We saw above that Delhi sultans' average reign lasted about nine years. This figure becomes 27 years in the case of Mughal emperors up to Aurangzeb; and 16 years if we consider all Mughal rulers, up to the end of the empire in the 19th century. What do you make of these numbers of years of reign?
These numbers reveal significant differences in political stability between the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire.
The Delhi Sultanate's average reign of only nine years indicates extreme political instability, with almost two out of three sultans seizing power by eliminating their predecessors. This violent succession pattern prevented long-term planning, consistent policies, or stable administration.
The Mughal emperors up to Aurangzeb averaging 27 years of reign demonstrates much greater stability, allowing for institutional development, administrative reforms, and cultural flourishing.
This stability was achieved through clearer succession principles (despite some conflicts), more inclusive policies (especially under Akbar), and stronger administrative systems like the mansabdari system.
The decline to 16 years when considering all Mughal rulers reflects the empire's weakening after Aurangzeb, with increased rebellions, succession conflicts, and external pressures.
The contrast shows that inclusive governance, as practised by Akbar, contributed to stability, while the religious intolerance and constant warfare of Aurangzeb's later years, combined with the Sultanate's brutal methods, led to instability and shorter reigns.
Explanation
The chapter explicitly provides these statistics: Delhi sultans' average reign lasted about nine years, Mughal emperors up to Aurangzeb averaged 27 years, and all Mughal rulers up to the end of the empire averaged 16 years. The chapter notes that during the Sultanate, 'almost two sultans out of three seized power by eliminating their predecessor.' This question encourages students to analyze the relationship between governance methods and political stability.
Solution Steps
The numbers reveal significant differences in political stability between the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire.
The Delhi Sultanate's nine-year average indicates extreme instability due to violent succession patterns.
Mughal emperors up to Aurangzeb averaged 27 years, allowing for institutional development and reforms.
Mughal stability was achieved through clearer succession principles, inclusive policies, and the mansabdari system.
The decline to 16 years for all Mughal rulers reflects the empire's weakening after Aurangzeb.
Inclusive governance contributed to stability, while intolerance and brutal methods led to instability.