The Delhi Sultanate — Part 9: FAQ

FAQ

Q1. Why is Iltutmish considered the 'real founder' of the Delhi Sultanate rather than Aibak?

Qutb-ud-din Aibak established the Sultanate in 1206 but ruled for only four years and spent most of that time in defensive struggle against rival claimants (Yalduz and Qubacha). It was Iltutmish who truly consolidated the state: he defeated Yalduz at the Battle of Tarain (1215) and Qubacha near Multan (1228), eliminating the major rival claimants; moved the capital permanently to Delhi; introduced the iqta system as the administrative backbone; secured recognition from the Abbasid Caliph of Baghdad in 1229, legitimising the Sultanate internationally; and built the institutional framework — including the corps of the 'Forty' — that sustained the Sultanate for decades. Iltutmish's twenty-six-year reign gave the Sultanate its coherent form and enduring foundations.

Q2. What were Alauddin Khalji's market reforms and how effective were they?

Alauddin established four regulated markets in Delhi — for grain, cloth/horses/cattle, livestock, and sundry goods — each supervised by a controller (shahna), record keepers, and secret intelligence agents (barids and munhiyan). He fixed prices for all commodities and maintained a grain reserve against scarcity. Punishments for violations were severe. The primary purpose was to hold down prices so that a massive standing army could be paid less without a decline in soldiers' real standard of living. Contemporary sources, especially Barani's detailed account, confirm that prices in Delhi were kept remarkably stable for about fifteen years. However, the system was specific to Delhi and its immediate hinterland and did not extend across the empire.

Q3. What were Muhammad bin Tughlaq's major policy experiments and why did they fail?

Muhammad bin Tughlaq undertook five major experiments: (1) transfer of the capital from Delhi to Daulatabad — caused enormous suffering through forced migration and was eventually reversed; (2) introduction of token copper currency — conceptually sound but ruined by rampant counterfeiting; (3) the Khorasan expedition — an enormous army was raised but the project abandoned, causing financial ruin; (4) the Qarachil expedition to the Himalayas — ended in catastrophic loss of troops to disease and bad weather; (5) enhanced revenue demands in the Doab during a famine — caused agricultural collapse and peasant flight. The failures stemmed from a pattern of ambitious planning combined with poor execution, unrealistic assumptions, and insufficient preparation. Barani notes that the failures reflected not lack of faith but the unwillingness of the people to cooperate with the Sultan's progressive schemes.

Q4. Why did the Sayyid dynasty fail to revive the Sultanate?

The Sayyid dynasty (1414–1451) came to power in the aftermath of Timur's devastating sack of Delhi (1398). By then, the Sultanate had lost most of its provinces and its authority barely extended beyond Delhi. Khizr Khan, the founder, ruled as a Timurid vassal and never even claimed the title Sultan. His successors faced continuous revolts from provincial chiefs and lacked the financial and military capacity for reconquest. The nobility's power far exceeded the Sultan's, and the dynasty became entirely dependent on powerful Afghan nobles like Bahlul Lodi. The Sayyids were casualties of Timur's destruction rather than its cause; they represent the diminished shadow of the Sultanate rather than a dynasty with the resources to rebuild.

Q5. What was the significance of the First Battle of Panipat (1526)?

The First Battle of Panipat (20 April 1526) was decisive on multiple levels. Militarily, it demonstrated the decisive advantage of field artillery and the disciplined tulughma cavalry manoeuvre over numerically superior but less organised forces. Politically, it ended 320 years of the Delhi Sultanate and inaugurated the Mughal Empire, which would govern much of India until the eighteenth century. Strategically, it exposed the vulnerability of a polity fractured by internal resentment — Ibrahim Lodi's autocratic treatment of his Afghan nobles had led them to invite Babur's intervention. Babur's victory also introduced a new political culture: the Mughal synthesis of Central Asian, Persian, and Indian traditions that shaped Indian history for the next two centuries.

---

Cross-references

• Prerequisite: Gupta Empire: The Golden Age of India — Essential context for pre-Sultanate India and the political fragmentation that preceded the Turkish conquest.
• Series — Part 2: Mughal Empire: Political History and Dynasties — The empire that replaced the Sultanate after the First Battle of Panipat.
• Related:
  • Medieval Administrative Systems of India — Detailed treatment of the iqta, mansab, and jagir systems.
  • Bhakti and Sufi Movements in Medieval India — Religious and cultural dimensions of the Sultanate period.