Episode 14: The Delhi Sultanate

Hello and welcome to another episode of the Brown Pandits Browncast. This is the 14th episode in our series of podcasts on the history of the Indian subcontinent. In this episode we will cover the period of what is commonly known as Delhi Sultanate. The episode will cover the various dynasties that meet up for what is commonly known as the era of Delhi Sultanate. Our speakers in this episode are Dr. Omar Ali and Jay were then saying and hopefully at some point during the podcast we'll be joined by Gaurav Pula. Welcome to the episode gentlemen. Thank you. Thank you Marji. Jay, how do we know about this period? What is our source of information on everything that we know about the Delhi Sultanate? So a Delhi Sultanate as a part of Indian history during this period. You know there is quite a special in terms of sources because this is the period when we find that a new type of historical tradition has started in the Indian subcontinent, particularly we are talking about the Persian Chronicles. So for example, like those who do historical research. So this period provides us a lot of sources and most of these sources are textual sources, but really sources. And so from the start of Delhi Sultanate. So most people believe that it was from the 1206 AD. So when Kutbhudi Nabak became the de facto ruler from there traditionally it is believed that the era of the Delhi Sultanate starts. So from that period onwards we have great number of sources. So for example, one of the earlier sources of the starting particularly when we talk about the start of Delhi Sultanate, it's emergence. So we have Tabakate Nasiri of Minasus Sriraj. And then by the time of let's say Bulban we have the not Bulban, but before Bulban Nasiruddin Mahmoud during his reign there was a text called Dari Ke Firosh Shahi. So then there is a whole list of Persian sources which we have about this period. And this makes the history of Delhi Sultanate quite unique. And in some sense what we also see is that because of the fact that we have these large number of literary sources, what we also see is that in histories of Delhi Sultanate which we read. We do not have enough weightage given to the inscriptions and other important but less significant sources. So for example like we have covered the ancient period. And in ancient period most scholars would be you know would be what you can say would be quite happy to have a small fraction of the kind of sources which we presently have on the Delhi Sultanate. So I think rather than going through the list of different sources, we just find that there are multiple literary sources, Persian which are mostly written in Persian and that we know that are from this period. Jay just out of curiosity I know we are all familiar with the Persian sources and they are very extensive and many histories being written and that's why we know so many stories and things about this era. But what are the Indian sources? What do we know from the other side or how do we know things from the other perspective? Yes, when we talk about the Indian sources so we have first of all there are inscriptions in Sanskrit from the Delhi region itself and from other regions itself from different regions from where we can get some sense of the Indian rulers and how they thought about this period. Then we have grants also but when we talk about literary sources so for example during the period of the late 12th century so when allowed the period of Prithviraj we have the famous text Prithviraj Vijay. So this was the text which was written during the end of Prithviraj Chohans Reen and when we talk about let's say the for example the Chohan rulers of Ranthambore. There is a Sanskrit text called Hamir Mahakabwya. So Hamir Mahakabwya tells the story of the struggle of Hamir who was the Chohan ruler of Ranthambore and allowed the in Khilji. So in this text we get mention of Alouddin, Kilji, Jalaluddin and even the two generals of Alouddin, Ulu, Khana and Nusrat Khana are mentioned. Then there is another text in Old Rajasthani called Kanhadade Praband. So this text was written about the Chohan rulers and this text also describes the struggle between the Chohan ruler and Alouddin, Kilji. Then if we move to South we have particularly at the start of during the Vijayanagar's empire we have a text of I forgot the name but it talks about the recovery of Madurai which was captured by the Vijayanagar ruler. So these are some of the text and so mainly we get like another interesting text is a text by a Tibetan Buddhist. So his name is Tharmaswami. So he traveled to India during the period when Bhaktiar Khilji was active in the eastern UP and Bihar region. So he provides us great information about what was happening during this period. So these are some of the sources of particularly if we say Indian languages. Umar Sahib, these are literary, this is literary evidence, right? Are there also traditions of oral histories? Are there communities that still survive? Especially Umar Sahib, if you've heard of anything like this, where these communities from generation to generation are carrying forward the tradition of oral histories. Not necessarily written down somewhere but the stories you know history being told in form of stories. Have you heard anything? I personally don't know anything about that. I haven't heard anything but Jai Mano something if there is such I think they tend to be corrupted a lot in any case over these or such a long period it would become mostly fantasy anyway. There are some some oral traditions but they are not exactly of this period like most of which that I know for example like Alha, Alha is a oral tradition that is prevalent in UP, Bihar and even in some parts of Haryana and particularly in the Madhya Pradesh region. So the whole Bundelkhand region and where from where I come is the UP. So Alha tells the story of the two Rajputs who were from the Bundelkhand region but this tradition talks about the you know fight between so this is a slightly earlier tradition particularly during the period of Kirtvirat Chohan. So this covers the reign of Kirtvirat Chohan so I'm not sure about any other oral histories. Right right so let's get started let's get started with the first dynasty that is when we talk of Delhi Sultanate the first dynasty that we really talk about is the slave dynasty. What are the regions who's the founder what are the early rulers? Jay if you could take that. So slave dynasty or in another in another terms Mamuluk dynasty so there is you know this is not a single dynasty. So what we find is that you know around the 1206 AD Mahamood Gauri dies and there are four prominent slaves of Mahamood Gauri that after his death there's this struggle between the the nobles of the Ghorid nobles and the slaves of Mahamood Gharzi and what we find is that eventually the slaves had an upper hand and they able to successfully you know divide among themselves the whole realm of Shamsuddin Gauri. So what we see is that Kutupuddin Abak who was one of the slaves of Gauri so he gets the territory of most of the Indian territories and also Lahore. So Lahore becomes his center. Then there was this slave of Mahamood Gauri whose name is Kubacha so Kubacha gets the region of Sindh, Muldan which was one of the important center and Uch so Uch is in Bahawalpur which is in Pakistan. So these are the regions which come under the realm come under the hand of Kubacha. then what we see is that in the And the core territory of the Gurids, which was Ghazni. It's another slave of Samsuddin Gauri, whose name is Yalduz. So he gets this Ghazni region. Now it was bound to happen that within these three powerful slaves, we find that there's this struggle of who will become the control, who will control the whole the territory. So around 1210 AD, Kutubuddin Abuk, because of a, we are told that he was playing some type of an early form of polo. So he died in this accident while playing this sport. And after him, there is this his son, Aramsha became the, became the ruler, but eventually what we find is that one of the slaves of Kutubuddin Abuk, whose name is Ulthutmish. So he captures the throne of Delhi. And eventually what we see is that it was during the reign of Ulthutmish that Delhi Sultanate or the Sultanate of Delhi emerged as a prominent player. Because what happens is that Ulthutmish not only defeats the one of the slaves of Samsuddin Gauri, whose name is Kubacha, who had control over the region of Sultan, region of Sindh. But he also defeats Yalduz. So who earlier had control over Ghazni. But what happens is that the Khwarizmian Shah defeats Yalduz from Ghazni. So Yalduz, you know, comes to India and finally, Ulthutmish defeats him in Tarayan. So because of these victories, what happens is that Ulthutmish was able to successfully consolidate his kingdom and the Delhi Sultanate really begins from the reign of Ulthutmish. So because of the fact that, you know, earlier we had slave of Samsuddin Gauri who was ruling and then we have the slave of Abuk. So who was ruling? That is why it is called the Mamluk or slave dynasty. Now another important factor which led to the consolidation of Ulthutmish power over Delhi was that first of all, this was also the period. So I didn't mention any dates. So the date of Ulthutmish is so there is this struggle. So from 1206 AD to 1210 AD, Kutubuddin Abuk reigned. And after Kutubuddin Abuk, we see that there was this small interim where the son of Kutubuddin Abuk, whose name is Aram Shah. So he reigned but by the time of 1200 AD, we found that Ulthus Samsuddin Ulthutmish was able to successfully secure his rule. So he ruled from 1211 AD to 1236 AD. Now this was also the period when Mongols were, you know, wreaking havoc in Central Asia. And because of this fact that because of the Mongol menace, we find that there is this great migration of military personnel and even skilled scholars from Central Asia to Delhi. And this greatly helps Ulthutmish in first of all consolidating his kingdom. And it also provided a skilled manpower both in terms of military skills and also in other administrative skills. And finally, Ulthutmish was also presented by a, you know, the Abbasid Caliph. So he, he finally legitimizes the rule of Ulthutmish. So because of these three factors, what happens is that Ulthutmish becomes the sole ruler of the Muslim kingdom of Delhi, of India, which we call as Delhi Sultanate. So I think I will stop now and then we can talk about the rulers who came after Ulthutmish. I wanted to add that, you know, just to give people a sort of a sense of how this came about to jump back a little bit and see what was happening in that region. You know, the region what is now Afghanistan was the base of the Rajnavi empire, Mahood Rajnavi, who obviously rated into India many times and and captured what is now West Punjab and had his rule for a long time in West Punjab, right? Rajnavi dynasty continued to rule for the next 150 years, gradually decaying. But even in their decay, there were Rajnavi rulers who were reading into India going all the way to Agra and beyond and looting and whatever. So that business was continuing, but that dynasty had decayed. And one of their sort of vessels, the, the Gauris who are in central Afghanistan, they eventually overthrew the last Rajnavi ruler and took over Afghanistan. And then started to move. These were two brothers, the elder brother held the homeland and the younger brother got to go east and Mahmud Gauri came in and met, you know, the famous battle with Prithviraj Johan. The first one he lost, but then he came back a year later and defeated Prithviraj Johan. And that established the Gauri rule over Northwest India. These Gauris are themselves people from central Afghanistan, but their model, the entire Muslim empires in these regions were really dependent on Turkish slave soldiers by this time, right? This was the whole model of how they used to recruit their armies. They would get slaves from the Turkic slaves from the step of Central Asia who were very good dorsmen, very good warriors. And they would be brought in as people who had no other loyalties, who did not have families anymore, did not have a homeland anymore and who were entirely loyal to the Sultan or whoever had purchased them and brought them here and would rise to high positions. So Mahmud Gauri in particular, he did not have any children of his own and he relied heavily on these Turkic slaves of his, right, as his senior administrators and governments. And Kutubulli Nabak was the one who consolidated rule in Northwest India. And when Mahmud Gauri died without any children, his empire was split between these as you mentioned, the three or four slave governors in different areas who all decided to become Sultan themselves. And Kutubulli Nabak himself only lasted four years and then died in that polo accident. So as Jay said, the real founder of the Delhi Sultanate is really Il Tuttmush, who is sort of the Augustus of the Delhi Sultanate. He established the head quarters in Delhi, became standardized. And as you said, the Mongol refugees from the Mongols provided him with a lot of Persian, Persianate kind of elites who then became the subordinate ruler under Il Tuttmush. And Il Tuttmush interestingly was supposed to be very good looking. And in fact, in Muslim chronicles, it's something mentioned as use of Sunni, the second use of Joseph, the prophet Joseph was supposed to be so beautiful that the queen of Egypt fell for him and whatever. So Il Tuttmush had that kind of reputation as a very handsome, good looking and capable young man. And he lived up to that reputation, right? He established the Delhi Sultanate, put it in place. And when we look at the Delhi Sultanate these days, there is always going to be this issue of how to portrait, right? Is it purely colonial enterprise foreigners from Afghanistan, in Wade, India, capture it and rule it as a colony? Or is it an Indian dynasty? I think the weight is more in favor of colonial dynasty at that point. But their own propaganda about themselves tended to be much more Islamic, jihady kind of, you know, how they are subduing the infidels and so on. But in practice, of course, this is a vast land with many, many more people than lived in all of Afghanistan, right? More people probably lived in Lahore, Suba, then lived in all of the other territories of the quarries. So this land, they did not subdued it the same, they could not rule it in the fashion that they portrayed in their propaganda. They did have local rulers, were taken in as vessels. They took them in even as generals and sometimes as administrators. So when somebody tries to portray this history, you have options. You can, how you frame it can change, which framing is best tends to depend on what your current needs are, right? And the people who are trying to portray kind of a syncretic, Indo-Muslim, you know, a combiah, happy time, will tend to emphasize those aspects and the people who are portraying, who are right now fighting for, let's say, Hindu revival in India, will portray it as this obviously colonial invasion which was resisted by the Hindus. So I'm just, this is, I'm just bringing this in because this will come up later also and I'm, Jay, can comment more about what professional historians say about this, but this is an important aspect of this era is not just to remember who ruled from when to when, but how do we sort of see this culturally and socially, how that transformation happened and how do we portray these people today. So Jay, any comments about that? Yeah, and Jay, before that, just to sort of help you with that comment, what are the primary sources saying? So if there is a biography, authorised biography of these rulers or an autobography little by them, written by them, what are they saying themselves? How do they see, you know, later historians can interpret it or text written 200, 300 years down the line may have different takes on them, but what was what was going through their mind? How did they see themselves? What do the primary sources, biographies and autobographies tell us? So sources, particularly, you know, these Persian sources, they have a more rather militaristic view of the whole situation. So the destruction of cafes and destruction of temples. So these are all mentioned in these sources. Now scholars, particularly those scholars who view these acts of destruction, particularly of temples, they interpret these descriptions to a certain extent that these destruction of temples were not religious acts. Instead, it was a political act. So this is the famous argument of one of the, you know, prominent scholars Richard E. Ten. So he argues that the fact that these temples were destroyed was the main reason behind these destruction was not religious. Instead, it was a political, there was this political reasoning. So he argues that because temples were not only places of religious worship, but they was also a source of legitimacy for the Hindu rulers. So because to, you know, to destroy that legitimacy, these temples were destroyed. Now this is the argument which is presented by one side of the historians. Then other would say that when you look at the instances of destruction of temples, we find that it is true that some of the temples were attached to the Royal Dynasties, but there were also other pilgrimage centers that were destroyed. So how should we view these destruction? Now this as Umar Sahib has said that this is a very complex history and I personally find that there are these two extremes. So on one hand, everything was religious and on the other hand, you have everything was done because it was it was a political act. Now I think that there was a middle ground. There was some cases, these destruction were political, but there were other instances as well where we find that the reason behind these destruction was mainly religious. So I think in that way, if I have to summarize this whole issue. Right. And I think it's worth emphasizing that there is Richard Eaton, for example, I read his book India in the Persian Age and the book has a very apologic sort of apology tone, apologist tone to it. It's like this is the writer is just obsessed with trying to show that people who are portraying this in what he considers the wrong manner are wrong and what he is doing is correcting their mistakes by pointing out and so he goes looking for these things, but it has this order of like somebody is looking for evidence after having already made up his mind. Right. Like it about the temple distractions, he is just on the hunt for any example, anywhere of one idol being stolen or one temple being destroyed by a Hindu ruler conquering another Hindu ruler. And then this will be repeated endlessly as an example of the fact that oh, we all know that temples were destroyed by anybody who conquered a land because that was the center of the sacred kingship. But as Jay said, in some cases, that may be true, but those temples would then be restored, new idols would be installed. Their social system, the culture and the religion would not change. On the other hand, in the case of the Delhi Sultanate, there is obviously a huge change. These people are not interested in replacing that temple's idol with their own idol or something. Right. They are interested in just trying it and replacing it with a very different system and a very different religious and cultural kind of milieu. So I think again, the historians who are trying to do this, maybe they are doing it with good intentions because their focus is on what is happening today. Right. They want to prevent what they think is the coming civil war or oppression or genocide or something. I think that's the that's the sort of positive spin you can put on it. There are other spins you can put on it as well. But I don't think that we should take these historians necessarily as the last word on this. Right. Especially Eton, I think, is just too obsessed with trying to correct the historical record in a way that favors his particular ideological preferences in this stage, not necessarily what was happening. Because the literary evidence from the Delhi Sultanate is very clear. Whatever their actual pragmatic decisions, they may have taken Hindus as generals, as administrators, as governors, because that was the most convenient or useful way to handle things. But their propaganda was always very clear. They were the invaders who were going to cleanse this land of infidels and you know, replace it with the light of Islam and so on. If they did it less than perfectly, that's obviously, the real life is much more complicated than propaganda. But that was part of their intention and it did show in a lot of their actions as well. I think I will add to what Umar Sahib has just said. Like if you look at, if you see how the Delhi Sultanate itself emerged, so one has to really understand the situation of that period. So this here was a kingdom which was surrounded by a hostile, you know, there was these state that were, they basically, they were in an alien land surrounded by powers that were, you know, very quick to destroy them. So on one hand, you had to have a sort of ideology, a militant oil ideology that would, that would enable you to resist and in most cases, even, you know, extend your boundaries. And on the other hand, you also has to accommodate these, because since you are a minority, you have to accommodate these people who are not of your religion. So there are instances where we find that in some cases, there is this process of accommodation. Then there are also, there are instances where we see that, you know, there are, like, the instructions of temple, this case of going, going to, going to conquer, infidel lands. So these are also part of the ideology of that period of this state that has emerged. One one slide question actually from my side. Yeah. So we were talking about the older historians like Umar, Umar Sahib mentioned about Dhritja Dittin. So how much has the history by these popular historians and the earlier historians like Arshim Moussim, so how much of the history was based on primary sources and how much of the history was more, more of a laissez-fais affair, like more opinionated, like, so how has that been the, like, has that change happened in the history, right, in this pleasure for the salt and that period? So I think if we look at, like, Richard Dittin is a present scholar. So most of these scholars, present scholars argue that the older historians, particularly national historians like Arshim Majindar and other scholars like Jadunat Sarkar also. So these older nationalist historians according to these present scholars were, were, you know, taking the literary evidence literally. So Dittin, they did not try to understand the motivation behind why the authors of these texts wrote what they wrote. Whereas what these present scholars argue that we have to first understand the intentions behind what was written. So for example, if Barani in his in his Tarikha Fero Shahi tells us about how, you know, infidel should be destroyed and instances of conversions or destruction of temples. So you should have, you should understand these descriptions in a way that this particular author is trying to portray his ruler as a, you know, quote unquote, ideal Muslim ruler. But in the, but when we look at the situation on the ground, which was, it was not the same as it was, as it is, it is portrayed in these literary texts. So there is this analysis of meta-analysis of these texts that is being done by the present scholars, whereas in the case of early historians, they took the description literally as these present scholars argue. Right. But only I'll that while this makes perfect sense, I think the literary records from that age are clearly very exaggerated, right. Every battle is between hundreds of thousands of cavalry and every time half a million people are slaughtered by the great Sultan. Those numbers don't make sense in any case, right. Those, these are not such huge empires. They don't have that kind of manpower in their armies. But at the same time, they do reflect an attitude and preferences of the rulers. And the other question that arises is that the same scholars who are very keen to sort of, you know, put in context what happened in 1215 from one side will not necessarily take that stencil. Why can't you, for example, look at the English occupation of India in the same way. They were, were they colonists or were they, you know, half of them in the first phrase were people who had semi-Indianized, right. And the East India company could be treated as just another Indian power that took over India from other Indian powers. These are always of framing that history, but they are not that generous with other people as they are with the Delhi Sultans. And that always makes me a little bit suspicious because it's like a sort of a one-sided attempt to correct the balance. I think these ideological wars are what makes history conflicting. And that's why I think the more we read, the more we hear and the more we get to know of various trends that existed, I think in some way improves our understanding better. Moving on. I just wanted to add one thing that, you know, of course there's always the other possibility you can read someone like I remember many years ago reading D.D. Kusambhi's book about Indian history. And this is written from a Marxist perspective. And so everything he will tell you is, you know, the real thing that happened was that the climate changed or the famine happened. And Orangseh, for example, is living in a time when there is the feudal system has decayed. And the mobile empire is therefore in crisis. But his response or his propaganda takes the form of, oh, I'm cracking down on infidels or I'm trying to restore Islamic purity. But what is really driving it is an economic crisis or a crisis in administration and decay in the empire, not so much anything to do with Islam or Islam. So that argument you can always make, that you can make about any period in history, right? That the propaganda and the framing and the description that is being given, ideological description that is being given is just fluff on top of a real economics sort of base that is the real heart of the matter. That's the whole Marxist idea, right? And it has some truths to it problem. Right, I remember you saying in one of the podcasts that meritives are to facts, what constellations are to start, right? They're innumerable facts and one can draw any set of conclusions or draw a painting set of meritives. And but still some conclusions will be better than others. So I think we should aim to try at least to get closer to the truth. Yeah, I mean, so just like a casual point. So we can see like if an economy is growing and shrinking, growing and shrinking, growing and shrinking, but at the end of like 100 years, as we can say, whether it has grown or shrunk, right? So it may have shrunk many times and grown many times. But the final outcome, like the proof is in the pudding. So certain things are like incontrovertible. Right. Let's get back to sort of moving on. Jay, so one can obviously name the successors of Ilta Smith or our readers, our listeners can obviously check out Wikipedia. But tell us a couple of more prominent ones. The most prominent one is are also thanks to hippie movie, popular imagination is possibly at least to my knowledge, the only woman to have ruled India from Delhi till Indira Gandhi, Raziya Sultan. And what's the what's the what's the administrative what for the administrative or some of the foundations that the slave dynasty put in place that enabled the successive rulers or dynasties to sort of survive till the British finally walked in. So I think in that sense, I think there was politically or structurally structurally, they did not. For example, there was this Iqta system. So revenue assignments were given. So for example, the Iqta of Avad. So a military commander was appointed in Avad. So he had some of he had his own contingent. And there was this fixed amount that was fixed. So you one has to send this fixed amount to the to the center. And then one can use the remaining amount for his own for his own army. So this Iqta system in a sense, you know, one of the main factors behind the expansion of Delhi Sultanate. So there was this the advantage for a local governor was that he had to acquire more and more land so that he could he could have his revenue increased. So but in but the Iqta case also was pretty bad for the for the peasants because you are just the governor just want to extract as much revenue from you as you as it as he can. And what happened after the death of let's say a governor was that this Iqta did not transfer to the to his son. It went back to the to the center and another new governor was appointed. So in that way, we can say that structurally the sultanate was not based on a very solid foundation. So as to and this had, you know, one of the main reason why this happened because the sultanate ruler did not wanted to create a landed as to aristocracy of the Muslims. So in order to avoid that and to keep power in the center, they they had this whole arrangement. So I think in that way, we can say that one this is one of the most important features of the the the the Delhi Sultanate about Rizia Sultan he ruled she ruled for four years and she had a predatory tragic death. So and I don't think there is apart from being she being a female ruler. His his reign did not is not any is not very significant in terms of history. I would just add that. But what's up? How is this leave dynasty taught in schools in Pakistan? Who are the how is it looked upon it and who are the protagonists who are taught about? Oh, in Pakistan this Delhi Sultanate is the charter state of Pakistan, right? Pakistan is the successor of the Delhi Sultanate. So Pakistan history, Pakistan is it's a very prominent part of our history is just the Delhi Sultanate because that is the establishment of Muslim rule in India. And Pakistan is sort of the successor of that Muslim rule, right? So all these people are great heroes, Kutubuddin, Aiba, Il Tamar, Rizia Sultan, I sort of mentioned as this female queen, people who are relatively modern like to play that up because you can't miss an opportunity to have a Muslim who is also female ruling in that era. But other than that, it's mostly just you know it's good for movies and stuff but she didn't do much as you said or couldn't she was probably capable enough. People contemporary record subset about her I forget which story and I think Hassan Nizami that she had every qualification for a ruler except one that she was female. She was not a man. Otherwise she was probably capable enough. But then Balban is the next big figure. We learn about Gaya Suttin Balban and how he consolidated the empire and so on. Balban is the next big figure in the Delhi Sultanate, right? Once the problem with all these Turkic kingdoms was that they did not have primogeniture and a very well established system of how to pass on the dynasty. Instead they still relied on the old step idea that the next generation should fight it out and the most capable person should win. So every ruler's death is followed by a civil war. And this same pattern held there too. And so dynasty didn't last very long. So Hiltamash's own dynasty basically ended with Vansarajya Sultana died. His useless sons were sort of kept around by the, the Turkish nobles had a kind of a parliament or a consultative body called the, what was it, Chahalgan, the 40, 40 senior nobles supposedly. And these senior nobles ruled in the name of the, of Raziya Sultana's brothers, who were mostly interested in just wine and whatever. But then that dynasty, their last ruler, his slave, Balban, became his, one of his generals became his chief minister, right? And so from 1246 to 1266, Balban really ruled the Delhi Sultanate as chief minister while the king was supposedly the ultimate son or grandson son, I think, a younger son. And then, - Grants and grandson. - Grants, grandson. And then 1266 that guy died and Balban then took over and declared himself Sultan. I think the significant thing about Balban is that he was a very harsh and effective ruler and built pyramids of skulls like these people used to do. But he also started this kind of Persian, Shansha tradition in India, where the king was really completely above everyone else. The Sultan, nobody could smile in his, laugh in his presence. Nobody, people would prostrate themselves in front of him. He was called Zileh, the shadow of God on earth. This whole business of Zileh started with Balban. So that's his significant contribution to the future. And then of course, when he died, the same thing happened to him. His son continued to rule Bengal for a while. His grandson whom he had nominated as Sultan lasted only a couple of years. And then his general overthrew him. So Jalaluddin Khilji, basically overthrew Balban's descendants and took over and started the Khilji dynasty. The significance in the Khilji dynasty, I think one is that they were Afghans, Turks. They were Turkic in origin, but they had been in Afghans for a long time and it's sort of become more Afghans, and then had been in India for a while by that point. So their Turkishness was less than the first slave dynasty people. And they were the ones who made it more than in Afghans, Turks who Afghans elite rather than just a Turkic elite. At least that's what I remember. Jake can correct me if I'm wrong about that. And of course, Jalaluddin Khilji, same thing happens to him. He is overthrown by his nephew, Lauddin Khilji, who became one of the big, powerful rulers of the Delhi Sultanate and expanded it into the south, captured Ujra, Devdi, whatever conquered much more land, was a very effective ruler again. And the interesting thing about him is that he was one of those rulers who was successful enough that he started thinking that I should become God. People should worship me or I should start a new religion. He was supposedly dissuaded there. In Pakistan, I've seen, I remember even a TV serial that was about this event, but that happened in Lauddin Khilji's reign, but he was very cruel, very harsh, but also very effective. And he's again credited with saving India from the Mongols, which is sort of an odd thing, because I don't think there's that much difference between what the Mongols did and what the Turks did. And it would have been one of the six of one and half dozen of the other or whatever, but he did stop the Chagatai Mongols from getting into India. And left behind a very powerful state, but it immediately fell apart after his death. Then another dynasty starts when, in turn, one of his governors takes over and then the Tohlec dynasty started. And I let Jay step in and correct some mistakes or give us an outline of what happened next. Jay, before you start, what is the language of the court? So with the slave dynasty, is it now Persian? That's where that's the language that's used for all official work and official communication? - Yes, yes, because most of these Turks were Persianized Turks. Although what some scholars have argued that when we have this migration of Persian from Central Asia to Delhi, Sultanate during the reign of El-Tutmish. So there is this, what you can say is some type of a contestation between the Turks and the Persians. So the Turks were considered by Persians as uncultured Bourish. So this was the image of the Turks that Persians had. So it was in the literature, there is this two class which we see. So first is the Men of Letters, which is called Ehli Kalam and Men of Sold. I think Umar Sahib, it is called Ehli Shifa. Which thing is called Ehli Shifa? Ehli Kalam, Men of Letters and Men of Sold. - I am not sure what, it's called Shifa, Saph is sold. I don't know if it's a Ehli Saph. - Ah, Ehli Saph, Ehli Saph, yes. - That would be. - So this, you know, this tension, cultural tension is there between the Persians and the Turkish. And one of the main reasons was also that these Persians had come from a tradition when there, where there was this tradition of Langued aristocracy and hereditary authority. Whereas for the Turks, it was, whoever has the most power. So this tension is present in the early phases between the Turks and the Persians. And we also see that in the early phases, some of the Persians, particularly these Men of Letters had to learn Turkish to follow the proceedings because most of these main people were Turks and they conversed in Turkish. But by the time of, let's say, the later rulers, it was Persian that had come to dominate the court of the Lysel. Also, we should also remember that from the time of El-Tutmish, there was constantly mungold raids that is going on. And the mungolds are, you know, every four or five years or every other decade, there is this mungold threat. So for example, one of the sons, crown prince of Balban, he died during one of the struggle between mungolds. So his name was, I think, Muhammad. So he died fighting in Punjab. So this, we have to keep in mind that, you know, this Delhi Sultanate is in a situation when on the one hand, it is fighting the Hindu kingdoms. And on the other hand, from the west, there is also always this mungold threat that is there. - And since it's Persians and the Turks, is there also a Shia Sunni conflict? Have we, what do we know about the origins of that conflict in the subcontinent over time? - At this point, these were Sunni Turks, the dominant, the Shias, in fact, the first invasion that Muhammad Kauri launched into India was not aimed at any Hindu kingdom. It was aimed at Multan, which at that time was a Shia. I think one of the unorthodox Shias X, is my exact surrounding Multan. So there was the Shias were not, were considered like, almost like infidels by these people. These were more orthodox Sunni. And the, in fact, Muhammad Wari himself, there is a legend that, you know, Muhammad Wari died in 12 or 6, he was still not that old. He was assassinated. And there are various versions of who assassinated him. I think the co-cursor blamed also from Punjab, other people, but one of the legends is that he was assassinated by a Fidayin assassin from the assassins. You know, the people, followers of Hassan Ibn-e-Saba from Al-Ahmood, the Smiley stronghold in Iran. They had run this kind of international assassination business. And they were, that one of their assassins killed him because of his anti-Smiley actions. So Shias were not at all prominent at this point. They, I think Shia basically, as part of the ruling elite, did not really happen until more times. Before that, there may have been some, but they were not in the Delhi Sultanate itself. It was orthodox Sunnis who dominated. We can also talk about a couple of other cultural things that were going on. Along with the invasion and the military rule came the Sufis, right? The Shia and Sufis were the ideological warriors of Islam at that point. And. they operated in parallel and not necessarily in unison with the rulers sometimes in opposition to them also. But these people arrived from Central Asia as well. People like Ali Hajweri who became Data Ganybukh Shindahar, other you know later on Nizamuddin Aliam very famously in the Khilji time. So these people had a kind of a Sufi have their own theory of how the world is run and in their view the real rulers of the world are these spiritual shaykhs who sort of stay behind the scenes but they are the ones who grant kingship to kings and so kings especially when they were in trouble, the human beings being what they are would go and look for these Sufis and try to get their blessings and if they happen to win after that blessing they would like Akbar you know walk barefoot to Chishti, the Chishti Shrine and so on. So these people did go to these shrines the royal families tried to patronize them at various points but these shrines became centers of a kind of mystical Islam also and became centers of conversion where a lot of local people converted at the hands of these Sufis. So that's one aspect that we can have Jay also comment on. The other is the rise of kind of Indo-Persian literature right and the classic or the central figure in that you might say is Amir Khusro and Amir Khusro is also a good example of another phenomena that is starting to happen at this point which is that genetically these people are becoming mixed even if ideologically they are not that mixed. Amir Khusro's dad came from Central Asia but his mom was right and he was born in UP. So he is the kind of representative of what happened later with the Mughals as well of descendants of rulers associated with the rulers but genetically at least half Indian and his obviously innovations in music and literature and poetry are very well known and he is a figure also in the development of Hindavi right the earlier forms of Hindustani language and you can see how these cultures are sort of melting and combining in new ways also because this language is the language of basically North India that is now being somewhat Persianized and mixed with the Persian and Turkic words and becomes what later became Hindustani and then Urdu and Hindi etc. So we can talk about these people as well the cultural I I I I weekly remember reading somewhere and Jay and Oursav you could sort of Japan and correct me. Is Amir Khusro the inventor of the popular musical instrument Tavla? I don't know I think I've heard this legend but I don't know if this is thought to be true at all. I do know that in India itself the percussion instrument of choice would be the two-sided drum right the dola kordam ridan the dola korda exactly but this the Tavla is innovation around this time whether Amir Khusro was the one who started it or not I don't know that much about but he's also credited of course with the invention of kawali which which he may have done that that may be so and was a conscious attempt to mix Indian musical tradition with kind of central Asian Islamic ideological poetry. Jay what is the role of the Hindu elite at this time during the slave dynasty? How has the dynasty co-opted the large Hindu family? Is the administrators are they an active part of the administration? What is the role of the Hindu elite? I don't think there was much contribution of the let's say prominent kings during the early phase also because there are multiple inscriptions from the different regions where we learn that in most cases first of all like the consolidation of the whole you know when we look at the map so the sultanate is starts from let's say Afghanistan and goes all the way east to Bengal but in the in on the ground the the consolidation or the power of the Delhi sultanate did not reached particularly in the hinterland so there are you know inscription from let's say in Magad in Bihar where we have some Hindu ruler who claims that he is the you know sola authority here so in the early phases particularly I don't think there was this much co-option of the Hindu rulers it happened in a later period and there is also this view among particularly among old scholars that especially after the death of El-Tutmesh there was this you know a a Hindu pushback and there are multiple instances from example for example you know the the eastern Gangad dynasty that ruled Odisha so they tried to they not only tried but they actually conquered all the way upto Lucknowti Lucknowti was the you know one of the capitals of the Sena kingdom that was conquered by Bhakti Arkelji so Bengal upto Bengal these these Odisha rulers of Odisha had you know penetrated and we have so this happened around 1243 and even by the time of 1296 AD these these eastern Ganga rulers had control over this region and you know the interesting part about this particularly this phase which old scholars have called the Hindu agression is that we it was only by the time of Bulban who really tried to you know control some of these rulers but he was also not very successful so for example I had discussed about the Ranthambar so El-Tutmesh was able to conquer Ranthambar but after his death the Chauhan's were able to retake Ranthambar and what is interesting is that presently we think of Mevat as a you know as a Muslim dominated area but during the reign of Bulban and even earlier it was the center of Jada of Bhakti Rajputs so in most of these sources what we find is that the Chauhan's and these Jada of Bhakti Rajputs had some type of a relation between them and there are instances where we are told that these so in the Persian sources these are called Mevatis and we think of them as you know these were present-day Mevatis but that is not the case so we are told that they were able to penetrate as far as the suburbs of Delhi so there was this raids on Delhi so this was not these were not a massive raids but the fact that they were able to you know come to the suburbs of Delhi suggest that particularly after the death of El-Tutmesh the power of the Delhi monarch had significantly weakened and particularly thanks to Bulban and most importantly Al-Authin Khilji that the Sultaness was able to you know retake most of the lost territory and in the case of Al-Authin extend the kingdom quite you know extensively so this I think is one of the important aspect of this period that is not discussed much because we think that you know in from the start of El-Tutmesh Reyn there was this period of conquest and conquest but this is a small instance where we can see that there was not always you know success there were there were also cases where the Delhi Sultaness had to you know was at a back foot if we can say this right I think we can say that the the conquest of this area by these Turkic horsemen of the dead does imply some superiority especially in cavalry sort of a military superiority that was not total obviously the even Khrith Rirajee one his first battle against Mama Varis so it's not like they always won right they lost several battles but the but they did have an advantage they were better cavalry and armored cavalry than anything that existed in India at that in the Indian kings at that time and that advantage over time gave them the edge even if they lost they would usually get it back and I think one of the sort of striking examples of that is Bhakti Arkhilji's conquest of Bengal you know he Bengal is not a small territory and he came with what a few thousand horsemen and conquered the whole place and then held on to it so these are there was some element of that but there was also pushback and I think that the ruler from Orissa wasn't his name Narsimha was it that the one who pushed back yes Narsim first and even Narsim second So there is this inscription that we are there is this grant that was made by Narsim second in around 1296 AD. So this was made on the banks of Ganga. So this so on so he was he was situated on a military camp. So this tells us that you know they were able to penetrate as far as Bengal and interestingly Umar Sahib when you know Baktiarkhilji conquered Bengal so he should a coin. So in the coin you have a Sanskrit inscription of sorts which is Gaudavija so victory over God and the symbol which is present in this coin is a Turkish cavalryman who is holding a mace so in their mind also they knew that this you know cavalry particularly heavy cavalry had great advantage that they enjoyed and also I think one important reason which in my view is the factor of why they were so successful is that they had no option but to succeed but to succeed because otherwise they would be they were so successful. And also I think you know we have to make or at least I think that Islam itself as a orthodox Islam as a religion is sort of a Martian religion stripped to its essentials it works well for that purpose. And so that itself provided a sort of an advantage also it even though they regularly fought each other everything is overthrown by his own son and nephew and whatever but there is an overall some asabi also some common feeling which holds these people together versus the versus their enemies and and it had some impact. Anyway on a loud and Hildji another side light is the fact that he is the one when he conquered Varangal took the Kohenu diamond right so that's where the Kohenu diamond sort of enters into the hands of these the Delhi Sultanate later on and deducted the morals and then of course went to Afghanistan and came back to the city and so on but he's the one who got it from where it. So moving on let's talk about the killjis it's the end of the slave dynasty. Jay what do we know about the origins of killjid and ST and who were the two most prominent rulers who spread the Delhi Sultanate. So as Umar sah has just said that they were organized so Kalji tribe used to rule southern Afghanistan and they they were greatly employed by the gurits in their army and for example you know the one of the first ruler of the Kalji dynasty Jalaluddin killjie so his career started as a petty soldier and eventually he. By the time of during the reign of bulb and he became the. Not kuthwal of Delhi but he was granted the Iktadari of Samana so you know the rise of Jalaluddin killjie was because of his personal achievements so he started from a very as a petty soldier as I mentioned so he ruled for a for a brief period four years and finally he was murdered. By his his nephew allowed the killjie and allowed the killjie really I think since and interestingly he ruled for 20 years so the say more four years more than illtutmish and this 20 years this was the period you know when the military particularly his military might was at its peak and there were also one of the main reasons why he was able to succeed in military conquest was first of all he was a brilliant general and also I think the fact that you know in the previous the raids in the reign of Jalaluddin killjie as a commander he the raid on varangal and Dave gree particularly not the Dave gree particularly so Dave the raid of Dave gree made him pretty rich and because of this you know he was able to consolidate his power and when he murdered Jalaluddin killjie the kind of expansion that happened afterward was really you know because you find that from Dave these Turkish soldiers were able to penetrate as deep as Madurai so this I think is one of the most militarily I think is a brilliant example of how much advantage they enjoyed in the in the military sense didn't he call himself sicken there is sicken there is a sony sicken there is a second Alexander come again yes every second person used to call himself Ali's understood funny I this seems to happen regularly Ali's and a presently or the imagination of Central Asian Iranians whatever always sicken there is the architect will great hero all all the way to Prakash Merah who made a movie called Mukadrga sicken there in the late 1970s I think the only time is the memory that he's left behind in the subcontinent right and the while we are on movies allows them killjie is obviously also the ruler for about to my watch was written in the movie made I haven't seen the movie I have no idea right right so yeah just one question Jay we hear about allowed in killjie and his quote unquote reforms and agrarian reforms and what not so maybe you can talk about that that is a often neglected part so so these are you know in history books is called the market reforms of a lot didn't kill g so basically he fixed the prices of grains horses cattle s etc and one of the reasons which historians give why he did this was first to maintain a large army so what happened was that because of this this expansion and particularly because of the looting of the various temples and these kingdoms in the deck and south the Delhi became Delhi is you know there is so much gold that is flowing into Delhi so there's this inflation that happened so in order to control the prices this market reform was done and it was also to maintain a large army so this so there are there are there are this three markets which he assigned so first was the food market then the second was a cloth market and herbs and etc were you know bought in this second market the third was for horses cattle and slaves so we should also you know remember that the the turkish sultanate had great number of slaves and in most wars we also find that great numbers a number of slaves were transported from India back to central Asia so this I think this aspect is also we should we should remember right is this movement of slaves from India to central Asia gives background to the Hindu Kush mountains and why they are called the Hindu Kush or am I confused with you we had a discussion on Twitter recently about that and the consensus or the dominant opinion was that actually this is a misconception and that the name comes from Indian caucuses which was what the Greeks called it the Indo Greeks and this is sort of a you know corruption of that corruption of the Hindu Kush comes from the Indian caucuses that the Indo Greeks called it which are written by the way in his book has a theory about I think it is either Muhammad to look or he'll see one of these people an army sent into Afghanistan that died he puts the name down to that one particular army which I think is completely wrong but that also tells you that famous historians not necessarily write about everything and what do we know about their encounters with Mongols Kalji's so particularly during the reign of allowed in Khilji so we think of the famous battle of Kili that happened I think around 1301 AD I think yes so but this was you know there were multiple rates so I think more than four or five rates that happened during the reign of allowed in Khilji but this this raid this raid particularly that happened eventually which was the battle of Kili in the outskirts of Delhi there the Mongols were badly defeated and from that period onwards we find that the kind of push that the Mongols you know were to take in the earlier period after this defeat it was rarely you know say small contingent of the war Mongols tried to penetrate India. There was no significant invasion that happened after this this invasion. And when these Mongols in this context we are talking about descendants of Changes Khan. Yes Changes Khan has already died during the reign of El Dutmish. Chagaday Mongols and weren't they like not that powerful Mongols like very you know like nothing on the scale of Changes Khan's invasion. There was no attack at that size but the attempt where Aladdin Khilji defeated them outside Delhi was relatively a major army and that was a major victory for Aladdin Khilji. But other than that I think it was relatively minor raiding bans who were pushed back. Khilji Aladdin Khilji also if I remember correctly Jey had massacred a huge number of Mongols who had settled in around Delhi. There were Mongols who had been settled here and were living here as free people. For some reason he massacred them. I can't remember what exactly happened. Khil, tens of thousands of them. Yeah something about seeing them as fifth column or yeah. Right something like that. These were settled actually in Mevath so these were called new muslims so he massacred them because he was worried that they could pose him as some type of a threat. So that was that is why he was they were massacred by a lot. And coming to threats by of new muslims reverting this is Aladdin Khilji's end is also an example of that one of his generals what was his name Khusro. Right Khusro Khan was from Gujarat I think Hindu who had been taken into his service and had converted to Islam and become one of his major generals. After the death of Aladdin Khilji Malik Kapoor you are saying about right. No no no Malik Kapoor. Okay. Malik Kapoor was African I think right. No no Malik was African Malik Kapoor was Gujarati. No Umar Sahib is talking about Khusro Khan who was a Hindu convert who tried to who also was was a general of Aladdin Khilji Malik Kapoor was earlier his then Khusro Khan I think I'm already dead by that time. But anyway after Aladdin Khilji's death Khusro Khan briefly took over Delhi and after becoming the ruler reverted to Hinduism right so he went back to being a Hindu and in the contemporary Persian chronicles there are scenes being described of how idols were being brought back into the into the palace and how this is like complete desecration and whatever and of course the Turkish nobles immediately revolted and after a few months Khusro Khan was beheaded and lost power but that was one attempt at reversion so I think Aladdin Khilji massacring the Mongols may have had something like that in mind. The other example of not reversion I think he moved never converted to Islam but the other time Hindu general managed to take back Delhi and try to establish himself as Vikram Aditya is when he moved to cover after the after Hama in his death. Right. I think we'll come to that in the subsequent episodes. So Khilji paved the way for Tuglans. One brief comment that Khusro Khan you know so he became prominent after Mubarak Shah. So Mubarak Shah was the son of Aladdin and one interesting thing about Mubarak Shah is that he titled himself as Khalifullah and he wanted he you know adopted the title of K-Lift but interestingly you know when there was this coup that Khusro Khan organized and after this when he you know became the Sultan so he massacred all the male members of Aladdin's family. So this is you know a rather morbid detail which I wanted to present. So pretty grim and also pretty typical right that's that's royal families are like that and massacring all their male descendants is a glorious tradition that goes back 2000 years or more. Right. Tuglux. What do we know about them Jay other than the fact that there is this sprawling fort in present day Delhi called Tuglug abad. So Tuglakaabad was you know was built by the first first ruler of the Tugluck dynasty whose name is Gyaasuddin Tugluck and like other than you know he made raids on on different cities or kingdoms of Delhi Sultanate or not it else Sultanate Hindu kingdoms. I think one of the interesting aspect of about Gyaasuddin Tugluck is that he did not had great relation with Nizamuddin Alia. So what what happened was that during the period of Khusro Khan. So Khusro Khan gave some donations to Nizamuddin Alia and in some sources we are told that it was something like five lakhs and cars. So you know when Gyaasuddin Tugluck came to the throne he wanted these donations or these money this money back and Nizamuddin Khilji refused to sorry not Nizamuddin Khilji Nizamuddin Alia refused to do so and since he was a great Sufi saint he couldn't do anything but Gyaasuddin Tugluck and the relation between Nizamuddin Alia from that period onwards was not really great. So for example there is this famous saying about the Tuglakaabad fort itself that I think the saying goes like that that Nizamuddin Alia had said that either this city will remain abandoned or either it will be inhabited by the Gujarers. So this I think is an important and he was also this phrase of Delhi Durasta which he said to Gyaasuddin Tugluck. Right and for those who are interested the presented Delhi the area in and around Tuglakaabad fort is actually inhabited by a lot of Gujarers. Right. So the most interesting person in the Tugluck dynasty is the Mahamma Tugluck who took over from his dad and then I think dad died in this is the one who died in the trash of the Pavilion. Sir review Pavilion where he was watching the army crashed and killed him and of course people suspect that Mahamma Tugluck arranged it and became the Sultan but he was a mix of you know new ideas and crackpot ideas and great ideas and just and ruthlessness and cruelty with a lot of generosity. So it's a very contradictory figure. Some one of the reasons we know about him is that Ibn Batuta came to his court and was at his court for a few years he appointed him a judge and gave him a lot of money but after a while Ibn Batuta had figured out that this man ten any day also turned around and have you skinned alive so he slipped out finally had the chance and Mahamma Tugluck also introduced a token currency for the first time in India which failed completely but it was innovation and a new idea and even planned an invasion of China they say and there was of course he's the one who moved the capital or moved or I set up a second capital at Dala the Bad in Devgiri and tried to move people there many of whom died on the way and some of whom died after getting there because he didn't arrange for enough water or the site did not have enough water. So an interesting and contradictory kind of figure very cruel in many cases but also very ambitious and with very high-flow ideas at times and then when he died he left the state in a mess really but his successor Ferros Chattogluck was a much more sensible and low-key person he ruled a smaller state than Mahamma Tugluck but he kept it intact and he did some good work supposedly but in the as is also typical he was gentler he stopped the tortures that were common in all these tertic dynasties people being flayed alive people being crushed and you know their bones being crushed with embers and cut into pieces and so on he supposedly ended these tortures but at the same time he was more orthodox the Brahmins had been apparently exempted from Jhezea before that Jhezea was charged from all the non-Muslims except the Brahmins but Ferros Chattogluck extended it to Brahmins as well and generally tried to make sort of orthodox Islam more of a feature of of his court and tried to get, so more people started converting also. Right, is credited or discredited by however you looked at it, but in our Pakistani version of history obviously credited with the fact that he tried to make it a more orthodox Islamic state. - Jay, Oursub just mentioned the term Jazeel. What is the origin of this term in Indian subcontinent and what is the first instance of this tax being levied on non-Muslims and how has this, how did this tax evolve during the Delhi Sultanate period? - I think it was back to the Arab rule over Sindh. So we have instances where Jazeel was levied by the Arab rulers. And like for example, this fact of, after during the reign of Ferozha, took like that, drummers were not required to pay Jazeel. But we don't know exactly who was the main ruler who decided to exempt drummers. But in most cases, I think this Jazeel and pilgrim tax, pilgrim tax. So these were common features of the Islamic states. And it was only during the reign of, I think one of, during the reign of Akbar, that one of the heap really put an end to this. Otherwise, there were small instances where some ruler may have tried to put an end, but I personally don't know about any instances. - So this was a regular tax and. - So it's a tax. It's a tax that's given per head. The tax charged on all non-Muslims as part of their, you know, they are exempted from some. - Zakat. - From military service. And but in return for the protection they are getting from the Sultan, they have to pay this tax. I think there is some argument that the early Sultans really did not have the administrative machinery to actually collect this tax. They may have imposed it and they may have even tried to collect some of it somewhere where they were really in charge. But it's doubtful that it was a major source of income for them. It was not that their administration was not that deep. It wasn't organized to the level where you could, with like, do a census and get every single Hindu to pay a tax. Right? They didn't even know how many Hindus live under their kingdom. But they did have a Jazeer and they did charge it. Of course, where it was easier to collect is pilgrim taxes because if you hold the, you know, if you're holding that land, pilgrims coming to Kashi or Banaras or whatever, they are going to be easy to tax and they were taxed except I think under a per who, who relieve these taxes and then orang's aim of course, they imposed it. - Right. So I think goal makes it to Delhi, Tamur Lane and brings the end of Tugluck era. What do we know about that Jazeer? - I think Tamur was not really a Mongol. - He had some Mongol ancestry, didn't he? - He had some maternal side or something, I think maybe. But he was turk, basically he was a turk, yeah. - Turk with Mongol, some Mongol ancestry. That's what I remember. - Yeah, I think so, yeah. In any case, he emulated the Mongols. That was his ideal was to guess how. So he was. - So I think before the invasion of Tamur, one thing we should understand that what during the reign of Hiroshi Tugluck, one important step that he took, which eventually led to the downfall of Delhi, Sultanidh was that, firstly he, although he was a great ruler in the sense that he provided general amenities to various travelers, et cetera, and he founded some cities as well. But what he did was that this Iqta system of, revenue assignments before, before Hiroshi Tugluck, it was not hereditary. So after the death of a, let's say Iqta holder, the Iqta went back to the main ruler and it was reassigned to someone else. Now this someone could be the son of the previous Iqta holder, but it was not really, it was not the case that happened every time. But during the reign of Hiroshi Tugluck, he made this Iqta transfer hereditary. So because of this, one of the main reasons behind this, the decline of Delhi Sultanidh particularly, according to some scholars is that this step or this decision led to the creation of a landed, powerful landed general, and it greatly weakened the central power of the state. So what happens is that after the death of Hiroshi Tugluck, which happened around 1388 AD, we find that his death was followed by five weeks, Sultan's and this fifth Sultan was the one during whose reign, we find that, you know, Temur has arrived. So Temur starts his campaign in the late summer of 1398 AD. So he marches through Afghanistan and bypassing Kashmir. He crosses Indus in September. And there is this brief battle that happened on Agpani Path. So we are told that there was this 10,000 Tugluck cavalry, which was easily defeated by Temur. So when he reached Delhi, so for a month, these, the Tugluck ruler did try to, you know, put up a fight, but it was of no use. And for a month, we are told that he plundered Delhi and there was this 80,000 people were massacred by him. And you know, by the next year January, he's back in Samarkand. So this was a brief period of this invasion, which, but this really weakened Delhi Sultanate. And after this invasion, what we see is that, you know, the, there are first of all, you know, Deccan has become an independent Sultanate of his own. And Bengal also became an independent state. Then another interesting point after this Temur's invasion, which we see is that John Pur, which is in Eastern UP, which I think most of us don't even know about John Pur. But after Temur's invasion, it became, it really became one of the most important center of Islamic power in the Indian subcontinent. And famously, it was called Shiraaz of East. And the Sharkis, Malik Sarwar interestingly was a slave. So he was a slave of African origin. So he was, he was granted the area of John Pur. And since he was, he was a slave and also a unique. So he didn't have any sons. So he adopted someone and from his period onwards, the Sharki dynasty ruled John Pur. Sharki was because it was the region of John Pur. Pur was described as the land of the East. So Sharki is East. And that is why it became the Sharkis. Right. So the end of Tugla Kerao, he is the commencement of the Syed dynasty, right? Right. Which is the kind of the least known and least important of the Delhi Sultanate. By this time, as Jay said, the invasion of Tamur has really wrecked the Delhi Sultanate, whatever remained of it is in very poor shape. And the Syed family took over. They claimed descent from the holy prophet. That's why they were called Syed, but the thought is that they were probably co-curs from Punjab or something like that. And not really Syed's. But their rule was confined to really a small region around Delhi. And then at some 1440s, somewhere around 1450, the Lothis take over. And Balol Lothi, who was governor in Sarin, I think Sarin then captured Delhi and started the Lothi dynasty. And the only thing I remember about Balol Lothi is that like many of his famous predecessors, he also built towers of skulls. And the other thing notable about the Lothis, of course, is that they were the first Pachtoon dynasty. This is the first time Pachtoons or Patans are ruling North India. And the Lothis took over. Balol was followed by Syed, and Balol Lothi was the thought to be a patron of the arts and whatever. And so a reasonably successful ruler. And he was followed by Rahim Lothi. But Ibrahim Lothi, there was infighting within the family and Dallath Khan Lothi, his governor in Lahore, actually invited Baba to come and attack and take over. from Abraham Lodi and that's of course what led to the Mohol in the start of the Mohol era and the end of the Delhi Sultanate. Although some people I might say that Shersha Suri was sort of a revival of the Delhi Sultanate and reflected like the revival of that older Delhi Sultanate crowd for a brief period before the Moghals came back. I think one important fact which I would like to mention is that before the Lodi's the last Syed ruler was Alamsha so he ruled for a period of six years and in popular culture there is this famous saying that Shansha, Shalam, Azdili, the Palam. So we hear this and we think of that this is a Shalam of the later Moghals. But actually some scholars argued that this was the saying was for Alamsha and it portrays how how small the how insignificant these these later Delhi Sultanate was. Right right I think that's in Etern's book also that Alamsha that this saying started with Alamsha and not with Shalam, second who was in the 1918 century. Now over time this is the time when the when the Western Europe's really waking up right they're coming out of the dark ages, Oxford University's already been set up although a few centuries before this but the early seeds of you know the dark ages coming to an end are clearly visible in Europe. Universities are coming up there is more curiosity there is this. This is the period of the Renaissance. Right. For me to go to that round then colonizing the whole Western Europe becoming the master colonizers. Why is it the money? Sorry to interject. Yeah before we go on to that we didn't talk much about the Rajput resistance like of Hamir or Rana Sangar or Rana Kumbha maybe Jay can quickly. I'll come to that. Okay. I was hoping to wrap up the episode with what was happening with the Hindu kingdoms at this time. Yeah yeah just to sort of coming back to this point why did we sort of see that kind of a sense of inquiry you know a scientific temper or developments in the field of science and technology and the kind of developments that he saw in Western Europe or artists. I'm not sure I'm in the elements of speculation now but still some thoughts. Yeah we'll see what the Jay's sort of professional opinion is but my impression is that these are first of all the Turkic rulers from all the way from the Ottomans to the Central Asian Seljuks whatever down to the Indians down to the Mongols. These are military elites and their obsession is with capturing power and holding on to it and after every king dies they have another civil war to decide who holds it next. These are not the same thing as you know a kingdom with us with an elite and a people who are a little bit joined to each other and have a common history kind of thing and who have interests beyond just taking power and holding on to it. Some of them did have interest beyond it but not a lot and there was primarily a military aristocracy interested in plunder and interested in ruling over people whom they consider very very far beneath them. Whether they were Muslims or Hindus they would say propaganda was obviously much more against Hindus but their treatment of their people the Hindus who managed to convert to Islam did not get treated much better either. The peasants were just a source of taxes for them. This was not a very this was not the kind of empire from which great things were expected I think the first place. The fact of it being a colony is also I think has a role. I am at my old age finally sort of thinking that there is something to this people I can't think of a colony that really produced these kinds of developments and progress. This needs to be there needs to be some sort of a common feeling and a more normal country not a colony. India was a colony and this colony did not produce what was going on in Europe that was not their direction they never even they never even approached that direction. Umar Sahib have you read a word by Patrick Weiman? Yes. So he covers a lot of this from printing press and Martin Luther. So yeah so he's in one of the reasons why the Islamic culture did not catch up with the Western European was that printing Arabic and the Persian itlang which is are not printing friendly. So that is I don't think that's I think people tried to any one factor no one factor is going to be everything right yeah and especially not a factor like this I think printing is very downstream to other things. The the fact that they did not take up the printing press is itself a sign of there being a different kind of society. It's not that they did not know that there is such a thing as a printing press right in India the news may have arrived later but in Turkey they knew very well they had diplomatic relations with the Europeans they had embassies they went went back and forth they were a competitor and a contemporary civilization to the Habsburgs and the French monarchy and whatever and they they were not unaware of what is happening in Europe and yet they did not take up these things and it's not just printing it's just a general attitude towards scientific knowledge towards the development of science and that just didn't take off in these areas and but this is an endless discussion I think that there's people have very very different theories about this and we'll see what J. Hess to say but yeah it's true that these people were not heading in that direction at all they were like what did they do with their surplus right they they gave themselves rubies and diamonds and built peacock thrones and whatever or they built giant monuments sort of vanity monuments Taj Mahal and huge mosulians and whatever but who not a single university not a single you know seat of learning like that this was not this was not their direction J. your thoughts think one of the points raised by Umar Sahib that the fact that the Europe has a landed aristocracy which was firmly established in had deep roots in the land and also feudalism I think although it it has a bad press but in some cases these feudal lords were much more secure compared to let's say the governors of Delhi Sultanate so in that case I think they had much more an incentive to to to develop their their feudal fiefdom so in that case so this part I think is one of the one of the main reasons why Europe was able to you know break become much more advanced right and wrapping up the episode comments and thoughts on some of the prominent Hindu kingdoms especially the Rajputs who resisted Delhi Sultanate what was happening in that part of the country Jay you want to start with that? So the when the Delhi Sultanate was established so the main center of the power of the Chauhan was was Delhi and particularly Ajmir so what we see is that it was the Chauhan's who really you know first who fought with the first these these Turks and when the Delhi Sultanate was established Runt Humboa became one of the major powers that really you know tried to that there there was this great tussle between the Runt Humboa rulers and the Delhi Sultanate so as I have already mentioned that El Tuttmish had conquered it but you know after the death of El Tuttmish the Chauhan had retaken Runt Humboa and there is this text Hamir Mahakaavwe so we are told that you know during this process of reconquest of Runt Humboa there is this mention of the use of cannons by the Rajputs and this is an interesting point because most of the scholars who have worked on this military aspect of the Delhi Sultanate so in Amir Khusro's account we are told that when Alouddin Khilji tried to conquer Delhi Sultanate not tried to conquer Runt Humboa so during the siege of Runt Humboa the Rajputs were you know had employed cannons and the modern scholars argue that this was because first of all the reason why according to the Persian sources that Alouddin Khilji tried to conquer Runt Humboa was because the some of the Mongols had taken shelter in Runt Humboa so some so the so the recent scholarship argues that these mungoles had, you know, were the ones who were using cannons and gunpowder. But the fact that, you know, before allowed this invasion, but after the death of El Tukmish, we have a Sanskrit text that talks about the use of gunpowder and cannon is an interesting fact. And it also shows that maybe the Rajputs had had this knowledge because there was this contact, contact between the Mughals and the Rajputs. Now, this fact is just a speculation because there is no actual evidence for us. But I think this is an interesting speculation. So first is Rantambur and Rantambur is really a great power because what we see is that even Balban, there was this two unsuccessful attempt that Balban, you know, Balban undertook, but he failed in both of these attempts. And even the Jalaluddin Khilji. So he tried to conquer Rantambur, but the reasoning is quite interesting. So the Persian sources tell us that Jalaluddin Khilji wanted to, you know, he did not wanted to, even the single hair of a Muslim should be harmed. So because in order to avoid this harm, he did not try to conquer Rantambur. So this is the explanation that is given by, by by Persian scholars. But the fact remains that Jalaluddin was not able to conquer Rantambur and it was only during the time of. Allow the Dinkilji that Rantambur was conquered and interestingly two generals of allow not to one general, I think died in this siege and this siege. So the continued up to more than a year. So Rantambur and the conquest of Rantambur is an interesting phase in this resistance towards Delhi Sultanate. Then after Rantambur, we have Mivad. So I think most of us in popular culture, it is it is well known that allowed allowed Dinkilji conquered. Mivad and after his conquest, he put his son, whose name is Khisarkhan, over the over the fort of Chittar as a some type of a military ruler. But this rule of the, the killgies did not last long and. Rana, so you know, this was another hammer who, after the death of Rathan Singh, so who died fighting allowed Dinkilji. So he this hammer, re conquered the land of the Mivad territory of the Mivad. And after Hamir, I think one of the most important ruler of Mivad is Rana Kumbha. So Rana Kumbha ruled from 1433 to 1468. And one of the interesting aspect of this rain is that he was able to conquer Ajmeer. And then he was able to conquer the land of the Mivad territory of Rana Kumbha. And then the Mivad territory of Rana Kumbha. feet of the Ghatawals in the Battle of Chandvara. So after this, there was no single main power that could unite these. And because of this, I think one of the Delhi Sultan was able to completely rule over these regions. But I would say that their rule was contested. And even by the time of Jahagir, so Jahagir in his accounts talks about how these tacos of Talukdars or Avad, they have their own mud fort and they refuse to pay any taxes. And it was only when the imperial army or a small contingent of army goes there, then they would pay their taxes. So this, I think, is an important aspect. And what is also important about this region is that this region also became the center of mercenary soldiers. So even the rulers of Malwa and even up to the Rajputana. So these rulers greatly employed the Rajput mercenaries of these regions. So this is a fascinating aspect. But sadly, we do not have enough sources about these to really understand what was going on during this region. Right. On to the closing comments. What's up? Well, I think the Delhi Sultanate, the legacy of the Delhi Sultanate is Pakistan. That is the-- it's our charter state. We would not exist if they had not been a Delhi Sultanate. They introduced Islam into North India and established it strong enough that it is still there. So this was a big contribution, but other than that-- and of course, then the other side of it is that they destroyed whatever small states and cultures, the cultural sort of-- what would you call it? The North Indian, the Ganga, Jammana, Duab, Harklang, Hindu, Harklang, lost its vitality, right? And did not recover it maybe until now, even. But that was the legacy of the Delhi Sultanate. Let's see what Jay has to say is usually the more sensible speaker. I think I'm not-- but one thing which I think we should be highlighted is the highly unstable nature of the Delhi Sultanate. So there is this small fact that out of the 32 sultans, 13 died in natural death, two by accident, four were killed on the battle, one was deposed, and died a private citizen, while as many as 12 sultans were murdered or died in confinement. So I think this fact of the 32 rulers, 12 were murdered. This shows how unstable this polity was. And although it was militarily, if you see, it was certainly quite successful. But on a more-- you know, the kind of, let's say, the impact the Mughals had, the fact that both of these from, let's say, 1206 AD to 1526 AD, we have a period of 320 years. And this 320 year period did not provide any great achievements even in terms of monuments. Because even if you look at Delhi, I don't think, apart from, let's say, Kutub-Munar, there is very great advances that took place in terms of architecture. So in that sense, I think Delhi Sultanate was more of a military state compared to the Mughals. Mughals were much more-- and this was also because they were more accommodative compared to the Delhi Sultanate. Also, I think they pretty much finished off the elite genism and Buddhism in North India. Would that be a fair submission there? No, no. Genism survived in Western India because the Rajput rulers greatly patronized Jans. And even in Sindh, it was one of the important centers of Jans in Sindh. But yes, even in the bridge region, Jans were an important population. And even up to this period, they were an important period. Because I have a PhD colleague who works on the Jans of bridge. So I think if he listens that, he would be-- I think I stand corrected by a commenter's more judgment than of the present day demographics of Jans because I can't imagine a Jans in present day Pakistan. A loved and guilty also is said to have had, according to some historians, some friendly relations with some Jans. I don't know how reliable those things are. I actually have a friend, a Jain friend, who claims Rajput and sister like he was a ratoor before. So he became Jain in like 15, 16th century, something I love. So they were still there in North India, proper. And till the current dispensation decided to change the name, the ground on which they played cricket, International Kid Matches in Delhi was called Feroz Shakopla. So yeah, that's how the Sultan had still survived, I guess. Also, I think one aspect with Degin Patch is the fact that, you know, Iltutmish first tried to place the iron pillar in the Kovatul Islam or might of Islam mosque. And after that, we find Feroz Shakutla, Feroz Shak Tugla, transporting these two Ashokhan pillars. One was placed at, you know, a Feroz Shakotla. So some scholars argue that they tried to, you know, connect themself to the previous rulers of India. But I would say that-- Is there a read it actually? Yes, there is also this funny story that, you know, when Tugla transported this pillar from, I think it was, it was in Merit. So from Merit, it was transported to Feroz Shakotla. And when, you know, so in order to read this, this strange inscription, he asked one of the Brahman's to read it. So if I remember correctly, the story goes that this Brahman said that only a great ruler would be able to place this pillar in this location. So it mentions that this is the production. So most likely this ruler was this Iltutmish. So this is a funny incident about the iron pillar, so not the iron pillar, Ashokhan pillar. Right. With that, we come to the end of this episode. I would like to remind our listeners that as part of episode notes, we post reference materials and links to books and papers that are speakers have used as part of this conversation. Thank you. Thank you for your time, Juntman. Thank you, Omer Sahib. Thank you, Jai. Thank you, God. Thank you. Thank you all. [BLANK_AUDIO]