Introduction
The Delhi Sultanate, which ruled over large parts of India from the early 13th to the early 16th century, marks a critical phase in Indian history. The question of how state formation occurred during this period has been the subject of various scholarly interpretations. Modern historians have examined the Delhi Sultanate through diverse frameworks, including political centralization, revenue administration, the role of the military, and the socio-cultural impact of Turk-Afghan rule. This essay explores these interpretations, offering an overview of the major scholarly perspectives on state formation during the Delhi Sultanate.
Traditional Perspectives
Initially, historians viewed the Delhi Sultanate mainly through the lens of political dynasties—Slave, Khalji, Tughlaq, Sayyid, and Lodi—and military conquests. The emphasis was on chronology, rulers, and court intrigues. This view considered the Sultanate as a centralized political system with a strong monarchy and military-driven expansion. However, these interpretations often lacked depth in explaining the structures and processes of state formation.
Modern Historiographical Approaches
Modern historians, especially from the mid-20th century onwards, adopted more nuanced approaches. They explored the Delhi Sultanate not just as a political entity but as a developing administrative system, shaped by social, economic, and ideological factors.
1. Irfan Habib and the Marxist Interpretation
Irfan Habib and other Marxist historians viewed the Delhi Sultanate as a centralized state with a complex bureaucracy and a structured revenue system. They argued that the state’s power rested on its ability to extract surplus from the peasantry. Habib’s analysis emphasized land revenue, iqta assignments, and the growth of agrarian economy. According to him, the Sultanate was successful in institutionalizing a system of taxation and administration that marked a shift from feudal fragmentation to centralized control.
2. Burton Stein’s Segmentary State Model
Burton Stein and other scholars challenged the notion of centralized governance and proposed a “segmentary state” model. According to this view, the Sultanate maintained loose control over the regions and relied on local elites and intermediaries for governance. The state’s authority was strongest in urban centers like Delhi but diminished in rural hinterlands. The model stressed decentralization and the importance of local power structures in sustaining the Sultanate.
3. Peter Jackson and Institutional Development
Historian Peter Jackson emphasized the development of institutional frameworks under the Delhi Sultanate. He highlighted the emergence of diwan offices (revenue, military, and religious departments), and their contribution to bureaucratic governance. Jackson argued that despite its origins in military conquest, the Sultanate gradually evolved into a sophisticated administrative state.
4. Cultural and Religious Dimensions
Other historians have examined the ideological basis of the Delhi Sultanate. The use of Persian as the court language, the patronage of Islamic scholars, and the promotion of Sunni orthodoxy were strategies to legitimize rule. Simultaneously, the interaction with local cultures led to syncretism, evident in art, architecture, and Sufi practices. The ideological apparatus helped sustain the political structure by integrating diverse populations under the umbrella of the Sultanate.
Military and Land Control
The military remained a cornerstone of state formation. The Sultanate used cavalry-based warfare, fortified garrisons, and systematic iqta assignments to maintain control. Iqtadars were assigned land in return for military service, and they played a crucial role in local governance. Over time, some iqtadars became hereditary elites, leading to decentralization and contributing to the Sultanate’s decline.
Urbanization and Economy
Urban centers such as Delhi, Multan, and Bengal flourished under the Sultanate, serving as administrative, commercial, and cultural hubs. The monetization of the economy and growth of trade (both internal and external) strengthened the state’s fiscal base. Historians have highlighted the Sultanate’s role in promoting urban growth and market regulation through state-controlled pricing and supply mechanisms.
Conclusion
Modern historians have offered varied and nuanced perspectives on state formation during the Delhi Sultanate. While some stress centralization and bureaucratic development, others highlight regional autonomy and segmentary structures. The Delhi Sultanate represents a formative period where military conquest transitioned into structured governance, setting the stage for future polities like the Mughal Empire. These scholarly interpretations enrich our understanding of medieval Indian polity and challenge monolithic views of Islamic rule in India.