Q1.
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?
Answer
Start by putting the three figures side by side.
Delhi sultans — average reign about 9 years
Mughal emperors up to Aurangzeb — average reign 27 years
All Mughal rulers, to the end of the empire in the 19th century — 16 years
So the Mughals up to Aurangzeb lasted, on average, about three times as long as a Delhi sultan.
Mughal emperors up to Aurangzeb — average reign 27 years
All Mughal rulers, to the end of the empire in the 19th century — 16 years
So the Mughals up to Aurangzeb lasted, on average, about three times as long as a Delhi sultan.
You can check the middle figure yourself from dates in the chapter. Babur to Aurangzeb is six rulers, and 1526 to 1707 is 181 years. But Humayun lost the throne for about 15 of those years to Sher Shah Suri's Sur Empire, so the Mughals actually held Delhi for roughly 166 years — and 166 ÷ 6 ≈ 27, which is exactly the book's figure.
What the numbers tell you:
- A nine-year average means the Sultanate had no settled rule of succession. The chapter says why: almost two sultans out of three seized power by eliminating their predecessor. Nine years is roughly how long a man could hold a throne he had taken by force before someone else took it the same way.
- Twenty-seven years buys a different kind of government. Long reigns are what make Todar Mal's empire-wide land survey, the twelve subahs, the mansabdari cadre with its regular inspections and the translation of Sanskrit texts possible at all. None of these pays off in nine years. Length of reign is not just luck; it is a precondition for administration.
- The drop from 27 to 16 is the shape of decline. Adding the rulers after 1707 pulls the average down by eleven years, which means the later Mughals were short-lived. That fits what the chapter says about the “rapid decline of Mughal power after Aurangzeb's death in 1707”.
But do not read too much virtue into the averages. A long reign is not a peaceful one. Aurangzeb's own 49 years began by defeating his elder brother Dara Shikoh in a series of battles, executing him and presenting his severed head to their father; he had one other brother executed, drove the third into exile, and imprisoned Shah Jahan in the Agra Fort until his death. The Mughal succession was as violent as the Sultanate's — the difference is that the winner then stayed.
Tip for using averages: an average hides the spread. Akbar reigned almost 50 years and Aurangzeb almost 49; if two rulers out of six account for a hundred years, the ‘typical’ Mughal reign was shorter than 27. Whenever you meet an average in history, ask what the largest and smallest values were.