📍 Chapter 2: Reshaping India’s Political Map

The Delhi Sultanate was formed in 1206, after the defeat of Prithviraj Chauhan in 1192. Its five dynasties in order: Mamluks (Slave dynasty), Khiljis, Tughlaqs, Sayyids, and Lodis.

The jizya was a discriminatory tax levied by the Sultans on non-Muslim subjects. It created an economic burden on them and acted as a social incentive for conversion to Islam, apart from being a mark of unequal treatment of subjects based on religion.

Shifting the capital from Delhi to Daulatabad forced an entire population to march hundreds of kilometres, causing great suffering and loss of life, and Delhi’s strategic importance was lost — so it had to be reversed. The token copper currency failed because copper coins could be easily forged; people minted fake coins at home, trade was disrupted, the treasury lost value, and the economy fell into confusion and decline. Both schemes ignored practical realities of implementation.

Nearly two out of three sultans seized power by eliminating their predecessor, making the average reign barely nine years. There was no stable rule of succession, so every transfer of power invited violence and conspiracies. Constant military campaigns, rebellions in distant provinces, and invasions like Timur’s (1398) further weakened the state — showing that instability was structural, not accidental.

Narasimhadeva I, the Eastern Ganga ruler of Kalinga in the mid-13th century, built the Sūrya temple at Konark — partly to commemorate his victories over the Delhi Sultanate, including the defeat of the Sultanate’s governor of Bengal.

The Musunuri Nayakas were Telugu chieftains who rallied over 75 chieftains of the region into a confederacy. Around 1330–1336, this confederacy expelled Muhammad bin Tughlaq’s army from Warangal (in present-day Telangana) — a remarkable example of united regional resistance.

The Hoysalas fended off several Sultanate attacks, but each victory came at a heavy cost of men and resources. Combined with internal conflicts, this gradual exhaustion weakened the kingdom until it was absorbed into the rising Vijayanagara Empire. It teaches that military resistance alone cannot ensure survival — internal unity and economic strength matter equally.

The Eastern Gangas used military strength under a capable king (Narasimhadeva I); the Musunuri Nayakas used unity — a confederacy of 75+ chieftains; the Hoysalas used geography and persistence in the far south; Mewar under Rana Kumbha used fortifications like Kumbhalgarh. The common success factors were strong leadership, unity among local powers, distance from Delhi, and defensible geography.

Two brothers, Harihara and Bukka, who had earlier served as governors under Muhammad bin Tughlaq, founded the Vijayanagara Empire in the 14th century. Its capital was Vijayanagara, at present-day Hampi in Karnataka.

The Bahmani Sultanate fragmented into five independent states: Bijapur, Golconda, Berar, Ahmednagar, and Bidar — together known as the Deccan Sultanates.

The hare chasing hounds symbolised that even the seemingly weak could turn and defeat the strong on that land — resilience and courage. Guru Vidyaranya read it as a sign of the site’s auspicious power. Practically, Hampi was also protected by the Tungabhadra river and rocky hills, making it naturally defensible — folklore and strategy both supported the choice.

Each title advertised the military strength a dynasty was proudest of: Narapati (lord of men) — vast infantry of Vijayanagara; Ashwapati (lord of horses) — the Bahmani cavalry; Gajapati (lord of elephants) — Odisha’s war elephants. The titles show that medieval power was measured by armed strength, and each kingdom projected its distinctive military advantage in its very name.

Krishnadevaraya belonged to the Tuluva dynasty of the Vijayanagara Empire (ruled 1509–1529). He wrote the celebrated Telugu work Amuktamalyada, which contains his ideas on governance and devotion.

The combined forces of the Deccan Sultanates defeated the Vijayanagara army at the Battle of Talikota in 1565. The magnificent capital city of Vijayanagara (Hampi) was then sacked, plundered and destroyed, and the empire never recovered its former glory.

Both roles reinforced each other. Conquest secured the empire’s borders and wealth, but his administration — irrigation tanks, canals, flourishing agriculture and trade, patronage of the Ashtadiggajas — created lasting prosperity and cultural brilliance. His own words in Amuktamalyada show he valued the welfare of the people above conquest. Arguably, his statesmanship is why he is remembered as one of India’s greatest kings rather than merely a successful general.

Vijayanagara under and after Krishnadevaraya had grown so powerful that it threatened all the Sultanates individually — it had defeated them separately many times. Realising that none could win alone, they set aside mutual rivalries and formed a temporary alliance. It shows how a common threat can unite even bitter rivals — and how dangerous over-dominance can be for a single power.

Babur, a Turkic-Mongol ruler descended from Timur and Genghis Khan, founded the Mughal Empire after defeating Ibrahim Lodi, the last Delhi Sultan, at the First Battle of Panipat in 1526.

The Baburnama is Babur’s own memoirs. It is valuable because it gives a first-hand account of his life, his battles, and his impressions of India — its wealth, fruits, seasons and people — as well as honest records of his brutal military campaigns. Autobiographies of rulers from this era are rare, making it a key primary source.

Babur used gunpowder weapons — field cannons and matchlock guns — which Lodi’s forces had not faced on this scale. The noise and destruction panicked Lodi’s war elephants, which trampled their own troops. Babur also used clever defensive formations (carts tied together shielding his gunners). Superior technology and tactics defeated superior numbers — a turning point in Indian military history.

Historians must consider the full record rather than choosing one side. The same source shows love of gardens, poetry and nature alongside massacres and towers of skulls — proving that historical figures are complex. Evaluating them requires weighing all their actions in the context of their time, while not hiding or justifying acts of cruelty.

The Ibadat Khana (‘House of Worship’) was a hall built by Akbar at his capital Fatehpur Sikri, where scholars of different religions — Hindus, Muslims, Jains, Christians and Parsis — gathered to hold religious discussions in the emperor’s presence.

Sulh-i-kul means ‘peace with all’ — a policy of universal harmony among subjects of all faiths. Measures in its spirit: (1) abolition of the discriminatory jizya tax on non-Muslims; (2) inclusion of Rajputs and other Hindus in the highest administrative and military posts; also the removal of the pilgrimage tax and translation of Sanskrit classics into Persian.

By abolishing the jizya, allying with Rajput kingdoms through marriage and high offices, and honouring all faiths, Akbar converted potential enemies into loyal partners. Rajput generals like Man Singh led Mughal armies. This broadened the empire’s talent pool, reduced rebellions, secured the loyalty of the majority population, and gave the empire stability that pure military force could never achieve.

The same ruler ordered the massacre of 30,000 civilians at Chittorgarh in 1568 and later abolished discriminatory taxes and championed sulh-i-kul. This teaches that rulers can change over a lifetime, and that history must record both the crimes and the reforms honestly. A balanced judgement acknowledges the massacre as a terrible act while recognising the later transformation — neither erases the other.

Aurangzeb reimposed the jizya tax on non-Muslims (1679), which Akbar had abolished, and ordered the destruction of major temples such as Kashi Vishvanath (Varanasi) and Kesava Deva (Mathura) — the opposite of Akbar’s policy of sulh-i-kul and religious harmony.

Aurangzeb won a bitter war of succession: he imprisoned his own father, Emperor Shah Jahan, in Agra Fort, and defeated and executed his elder brother Dara Shikoh, the heir apparent and a noted scholar of comparative religion.

Territorial size is not the same as strength. Aurangzeb’s endless Deccan wars against the Marathas drained the treasury and exhausted the army; his religious policies (jizya, temple destruction, executions of Guru Tegh Bahadur and Sambhaji) turned Sikhs, Marathas, Rajputs and Jats into determined enemies; and governing so vast a territory stretched administration beyond its limits. The empire’s foundations were crumbling even as its borders peaked — so it collapsed rapidly after 1707.

Akbar’s inclusive policies built alliances (especially with Rajputs), broadened loyalty and stabilised the empire for a century. Aurangzeb’s discriminatory policies alienated Sikhs, Marathas, Rajputs and others, converting subjects into rebels. Akbar’s approach multiplied the empire’s supporters; Aurangzeb’s multiplied its enemies — a major reason the empire flourished after Akbar and disintegrated after Aurangzeb.

Shivaji was crowned Chhatrapati in 1674 at Raigad fort. He proclaimed Hindavi Swarajya — self-rule of the people of the land.

Ganimi kava was the Maratha method of guerrilla warfare — swift surprise raids, cutting supply lines, and rapid retreat into the hill forts of the Sahyadris. It was effective because the huge, slow Mughal armies could not chase light cavalry through mountain terrain, and every campaign drained Mughal resources while the Marathas lost little.

It shows that Shivaji’s fight was political — against oppressive rule — not against any religion or community. His Swarajya aimed at just governance where all faiths were respected; Muslims served in his army and navy. This ethical code of warfare gave his rule moral legitimacy and won him respect even from adversaries.

Sambhaji’s brutal execution turned him into a martyr, uniting the Marathas emotionally and making compromise impossible. Instead of fearing the empire, ordinary people joined the resistance in anger. Harsh punishment can destroy a leader but sanctify a cause — the Maratha war effort became a people’s war that Aurangzeb could never win.

The Battle of Haldighati was fought in 1576 between Maharana Pratap of Mewar (with his Rajput and Bhil forces) and the Mughal army commanded by Raja Man Singh of Amber.

Though forced to retreat, Pratap was never captured. He shifted to the hills and forests of Mewar and waged guerrilla warfare against Mughal outposts and supply lines, enduring great personal hardship. Over the years he recovered most of his kingdom except a few forts, before his death.

It shows that medieval politics was driven by each kingdom’s judgement of honour, survival and advantage — not by any single united identity. Amber chose alliance, gaining power and protecting its people; Mewar chose independence at the price of hardship. Both were rational responses to Mughal power, and both preserved Rajput influence in different ways. History rarely divides neatly into one ‘side’.

Because his greatness lay in unbending resolve, not in one battle’s result. He refused submission to the mightiest empire of his time, sacrificed comfort and wealth, kept fighting for decades, and recovered most of Mewar. Heroes are remembered for the values they embody — freedom, honour, perseverance — and Pratap embodied them completely.

The Ahom general Lachit Borphukan led the Ahom forces at the Battle of Saraighat in 1671, defeating a much larger Mughal fleet on the Brahmaputra river.

The paik system required every adult male to serve the state in rotation — as a soldier in war, or as a builder/worker in peace. This meant the Ahom state could mobilise its entire society for defence or public works without maintaining a costly standing army.

Assam’s terrain was a fortress: the mighty Brahmaputra forced the Mughals into naval warfare where nimble Ahom boats excelled; monsoon rains and floods bogged down Mughal cavalry and supply lines; dense forests enabled ambushes. At Saraighat, Lachit deliberately chose the narrowest stretch of the river, cancelling the Mughal fleet’s size advantage. The Ahoms turned their homeland’s nature into their strongest weapon.

It shows that for Lachit, duty to the country stood above every personal relationship — no one, however close, could be excused for endangering the nation. Such impartial discipline won him absolute trust of his soldiers: they knew rules applied equally to all. True leadership demands that the leader hold their own side, even family, to the highest standard.

Guru Nanak (1469–1539) founded the Sikh faith in Punjab. His core teachings: devotion to one God, equality of all human beings regardless of caste or creed, earning an honest living, and sharing with the needy.

The Khalsa was founded by the tenth Guru, Guru Gobind Singh, in 1699. It is a brotherhood of initiated saint-soldiers committed to justice, courage, discipline and the defence of faith and the oppressed.

The executions of Guru Arjan Dev (1606) and Guru Tegh Bahadur (1675) proved that peaceful faith alone could not survive state persecution. Guru Gobind Singh concluded that the community must be able to defend itself and the oppressed — so he created the Khalsa in 1699, combining sainthood with soldierly duty. Persecution thus produced the very strength that eventually challenged Mughal power in Punjab.

He sacrificed his life not for his own community’s rights but for another’s — defending the Kashmiri Pandits’ freedom to practise their religion. Laying down one’s life for someone else’s faith is the highest possible affirmation that freedom of conscience belongs to all. He is remembered as ‘Hind di Chadar’ — the shield of India.

Sher Shah Suri built the Grand Trunk Road connecting east and west, and introduced the standardised silver rupiya — the ancestor of the modern rupee. He also established sarais (rest houses) and an efficient postal system.

Under the mansabdari system, every Mughal officer held a rank called a mansab, which fixed his salary and the number of cavalry soldiers he had to maintain for the empire. The emperor alone granted, promoted or cancelled mansabs — keeping all officers directly dependent on and loyal to the throne.

By measuring land, classifying it by fertility, and fixing tax rates based on average produce over several years, the system gave the state a reliable, predictable income and reduced corruption by officials. Peasants benefited because they knew their dues in advance, were protected from arbitrary demands, and could plan their farming — stability that encouraged agriculture to expand.

All three were solutions to the same problem: how to maintain a large army and administer vast territory without modern banking or salaries. Each assigned revenue rights (iqta territories, nayaka provinces) or graded ranks (mansabs) in exchange for maintaining troops. The common risk was also shared — powerful assignees could turn into independent rulers, which is exactly how several regional powers eventually arose.

Maize, chillies, potatoes and tomatoes (also tobacco) came to India from the Americas through global trade during this period.

India exported goods the world craved — fine cotton and silk textiles, spices, wootz steel and handicrafts — but needed little from abroad. Foreign merchants therefore had to pay in gold and silver at ports like Surat, Masulipatnam and Calicut, making India a great sink of the world’s precious metals.

In an age of war, hierarchy and caste discrimination, Bhakti and Sufi saints preached that God is reached through love and devotion, not birth, ritual or priesthood. Saints like Kabir, Ravidas and Mirabai sang in the people’s own languages, welcoming all castes and communities. They gave dignity to the common person and created shared devotional culture across religious lines — a quiet social revolution beneath the noise of empires.

Dynasties rose and fell — Sultanate, Vijayanagara, Mughals, Marathas — yet the self-sufficient village with its farmers, artisans, headman and panchayat continued as the basic unit of Indian life, paying revenue to whoever ruled. Wars and famines did strike villages hard, so they were not untouched; but their social and economic structure outlasted every empire, making the village the true continuity of Indian history.