Talk:Delhi Sultanate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Maps of the Delhi Sultanate[edit]


Daulat Khan[edit]

Which is the Daulat Khan (1413 - 1414) listed in the table of sultans. It links to another daulat khan who is lived in 1517-1526 period. required facts.--sunil (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:INDIA Banner/Delhi Addition[edit]

Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Delhi workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Delhi or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- Amartyabag TALK2ME 08:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

incorrect ethnic references[edit]

The Delhi Sultanate is a term used to cover five short-lived, Delhi based kingdoms or sultanates, of Turkic origin in medieval India.

This should be Turkic and Pashtun.

Pashtuns are not turkic and at least 3 of the dynasties were Pashtuns this should be changed especially as you have cited later in the article that certain dynasties were from afghanistan ( pashtun.

Khilji's lodhis and ghor's were pashtun.

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranguna (talkcontribs) 14:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced content tags and NPOV discussion[edit]

This article has a lot of content without cited sources. I have tagged some per WP:V requirement. @Nestwiki: Please do not revert or remove "citation needed" tags without providing source. Similarly, please do not remove content that is sourced from peer reviewed journals and WP:RS publications of scholars. If you have concerns, I invite you to discuss them on this talk page. Beren Dersi (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Eaton and Temple Desecration[edit]

I have given link to both Part-II & Part-I of Eaton’s work in PDF format.

1. (Part=II)

2. (Part-I)

1) Statement- Eaton says that these were selectively targeted at the rival/rebel rulers or kings, not to the common men or community.Source- See “Temple Desecration And State Maintenance” section. Only those temples were targeted that were identified to be the extension of the rebel/rival patron/ruler, others were not. [Page-74(actually fifth page of Part II)]

2) Statement- The reason is that some temples during the middle age served both religious and political (sovereignty) symbols while the mosques were mainly religious and apolitical.Source- See “Temples and Mosques Contrasted” section. [Page-75(actually sixth page of Part II)]

3) Statement- Even, there are several instances of Sultans doing reconstruction/repair of old temples as they were considered state property or personally patronizing Brahmins in order to “legitimize” their new founded rule in new territories.Source- See “Conclusion” and “Temple Protection and State Maintenance” section. [Page-76(actually seventh page of Part II)] & [Page-70(actually first page of Part II)]

4) Statement- That is why in “pre-modern Indo-Muslim states, some temples were desecrated, some were protected and others were constructed anew”.Source- The very sub-title of the Part-II. [Page-70(actually first page of Part II)]

5) Statement- However, this practice of desecration of temples “patronized” by the erstwhile rulers dates back to the 6th century CE.Source- 6th line of the Introduction of the Part-II. [Page-70(actually first page of Part II)] Further examples are given in Part-I in the 4th and 5th Page.

6)Eaton makes it very clear that no campaign was done by Sultans to destroy or desecrate temple or idols but campaigns were done to conquer new territories in which some temples patronized by erstwhile were rulers were selectively desecrated.

Any one can check the authenticity of the facts given. However, I urge personally to go through both the parts to get a clear perspective. It’s of just 17 pages (9+8=17). In brief, read the conclusion part where everything is present in nutshell. Thank you.Ghatus (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:COATRACK. This article is on Delhi Sultanate, not "all about Eaton" or defensive or aggressive opinions from either side.
I have kept constructive parts of your edit, just reverted undue WP:COATRACK parts. Beren Dersi (talk) 03:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Successor states[edit]

People seem to have added a long list of successor States to the Delhi Sultanate. As far as I am concerned, it has only one successor: the Mughal empire. Is there any reason why other successors are needed? - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, YES, only Mughals. BTW, have you seen how wrong info is being propagated in this article. I am giving just two examples,

1) It says in the box that Lodis destroyed temples in Tamil Nadu. But, Lodis did not even cross central India, forget about going them to the Tamil Nadu.

2)Kashmir was NEVER RULED by Delhi sultanate. Native Muslim converts ruled Kashmir till Akbar came. So, how can Delhi Sultanate destroy temple in Kashmir?( It is even given in picture)

This articles confuses any Muslim state in India between 1206-1526 with this Delhi Sultanate. I am fed up correcting even this basic Indian History. Bye,Ghatus (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

See Peter Jackson's Delhi Sultanate book @ p. 162 etc. Jackson writes, Vijayanagara Empire took over southern regions from Delhi Sultanate in 1336. Just like Mughal Empire took over the north from Delhi Sultanate's last dynasty in 1526. Same happened in Bengal etc. There were more than one successor, after the peak reached during the Tughlaq dynasty, but it is not a long list. Ignore POV, go with what scholars have published. Beren Dersi (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Loss of territory doesn't count as "succession." Otherwise we would have zillions of successors for each State. Only those losses that are directly correlated with the ending of a regime should be counted as successors. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
See Template:infobox former country which recommends not listing even all the losses resulting from the ending of a regime. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
The template says, "In some cases, most readers would expect to see every state that was formed, not just the official predecessor/successor. If so, list all states." Vijayanagara, Bengal and Gajapati fit this. These formed long before Delhi Sultanate's demise and continued for a while after the 1526 end of Delhi Sultanate. Mughal Empire started not as a peaceful succession to Delhi Sultanate, but after a war and the complete loss of left over Delhi Sultanate territory. What about predecessor states? do Sena, Tomara or Ghurid qualify by your logic (someone needs to fix the Ghurid dynasty article map and these three wiki articles). Beren Dersi (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Vijayanagara was a successor state to the Tughlaq Dynasty, not to Delhi Sultanate. It is a typical case of confusing a single dynasty with a succession of five dynasties (Delhi Sultanate). BTW, Gajapati, Rajputs were contemporary states or federations to Delhi Sultanate, not its successors. ONLY Mughals can claim to be the successors of the Delhi Sultanate, none other. Ghatus (talk) 05:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I got rid of all the predecessor/successor states other than Ghurid and Mughals. If it is wrong, somebody can contest it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 07:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This makes no sense, "Vijayanagara was a successor state to the Tughlaq Dynasty, not to Delhi Sultanate. It is a typical case of confusing a single dynasty with a succession of five dynasties (Delhi Sultanate)." - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghatus (talkcontribs)

Provide a WP:HISTRS, User:Ghatus for your OR, that says either (a) your alleged version of history, or (b) Tughlaq dynasty was not one of those five dynasties. Kautilya3, without WP:HISTRS from Ghatus, treat statements from Ghatus as potentially OR. Lets verify before making the infobox change. I have already given you Jackson reference, which supports the older version on succession. For predecessors, I will check Jackson and others again, before reverting or correcting that part, if necessary. Beren Dersi (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I do not know where is the confusion. Tughlaqs were finished in the 14th century and Vijayanagar rose in the 14th century. But, Delhi Sultanate was overthrown in 1526. So, how can Vijayanagar become a successor state to the Delhi Sultanate as a whole? Successor states must come after 1526 and only Mughals fill the criteria. No need to confuse one dynasty with a succession of five dynasties. Why are you putting Gajapati in? How did they become successor? Who conquered it before?Ghatus (talk) 11:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
@Beren Dersi: The issue has nothing to do with sources, but rather understanding the English meaning of "successor". A successor state of a regime X is the one that replaces it when the regime X ends. If the regime loses some of its territory to one or more other parties, we don't call them "successors." However, for each of those parties, the regime X would be counted as their "predecessor" because, for the region under their control, the regime preceded it. So Vijayanagar's predecessor is the Delhi Sultanate. However, Vijayanagara is not the Delhi Sultanate's successor. That is because Vijayanagara did not end the Delhi Sultanate, only ended its control over certain territory. I hope you understand the difference. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Kautilya3, thank you for clarifying the definition. If a governor of Delhi Sulatante declare himself independent and establishes new state, as Muzaffar Shah I established Gujarat Sultanate, the state can not said as successor as per your definition but can be attached as followed by if needed. Right? :) --Nizil (talk) 23:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean by "followed by." Are you talking about the infobox or something else? The point I made earlier is that Gujarat Sultanate can have Delhi Sultanate as its predecessor, but the Delhi Sultanate doesn't have Gujarat Sultanate as its successor. Losing territory is not counted as "succession." Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Punjab region[edit]

@Filpro: Regarding this edit [1], the sentence says that the Delhi Sultanate lasted for 320 years. Can you specify during what periods it was limited to the "Punjab region"? - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The Delhi Sultanate has never only been limited to Punjab. In fact the Delhi Sultanate has never even been limited to only Delhi either. That sentence concerns with where they were based in. If you take a look at the maps in the article and some other ones you can see that while losing and gaining other parts of the Indian subcontinent, they never lost Delhi and Punjab.Filpro (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Temple desecration[edit]

Following sentence is in article:

During the Delhi Sultanate, there were a total of 37 instances of Hindu temples being desecrated or destroyed in India.

According to Eaton, there were a total of 37 instances of Hindu Temple desecration in span 320 years. I think it is an understatement. It should not be "total instances" but "recorded instances" as many instances may not have been documented in any texts. It is likely that only major temples desecration are recorded. Current sentence also omits/ignores Jain and Buddhist temples. It also seem that Eaton has also omitted several instances which are recorded elsewhere, like in inscriptions. They should be taken under consideration. So total of 37 is understatement. If Qutb complex was built from stones of 27 temples (according to some sources as written in article), how only 37 temples were destroyed during whole Delhi Sultanate period? I think some serious rewording needed to reflect this. Regards,--Nizil (talk) 12:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Eaton's quote from an interview:

Question: Hindutva ideologues claim that 60,000 temples were demolished under Muslim rule in India. You have countered this in your essay, "Temple Desecration and Indo-Muslim states", saying “one may identify 80 instances of temple desecration whose historicity appears reasonably certain.” However, there have been objections to your method of counting, accusing you of counting as one an instance in which 70 temples were destroyed in Banaras; that you did not include a temple which was destroyed in Anantnag, Kashmir. How do you respond to this charge?
Answer: I feel that we can get too swept up in a numbers game here. Yes, there is a huge discrepancy between 60,000 and 80. But as I mentioned in my published essay, the tables and maps I presented “by no means give the complete picture of temple desecration after the establishment of Turkish power in upper India.” And I concluded that “we shall never know the precise number of temples desecrated in Indian history.” All we can talk about are instances for which there is contemporary evidence, whether it appears in the archaeological record, in the epigraphic record, or in contemporary chronicles. And even those data must be closely interrogated.
Think of trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle in which 30% to 50% of the pieces are missing, and you have no border pieces at all. The best you can do is to fit together the few pieces you have in order to construct a reasonable approximation of what the whole picture most likely looked like. An honest historian will admit that the evidence is almost always fragmentary, incomplete, or even contradictory. But what one cannot do is to try to fill in the blank spaces with pieces that don’t exist, or that you think “must have” existed.
I have no doubt that more than 80 temples were desecrated by Muslims, just as there were probably more temples desecrated by Hindus than are in the record. Again, to quote myself, “Undoubtedly some temples were desecrated but the facts in the matter were never recorded, or the facts were recorded but the records themselves no longer survive. Conversely, later Indo-Muslim chroniclers, seeking to glorify the religious zeal of earlier Muslim rulers, sometimes attributed acts of temple desecration to such rulers even when no contemporary evidence supports the claims.”
It’s always that jigsaw puzzle.

I think it clarifies a lot. We should make changes to reflect this.--Nizil (talk) 12:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I have made some minor changes to reflect the opinion.--Nizil (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Origins in lead[edit]

I find the following sentence in the lead problematic:

Two dynasties (Mamluk and Sayyid) were of Turkic origin, one dynasty (Khalji) was of Turko-Afghan heritage, one dynasty (Tughlaq) was of Turko-Indian origin, and the last dynasty (Lodi) was of Pashtun (Afghan/Pathan) origin.

User:Maestro2016's comments here suggest that the terms "Turko-Afghan" and "Turko-Indian" are intended to describe the ethnic ("Turko") and geographical ("Afghan"/"Indian") origins of the dynasties.

Thus, the sentence apparently describes ethnic and geographical origins of two of the dynasties, but only ethnic origins for the three other dynasties. This may mislead the readers, who may assume that "Afghan" and "Indian" here refer to the ethnic origins of these dynasties.

Moreover, it is not clear why the Khaljis are being called "Turko-Afghan" while the Tughluqs are being described as "Turko-Indian". The Khalji dynasty's founder Jalaluddin was a state official in present-day India, as was the Tughluq dynasty's founder Ghiyasuddin.

I've not come across any reliable source using the term "Turko-Indian" to describe the Tughluqs, in the sense "of Turkic ethnicity and residing in India". The term "Turko-Afghan" is also confusing, because many books use it to describe all the dynasties in the sense "of either Turkic or Afghan origin". For example:

  • "Rule of the Delhi Sultanate under five largely Turko-Afghan dynasties"[1]
  • "Within the general rubric of the Delhi Sultanate are included five dynasties that ruled north India from Qutbuddin Aibek onwards: Mamluks (1210– 90); Khaljis (1290–1320); Tughluqs (1320–1413); Saiyyids (1414–51); and Lodis (1451–1526). They all had Turko-Afghan origins..."[2]
  • "the Turko-Afghan period, which had begun with Qutb-ud-din Aibak in 1206"[3]
  • "Several Turko-Afghan dynasties ruled from Delhi: the Mamluk (1211-90), the Khalji (1290-1320), the Tughlaq (1320–1414), the Sayyid (1414–51), and the Lodhi (1451–1526)."[4]
  • "But it was only in 1206 that Qutb al Din Aibak, a Turko-Afghan, established a Turko-Afghan sultanate in northern India."[5]
  • "Of the Turko-Afghan dynasties in India the Tughluqs had the longest period of rule of their credit."[6]
  • "After the fall of the Turko-Afghans, among whom the Lodhis were the last..."

Thus, calling one dynasty "Turkic", another "Turko-Afghan", and yet another "Turko-Indian", based on a synthesis of different sources is not appropriate.

I suggest that this line be removed from the article lead, unless someone can find a single reliable source that mentions ethnic and/or geographical origins for all these dynasties. The origins can be described in the article body instead, wheremore detailed explanations can provide the necessary clarity. utcursch | talk 18:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ José Rabasa; Masayuki Sato; Edoardo Tortarolo (2012). The Oxford History of Historical Writing: Volume 3: 1400-1800. OUP Oxford. p. 169. ISBN 978-0-19-921917-9. 
  2. ^ Peter Clarke (2002). The World's Religions: Islam. Routledge. p. 65. ISBN 978-1-134-93195-8. 
  3. ^ Edward James Rapson (1957). The Cambridge History of India. CUP Archive. p. 9. GGKEY:96PECZLGTT6. 
  4. ^ Peter R. Blood (1996). Pakistan: A Country Study. DIANE Publishing. p. 9. ISBN 978-0-7881-3631-3. 
  5. ^ Dilip Hiro (2013). Holy Wars (Routledge Revivals). Routledge. p. 35. ISBN 978-1-135-04831-0. 
  6. ^ Syama Prasad Basu (1970s). The Tughluqs: Years of Experiments. U. N. Dhur. 
Regarding the Tughlaqs, the "Turko-Indian" is in reference to the fact that the dynasty's founder Ghiyath al-Din Tughluq had a Turkic father and Hindu mother, which is mentioned in the article. Regarding the Khiljis, the "Turko-Afghan" is in reference to them being Turks who lived in Afghanistan for centuries, and were thus ethnically Turkic but culturally Afghan. However, I was not aware that the other dynasties also had geographic background in Afghanistan. In that case, it might be better to separately mention the ethnic and geographic backgrounds. For example, mentioning that, ethnically, three dynasties were Turkic, one was Turko-Indian, and one was Pashtun, while at the same time mentioning that, geographically, they all hail from Afghanistan. Maestro2016 (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with your suggestion that we mention there ethnic and geographic background separately. It's quite confusing that "Indian" in "Turko-Indian" refers to ethnicity, but "Afghan" in "Turko-Afghan" refers to ancestors' homeland. That said, from what I know, not all of these dynasties hail from Afghanistan. "Turko-Afghan" in these references seems to mean that these dynasties were of either Turkic or Afghan (Pashtun) origin. Also, "Turko-Indian" doesn't seem to be present in any reliable source as a designation for the Tughluqs -- it seems to be original research. utcursch | talk 03:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Saying that all the 5 dynasties were "Turko-Afghan" is very misleading. Are we implying that these dynasties started in Afghanistan and then invaded India? No. Four of them were ethnic Turks(Turkics) and one was ethnic Pashtuns and all of them started within Indian territory. Calling all of them Turko-Afghan is very misleading. Afghan means a citizen or resident of Afghanistan, it is not an ethnicity. Even a Hindu or Sikh living in Afghanistan will be Afghan but a Turk or Pashtun living in India, wont be Afghan. NineTimes (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree. To avoid any confusion, the ethnic and geographical origins should be mentioned separately, if at all. utcursch | talk 14:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
The source says Turkic and Hindu origins, so I think that would be a better description for the dynasty. Maestro2016 (talk) 01:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
The source clearly describes the Tughluq dynasty as a "Turkish dynasty" twice on that page. That was the primary identity of the Tughluqs, who did not identify as of mixed Hindu ethnicity.
The source states that Ghiyath al-Din's mother was Hindu, based on which the lead now describes the dynasty as of "Turkic and Hindu origins". Like the geographic origin issue, the problem here is of consistency: we're describing ancestry of the Tughluq dynasty, but the self-identified ethnicity for the other four dynasties.
The kings of the other dynasties also had non-Turkic ancestry (for example, the mother of Shihabuddin Omar was a Hindu). The sentence, as it currently stands, implies that the other four dynasties were of purely Turk or Afghan ancestry.
Whatever we mention (ethnic identity, geographical homeland, ancestry) in the lead, we should mention it for all the dynasties consistently, preferably with a single source. Or we should not mention these at all. utcursch | talk 14:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I somewhat agree that ethnicity/homeland/ancestry probably shouldn't be mentioned in the lead, since it's all over the place. I think the ethnicity/homeland/ancestry stuff should instead be mentioned in the dynasty sections below. Maestro2016 (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, much better now. utcursch | talk 14:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)