Prof. Khan explained that the Abbasid economic supremacy, to which India contributed, survived political fragmentation. The establishment of the Delhi Sultanate in India in the thirteenth century changed the economic and political map of the world. Delhi became another Baghdad. The Turkish victory leading to the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate, too, had impacted India’s economy and social life. According to him, the Delhi Sultanate did not bring about a social revolution in modern sense of the term. It created a new system of agrarian exploitation and urban growth. Moreover, it united political power with the economic power. The Delhi Sultanate did not interfere with public or private lives of the religious, ethnic or regional communities, nor did they interfere with the Muslim community.

But they certainly and effectively reduced the political and military power of traditional rural aristocracy. This resulted in corresponding fall in the status of Brahmins who were patronised by earlier rulers. This completely brought down the stable Brahminical social order in some areas. It was during the Sultanate period, much before the establishment of the Mughal empire, that a more enriched vibrant culture of peaceful co-existence and a more respectful interaction developed in larger parts of the country. The major contribution of the Bhakti-Sufi theism was the absorption of the marginalised communities in their fold. Muslim society in India was caste-free, but it had marginalised sections which got attracted to the Sufi-Bhakti movement. Sufism had a direct bearing on medieval thought in the same way as Bhakti had on Muslim thought.

Prof. Khan noted that the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate was certainly a turning point in India’s economic history as it spurred growth, which led to the emergence of an advanced and better society, though some historians believed otherwise. He observed that the foundation of an inclusive civilisation was as old as Indian culture and its way of life. The advent of Islam in India gave added richness to it. In spite of caste identities, inclusiveness existed through several centuries. Though Muslims had a separate identity, they were part of that inclusiveness. Mixed army and mixed bureaucracy could be cited as a typical example of this inclusive civilisation. He argued that public discussion and public reasoning had a long history in India which began with the Buddhist Councils at Rajagriha, Vaishali, Kashmir and Patliputra. Ashok and Akbar inherited the spirit of public speaking and reasoning as a part of social communion in India with the toleration of intellectual heterodoxy.

Prof. Khan held that the United Nation Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 might be a European innovation, but in India we found them in practice in the sixteenth century. The provisions of the UDHR had been compared with the rules and regulations of Akbar. At many places even the terminology was the same. These included discussions on women’s rights, right to life, freedom from slavery or servitude, equality before law, protection of individual’s privacy, freedom of movement, right of an adult man and a woman to marry and found a family, right to own property, right to equal access in public services, right to work and free choice of employment, and the right to participate in the cultural life of the community and freedom of thought, conscience and religion. He said that compulsions in political life during the Mughal rule were much the same as in modern times. He also examined the Mughal administration in the context of the Aam Admi, Jan Lokpal, action against corruption and the problems of coalition politics. He concluded the lecture by quoting the Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen, who noted, “Secular India was not Akbar’s innovation. Its strength was in the secular traditions of India and Islamic percept of toleration.” He also quoted Prof. Z M Khan who expressed confidence that Indian pluralism would survive in spite of the current rise of virulent Hindutva.