Write about the nature of state under the Sultans of Delhi?
The Nature of State Under the Delhi Sultans : There is a controversy among the scholars regarding the nature of State under the Delhi Sultans. The controversy centres round the moot question that whether it was an Islamic theocracy or not. 'Theocracy' may be defined as a form of government in which god (or deity) is considered as the ruler or king, and his dictates or laws recognized as the law of the land. Accordingly, an Islamic theocracy would mean an Islamic States in which god or Allah is the ruler and his words, the Quaran (divine words), is the basis of all the laws. The nature of States under the sultans of Delhi may be considered in his background. Iswari prasad favours to call States under the sultans of Delhi as an islamic theocracy.But other like Satish Chandra, S.A.A. Rizvi and others, however, hold a different opinion.
a. K.M Ashraf in his research work has pointed out that there is much difference between the Islamic theocracy as suggested in the Quran and the states established by the Sultans of Delhi. For in the Islamic law, Shariat, based on the unalterable words of the quran and Hadis there is no scope for kingship or monarchy. But the fact remains that the State established by the sultans of Delhi was a monarchy.
b. It is thus clear that the Delhi Sultans by establishing monarchy deviated from the Islamic tradition. In fact , it is better to say that the sultans were compelled to deviate from the islamic tradition. For the sultans realized that it would be impossible for them to rule over the country and its people if they followed the islamic tradition. The sultans themselves were also very much aware this deviation that they had made. Yet the temptation of power was so great with them that they could not give up monarchy.
c. In view of what is stated above it is not possible to characterize the State under the Sultans of Delhi as an Islamic theoracy. Barani practically realized the fact when he stated that really speaking the State under the sultans was not an Islamic. For the Sultans of Delhi at least openly did not oppose the Shariat. What is all the more important is that meanwhile a class of people called ulema, who were experts in the Islamic laws appeared and gave recognition to the monarchy as established by the sultans.
d. Some scholars prefer to chacterize the State under the sultans of Delhi as a 'miliatary state'. That is to say, the Delhi Sultanate was solely dependent upon their military power. In this respect K.A. Nizami put forward the argument that no political structure could be built without the support of the people. Moreover, the very fact that the Sultanate rule continued for several centuries itself is a proof that it had some sort of consent of the people. The frequent military campaigns of the Sultans should not mean that the state was militart in character.
e. In view of the various opinions expressed it is difficult to determine the real character of the State under the Delhi Sultanate. Yet there is no shade of doubt that the Muslim aristocracy enjoyed special privileges in all the matters of the state. Barani also reiterated this in his writing. What is all the more important is that from the very beginning the Muslim aristocracy had become an important pillar of the Sultanate administration. The Sultans also were very much aware that without their help and support the very existence of the Sultanate will be at stake. Again, it is also a fact that considering the reality of the situation the Sultans established their rule depending on military power. The State under the Sultanate was totally dependent on military power, and such a State could never build up a tradition of natural allegiance of the people at large.
0 Comments