The historian Barani refused to consider the state in India under Delhi Sultans as truly Islamic because

1. The Nature of the Delhi Sultanate State (basic)

To understand the Delhi Sultanate, we must first look past the simple label of a "religious state." While the Sultans were Muslim rulers, the nature of their state was defined by a delicate balance between Islamic traditions and the pragmatic realities of ruling a vast, majority non-Muslim population. This led to a unique political-legal innovation called Zawabit—state ordinances or secular laws framed by the Sultan that often supplemented or even overrode traditional religious law to ensure the state functioned effectively.

The state was essentially a military-aristocratic structure. In its early phase, it was characterized by political instability and military campaigns focused on territorial expansion and raiding for resources Exploring Society: India and Beyond, Class VIII, Reshaping India’s Political Map, p.25. However, as it matured under rulers like Balban, the state became more centralized. Balban asserted absolute authority to end the "political intrigues" of the nobility and conducted constant military operations to discipline defiant governors History, Class XI (TN), Advent of Arabs and Turks, p.141. This shift transformed the Sultanate from a loose collection of military outposts into a disciplined administrative machine.

A fascinating aspect of this governance was its economic foundation. The Sultanate introduced significant changes, such as requiring land tax to be paid in cash rather than kind. This policy forced rural products into the towns, fueling a new phase of urbanization where cities like Delhi and Daulatabad became global hubs History, Class XI (TN), Advent of Arabs and Turks, p.149. To maintain legitimacy, the Sultans didn't just rely on the Ulama (theologians); they often sought the moral and spiritual support of Sufi saints, who held immense influence over the common people Themes in Indian History Part II, Class XII, Bhakti-Sufi Traditions, p.159.

Feature	Ideal Religious State	The Delhi Sultanate Reality
Legal Basis	Strict Shari'a law	Zawabit (State laws) + Shari'a
Legitimacy	Endorsement by Jurists	Support from Sufis and military might
Economy	Traditional agrarian barter	Monetized cash-based tax system

Sources: Exploring Society: India and Beyond, Class VIII (NCERT), Reshaping India’s Political Map, p.25; History, Class XI (Tamil Nadu State Board), Advent of Arabs and Turks, p.141, 149; Themes in Indian History Part II, Class XII (NCERT), Bhakti-Sufi Traditions, p.159

2. The Administrative and Legal Framework (basic)

The Delhi Sultanate was built on a foundation of absolute centralisation, where the Sultan was the pivot of the entire administrative and legal machinery. As the political and military head, the Sultan’s duties were multifaceted: defending the territory, collecting taxes, and maintaining personal contact with the public to understand their conditions Exploring Society: India and Beyond, Reshaping India’s Political Map, p.53. While the Sultan held supreme authority, he was supported by a Council of Ministers who managed various departments. To govern vast territories efficiently, the Sultanate employed the Iqta system, where land grants were given to nobles (Iqtadars) in exchange for military service and revenue collection Exploring Society: India and Beyond, Reshaping India’s Political Map, p.53.

The legal framework of the Sultanate was a delicate balancing act between religious tradition and political necessity. While the Ulama (religious scholars) expected the state to be governed strictly by Sharia (Islamic law), the Sultans often found this difficult in a land with a diverse, majority non-Muslim population. This led to the emergence of Zawabit—state regulations or ordinances framed by the Sultan himself. Rulers like Alauddin Khalji were known for their pragmatic approach, often asserting that the needs of the state and the preservation of authority took precedence over theological interpretations. This evolution of Zawabit allowed the Sultanate to function as a secular political entity in practice, even while maintaining an Islamic character in theory.

In the judicial sphere, the system was dualistic. While the Sultan was the highest court of appeal, the Qazi-ul-Quzat headed the judicial department. In local matters and civil disputes, the state often allowed for pluralistic legal traditions: Hindu subjects were generally governed by their own personal laws and local customs, while Muslim law was applied to Muslims, particularly in criminal cases handled by officers like Qazis and Muftis.

Legal Category	Description	Primary Influence
Sharia	Religious law based on Islamic scriptures.	Ulama and Jurists
Zawabit	Secular state ordinances framed by the Sultan for administration.	Political Pragmatism
Customary Law	Local traditions and personal laws of non-Muslim subjects.	Social Traditions

Sources: Exploring Society: India and Beyond, Reshaping India’s Political Map, p.53; Exploring Society: India and Beyond, Reshaping India’s Political Map, p.25

3. The Role of Ulema in State Politics (intermediate)

In the Delhi Sultanate, the Ulema (plural of Alim) were the class of religious scholars and jurists who interpreted Islamic law, known as Shariʿa. Theoretically, they were the moral guardians of the state, and the Sultan was expected to rule according to their interpretations. As the political and military head, the Sultan was tasked with "defending the territories of Islam" Exploring Society: India and Beyond, Reshaping India’s Political Map, p.53. However, in practice, a fascinating tension existed between the Sultan's absolute authority and the Ulema's theological expectations. Most Sultans realized that ruling a vast, majority non-Muslim population required political pragmatism rather than rigid religious orthodoxy. To bridge this gap, they introduced Zawabit — state laws or secular ordinances formulated by the ruler to meet administrative and military needs. These Zawabit often supplemented or even overrode Shariʿa. For instance, Sultans like Alauddin Khalji famously asserted that state interests took precedence over religious dictates. Contemporary chroniclers like Ziauddin Barani criticized this, arguing that the Sultanate was failing to be a truly Islamic state because it relied on state regulations rather than jurists' interpretations.

Feature	Shariʿa	Zawabit
Source	Religious texts and juristic interpretation.	The Sultan’s executive orders and state needs.
Objective	Moral and religious governance.	Political stability and administrative efficiency.

The relationship between the state and the Ulema shifted depending on the ruler’s personality. While Alauddin Khalji kept the Ulema away from political decision-making, later rulers like Firuz Shah Tughlaq adopted a highly conciliatory policy, restoring properties and hereditary appointments to appease the theologians and nobles History XI (Tamil Nadu State Board), Advent of Arabs and Turks, p.146. To balance the influence of the Ulema, many Sultans also turned to Sufi saints, who offered a more popular and less legalistic form of religious legitimacy.

Sources: Exploring Society: India and Beyond (NCERT), Reshaping India’s Political Map, p.53; History (Tamil Nadu State Board), Advent of Arabs and Turks, p.146

4. Connected Concept: The Iqtadari System (intermediate)

The Iqtadari System was the administrative and agrarian backbone of the Delhi Sultanate, effectively serving as the mechanism that allowed the Sultans to maintain a massive army and govern vast territories without a purely cash-based economy. At its core, an Iqta was a land grant given to an officer of the state in lieu of a cash salary. The holder of this grant, known as the Iqtadar or Muqti, was responsible for collecting revenue from the assigned land, maintaining a specified number of troops for the Sultan's service, and upholding law and order in their region. Unlike European feudalism, the Iqtadar did not 'own' the land; they were essentially state officials exercising a temporary right to its revenue. To prevent these officers from becoming too powerful or turning their grants into independent kingdoms, the Sultans — particularly during the era of Iltutmish and Balban — insisted on the principle of regular transfers. By moving Iqtadars from one region to another, the state ensured that no individual could develop deep-rooted local ties that might lead to rebellion. This concept of non-hereditary, transferable assignments was a precursor to the later Mughal Jagirdari system, where salaries were similarly fixed but paid through land assignments History, class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), The Mughal Empire, p.207. As the Sultanate evolved, the management of these land grants necessitated the creation of Zawabit (state-made secular laws). Because the Iqtadars had to manage a diverse, predominantly non-Muslim peasantry, the Sultans often prioritized pragmatic governance and administrative efficiency over strict theological prescriptions. Under powerful rulers like Alauddin Khalji, the state intensified its control by auditing the accounts of Iqtadars and demanding that the fawazil (surplus revenue left after meeting the Iqtadar's personal salary and troop expenses) be strictly deposited into the central treasury.

Feature	Iqtadari System	Feudalism (European)
Ownership	State-owned; official acts as a manager.	Hereditary ownership of the manor.
Transferability	High; Iqtadars were frequently moved.	Low; lords stayed on their land for generations.
Central Authority	Strong; the Sultan could revoke the Iqta.	Weak; the King often had little control over vassals.

Sources: History, class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), The Mughal Empire, p.207

5. Connected Concept: Sufism and State Legitimacy (intermediate)

To understand how the Delhi Sultanate functioned, we must look beyond military might. The Sultans faced a core challenge: how to establish legitimacy (the right to rule) in a land where the majority of the population was non-Muslim. While the Ulama (orthodox legal scholars) pressured the Sultans to enforce strict Sharia, the rulers realized that a rigid theological approach was practically impossible in the Indian context. This led to the emergence of Zawabit—state laws or secular ordinances framed by the Sultan to handle administrative realities that religious law did not cover. Historians like Ziauddin Barani were often critical of this, feeling the state was drifting away from an ideal Islamic model History, class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Chapter 10, p.148.

This is where Sufism played a pivotal role. Sufi Shaikhs held Wilayat (spiritual authority), which often carried more weight with the common people than the Sultan’s political power. By associating with popular Sufi saints, Sultans could claim a form of divine sanction that the Ulama could not provide. However, different Sufi orders (Silsilas) viewed the state differently. While some sought to maintain their distance to preserve spiritual purity, others believed that being close to the throne allowed them to influence the Sultan for the public good.

Feature	Chishti Silsila	Suhrawardi Silsila
Relation with State	Generally maintained distance; avoided courtly titles.	Maintained close ties; often accepted state patronage and offices.
Legitimacy Provided	Mass popularity helped the Sultan through association.	Directly advised the state on administrative and religious matters.

Even when Sufis stayed away from the palace, their khanqahs (hospices) acted as moral centers that reminded people of their ethical obligations during times of political turmoil History, class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Chapter 10, p.193. By building magnificent tombs for deceased saints or seeking the prayers of living ones, the Sultans cleverly used the “aura” of the Sufis to cement their own authority over a diverse and complex society THEMES IN INDIAN HISTORY PART II, Chapter 6, p.159.

Sources: History, class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Chapter 10: Advent of Arabs and Turks, p.148; History, class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Cultural Syncretism: Bhakti Movement in India, p.193; THEMES IN INDIAN HISTORY PART II, Chapter 6: Bhakti-Sufi Traditions, p.159

6. Zawabit: The Emergence of State Regulations (exam-level)

When we look at the Delhi Sultanate, we often imagine a rigid theocracy. However, the reality of governance was far more complex and pragmatic. As the Sultans established their rule over a vast, diverse, and majority non-Muslim population, they realized that governing solely through strict Shariʿa (Islamic religious law) was practically impossible. This realization led to the emergence of Zawabit — state regulations or secular ordinances framed by the Sultan to meet the administrative and political requirements of the time.

The Zawabit represented a significant shift toward political pragmatism. While the Sultan was theoretically the defender of the faith, contemporary chronicles like Ziauddin Barani’s Tarikh-i-Firoz Shahi reveal that rulers often prioritized the stability of the state over theological prescriptions History, class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Chapter 10: Advent of Arabs and Turks, p.136. For instance, Alauddin Khalji famously asserted that he acted in the best interest of the state, regardless of whether his decisions were sanctioned by religious law. This created a dual legal structure where Zawabit supplemented or sometimes even overrode traditional religious interpretations to ensure effective tax collection, military discipline, and public order.

This "innovation" caused deep anxiety among the conservative Ulama (religious scholars). Historians like Barani criticized the Sultans because Zawabit made the Sultanate look more like a "worldly" kingdom rather than a purely Islamic state. To balance this loss of religious legitimacy from the jurists, the Sultans often turned to Sufi saints for moral authority, as the Sufis generally stayed away from narrow legalistic disputes and provided a more inclusive form of spiritual legitimacy THEMES IN INDIAN HISTORY PART II, History CLASS XII (NCERT 2025 ed.), Chapter 6: Bhakti-Sufi Traditions, p.159.

Feature	Shariʿa	Zawabit
Source	Religious scriptures and juristic interpretations.	The Sultan’s authority and state necessity.
Purpose	Moral and religious guidance.	Administrative efficiency and political stability.
Nature	Universal and unchanging.	Flexible and pragmatic based on the context.

Sources: History, class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Chapter 10: Advent of Arabs and Turks, p.136; THEMES IN INDIAN HISTORY PART II, History CLASS XII (NCERT 2025 ed.), Chapter 6: Bhakti-Sufi Traditions, p.159

7. Barani's Critique of the 'Islamic' State (exam-level)

To understand Ziauddin Barani’s critique, we must first recognize the fundamental tension in Delhi Sultanate governance: the gap between theological ideals and political realities. While the Sultanate was formally an Islamic state where rulers often styled themselves as the 'lieutenant of the Caliph' History, Class XI (Tamilnadu State Board 2024 ed.), Chapter 10, p.148, the practical challenges of ruling a vast, diverse, and predominantly non-Muslim population forced the Sultans to innovate beyond religious texts.

Barani, a conservative intellectual and chronicler, was deeply troubled by the emergence of Zawabit (state laws/ordinances). These were secular regulations framed by the Sultans to manage administration, military, and taxation—areas where the Shari‘a (Islamic law) did not provide specific or practical guidance for a multi-religious Indian context. Barani argued that while a true Islamic state should be governed strictly by religious law, the Delhi Sultans were increasingly prioritizing secular pragmatism over theological prescriptions.

Legal Concept	Source of Authority	Primary Focus
Shari‘a	Divine Revelation / Jurists	Religious duty, moral conduct, and traditional law.
Zawabit	The Sultan (State)	Administrative efficiency, political stability, and military necessity.

The most striking example of this shift was Alauddin Khalji. Barani notes that Alauddin explicitly claimed absolute power, famously stating that he did not care whether his policies were sanctioned by theology, provided they served the interest of the state and the people History, Class XI (Tamilnadu State Board 2024 ed.), Chapter 10, p.148. For Barani, this was a dangerous departure. He believed that by relying on Zawabit and keeping the Ulama (religious scholars) at arm's length, the Sultans were creating a 'world-state' rather than a truly 'Islamic' one. This pragmatism was further reinforced by the state's relationship with Sufi saints, who often provided a more flexible form of moral legitimacy than the rigid legalism of the jurists THEMES IN INDIAN HISTORY PART II, History CLASS XII (NCERT 2025 ed.), Chapter 6, p.159.

Sources: History, Class XI (Tamilnadu State Board 2024 ed.), Chapter 10: Advent of Arabs and Turks, p.148; THEMES IN INDIAN HISTORY PART II, History CLASS XII (NCERT 2025 ed.), Chapter 6: Bhakti-Sufi Traditions, p.159

8. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

This question brings together the foundational concepts of theocratic versus pragmatic governance in medieval India. Throughout your modules, you explored how the Delhi Sultans faced the challenge of ruling a vast, diverse population while maintaining their identity as Islamic monarchs. The key concept here is zawabit (state regulations). As a conservative historian and theorist, Ziauddin Barani believed that a truly Islamic state must be governed strictly by the shariʿa. However, he observed that Sultans like Alauddin Khalji and Muhammad bin Tughlaq prioritized political expediency and administrative necessity over the advice of the ulama, leading to a legal system that was a hybrid of religious law and royal decrees.

To arrive at the correct answer, you must think like a 14th-century traditionalist. If Barani is "refusing" to call the state truly Islamic, he must be pointing to a structural deviation from religious doctrine. While the Sultanate was Islamic in name, the Sultan supplemented the Muslim law by framing his own regulations to manage a complex empire. This move toward secular statecraft (zawabit) is the specific reason Barani lamented that the Sultanate was merely a "worldly" government. As noted in History, class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), rulers acted pragmatically, often acting on absolute power rather than theological prescriptions to maintain stability.

UPSC often uses "partially true" statements as traps. For instance, options (A) and (D) describe the demographic and social reality of the time—the population was indeed majority non-Muslim, and zimmi status provided religious protections—but these were reasons for the Sultan's pragmatism, not the theological reason why Barani disqualified the state's Islamic status. Option (B) is a symptom of the issue, but (C) is the actual policy action that Barani criticized. According to THEMES IN INDIAN HISTORY PART II (NCERT 2025 ed.), the Sultans had to balance the demands of the ulama with a reality that required different legitimizing forces, making state ordinances a necessity for survival, much to Barani's chagrin.