NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

History I
PROJECT ON:
DEBATE OVER EXISTENCE OF ISLAMIC STATE
IN INDIA DURING 13TH-18TH CENTURY

Submitted To:

Submitted By:

Prof.(Dr.) Uday Pratap Singh

Sonika Shivhare
V Trimester
2014BALLB40

1|Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................................2
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM........................................................................................................3
OBJECTIVE....................................................................................................................................3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................3
THE GROWTH OF CONCEPT OF AN ISLAMIC STATE...........................................................4
DELHI SULTANATE..................................................................................................................5
Association with the Prophet.......................................................................................................5
The Rule of Law..........................................................................................................................6
Treatment of non-Muslims..........................................................................................................8
MUGHAL RULE......................................................................................................................10
Before Akbars Rule..................................................................................................................10
Akbars Rule..............................................................................................................................10
After Akbars Rule.....................................................................................................................12
ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENTS....................................................................................................14
CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................15
BIBLIOGRAPHY..........................................................................................................................16

2|Page

INTRODUCTION
There has been a debate about whether there existed an Islamic State in India. The Muslim Rule
in India from 13th to 18th Century has been interpreted by many historians to be the time when
there was an Islamic State in India which connotes a theocratic state based on Islamic religion
while many others like I.H.Qureshi believe that this was not so while some go ahead to denote
this as a time of secularism. The state the Muslim invaders and rulers set up in India was a
theocracy was the conclusion arrived at by Jadunath Sarkar, R.P. Tripathi, K.M. Ashraf, T.P.
Hughes, The Encyclopaedia of Islam and many other historians. The various arguments in favour
of their view has been given by them to support the claim of existence or non-existence of
Islamic state in India on the basis of requirements of Islamic statehood. These requirements
themselves changed over a period of time before the 13th century.
This report looks to the diversity of such views and try to come out with a conclusion, if not of
the question in debate then atleast the reason for such diversity in views.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
To analyze the debate over the existence of Islamic State in India.

OBJECTIVE
1. To understand the concept of Islamic state and its modification.
2. To study the arguments in favour of and against the belief of existence of an Islamic
state during Delhi Sultanate and Mughal Empire in India.
3. To try to correlate them with each other and arrive at a conclusion.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The method that has been employed is analytical.

3|Page

THE GROWTH OF CONCEPT OF AN ISLAMIC STATE

The theocratic Islamic State was founded by the Prophet of Islam. For an Islamic state, the rules
for a 'purified' system of governance were set up by - the Quran, the multiple Hadis collections
and the administrative acts and principles of the Prophet. The Islamic theory of State was based
on three-fold idea of one scripture (Quran), one sovereign (imam-the leader also called khalifa or
caliph, the political successor of the Prophet) and one nation(millat-the muslim brotherhood).
These three were indivisible. The caliph was the amir ul momnin-the leader of the faithful
elected by the millat who were the sovereign and he had the religious obligation to implement
the Islamic Law on and for the benefit of his Muslim subjects. To determine whether a state was
an Islamic State two criteria can be established which were1. The state, ruling on behalf of a denominational God, would use all its power for the
conversion of its subjects to Islam and would eliminate all traces of non-Islamic
presence from its territories i.e. it would be constantly engaged in transforming the
contested land, dar al-harb into dar al-Islam, land of Islam.
2. Only the jurisdiction of Sharia, Islamic law, would prevail irrespective of the religious
affiliations of any of its subjects.
It was to be more in the nature of tribal oligarchy than that of the monarchy which Iran had at
that time. The Umayyads, did not enjoy the respect that the first four rightly guided caliphs, the
predecessors had commanded, and Abbasids, who overthrew the Umayyads condemned their
rule as mulk (kingdom) or irreligious kingship in contrast to the early caliphate. This view
changed during Abbasids with the translations of the ancient Iranian Mirror for Princes and the
Islamicized versions of this text written by scholars during their caliphate. This literary genre
unequivocally asserted that rulers were divinely appointed monarchs who were accountable only
to God. This authority could be challenged and removed by the Muslim religious elite (ahl alra'y) on violation of the laws of sharia.
The most significant change however came with the completion of the Shahnama by the great
Iranian epic poet Firdawsi in 1010. As well as an account of the epic glory of the ancient Iranian
kings, the Shahnama eloquently reminded rulers and nobles that monarchs were instruments in
the execution of God's will and that their commands were therefore inviolate. The concept of
mysticism, glory and charisma of the King was justified through Fan which symbolized the
divine favour which kings possessed as long as God did not take it away from them. Although
the appointment of Caliph was necessary, it was done by the holder of the military power who
owed allegiance to him. Later the authority came to be related increasingly with religion and it
was said that all religious person had to obey the king, even if he was barbaric and that God had
entrusted subjects to the sultan's care, it being one of the latter's principal duties to ensure their
protection. It was thus his duty to rule with impartiality and justice, all these principles affected
by the Iranian monarchial rules.
Major changes also came about later when the Caliphs power reduced and his seal used only as
a way of legitimizing authority while king was held to be the shadow of God and the words
4|Page

caliph and sultan was used interchangeably. These changes occured during Balbans rule who
also introduced Iranian court customs and also strongly adhered to the class and racial prejudices
of ancient Iran. He advocated the implementation of strict justice but only for the Sunnis and
excluded the Hindus and discriminated against the Isma'ilis and Muslim philosophers. With
explicit paternalism, however, he also urged his successors to note that only such rulers deserved
to be called 'king' as had not a single naked or hungry person in their territories.
Mohammed Bin Tughlaq started a new trend of owing allegiance to a dead Caliph which was
later given to him by the envoy of Abbasid Caliph in Egypt, Hajji Sa'id Sarsari in return of gifts.
Baranis work had a major impact on the change in the nature of kingship in which he justified
the sultans to imitate the Iranian rulers and show valor, ruthlessness and dominance, collection of
taxes, amassing huge wealth etc which was prohibited by Islam. This was allowed to enforce the
Gods word. While maintaining the divinity of the king, the elective mode was replaced by
heredity. The Hindus were to be deprived of their wealth and conversion by Muslims was to be
punished in order to make it a leading religion.

DELHI SULTANATE
The growth of such policies had impact over the subsequent rulers. The debate has spread
between two classes of historians to see whether there existed Islamic state during the rule of
Delhi Sultanate.
Association with the Prophet
In the Islamic world, the Caliph was regarded as the guardian of religion and the upholder of the
political power. Theoretically, no Muslim could set up an "independent" state, big or small,
without procuring the permission from the Caliph, else its legitimacy would become suspect
amongst the Muslims. This permission was acquired by a large number of rulers- Balban,
Iltutmish and hence the view of an Islamic state.
In theory, the caliph was the supreme leader and the sultan was his deputy, though, in practice,
the caliph was too weak to assert his authority; therefore, he, after getting some costly presents,
accepted those who possessed power and assumed independence in his territories. This has been
held to be reduced to a form of legitimizing power which was a mere formality with little
association with reality. The medieval court histories were chronicles followed a format- the title
was named after the ruler (Akbar Nama, Shah Jahan Nama), the preface would be in praise of
God, Allah and the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad, it would be followed by a long sequence of
caliphs, successors of Muhammad, then taking a deviation to the line of the past Muslim rulers of
the land and terminating at the reign of the current ruler, to gain legitimacy in the form of
deputies of the caliph.

5|Page

In reality, however it is argued that, the Sultans were sovereign rulers who did not derive their
powers from, nor depended upon any external force. They were independent rulers of their
territorial possessions and did not owe their sovereignty to any worldly power, neither the caliph
nor the millat. But being foreign persons called upon to rule over vast territories of the country,
inhabitated mainly by the Hindus, they thought it politically expedient to maintain formal
contacts with the Islamic world to produce a psychic of fear among the Hindus by alluding to the
potential source of their strength. The recognition of a Caliph by the Delhi Sultans seen in the
granting of robes of honour, letter of investiture, bestowing of titles, having the name of the
Caliph inscribed on coins and reading of khutba in Friday prayer in his name symbolized an
acceptance and a link with the Islamic world, though in reality it only-meant an acceptance of a
situation whereby a ruler had already placed himself in power. The Sultans of Delhi maintained
the fiction of the acceptance of the position of the Caliph. Under the Saiyyids (1414-1451) and
the Lodis (1451-1526 A D) the legends on the coins continued in the sense of a tradition being
maintained but it was purely a nominal allegiance. In actual effect, the Caliphate, weakened and
far removed as it was, had little direct role to play in the Delhi Sultanate.
Even though, theoretically, the sovereignty resided in militia who could elect the Sultan but in
reality, they could only voice its approval or disapproval of the policies and actions of a
particular sultan but could neither choose nor depose any ruler. The succession was mainly
hereditary or by conquest. The nature of kingship in Delhi Sultanate militates against the
theocracy hypothesis.

The Rule of Law

Theoretically in an Islamic state, only theologians could be jurists in a Muslim country as the
civil law was merged and subordinated to the canon law and the jurist therefore had to master the
Quran and the Hadis and must be a Maulvi and this class was called the Ulema. They advised the
Sultans who were bound by it. In short, the law which obtained power in medieval India under
Muslim rule was the Shara which was based not on human experience but on divine revelation. It
was not a secular law. Therefore it was believed that Muslim state could not be a secular state.
Some modern scholars like Dr. I.H. Qureshi have refused the view of an Islamic State during
Delhi Sultanate in India by holding that The supremacy of the sharia has misled some into
thinking that the Sultanate was a theocracy. The essential feature of a theocracy-the rule of an
ordained priesthood-is however, missing in the organisation of the Muslim state; the jurists are
laymen who claim no sacerdotal immunity from error. Gibb is right in calling the Islamic polity
theo-centric.
It has been argued that the sultans professed to administer the Islamic law through the political
institutions but those set up by them did not always conform to the orthodox Islamic principles.
These were deeply influenced by the Indian traditions and customs and incorporated many
6|Page

elements of the Rajput polity with or without modification and some were in stark opposition to
the Islamic law. The superiority was exercised by certain sultans, like Alauddin Khalji, who was
backed by a strong army and could afford to defy the Islamic principles of government and
administration, made the ulema subservient to him and declared that he was the state and his
word was the law. The task of ulema therefore became the portrayer of Sultan as an arbiter and
interpreter of the Divine Word. They invoked the Koranic injunction-Obey Allah,obey the
Apostle and obey those in a authority among you.- thereby implying that the Sultans authority
could not be challenged as he was none other than Gods representative on earth. Those who held
the power to sustain their kingdom and gain legitimacy other than through religious means did
away with the ulema. The further proof that the Sultanate of Delhi was not a theocratic state can
be attributed to the fact that Iltutmish dismissed the authority of the ulema to convert the state
into a Dar-ul-Islam or the Land of Islam. He declared that he would rule by Jahandari (rule of the
Sultan based on his sense of justice, goodwill and order) and Zawabit (rule by proclamation of
ordinances). So Iltutmish gave a political ideology to the Sultanate which was not based on the
Shariat (Islamic laws). Of the four conditions which Barani advises the king to bear in mind
when issuing decrees (zabitah), one is that if any of the proposed ordinances is found contrary to
the shariah, it need not be withdrawn but, as an evil necessity is to be retained not longer than is
necessary.
Even the majority of the ulema, the guardians of the sacred law, were utterly materialistic in
outlook and opportunist in conduct. They entered into an unholy alliance with the secular
authorities and by distorting the rules of the sharia, found sanction for the Sultan's pagan
practices. Even traditions from the Prophet were concocted to give the king's despotism a moral
backing.
In summing up his account of the origin and nature of kingship, Barani remarks, the meaning of
kingship is power istila, whether obtained by lawful means or by force; even the older pagan law
of dynastic legitimacy finds no place in the present kingship. The sharia, in ordinary practice,
was no more respected than any other law. Barani admits that a capital punishment of Muslims
which, he adds, was contrary to the Sacred Law, was necessary for the exigencies of better
government.
Similarly, the law of inheritance, the strict distinction between halal and haram and many other
well-known injunctions were violated; the ecclesiastics protested but were constrained to find
excuse. The well-known prohibition of the sharia regarding the taking and giving of interest on
monetary transaction was openly disregarded.
The other class of historians refuse the above view. They said that it is true that the Sultans
admitted that the Muslim law was not able to guide them in every sphere and consequently they
had to depart from the law in certain cases, but that was only in matters of detail and did not
affect the basic concept that the Islamic state was an organized agency founded by God Himself
to propagate Islam through the instrumentality of the earthly rulers. Islam was the religion of the
7|Page

state and no other religion was recognised. All the sources of the state were meant for the
protection and spread of Islam. They put stress on the exercise and effective control over the
administration by the Ulamas and they being the sole interpreters of Islamic law-religious and
administrative.
Further support for Islamic state and the actions of Khilji and Iltutmish have been justified from
Ziyauddin Baranis accounts in which he advocates that if the enforcement of the Shariat was
impossible or impracticable, new laws should be enacted by rulers. It is the duty of a king, says
he, to enforce, if he can, those royal laws which have become proverbial owing to their
principles of justice and mercy. But if owing to change of time and circumstances he is unable to
enforce the laws of the ancients (i.e. ancient Muslim rulers), he should, with the counsel of wise
men frame laws suited to his time and circumstances and proceed to enforce them. Much
reflection is necessary in order that laws, suited to his reign, are properly framed so that they in
no way contravene the tenets of Islam. These laws Barani calls Zawabis.

Treatment of non-Muslims

The supporters of Islamic State base their view on the fact that the Islamic theory of the state
does not permit the existence of any other religion except Isam-Musalmans alone are its citizens.
If there is any non-Muslim in an Islamic state, they are treated as a subject or degraded people.
The Muslim law divides the muslim people into two classes- possessors of revealed
scripture(ahle-kitab) and idolators (kafirs and mushriks). It was given in clear terms by the four
early and authoritative commentators of the shar- Malike Abn Anas, Ash-Shafi and Ahmad bin
Hanbal that the idolators have no right to live in a Muslim country. But the fourth commentatorAbu Hanifah gave the opinion that idolators might be given, besides the choice between Islam
and death, one more alternative, namely permission to live as Zimmis( living under a contract) or
as inferior citizens with an obligation to pay the jiziya (poll tax) and to submit to certain political,
legal and social disabilities. This division allows the Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians to reside
in Muslim state on payment of the tax.
Muhammad bin Qasim, the conqueror of Sindh is an example of the ruler who accorded the
status of Zimmis to the Hindus on a somewhat similar lines of Omar I, one of the first four pious
Caliphs who expelled the Jews and the Christians from the whole of the Arabia to bring about
complete religious uniformity in the city. Since the Hindus in this period were not permitted to
observe their religious rite openly and publicly, to carry on legitimate religious propaganda, build
new temples or repair old ones and were treated as depressed classes over whom the Muslims
ruled as privileged class- therefore these historians supported the view that India at that time was
an Islamic state.
8|Page

There are countless examples of prejudicial treatment meted out to non-Muslims under the
theocratic government. Amir Khusrau writes that under Jalauddin Khalji (1290-96), after a battle,
whatever live Hindu fell into the hands of the victorious king was pounded to bits under the feet
of the elephants. The Musalman captives had their lives spared. Similarly, Malik Kafur, the
famous general of Alauddin Khalji (1296-1316), while on his expeditions in South India, spared
the lives of Muslims fighting on the side of the Hindu Rai as they deserted to his army. Rizqullah
Mushtaqi is all praise for Sultan Sikandar Lodi (1489-1517) because under him the Muslims
dominated and the Hindus were suppressed.

But, the non-supporters have given certain evidence with regard to the autonomy of the nonMuslims with regard to religion and also the treatment meted out to him. These evidences show
that religious autonomy was given to the Hindus as long as the taxes were paid. The Muslim law
was applied on them only in cases of disputes between a Hindu and a Muslim. In other cases the
caste Panchayat and village Zamindar or chief dealt with the local matters.
Apart from tolerance, even support can be deduced in certain cases. Jalaluddin Khaljis
observation that the Hindu passed in procession, beating gongs and symbols, outside his palace,
to immerse the images in the Jamuna exemplifies it. Muhammad bin Tughlaq even participated
in Hindu festivals, such as Holi and held discussions with Jogis and Jain saints.
Further even though ulema advocated the suppression of Hindus and destruction of their
monuments, there is also a record of an ulema intervening to prevent Sikandar Lodi from
attacking the pilgrims and destroying the old temple and tank at Kurukshetra on the ground that
the temple was an ancient one and previous Muslims sultans had allowed the Hindu to bathe
there. But the Muslims were the privileged group and it was a special obligation on the state to
look after their moral and material welfare.
During the Delhi Sultanate, the Hindus formed a predominant section of the population, even in
Delhi. They continued to dominate the country-side as khuts, muqaddams, chaudhari, rana,
thakur etc. There is also evidence of their affluence where they possessed fine clothes, shot with
Persian bows, made war upon each other and went out hunting, gave parties and drank wines.
Barani also laments that out of consideration for the fact that the infidels ad polytheists are
payers of tributes and protected persons(zimmis), these infidels are honoured , distinguished,
favoured and made eminent, the king bestows drums, banners, ornaments, cloaks of brocade and
caprisoned horses upon them and appoint them to governorships, high posts and offices. This
affluence might be limited to a few Hindus only but still is an evidence of tolerance of the rulers
towards them.

MUGHAL RULE
9|Page

Before Akbars Rule

The first king of the Mughal dynasty was Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur. He conquered and
ruled as a normal Muslim king. He inherited his religious policy in India from the Lodis.
Sikandar Lodi's fanaticism must have been the norm of officials who continued to serve when
Babur came to power. Babur himself was an orthodox Muslim. Babur and his officers broke
Hindu temples in many parts of the country. He raised towers of skulls of the slain
infidels. Babur is said to have been a secular king on the basis of his alleged Will admonishing
Humayun to behave liberally towards the Hindus. But the Will has been found to be a nongenuine document. In short, Babur was content to govern Hindustan in the orthodox fashion.
Humayun had not much chance of developing any distinct religious policy of his own, although
he was liberal towards the 'heretic' Shias. Sher Shah Suri too was neither liberal nor fanatic. He
devotedly believed in the Shariat and said that "it behoves kings not to disobey the
commandments of God, to inscribe the pages of their history with the characters of religion, that
their servants and subjects may love religion; for kings are partakers in every act of devotion and
worship which proceeds from the priests and the people."
Yet in contrast to this evidence of religious fanatism, it has been argued that the Mughal state
was not Islamic. The several evidences in this regard can be gained from the hereditary structure
of the kingship. Moreover the loyalty of the masses was towards the king and not the Caliph.
And also the necessity of priesthood was not complied with where the king interpreted the
religion and used it in his own modified form to expand his rule. Further there is an impact of
Indian culture on the laws, art forms, polity etc. The Mughal king was the supreme head of the
executive and the army. He was the fountain-head of justice, assisted by a number of imperial
officers-Diwan, Mir Bakshi, Mir Saman and Sadr-us-Sudur all associated with administration
and not religion and their advice was not binding on him. This is said to be influenced from the
Indian concept of kingship.
Akbars Rule
The rule of Akbar is one of the most significant in the entire Muslim Rule in India famous for its
distance from theocracy and towards secularism.
The first revolutionary step of Akbar was the abolition of the Jiziyah, the hated discriminatory
tax paid by Hindu Zimmis. The Hindus, as Zimmis, had become second class citizens in their
own homeland and were suffered to live under certain disabilities. All earlier Muslim kings had
imposed it in its true religious connotation along with the need to raise revenue. With its
abolition in 1564, Akbar brought Hindus on par with Muslims as common citizens of the state
rather than treat them as second class citizens.

10 | P a g e

Akbar removed restrictions on the public religious worship by non-Muslims. He abolished

pilgrim tax on Hindus (1563) and removed all restrictions on the building of places of worship of
non-Muslims. This led to the building of churches by Christian and temples by Hindus.
Apostasy is punishable by death in Islam not allowed under earlier kings. Such apostates paid
with their lives for their "falling off from grace". Akbar issued orders permitting those Hindus
who had been forcibly converted to Islam earlier, to reconvert to Hinduism. He also prohibited
making slaves of prisoners of war. All this did not conform with the Quran and the Shariat.
According to Badaoni, Akbar challenged the doctrines of Islam itself, and this made the author
of Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh rave. He writes: "At the religious discussion meetings held by Akbar,
'at which every one... might say or ask what he liked,' the emperor examined people about the
creation of the Quran, elicited their belief, or otherwise, in revelation, and raised doubts in them
regarding all things connected with the Prophet and the imams. He distinctly denied the
existence of Jins, of angels, and of all other beings of the invisible world, as well as the miracles
of the Prophet."
In the history of Muslim rule in India, it was for the first time that freedom of thought and critical
appraisal of Islam was witnessed in the Court circles. One of the reason for such change was
Akbar's association with Hindu scholars. Akbar was by nature tolerant. But he also felt that the
sentiments of the vast population of the Hindus had to be respected if a strong and stable national
state was to be built up. He was also influenced by the philosophical tenets of Buddhism and
Jainism of non-violence.
This new dimension was captured by Abu'1-Fazl 'Alla-mi (1551-1602) who was inspired by a
need to rationalize the broadly based policies of peace and concord with all religious
communities initiated by his patron, Akbar the Great. Besides Arabic and Persian works on
kingship and government, Abu'1-Fazl had access to the Persian translations of the great Hindu
epics, the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, to the Arabic translation of the Chankaya Niti, and to
the Sanskrit works of ancient Indian rajamti (polity). He refused to concern himself with the
Islamic theories legitimizing the petty military dictators who forcibly seized power and were
then automatically recognized as shadows of God and believed that farr-i izadi was granted to the
individual who held the office and not the king. Turtushl asserted that an infidel king who
governed his kingdom according to the right principles of kingship was preferable to a Muslim
ruler who was slipshod in fulfilling his responsibilities and tardy in imposing justice. This
principle, to which some earlier sultans had paid lip-service, tended to strengthen the basis
on which Akbar's government was founded.

11 | P a g e

Still there are historians who believe that even during Akbars rule the ideologies of Islam and
the practice of the Shariat were not be ignored. "The Akbar Nama, the Ain-i-Akbari and Badaoni
all have agreed that prior to 1593, some Hindus had been converted to Islam forcibly. Such seem
to have been and continued to be the popular prejudices against the Hindus", under Akbar and his
successors as per the obligations of the Shariat and practice of Sunnah, writes S.R. Sharma. In
his letters to Abdullah Khan Uzbek written in 1586 Akbar definitely declares himself a Muslim
and proudly boasts that on account of his conquests Islam had now spread to territories where it
had not been heard of before and the temples of the non-believers had been converted into
mosques.
After Akbars Rule
The Ghazalian theory of kingship under the Mughals was re-established by Shaykh 'Abdu'l
'Haqq Muhaddis Dihlawl (1551-1642) and Mujaddid Alf-i Sham. Having learnt that Jahangir was
interested in the Prophet's traditions on kingship, they wrote a treatise, the Nuriyya-i Sultaniyya,
covering all the information on this subject and although they were trained scholar of
hadis they, he still favored the spurious traditions regarding divinity of the king but reemphasized the need to follow the sharia which has been interpreted by an honest ulama.
Shaykh Ahmad Sirhinaf, known as Mujaddid Alf-i Sam (1564 1624), urged the Muslim nobles
in Jahangir's court to persuade their Emperor to enforce the shari'a by state legislation, to revoke
the orders prohibiting the killing of cows, and to reimpose jizya (toll-tax on non- Muslims), as
well as to deprive Hindus of all posts of responsibility and trust but nowhere does he advocate
rebellion. But the extreme application can be seen. Jahangir, when a prince, at one time intended
demolishing some of the Hindu temples at Banaras but desisted there from on Man Singh's
intervention. In his reign conversions to Islam were encouraged, conversions back from Islam to
Hinduism were punished. When he visited Kangra, he celebrated the Muslim occupation of the
fort by desecrating its famous temple. At Pushkar he broke the image of Varaha and a bull was
sacrificed to signify the victory of Islam over idolatry. In his reign Muslims began to behave as
bullies once again.
Under Shahjahan, Akbar's Sulehkul was almost reversed. During his reign temples were
destroyed in Gujarat, Banaras and Allahabad, and at Orcha. Like Jahangir he stopped marriages
between Muslim girls and Hindu men. Apostasy from Islam again became a capital crime in
accordance with the tenets of the Shariat. During the reign of Shahjahan titles in use among
Khalifas and Ghaznavids were revived. Whenever the Muslim state used to show signs of
'secularist' weakness, the glorious memory of Mahmud of Ghazni used to inject a sense of pride
in its polity. The title of Yaminuddaula (right hand of the state) was bestowed by the Khalifa alQadir Billah on Mahmud of Ghazni. The bestowal of the title of Yaminuddaula on Asaf Khan
itself points to the direction in which the state was reshaping itself. All that Islam advocated was
more or less continued under all the Mughal monarchs. Akbar and Jahangir, like Babur and
Shahjahan, adopted the title of Ghazi. Muslim nobles and ulema would not let the Muslim kings
stray away from the path of Islam. Any deviation was sought to be corrected at the first
12 | P a g e

opportunity. Immediately after the death of Akbar, "Mulla Shah Ahmad, one of the greatest
religious leaders of the age, wrote to various court dignitaries exhorting them to get this state of
things altered in the very beginning of (Jahangir's) reign because otherwise it would be difficult
to accomplish anything later on."
Designing his theory of kingship to justify his own accession to the throne and to gain the
support of orthodox Sunnis for his rule, Aurangzeb claimed that, since all actions are determined
by the will of God, his victory over his brothers was a divine gift. He stated that that man was
truly great who was assisted to obtain power by God. Aurangzeb openly claimed to have fought
"the apostate" Dara to re-establish the law of Islam. He completed the process of turning the state
slanting towards an Islamic state which had begun by Shah Jahan from the secularism of Akbar.
He reimposed jiziyah and did only what was permitted and obligatory for a Muslim ruler but
nothing beyond that, and he respected the officials who persecuted Hindus. He was said by many
to be truly theocratic in nature and said that his attempt to turn India into an Islamic state was the
main reason for its fall under the Marathas.
Thus it was held by many that whether it is considered the influence of the Muslim religious
class (the ulema), the application of the law of Islam (Sharia), or the activities of the kings, it is
clear beyond doubt that the medieval state was a theocratic state. Apart from the rule of Akbar
and especially after his rule, the establishment of Islamic state can be deduced. The law which
prevailed in India under Muslim rule was the Shariat. "This was the actual sovereign in Muslim
lands."
This evidence of Islamic State are still rebutted by a number of historians by laying down a
number of facts. The laws that these rulers claimed to be Islamic were, over a period of time, had
been subjected to a number of changes and influences from religions and philosophies both
outside and inside India due to its openness in interpretation by the ulema as well as the kings in
certain cases, who were not always studied Quran and other religious teachings.
One other reason is the presence of large number of Hindus-affluent and others as well as the
downtrodden conditions of certain classes of Muslims. The limited number of conversions of
Hindus to Islam and the continuity of the religion and the culture of Hindus to a large extent
throughout the Muslim Empire and even after that point, if not towards secularism, but to a
degree of tolerance of Hindus. The other reason could be the inability of the rulers to impose the
Islamic tenets over such a vast Hindu empire.

13 | P a g e

ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENTS
The Islamic state if considered to be the one which was originally propagated, then the Muslim
rule during India or any medieval Asian country can be called as an Islamic state, it being
opposed to the concept of monarchy, which was established by these rules.
However, the change in the requirement of Islamic state is allowed, then a multiple of results
would follow. Right from the Ummayads who were hereditary in nature, all rules till Aurangzeb
led to certain changes in the state structure. The Islamic statehood was interpreted differently, to
increase the powers and authorities of kings, expand their territories and wealth, and also to gain
legitimacy in their territories through forged acceptances from Caliphs. If these are set as
benchmarks for an Islamic State, then a number of them would be available. But if the
requirement of strict Sharia law is applied, then this number will again reduce. This is because
although the Sharia was the law of the land, yet it was supplemented by other texts and in some
cases the kings were given the power to make laws themselves which often had impact of the
local cultures of the ruled territory. Hence the purity of the laws is still in question. Moreover
there is evidence of different rulers ruling in accordance with their wishes, associating with the
local non-mulsim thinkers, philosophers and others and being impacted by them. This trend
continuing till the rule of Akbar shows both images of extreme tolerance and extreme violence
against the non-Muslims and extreme compliance and extreme non-compliance with the Muslim
laws. In such condition, it is difficult to come to a proper conclusion with regard to the Islamic
State in India till Akbar. Akbars rule is a clear example of non-Islamic state which shows the
peak of tolerance and secularism and could be accepted if not for the existence of some of the
documents rebutting this fact.
After Akbar, the rule again became more theocratic in nature and it is argued that if not in others,
then atleast during the rule of Aurangzeb, there was an Islamic state. This view is supported as it
fulfils certain conditions required with an Islamic state, that of perpetuation of Muslim Law, and
non-tolerance of other religions and supremacy of Islam. But this fact can too be rebutted by
saying that even though the practices may have been Islamic, but whether it was successful or
not in achieving its end of Islamic sovereignty, which is again in question because of presence of
a large number of non-muslims even during this period. Moreover the hereditary structure and
the use of kings orders and absence of Caliphs approval etc provide a lot of constraints to come
to this conclusion.
The debate, as can be seen, is necessarily based on the fulfilment of the requirement of the
conditions of a true Islamic state. The concept of monarchy itself was opposed to original
concept of Islamic state and hence the benchmark changed over the long period of time in which
various requirements were laid down for a state to be recognized as Islamic. Now, if one of the
benchmark is taken into consideration i.e. the fulfilment of the conditions of sovereignty of
Religion and its laws, and non-tolerance of other religion. Evidences have been given both for
14 | P a g e

and against such view. These differences occur because of difference in the interpretation of such
requirements according to the historians subjective view along with the availability of the
sources which determine their conclusion. This problem occurs with any of the benchmark for
Islamic state.
One of the other problems associated with this benchmark is its ambiguity in telling that whether
an Islamic State is one which fulfils the requirement of imposing the laws of Islam on its subjects
and tries to achieve homogeneity of religion or a state can be called Islamic only if it succeeds to
do so. Therefore it is difficult to come to a particular conclusion with regards to the presence of
an Islamic state in India and no one view can be held to be final because of differences in the
benchmarks.

CONCLUSION
Thus from the discussion above, it can be concluded that no one view can be formed about the
existence of Islamic State in India atleast unless a uniform meaning of the term- Islamic State
can be deduced. Thus the debate is still open and additions can be made from both the sides and
conclusions derived according to ones view of interpreting the meaning.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
15 | P a g e

 S.A.A. Rizvi, The Wonder That Was India (Vol. 2)

Vipul singh, Interpreting Medieval India (750-1550)
Murray T.Titus, Indian Islam
www. besthistorysites.net/
https://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/History/Mughals/mughals.html

16 | P a g e