Indologists K. Antonova, G. Bongard-Levin and G. Kotovsky evaluates the socio-economic position of the Delhi sultanate as follows :

“It is at this period (of the Sultanate rule of Delhi) that the names of new towns appear in the chronicles and there are likewise frequent references to the expansion, consolidation and refurbishing of old ones. For the most part this applied to administrative centers and military headquarters, since traders and craftsmen were mainly engaged in attending to the requirements of feudal lords and the armies. Towns were also founded in the so-called ‘holy places’, where pilgrims gathered and fairs were held. Gradually the population of these urban centers grew. However, it was still the feudal lords who were in charge of their administration; often they owned the caravanserais, the craftsmen’s stalls and determined market tariffs. Only within the castes was there some semblance of self-government. There was no security of tenure enjoyed by the urban population with regard to their property. The feudal lords could at will raised taxes or force merchants to sell their wares at prices that they themselves laid down. The sway of these feudal lords was particularly oppressive during the reigns of Ala-ud-din Khilji and Muhammad Tuglaq. It is not surprising that unrest grew among the urban population and it found an outlet in all manner of heretical movements. As for the peasantry, its protest against oppression often led to flight from the villages. The chronicles, that as a rule were written by court historians, make brief references to “robber tribes” and “detachments of bandits” taking refuge in the jungles. It is possible that these were in fact the fugitive peasants.”