultanate as a militaristic, centralized autocracy imposed by foreign rulers upon a fragmented Indian society. However, this view was challenged in the post-colonial era by Indian historians who emphasized the indigenous elements of state formation and the interactions between Turkish, Afghan, and Indian traditions.
Scholars like Mohammad Habib and R.P. Tripathi contributed to this re-evaluation by focusing on the socio-economic aspects of the Sultanate. Mohammad Habib, for instance, argued that the Sultanate was a unique socio-political experiment that involved the assimilation of Turkish ruling elites with Indian society. He highlighted the role of urbanization, trade guilds, and rural agrarian structures in shaping the sultanate’s power base. Habib viewed the state not as a static institution but as a dynamic process influenced by changing social and economic realities.
Later Marxist historians like Irfan Habib and Satish Chandra brought class analysis into the discourse on state formation. Irfan Habib emphasized the agrarian base of the Sultanate economy, where surplus extraction from peasantry formed the backbone of state revenue. The iqta system—wherein land was assigned to nobles and officers in return for military service—was interpreted as a form of feudalism adapted to Indian conditions. Satish Chandra expanded this perspective by analyzing the military-fiscal system and the emergence of a bureaucratic class that managed revenue and administration.
Another dimension explored by modern historians is the role of religion and legitimacy in state formation. The Sultanate rulers, while being Muslim, ruled over a predominantly non-Muslim population. Historians like Peter Hardy have examined how rulers used Islamic jurisprudence and Persian political theory to legitimize their rule, while also adapting to Indian socio-cultural norms. The construction of mosques, madrasas, and Sufi khanqahs helped in establishing religious and ideological authority.
Historians also debate the degree of centralization under the Sultanate. While some dynasties like the Tughlaqs attempted tight control over provinces through direct governance and reforms, others relied on a more decentralized structure, delegating power to local governors and military commanders. The instability caused by frequent revolts and succession disputes also led to adaptive mechanisms in statecraft, including the institutionalization of revenue systems and the establishment of standing armies.
Recent scholarship has highlighted the role of urbanization and monetization in state formation. Cities like Delhi, Multan, and Bengal became centers of commerce, crafts, and administration. Coinage, particularly in silver, became widespread and facilitated market transactions and revenue collection. These developments point to the emergence of a complex state apparatus that extended beyond mere military dominance.
In conclusion, modern historians have viewed the Delhi Sultanate’s state formation as a multifaceted process that combined military conquest, administrative innovation, socio-religious integration, and economic reorganization. It laid the foundation for future Islamic and Indo-Islamic polities, most notably the Mughal Empire, and represents a critical period of transformation in Indian political history.