Firoz Shah Tughlaq's Role in Delhi Sultanate's Decline & Religious Nature

welcome everyone online students and surj good morning I hope I'm audible

guys all right now can you please remind me what was the last topic that we had covered in our previous lecture

I know that we were talking about fosa tlak and I wanted to see whether we had

covered both his external and internal policy did we talk about all of his reforms e

his reforms his political reforms religious policy Etc I remember doing all of this and as

far as my M serves the next topic that we had to talk about was the role

of f sha tlak in the decline of

the Delhi salet right now with regards to the decline of

the Delhi selet there is a difference of opinion among historians regarding the role of

kosat the traditionalist historians the traditional

historiography says that F shlak played a major role in the decline of the Delhi suet due to his

policy of appeasement which led to decentralization of administrative power

and the revenue mechanism military weakness and ultimately

economic and political weakness now the Delhi sultanate was a

war state which had been established by the early Sultans through their

military superiority and due to this policy of appeasement not only did fos destroy the military superiority of the

sulate but also caused decentralization and economic and political weakness hence when faced with the stronger

military enemies the sultanate could not sustain it disintegrated right so that is the traditional traditionalist view

of History however more

recently some historians take all right

welcome back guys sorry for that it was a power cut now we were talking about the role of fosa

tlak in the decline of the Delhi

suanet so Jo traditional point of view here it lays all the blame for the

disintegration of the S at the feat of sposa tlak only specifically

his policy of appeasement which led to

decentralization of administrative Authority and revenue Administration causing

economic and political weakness depriving the Sultan of

maintaining a strong and welld disciplined military to defend his real and since the sultanate depended upon

its military superiority for its continued growth and survival the weak military which emerged

under F sha tlak became the biggest factor for the decline of the sultanate the sultanate in the future was never

strong enough to defend itself from any uh determined opponent and this is exactly what happened in 1398 when Amir

Timur invaded Delhi right however recently a new trend has emerged within

history specifically of this period which tries to take the focus away from the responsibility of or role of

different personalities individuals in shaping historical change to analyzing the objective material factors now on

the basis of this new understanding this new perspective of looking at history new questions have emerged and it has

been pointed out that there were several fractures and weaknesses which already existed within

the political economic and Military structure of the suet such as the

conflict between the sultan and nobility

the conflict between the sultan and the imma the conflict between

the different sections of the nobility further the absence

of a fixed rule of

succession fixed law of succession further

the overtly religious Ming of the

state that the state was established on the basis of religion itself and therefore none of the Sultans were able

to successfully extract or separate religion from Politics the the problem was quite

permanent further the perpetuity of Mongol invasions

which made the state amorphous the Practical difficulties of projecting Imperial

control from Delhi into South India further the emergence of regional factors

Etc right now were these factors introduced for the first time in the history of

theamed for all of these right according to the recent

historians since rosha tlak was not responsible for

introducing these weaknesses he should

also not be blamed for the

decline in fact qualify he should not be blamed for the decline however

perosa tlak cannot be absolved

completely since the policy of appeasement definitely had a

detrimental effect on the suanet territorial

Integrity fosa tlak had taken the Reigns of a declining Empire that means that when fosha TLA

came to the throne the empire was all already in a phase of steady decline now fosha tlak through his

policy of appeasement tried to arrest this decline however he could do it only for a short period of time in the longer

sense if you take a bird's eye view of History the policy of appeasement which was designed to arrest the decline of

the s simply accelerated it by encouraging the growth of centrifugal

forces okay now if we are assigning the blame to for the

decline of the Delhi sultanate to different Sultans and we are analyzing the

contributions of different Sultans through these factors then we should also talk about some other

Sultans ji the predecessor of fosa tlak Muhammad bin tlak

now he had inherited a large and growing Empire however he had ended up or with a crumbling Empire okay

so beginning of decline took place going further back

alaudin Ki although he governed with an iron hand and

expanded the Empire but many of his policies led to resentment among various sections such as the omma class and the

traditional Turkish nobility and this aristocratic discontent was one of the major factors

behind the overthrowing of the Ki Dynasty similarly Ban's policy of blood and iron

also alienated the Turkish traditional Turkish nobility and made the way for the Ki Revolution to take

place and this entire Saga began with ilut Mish who encouraged the Territorial and political Ambitions of

the Turkish nobility by introd using institution such as the

chelani and the Ika system

okay now the different Sultans from ilish to Muhammad binak and even to fos tlak

were simply experimenting with different methods to take care of these Perpetual factors Perpetual uh issues okay

so all the Sultans tried resolving

the internal imbalance in their own

way with varying degrees

of success now while some Sultans were less successful some Sultans were extremely

successful however even in the Reigns of the successful Sultans that none of their reforms and

successes were permanent all of them were abortive and none of the Sultans even

after their best efforts would fundamentally change the basic structure of the Del suan or basis

Delhi that it was an Islamic State where Thea class was always going to remain very very powerful it was always going

to be a conflict between the sultan and the nobility and dependence upon military superiority is going to decide

the Fate of the suanet the suanet is never going to be able to create a universal social base due to the

religious Mings of the state and as the sultanate expanded Regional Elites would always resent Imperial control and

because of all these factors the state established by The Sultans lacked permanence it it was not an enduring

State and this lack of permanence is also reflected in the uh frequent dynastic change frequent uh episodes of

regicide supplanting of previous king with a new king especially in times of weakness King extremely strong then the

Empire enjoyed a semblance of semblance of unity and integrity but as the king weakened the centrifugal Tendencies F

forces became stronger and the sultanate began disintegrating so since these were permanent factors they were part of the

basic structure of the suanet phos should not be blamed solely at the same time he could not be absolved of the

responsibility for the decline of the clear question question number three I

believe to what extent washa tlak responsible for the decline of the Delhi suan

okay let us try and answer that take down few remarks answer give the heading role of

fosha tlak in the decline of the S role of rosha tlak in the decline of the Del

Su write down the evaluation of the evaluation

of the role of fosa tlak in the sultanat decline in the sultanat

decline has become a matter of controversy has become a matter of

controversy in medieval history in medieval history next

Point traditionally fosa tuglak is believed to have

played the most important role in bringing down the Delhi

suanet through his policy of appeasement through his policy of appeasement sub

point he allowed he allowed and even

encouraged the growth of centri Fugal forces by decentralizing administrative

control and Taxation full stop sub Point sorry uh next Point

further further comma he encouraged the Ambitions

of the aristocracy andma by giving

them virtual autonomy in almost all matters in almost all

matters full stop this point this led to this led

to uh the this led to the

disintegration of the political fabric from the top to the bottom from the top to the

bottom fabric from the top to the bottom full

stop it directly contributed to the state's economic and political weakness

stop States economic and political weakness next

Point fosha tlak fosha tlak largely dismantled largely dismantled

the States military apparatus the States military apparatus full

stop since the suanet was a military State sorry was a war state was a war state

that relied upon military superiority for its survival and

growth superiority for its survival and growth comma it is not surprising

that the suanet disintegrated sharply after

fosa after fosha sharply after

perosa okay next main point on the other hand on the other

hand recent historiography has shifted away from the role of of

individuals towards focusing upon the role of objective material

factors to analyze historical change to analyze historical

change sub point in this perview in this perview p viw in this

perview p r v i e w comma it must

be remembered that the suanet already suffered

from major weaknesses in its fundamental structure

in its fundamental structure full stop these were these

were a c d a the conflict between the sultan and nobility

B conflict between the sultan andma C conflict between different sections of

the nobility D absence of a fixed law of succession

absence of a fixed law of succession e the overtly religious Mings of the

state the overtly religious Mings of the state which prevented Mings moing m o o r i n gs moing of the

state which prevented the complete separation of religion from

politics and the broadening of the state social

base next the States Social base e

f the permanent threat of mongle invasions

which made the state which made the state amorphus made the

state right because the Northwestern fronti Mong Northwestern Frontier could never be

defined clearly shft this was a cause of political and Military

instability next G right down the Practical limitations the

Practical limitations of political expansion Beyond North

India beyond the Practical limitations of political

expansion Beyond North India prevented the state prevented the state from acquiring

a true all India true all India

status right and because of this what is going to happen although some of the Sultans tried to extend their political

control in South India they could never do it in a permanent fashion and as soon as they went to South India local

rebellions broke out which not only made the suanet position in South India untenable but also uh resulted in the

declining prospects of the in northia supp how in the form of men material

money this is going to lead to exploitation and resentment locally military

in on one Frontier then the ambitious personalities and Nobles in other regions they are also going to look for

opportunities right and as soon as these opportunities emerge they are going to strike okay this also lead to uh

disintegration write down next one H write

down Regional factors such as

rebellions by newly acquired regions or in newly acquired territories rebellion in newly

acquired territories or peripheral areas or peripheral areas

newly acquired territories or peripheral areas also caused instability also caused

instability take next main point since phosl

did not contribute to the emergence of these factors to the emergence of these

factors comma he should also not be

blamed for unilaterally or for single-handedly for singlehandedly destroying

the Delhi Sul for destroying the Delhi Sul okay next main

point add at the same time at the same time

comma Pak could not be completely absolved could not be completely

absolved Absol V full stop he had

inherited a declining Empire a declining Empire stop to arrest this decline to

arrest this decline comma he adopted a policy of appeasement

he adopted a policy of appeasement Full Stop in the short term in the short

term comma his policy seems to have succeeded

but in reality it had simply accelerated the decline of the suanet

the decline of the suanet by encouraging centrifugal Tendencies

centrifugal tendencies full stop next

Point next main point in this context in this

context comma the contributions of previous Sultans should also be

considered should also be considered stop sub point they had

also faced the same challenges they had also faced faed the same

challenges P stop many of them tried to overcome them by bringing

about a fundamental change in the structure of the

state in the structure of the state first stop makes the point however all their attempts

proved to be abortive proved to be abortive a b o r t i v e so they implemented it but immediately after

them all these changes were discarded okay next main point political

disintegration therefore always lurked beneath the surface always lurked beneath the surface l p

LED beneath the surface and any weakness in the central

Administration in the central Administration set

of a steady decline set of steady decline

okay next main point on the whole on the whole comma

while perosa tlak cannot be completely

absolved comma we should not forget that his policy of appeasement was a sincere

effort was a sincere effort to

safeguard the sulate they have got the

sulate full stop he even seems to have ex uh have succeeded he even seems to have

succeeded by bringing about political and economic stability by bringing about political

and economic stab ability P stop however

however the damage to the political fabric during the rain

of his predecessors was too great his

predecessors was too great and fosha could

only delay the inevitable could only delay the inevitable would only delay the

inevitable okay this was the role of fosa in the decline of

the suet so go back to that question and see if you'll be able to answer discuss the role of rosha tlak in the decline of

the Delhi sulate Balan you will have to give traditional historians he Bears the sole

responsibility for decline of the sulate because of his policy of appeasement which led to political economic and

Military weakness decentralization which led to the erosion of Royal Authority promoted centrifugal Tendencies and uh

contributed to the disintegration of the snet uh in the immediate aftermath of his Reign however recent historians

focus upon objective material factors rather than the role of individual personalities and they have identified

some major weaknesses in the very Fabric in the very structure of the Delhi sulate such as number of internal

conflicts uh military sorry Regional factors external factors Etc the lack of permanence at the same

time it has been pointed out that FHA tlak himself was not responsible for the introduction of these weaknesses

directly he was simply working Within These parameters and policy of appeasement was introduced by him to uh

arrest the decline but in the long term it ended up accelerating it but when we are discussing the role of hosak we also

need to consider the contributions of his predecessors all of them were facing similar challenges and they had made

their individual attempts to overcome these challenges some of them with higher degree of success some of them

with lesser degree of success however none of them were able to bring about a fundamental change in the nature of the

Sul all the reforms of strong Sultan such as balban and alaudin Ki they proved to be abortive right and these

problems became permanent they became a permanent weakness of the right so in this scenario it is very

difficult to assertain to or to assign the blame to fosha tlak only fosha tlak did his best with the policy of

appeasement he was able to delay the inevitable but again

forces that it would not have been possible for any Sultan even the strongest Sultan to completely overcome

rosha was not a strong Sultan okay so that is how you are going to write this answer

next the invasion of Amir

Timur and its impact who was Amir Timur

he was a Turkish Invader

from Central Asia with this Capital act

summeran after ch is Khan is considered to be the greatest conqueror from Asia in Medieval

ages during the second half of the 14th century he created a large empire stretching from

the Mediterranean to the Arabian

Sea and from the Caspian to the

Red Sea okay so whole of Western Asia central Asia and present day

Pakistan were under his control he never took the title of Sultan rather he styled himself

as Amir now his justification for his conquests was that he was

simply a defender of

Islam okay he did not want to spread Islam rather he wanted to defend Islam according to him

anywhere where there is an Islamic State and the laws of Islam are not being followed he took upon the respons upon

himself the responsibility of correcting this imbalance and punishing the violators therefore he styled himself as

the uh wrath of God right so that God is angry and he has been he

has sent me as his agent to punish all the violators this was the justification given by him but in reality like all the

great conquerors he desired money power and wealth money and

power now his invasion of North India

came in the year 13 998 during the reign of the tlak

sultan nasirudin Muhammad tlak now ever since the days of fosa

tlak the suanet had been trapped in a downward spiral characterized

by economic and military weakness

territorial disintegration and the rise of strong fudal

elements right so it was entirely unprepared to withstand any sudden Invasion from a foreign quarter and this

is exactly what Amir tumur exploited he crossed the Hindu Coast to the hiber pass came down to Punjab and

from there he attacked Delhi okay he massacred the common

population of Delhi he also enslaved

a large number from Punjab and

harana he also orchestrated large scale looting rape and

murder furthermore he extracted a large sum amounting to 3

years of revenue from the sultan

as Ransom okay PTI he

also took away all the accomplished

Scholars artists Architects philosophers and Men of Ls

people of culture Etc from Delhi to his Capital at suar

next he also brought about significant political

changes the region of Punjab now virtually moved

away from the political authority of the sultan and here Amir tumu Timur installed his own

Governor Kizer Khan belonging to the group of Sayad

right what was the impact of these developments Delhi which during the reign of the

previous Sultans had emerged as the cultural center of the Islamic World lost its place of prominence it was

reduced to a shell of its former

glory it's lost its place of prominence within the Islamic world it was replaced by

Sumer the tuglak Dynasty which was already living on

borrowed time was further marginalized okay the TLs

lost their Prestige and legitimacy they had proven entirely

incompetent in defending their subjects secondly because of the large scale

looting massacr trade uh agriculture everything had been disrupted so the TLs were not in a position to revive their

power so there was no scope

for Revival and under them the state was characterized

by a deep political and economic

crisis uh in this scenario fragmentary forces are they going to become strong or

weaker since the center is at the weakest position centrifugal forces are going to be

strongest so this political crisis often manifested itself in the form of popular revolts and

aristocratic uh rebellions okay the Delhi suanet was no longer even

a large North Indian Kingdom it was reduced to a small Regional Kingdom Under the later

tols taking advantage of this k Khan the new governor of Punjab

installed by Amir Tim more finally organized a coup

in 1414 okay and laid the foundations of

the Sayad Dynasty clear however even after this change

the DK was too advanced

to be removed and the fortunes of the

sultanate as a major power in India could never be revived the sultanate could never regain its

former glory there was a brief period of Revival under

the LOI Dynasty however the loes could not bring about a full-fledged Revival this

revival remained rather Limited in its scope and effect

take so in other words we can say that the invasion of Amir Timur and the scking of Delhi was

a body blow to the

Delhi sulet from which it could never truly recover ahir timur's Invasion also had

important long-term consequences it was on the basis of the extension of his rule over Punjab that

one of his successors Babar could lay claim to

Punjab as his hereditary right and it was this claim which led to to

The mugul Invasion and establishment of the mul Empire in

India okay so this was the invasion of Amir Timur and its impact write down Amir Timur Amir

Timur is considered to be the greatest conqueror in medieval

history after chingis Khan we stop next

point in the late 14th century in the late 14th century comma he carved

out a huge Empire stretching from the

Mediterranean to the Arabian Sea and from the

Caspian to the Red Sea with its capital at samand with its capital at

suar with its capital at suan next Point

Timur Justified his conquests in the name of Defending Islam

and his Conquest in the name of Defending Islam and rather proudly and rather

proudly adopted the title of the punishment of God of the punishment of

God punishment of God within inverted comma sub point in reality comma like all other

conquerors Ur was interested primarily in wealth and

power in wealth and power full stop next Point H next main

point ask after fosha tlak after fosha tlak comma the Delhi suanet was characterized

by was characterized by a sharp economic and Military decline

comma territorial disintegration territorial disintegration

and the growth of feudalism the growth of

feudalism full stop so Point therefore it was in no

position to defend itself against a strong threat against a strong

threat we stop next Point next main point it was in this background it was in this

background that Timur invaded North

India in 1398 in North India in 1398 through Punjab through

Punjab by crossing the Hindu Kush by crossing the Hindu Kush full

stop s point he defeated a number

of local Governors and Generals to reach Delhi to reach

Delhi next point the sultan the

Sultan nudin Muhammad tlak surrendered meekly surrendered

meekly meekly m e e k l y it is the opposite of boldly meekly meekly after offering

initial resistance after offering initial resistance next

point when the Common People resisted

comma timour ordered a general Massacre theur ordered a general

Massacre Next Point next sub point the sultan was forced to

pay 3 years worth of Revenue as Ransom 3 years worth of

Revenue as Ransom Ransom ROM as

Ransom next main point Ur not only deprived

India of its material wealth comma he also robbed India culturally he also robbed India

culturally first stop supp point many temples and

monasteries were destroyed next sub point a large

number of ordinary Indians of ordinary Indians were

enslaved were enslaved next sub Point number three almost

all the notable intellectuals Scholars

artists Architects musicians

philosophers religious thinkers Etc were taken

away to summeran were taken away to summeran next up

Point Delhi was reduced to a shadow Delhi Delhi was reduced to a

shadow of its former glory of its former glory and was replaced by

Samaran and was replaced by Samaran as the cultural center as the cultural

center of the Islamic world as the cultural center of the Islamic world

world next main point the's Invasion theor Invasion also had a

significant political impact also had a significant political impact full

stop the point the tlak suff suffered suffered an

irrepairable and irreparable loss of

Prestige and legitimacy loss of prestige and legitimacy first stop next sub

point this resulted in frequent revolts and rebellions

causing permanent instability causing permanent instability next

subo causing permanent instability next sub point the feudal elements

became stronger and many of them asserted complete

autonomy asserted complete autonomy next sub point Timur

installed ker Khan installed ker Khan as the governor of

Punjab as the governor of Punjab who constantly who constant ly

interfered in the politics of Delhi in the politics of

Delhi first stop ultimately ultimately he laid the foundations he

laid the foundations of the Sayad Dynasty in

1414 in 1414 next mean Point next mean

point in 1414 however however the

Damage Done by the's invasion was too great to overcome was

too great to overcome P stop the point

the short rule of the sads the short rule of the

Sayad was characterized by rule of the sads was characterized by

instability weakness and decline next point or sorry next main

point the establishment of the LOI Dynasty the establishment of the LOI Dynasty brought

about somewhat of a rebellion sorry some somewhat of a Revival brought about somewhat of a

Revival but the suanet could never

revive or sorry could never regain could never regain its former glory could never regain its for mer

Glory next main point Amir timur's Invasion Amir timur's Invasion also

had significant long-term consequences also had significant long-term

consequences write down sub Point babber

babber comma a descendant of Timur laid claim over Punjab laid claim over

Punjab as his hereditary right as his hereditary right full

stop this became the basis for his invasion of India leading to the establishment

of the mugul Empire leading to the establishment of the mul

Empire okay is this clear take down a question

discuss Amir im's invasion of

India and I its political

economic and cultural impact 200

words 15 marks next topic that we have to discuss is the nature of the Delhi

State uh from a religious perspective so question is whether the Delhi

sutet should be considered as a theocracy or a

secular State theocracy a state where religion is not

only supreme but it is also the very basis of the state the word theocracy comes from the Greek

word Theos and Cy heos

means god and Cy is to rule

people democracy theocracy democracy is Rule of the people and theocracy is the rule of God

he going to rule through his agents right who are his agents not Sultan rather a hereditary

and Sovereign religious class so in the practical sense for any state to qualify as a theocracy

it must fulfill certain conditions or it should have certain characteristics such as the presence of

a sovereign and hereditary a religious

class or head ruling on behalf of and in the name of

God secondly the state should be based on

completely religious laws that means religion should become the very basic principle of the state

and from this the state should never deviate conditions fulfill now let us see whether the Delhi

suanet fulfilled these conditions so although there was a class of religious

officials known as the imma could they be characterized as The Sovereign

Sovereign absolute power they were dependent upon the

sultan for their power and

Prestige okay so in reality the power and prestige in enjoyed by the ulma class

was a function of the Sultan's leniency they could enjoy as much power and Prestige as

allowed in fact some strong

Sultans actively cured the pma's

power how by initiating a policy

of secularism which involved the separation of

religion from politics these include Sultan such

as Alin Ki and Muhammad bin tlak among

others is this clear secondly or

thirdly The Sultans while they depended upon the advice of the imma when formulating

various policies when designing different laws was the sh the only source of Law and

policy practical considerations right The Sultans did

not Riz solely on Thea

for legal and political advice

rather practical considerations were often given priority

over religious Doctrine when formulating laws and designing

policies it is in first suit of these practical considerations

that many Sultans proclaimed secular

decrees such as known sorry decrees known as

urfi or is aits secondly that religious laws should be

Paramount and they should not be diluted now in the Islamic system the legal

system is known as Sharia now Sharia consists of

laws or rules on three different subjects first of all I that that is

prayer secondly civil law and

thirdly the criminal law take now ideally the rules of the sharat should

be followed impecably in the legal Machinery if the state desires to qualify as a true theocracy true Islamic

theocracy but in reality what do we find that under the Delhi sulate in subjects may we find a great degree

of distortion for example the Civil laws of sharat

recognize the right of women to inherit property but within the Delhi suet women were denied the right to

inheritance okay similarly activities such as gambling drinking

prostitution are considered illegal under sharat but within the criminal law system of the Delhi suanet all the these

activities were regulated they were not criminalized gambling

drinking prostitution Etc they were not criminalized they were legal activities right

so is religious law Supreme in the delet no it is not Supreme

then further question emerge

that the Delhi sultanate from the very

beginning up simply as a political power no it portrayed itself as a

political power with a mission and what was that mission to

convert India from darul

harb to darul

Islam okay in pursuit of this policy things such as

forceable conversion converting prisoners of

War destroying temples and monasteries

Etc apart from this instruments such as the JIA

and discrimination in matters of employment under the

state were encouraged okay however

what was the real purpose of adopting all these policies real

purpose was it a move to promote Islam or was it a political move it was more of a political move

to do what to carry out territorial

expansion and gain political legitimacy in the eyes of Indian

Muslims okay in fact all these

policies are also prohibited by

the had it is a book which is a major source of sharat law it contains the traditions

of the Prophet so whatever the prophet did during his lifetime whatever he said during his lifetime uh when different

things happened how he reacted to them what were the decisions that he made traditions of the prophet and from

the Hadith it is very clear that none of these things especially if they are done for a political objective are Justified

therefore even while trying to India from Dar to DAR Islam they were violating the basic principles of

sharat could the Delhi sulate be called theocracy in the real sense right

because sharat supre Supreme rather it was a political entity which sought to use

the powerful political ideology of Islam in order to perpetuate its rule in order to expand its

control so it was not a

theocracy take now question arises if it is not a theocracy does it qualify as a secular

State secular secular it

was not secular why was it not truly secular yeah although the rules of

sharia were not Supreme they did form the basis of the legal Machinery basis of the

political and legal setup

secondly although the imma was not not sovereign they were definitely quite

influential thirdly how did the rulers and the state perceive itself what was their objective

for a considerably considerably long period of time in the history of the sulate

what was their role in India they fashioned themselves as the sword

and Oracle of Islam it is a different matter that they were using the objective of promoting

Islam as a political tool Rel it was not secular

fourthly religious discrimination and persecution on the basis of

religion was a painful reality of this period okay and while some of the Sultans may

have tried to restrict the activities of Thea in the political field none of them in sincerity tried to introduce freedom

and equality of religion okay so there was no Freedom or

equality of religion

take so on the whole theet

was neither a hocy nor

a secular state so if it was neither a theocracy nor was it a secular State what was

it rather it was

a religious State characterized by a

religiously conscious political class which was in an

alliance to the elite clergy to the elite

clergy that used religion to

fulfill its political objectives

is this much Clear take down a question would it be correct would it be

correct to characterize the Delhi

suanet as a hocy as a

hocy full stop 200 words next question

was the Delhi suanet more of

uh theocracy or

a secular state 200 words 15

marks set L next question discuss

the religious character of

the Delhi suanet was it uh

theocracy or secular State question number two and three are

the same answers are also going to be the same question number one or

difference in question number one we simply need to address the question whether the was

ay secular St clear now write down a few remarks the question of the question

of whether the sultanate was a

theocracy or a secular state has been a matter of debate has been a matter of debate

among historians among historians full stop next Point next point before coming

to any conclusion before coming to any conclusion comma we need to carefully

analyze the state of religious

Affairs the state of religious Affairs under the sulate under the sulate

next point the word theocracy the word theocracy comes from the Greek word

Theos meaning God meaning God first stop does

theocracy literally means the rule of God the rule of

God next point in the practical sense in the practical sense

any state must fulfill the following criteria to

qualify as a theocracy as a theocracy number one the presence of

a sovereign hereditary class

of religious officials

or a sovereign religious head ruling on behalf of

God ruling on behalf of God number two

the legal exclusive it the legal exclusivity of religious law of religious

law okay so all laws should be derived from religion and there should be no law which is not directly derived from

religion or is in line with religion next main point Le next main n next main

point in the Delhi suet in the Delhi suet comma

although there was a class of religious officials known as the known as the

imma which was involved in defining and

interpreting defining and interpreting the sharat law comma this

class was hardly Sovereign was hardly Sovereign the point they depended

upon the sultan for their power and Prestige they depended upon the sultan

for their power and Prestige full stop next up

Point further Thea class was not hereditary

was not hereditary and next sub Point powerful

Sultans such as alaudin kji or Muhammad bin tlak strongly checked strongly

checked their influence by adopting a policy of

secularism that involved the separation of religion from

Politics the separation of religion from politics next write down next main

point The Sultans did not rely

solely on the imma for legal and political advice for legal and political advice

stop sub Point often often practical

considerations were given priority over religious Doctrine while

designing were given prior it over religious Doctrine while

designing laws and introducing policies and introducing

policies and introducing policies P stop in fact in fact

various rulers various rulers introduced policies that were in direct violation

or that were in direct conflict with the sharat with the sharat for

example WR down example it is prohibited under

Islam to attack the sorry to invade the territory to

invade the territory of another Muslim ruler simply for territorial

gain simply for territorial gain good stop however

like ilish balban Alin

Ki Muhammad bin tlak and even later Sultans did this frequently did this

frequently take is this clear did this

frequently clear next point over and above this over and above

this comma The Sultans regularly issued secular orders known as Ur or

zabit known as Ur or zabit to supplement the sharat law to supplement the sharat

law clear here next point next main point it is difficult to it is

difficult to accept the sultanate as an Islamic

theocracy since the basic Islamic sharat since as an Islamic theocracy

since the basic Islamic sharat consisting of laws on three

subjects that is if bat civil law and criminal law civil law and criminal

law were openly distorted were openly

distorted sub Point example women were denied the right to inheritance denied the right to

inheritance in violation of the sharat next example gambling drinking and

prostitution comma all prohibited under Islam all prohibited under Islam were

allowed in the Delhi sultanate were allowed were allowed and prostitution comma all

prohibited under Islam comma were allowed in the Delhi Su were allowed in

the Delhi Su okay next main point

over and above these over and above these comma

even the sulet basic objective basic OB

objective to convert darul harb to convert sorry to convert India from Dar

harb into Dar Islam convert India from darul harb into darul Islam

has also been challenged has also been challenged how have we begun this

sentence sub point it has been suggested it has been suggested

that this was this was more

of a political tool a political tool to expand territorial control

and secure legitimacy for the new ruling class and secure legitimacy for the new

ruling class among the Muslim

subjects among the Muslim subjects when we observe when we observe the

policies such as forceable conversions converting prisoners of B

destruction of temples prisoners of War destruction of

temples imposition of gizia imposition of gizia forceable

convergence okay gizia gizia and discrimination in matters of

employment and discrimination in matters of employment comma they were all they were

all prohibited by the Hadith prohibited by the Hadith now while gizia is acceptable so

it is recognized within Islam like jizya was supposed to act only as a protection tax in India it was being used as a pole

as a yeah as a pole tax in order to force Hindus to accept to embrace Islam that is why it was prohibited

under the Hadith and since Hadi is a major source of the sharat law these policies were also in contravention of

the sharat does does these

policies were also in violation of the sharat also in violation of the

sharat next main point therefore it can be conclusively stated

that the suanet was not a theocracy was not a

theocracy Full Stop in this light in this light

comma could it be characterized as a secular State could it be characterized as a

secular State question mark full stop next

point it is difficult to argue that the suanet

was a secular State either was a secular State either due to the following factors due

to the following factors sub Point 1 2 3 4 number one while the

sharat did not enjoy legal

exclusivity or Primacy or Primacy comma it was definitely it was definitely

the basis for the basis for the state's legal

political and revenue Machinery political and revenue Machinery

take next number two while the class was neither hereditary nor

Sovereign was neither hereditary nor Sovereign comma it did enjoy it did

enjoy a great degree of political influence comma especially

under weaker Sultans such as fosl such as P

next third from the very beginning from the very beginning the

sultanate viewed itself viewed itself as the sword and Oracle of Islam in

India Oracle Prophet sword and profit of Islam in India right with

its highest ideal being the establishment

of being the establishment of Dar Islam in India

darul Islam in India does

does ideologically ideologically comma the state

was heavily dependent was heavily dependent on

religion this ideologically the state was heavily dependent on

religion next number four this dependence this

dependence is also reflected in the relationship between the imma sorry

between the sultan between the sultan and the kff between the sultan and the kff right

so relation between sulan and we have to discuss in detail he was supposed to be the supreme

religious as well as political head of the entire Islamic world and therefore Sultans maintained what kind of

relationship with the K friendly relation close relation they viewed themselves as the subordinates the

representatives of the cff and they tried to project themselves as the right hand of the K okay so this also they

wanted to do and because the kth was the supreme religious head of the Islamic World The Sultans considered themselves

subordinate to religion connection present so it was not a secular next number five write

down religious discrimination and persecution religious discrimination and persecution

remained a permanent feature remained uhuh remained a permanent

feature of the sultanate period of the sultanate period P

stop in this light in this light this the state could hardly be

called secular be called secular would hardly be

called secular full stop there was no freedom of

religion or equality of religion P stop in the eyes of the state in the

eyes of the state comma at least from a theoretical point of

view at least from a theoretical point of view Islam

was Supreme and Muslims

represented the privileged class represented the privileged class next

Point next main point H next meain point on the whole on the

whole it appears that the sultanate was neither a theocracy nor a secular

state that this suanet was neither a theocracy nor a secular State supp

Point nor a secular State neither a theocracy nor a secular State Point

rather it was a religious state governed by a religiously conscious political

class in Alliance with the elite clergy in Alliance with the elite clergy

which used religion as a tool to

fulfill its political objectives to fulfill its political objectives coming back to these

questions say a answer take so that is it for today tomorrow we are going to begin with a

discussion on the relationship between the kff and the suanet right whether the kff presented an important role in the

suet or was his role only nominal debate then we are going to talk about the limitations of centralization during the

LOI period Lois are known for being a afans and they introduced the Afghan theory of kinship we are going to

compare it to the Turkish model of kinship analyze the differences and see how the afan theory of kingship was not

suited for governing a large and populous Empire in India weaknesses Emer then we are going to talk about the

Mongol policy of the various Sultans that later Mong policy discuss three phases policy of avoidance or

aloofness policy of appeasement and policy of resistance right

and following that we are going to have a discussion on huh we are going to have a discussion regarding the debate on

third urbanization so various Scholars have suggested various factors Behind These they have highlighted various

aspects of the third urbanization political factors we are going to discuss that

okay with this we are going to end our discussion on the delh probably any

doubts online students surj

rutuja hoping that there are no doubts thank you thank you CH see you tomorrow

[Music]