Muhammad bin Tughlaq

He sent roughly 100,000 soldiers into the Himalayas. Almost none came back.

This article covers Muhammad bin Tughlaq, the most learned Sultan of Delhi, and its boldest, most disastrous experimenter.

1. The Capital Shift to Daulatabad

1.1 Who was Muhammad bin Tughlaq before the reign turned controversial?

Muhammad bin Tughlaq ruled the Delhi Sultanate from 1325 to 1351 CE. He succeeded his father Ghiyasuddin Tughlaq, whose death under a collapsing pavilion remains disputed. Chroniclers called him the most learned Sultan of Delhi, trained in logic, mathematics, and Persian poetry. That reputation for brilliance makes what followed harder to explain away as simple incompetence.

1.2 Why did he move the capital, and what actually happened?

In 1327 CE, he shifted his capital roughly 1,100 km, from Delhi to Daulatabad, formerly Devagiri, in the Deccan. The stated aim was better control over a huge empire, spanning both the newly-conquered south and the older north, from a more central point.

• A real infrastructure effort backed the move: a maintained road with regular halting stations connected Delhi and Daulatabad.
• Officials and scholars were ordered to relocate: large numbers of nobles, along with parts of the general population, made the journey; many died from its length and hardship.
• Ibn Battuta’s account claims Delhi emptied entirely: most historians now read this as rhetorical exaggeration, not a literal count.
• Contemporary evidence cuts against total evacuation: two Sanskrit inscriptions from 1327-1328 CE show Delhi still active and prosperous around that time.
• The move was reversed by 1335 CE: after roughly eight years, the court returned to Delhi.

2. The Token Currency Experiment

2.1 Why did he introduce token currency, and how was it meant to work?

Around 1329-1330 CE, Muhammad bin Tughlaq introduced token currency: bronze and copper coins, declared by decree to be worth the same as silver tanka coins. The likely motive was a genuine silver shortage, combined with the heavy cost of his military campaigns. He may also have drawn on reports of paper currency circulating in Mongol-ruled China, though he chose copper tokens instead of paper.

2.2 Why did the experiment collapse?

The scheme depended entirely on the state’s ability to control who could mint coins. It had no reliable way to do that, and no protection against forgery. Ordinary people struck counterfeit tokens at home using cheap copper and brass. Fake coins flooded the market, and the tokens’ real value collapsed.

He withdrew the scheme by the early 1330s, reportedly redeeming the token coins for silver and gold from the royal treasury, at heavy cost to the state. This remains a real, historically significant early experiment in fiat-style currency. It failed for an identifiable, avoidable reason: weak anti-counterfeiting controls, not simply royal whim.

3. Tax Revolt and the Qarachil Disaster

3.1 What triggered the Doab tax revolt?

In 1334 CE, he sharply raised land tax in the Ganga-Yamuna Doab, by up to 50 percent, during a famine. The resulting hardship triggered widespread unrest. Peasants fled into the jungles rather than pay.

3.2 What went wrong with the Qarachil expedition?

Around 1335 CE, his Qarachil expedition sent roughly 100,000 troops into the Himalayan foothills of present-day Uttarakhand. The goal was to subdue hill kingdoms near the Tibetan border. Rain, disease, and ambush by local forces destroyed nearly the entire force.

4. Administration and the Chroniclers

4.1 Did he attempt any constructive reforms?

Muhammad bin Tughlaq established a new agricultural department, Diwan-i-Kohi, and offered farmers loans called Takkavi to encourage cultivation. These reforms rarely get the same attention as his failures, but they show the same instinct behind his other schemes: a genuine attempt to solve a real problem, backed by real administrative machinery.

4.2 How reliable is Ibn Battuta as a source for this reign?

Ibn Battuta served as qazi, or judge, of Delhi under Muhammad bin Tughlaq, and recorded this period as an eyewitness. His account, the Rihla, is a major source for the reign. It was also written with real rhetorical flourish. Specific claims from it, like Delhi’s supposed total emptying, are best checked against other evidence, not taken as literal fact.

5. Judging Muhammad bin Tughlaq

5.1 What pattern connects all four failures?

Four major initiatives, all within about eight years, all failed or reversed. That density of ambitious, poorly-executed policy is rare even by Delhi Sultanate standards.

• The Daulatabad shift and the Doab tax hike share a flaw: each was reasonable in theory, but each ignored the real cost the population would bear.
• Token currency failed for an avoidable reason: without anti-counterfeiting controls, declaring cheap metal equal to silver could not hold once forgers caught on.
• The Qarachil expedition shows he thought in extremes: a scale of roughly 100,000 troops magnified the cost once the execution went wrong.

5.2 Was he really the “mad Sultan” later chroniclers describe?

The “mad Sultan” label is largely a product of hostile chroniclers writing after his death. Modern historians read the same events more carefully, and see an original mind whose plans consistently outran his ability to carry them out.

6. What the PYQs Keep Testing

6.1 What did NDA (NA II) 2017 ask about this reign?

NDA (NA II) 2017 asked which travelogue gave insight into Muhammad bin Tughlaq’s reign. The answer is Ibn Battuta’s Rihla, not Bernier’s, Manucci’s, or Tavernier’s accounts, each written about the later Mughal era instead. Source: NDA (NA II) 2017, General Ability Test (see Q122).