The Sultanate Period—Some Questions of Analysis and Periodization
Conventional Periodization—See Maps on powerpoint
The Sultanate Period officially begins in 1206 with the nomination of Qutub-ud-Din Aibak as Sultan
of Delhi; however, historians also point to the Second battle of Tarain in 1192 as a point of origin, and
more problematically the raids of Mahmud of Ghazni (1018-1030). Important Dynasties include:
In the North/West:
Ilbari Turks or Slave Kings: 1206-1290
In the South/East:
Bengal (Ind. Sultanate), South (Cholas, Hoysalas,
Kakatiyas)
Khaljis—1290-1320 ( Ala. Kh. 1296-1316) Ala-ud-Din tries to extend empire, but rule is temp.
Tughlaqs—1320-1414
South remains Ind. Under Vijayanagar and Bahamanis
5+Sultanates/sev. Rajput King.1414-1500s Vijayanagar (until 1565), 5 Sultanates
Some Problems of Approach and Classifications:
 The term “Sultanate” is used in an ambiguous way as is “Muslim/Islamic” Rule—The struggle
between “Hindus” and “Muslims” emphasized in the Rajput-Turco-Afghan struggles in the
North and the Vijayanagara-S. Sultanates in the South-- actual examination on what constitutes
a Muslim or Hindu identity, or affiliation to a particular state in this period is relatively weak in
many studies.
 Periods of Dynasties and centralization over-emphasized as is religious identity
 Political history and chronology emphasized over the actual study of administration, other
social institutions such as srenis, patronage, kinship, concepts of social identity (or how do
groups/individuals formulate self-identity?)
 Why?
o Uncritical use of very limited sources—problems with court histories, hindsight, epic
literature
o Ahistorical ways of thinking about religion/ethnicities—ex. The “Hindu” Shahis, or
origins of “Islamic” rule which ignores the ethnic and sectarian boundaries in each
group and even the development of specific identities
o Disciplinary blinkers that emphasize one approach to period—politics/religion/literature
rather than a cross-disciplinary approach that might help break out of these problems
o Nationalist perspectives on the Sultanate period in both India and Pakistan—most major
and still-used texts authored in the 1950s and 1960s
Some Alternative Perspectives:
 De-centralized rule is prominent in each of these dynasties for larger periods of time than
Centralized rule—the reigns of Balban (1266-1287), Ala-ud-Din Khilji (1296-1316) in the
North and Krishna Deva Raya (1509-1520) in the South are exceptions.
 How able are these rulers to impose structures associated with the classic Sultanate perspective
or that of a Hindu Kingdom if rule is decentralized? What kinds of accommodations need to be
made, with whom, and how do concepts of political/religious authority emerge and change?
 Very important social movements are already in progress that need further study, particularly in
terms of their inter-relation to political structures: new ethnic identities (Turks, Rajputs,
Afghan tribes, Jats), new religious/reform movements—Shaivite/Jain monastic reforms,
1



Islamization among Turkish-Mongol groups, New devotional/bhakti reforms, the retreat of
Jainism/Buddhism, diffusion of Sufis throughout with theologies that span orthodox and nonorthodox Islamic/Hindu/folk perspectives
The flux of political rule unleashes a huge demand for military labor—what does this do to the
new identities mentioned above? How does the shift to cavalry-based war change things?
New Economic formations emerging—Rice cultivation in Bengal, textile imports from the
South, Slave markets due to the presence of war captives, new demands for horses and
weaponry—How doe these interact with the state/society?
Continuation of older patterns ignored—the continuing competition between local groups and
their outcomes, the dominance of local (and new) land-holding groups in some areas and their
ability to negotiate with the state, the persistence of matrimonial alliance across boundaries as a
way of establishing patronage ties and as a reflection of hierarchy, older ideas of warrior
conduct in each culture—whether Turkic (pre-islamic) or Rajput.
What do we know about State Structures in the Sultanates and contemp. kingdoms, based on
existing sources? See work of S. Digby, Kumar, M. Habib, P. Hardy, S. Rizvi for details.
 The Sultanates, like their neighbors, were conquest states—once established they depended on
both armed coercion and negotiation to survive, overdoing either strategy limited desired
outcomes
 Sultanate rulers gradually adapted from ideas of administration used in Iran/Turan to local
usages—the ideal of the court histories also shows actual accommodation to unavoidable
realities
 The Turco-Afghan dynasties were not sufficient in numbers to effectively create a centralized
state on their own, therefore they relied on two strategies: 1) incentives to immigrants from the
north-west to immigrate (greatly aided by Mongol expansion/raids) ; 2) establishing
connections with local elites (the dehqans, rais, rajas) to govern
 The modified Iqta system emerged as the major unit of governance—all lands divided into
Khalisa (crown) or Iqtas (revenues earmarked for officers/military commanders), but it was
prone to abuse and greatly limited the authority of the ruler.
 The classic sharia model described in history remained a theoretically desired goal, but in
actual practice accommodation to local realities was the norm. Equally, the cultural
borrowings of Imperial Persia with its emphasis on the King as the “shadow of God,” rigid
ideas of class and etiquette, the idea of a hereditary kingship was more useful to the ruler.
 Despite objections from some ulema, non-Sunnis were accepted largely as “Dhimmis” or
protected minorities and Hindus were viewed as Ahl-e Kitab, the limits of enforcing the sharia
outside of garrison towns and qasbas was acknowledged early on. This had some practical uses
in ensuring some income from the jizya tax, higher taxes based on income from the Muslim
nobility, and also policing the limits of the elite social identity—in other words conversion,
contrary to political claims new and old, was never the goal. Similar modes of accommodation
in other states, patronage of Brahmins does not necessarily mean the state was a theocracy.
 While revenue could be fixed, limits had to be placed on its collection—peasants were not
easily cowed and intermediaries were crucial to securing revenue rights for both groups.
 Sultans constantly faced threats—most often from their own ethnic groups (chehelgan) and
therefore quickly sought alliances with other groups to balance the influence in court—
Immigrants, Local elites, Religious authority figures. The same holds true for non-Turkish
dynasties.
2