Who Were Worse? Sultanates or Mughals Or Britishers?

When comparing the Sultanates, Mughals, and the British with the previous Indian rulers and administration, the impact of these foreign powers appears more detrimental. To understand this fully, it’s important to consider the pre-Sultanate, pre-Mughal, and pre-British period in India, which was marked by indigenous empires and governance that were more closely aligned with the subcontinent’s unique cultural and social needs.

Pre-Sultanate India: Prosperity and Stability under Indian Rulers

Before the advent of the Sultanates, India had a long history of indigenous rulers who built prosperous and stable empires. The Maurya Empire (321–185 BCE) under Chandragupta Maurya and his grandson Ashoka was one of the most successful and influential Indian empires. Under Ashoka, India saw a golden age of governance, with the empire focused on welfare, justice, and religious tolerance, especially through the propagation of Buddhism. The Mauryas created an advanced system of administration, tax collection, and infrastructure, facilitating the spread of trade and culture across the subcontinent.

Following the Mauryas, India was ruled by other great dynasties such as the Guptas (approximately 320–550 CE), who are considered the golden age of Indian civilization. Under Gupta rule, India saw major advancements in science, mathematics, astronomy, literature, and the arts. The Gupta period also saw religious tolerance, with Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism coexisting harmoniously. The Gupta administration was well-structured, and it is during this period that many of India’s classical texts and practices, including Sanskrit literature, were compiled.

Later, the Cholas and Rajputs carried on these traditions, with the Chola dynasty (9th to 13th century) being particularly noted for its naval dominance, architectural innovations, and advancements in administration, which kept their territories stable. The Rajput kingdoms were known for their military prowess, governance, and cultural contributions to Indian society.

The administrative and societal structures under these earlier Indian rulers were indigenous, sophisticated, and relatively effective in comparison to the more foreign and disruptive approaches of the Sultanates, Mughals, and British.

Sultanates: A Shift Toward Militarization and Religious Intolerance

The arrival of the Sultanates in India, beginning with the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate in 1206, marked a significant departure from the prior indigenous systems. While the Sultanates did contribute to the cultural integration of Persian and Indian traditions, they also introduced military conquests, harsh taxation, and religious intolerance on a scale previously unseen. The Sultanate rulers were not part of India’s native traditions and frequently imposed foreign policies on the subcontinent.

The Sultanates’ reign was characterized by brutal military campaigns, the destruction of temples, and the forced conversion of Hindus to Islam, marking a period of cultural upheaval. Whereas earlier rulers had incorporated diverse religious communities, the Sultanates sought to dominate and often marginalized indigenous Hindu traditions. The policies of the Sultanates—particularly under rulers like Alauddin Khilji and Muhammad bin Tughlaq—disrupted the local governance systems that had existed under the Guptas, Mauryas, and Rajputs, replacing them with systems that were more centralized and often militaristic.

While the Sultanates did lay the foundations for the later Mughal Empire by fostering centralized administration and some infrastructural developments, their rule was also marked by severe oppression, economic instability, and social division, which was a stark contrast to the previous systems that were better integrated with the local culture and population.

Mughals: Cultural Flourishing but Continued Oppression

The Mughals, while being responsible for one of the most flourishing periods of art, culture, and architecture in Indian history, continued the trend of foreign rule with many of the same problems seen in the Sultanate period. The Mughal Empire, at its height under rulers like Akbar, was known for its administrative advancements and the blending of Persian, Central Asian, and Indian traditions. However, the Mughals were still foreign rulers who imposed heavy taxes on the local population, and in the later years of the empire, religious intolerance under rulers like Aurangzeb led to the destruction of temples and a rise in religious conflict.

Under Akbar, the Mughal empire seemed to offer more tolerance than the Sultanates, and his policies of religious pluralism were revolutionary. However, the policies adopted after his reign, particularly by Aurangzeb, undid many of the progressive reforms of his predecessors. The Mughals were not as destructive as the Sultanates in terms of military conquest, but their imposition of Mughal cultural and administrative systems often clashed with the established traditions of India. The Mughal rulers, much like the Sultanates, took advantage of India’s vast resources, leading to economic exploitation that would later be worsened under British rule.

The Mughal period left a mixed legacy in India. While it contributed to the cultural richness of the country, it also created a centralized bureaucracy that weakened the local governance systems that had flourished under earlier Indian empires.

British: Complete Transformation and Exploitation of India

The British, however, took the exploitation and disruption of India’s native systems to an entirely new level. British colonial rule saw the dismantling of India’s flourishing local industries, such as textiles, and replaced them with a system that served the interests of the British Empire. Unlike the Sultanates and Mughals, who at least integrated into Indian society, the British imposed a foreign system that was entirely disconnected from the needs and priorities of the Indian population.

The British colonialists systematically dismantled the economic and administrative systems that had worked under Indian rulers, including the zamindari system and traditional trade practices. They drained India’s resources through policies that led to economic stagnation and widespread poverty. India’s pre-existing systems of governance, such as the feudal systems under the Rajputs or the decentralized systems under the Marathas, were replaced with the British colonial bureaucracy, which was designed to serve the Empire’s interests rather than the people’s needs.

Perhaps the most damning aspect of British rule was its complete disregard for Indian society, leading to famines that killed millions and economic policies that crushed India’s once-thriving agricultural and industrial sectors. The British also promoted divisive policies, particularly the ‘divide and rule’ strategy, which exacerbated religious and social tensions—leading to the eventual partition of India in 1947.

Conclusion: A Decline in Governance and Well-Being under Foreign Rule

In comparison to the previous Indian rulers, the Sultanates, Mughals, and British were all significantly worse for India in many respects. While the Sultanates and Mughals did bring some cultural and administrative contributions, they also introduced systems of military conquest, taxation, and religious intolerance that disrupted the prosperity and stability established by earlier Indian empires.

However, it was the British who had the most destructive impact on India, systematically dismantling the nation’s economy, exploiting its resources, and creating social divisions that continue to affect India today. The British policies were not just foreign—they were designed specifically to serve the colonial master’s interests at the expense of the Indian population.

In conclusion, when viewed in comparison to the previous indigenous rulers, the Sultanates, Mughals, and British all represent a decline in governance that took India backward in terms of socio-economic development and cultural continuity. The earlier Indian systems of administration, justice, and governance were far more aligned with the needs of the people and the cultural context of the subcontinent, whereas the foreign rulers introduced policies that were exploitative, divisive, and destructive.