Who among the following rulers, ruled for the maximum period?

Question

UnlockIAS · Accepted Answer

Correct — C, Bahlol Lodi. Line the four reigns up with their dates and the arithmetic is not close. Bahlul Khan Lodi, chief of the Afghan Lodi tribe and governor of Sirhind, took the throne of Delhi on 19 April 1451 after Alam Shah, the last of the Sayyids, gave up his claim, and he ruled until his death on 12 July 1489 — thirty-eight years and nearly three months. Muhammad bin Tughluq reigned from February 1325 to his death at Thatta in March 1351, twenty-six years. Balban declared himself Sultan in 1266 on the death of Nasiruddin Mahmud and died on 13 January 1287, twenty-one years. Alauddin Khalji seized power in 1296 and died on 4 January 1316, twenty years. So the order is 38 > 26 > 21 > 20, and Bahlul Lodi wins by a full twelve years over his nearest rival on this list. It is worth noticing how long that is by Sultanate standards: the reign usually cited as the Sultanate's longest, that of Firuz Shah Tughluq from 1351 to 20 September 1388, comes to thirty-seven years — a year less than Bahlul's. Bahlul's longevity was not accidental. He founded the Lodi dynasty, the only Afghan house to hold Delhi, and he governed on an Afghan tribal understanding of kingship in which the Sultan was first among equals rather than an untouchable despot — he seated his nobles beside him instead of demanding prostration, which cost him some grandeur but bought him a stable coalition. He spent much of those decades rebuilding a Sultanate that had shrunk almost to the walls of Delhi after Timur's sack of 1398, recovering Mewat, Etawah and Sambhal — Gwalior stayed with the Tomars, Man Singh Tomar buying off a campaign with a tribute of 800,000 tankas, and the Sultanate took the fort only under Ibrahim Lodi in 1518 — and finally absorbing the Sharqi kingdom of Jaunpur in 1479 after a long contest with Husain Shah Sharqi.

Why the other options are wrong — (a) Alauddin Khalji, 1296 to January 1316, is the shortest of the four at twenty years — yet he is the most frequently chosen wrong answer, because his is the most eventful reign in the Sultanate: the market-control regulations, the measurement-based kharaj, the dagh and chehra branding and descriptive-roll system, the southern campaigns under Malik Kafur and the repeated defeats of Mongol invasions. Importance is being mistaken for duration.  (b) Muhammad bin Tughluq, February 1325 to March 1351, is twenty-six years — the longest of the three wrong options and the only one that is genuinely arguable if you are working from impressions. His reign feels enormous because so much is crammed into it: the transfer of the capital to Daulatabad, the token currency, the Khurasan and Qarachil projects, Ibn Battuta's years at his court. It is still a dozen years short of Bahlul's.  (d) Balban's sultanate runs from 1266 to 13 January 1287, twenty-one years, and the question asks who ruled longest, not who held power longest. The trap is real: Balban had effectively governed Delhi as naib to the boy-sultan Nasiruddin Mahmud since 1246, so his period of dominance is nearer forty years. Counted that way he would rival Bahlul, but he did not hold the throne until 1266.

Concept: The Delhi Sultanate ran from 1206 to 1526 under five successive houses — the Mamluk or so-called Slave dynasty to 1290, the Khaljis to 1320, the Tughluqs to 1414, the Sayyids to 1451 and the Lodis to 1526 — and the four names in this question are drawn one each from the first four of those eras except the Sayyids, so the question doubles as a test of whether you can place a ruler in his dynasty at all. Reigns in the Sultanate were characteristically short and violently terminated; a great many sultans lasted under five years, and reigns reaching the mid-thirties are rare enough that only two are usually named, Firuz Shah Tughluq's and Bahlul Lodi's. The Lodis matter for a second reason beyond arithmetic. They were Afghans, not Turks, and Afghan political culture rested on tribal equality rather than on the Persian-Turkish theory of divinely sanctioned autocracy that Balban had imported. Where Balban insisted on sijda and paibos, prostration and the kissing of the royal feet, and called himself the shadow of God, Bahlul sat with his amirs and called them partners in the kingdom. That difference explains both his long survival and the later collapse of Ibrahim Lodi, who tried to reverse it and drove his own nobles to invite Babur.

State PCS 2025 Q89 — History PYQ with Answer

State PCS 2025 Q89 — History PYQ with Answer