Medieval cities of the Indian subcontinent have attracted sustained attention from historians, archaeologists, geographers, and urban sociologists because they represent a significant phase in the evolution of urbanism between the decline of many early historic cities and the emergence of colonial urban centres. Earlier scholarship often portrayed the medieval period as one of urban decay, political instability, and economic stagnation, assuming that the decline of ancient cities was followed by limited urban growth. However, subsequent research, supported by archaeological discoveries, epigraphic evidence, literary texts, travel accounts, and regional studies, has fundamentally revised this view. Scholars now regard medieval cities as dynamic centres of political authority, economic production, cultural exchange, religious activities, and technological innovation, reflecting both continuity and transformation in the urban history of the subcontinent. One of the earliest debates among scholars concerns the continuity of urbanization. Historians such as D.D. Kosambi acknowledged that many ancient urban centres declined after the Gupta period due to changes in long-distance trade and political structures. However, R.S. Sharma's theory of "Indian feudalism" argued that land grants, ruralization, and reduced monetization weakened urban centres between the sixth and tenth centuries. According to Sharma, economic decentralization limited commercial activity and contributed to urban decline. This interpretation has been challenged by several historians, including B.D. Chattopadhyaya, Hermann Kulke, Ranabir Chakravarti, and Rila Mukherjee. They argue that while certain ancient cities declined, numerous new urban centres emerged under changing political and economic conditions. These scholars emphasize regional variations rather than a uniform pattern of decline. Urbanization continued through temple towns, administrative capitals, pilgrimage centres, fortified settlements, and commercial ports, demonstrating adaptability rather than collapse. Scholars view medieval cities as products of state formation. Political capitals such as Delhi, Agra, Fatehpur Sikri, Daulatabad, Vijayanagara, Bidar, Gulbarga, and Jaunpur emerged because rulers concentrated administrative institutions, military establishments, and royal patronage within them. These cities housed palaces, forts, treasuries, judicial institutions, arsenals, and bureaucratic offices. Their growth depended significantly on the political authority of dynasties such as the Delhi Sultanate, the Mughals, the Bahmani rulers, the Vijayanagara Empire, and various regional kingdoms. The role of military functions is also highlighted by scholars. Many medieval cities developed around strategically located forts that provided security against invasions and facilitated imperial expansion. Fortified cities such as Gwalior, Chittorgarh, Golconda, and Daulatabad illustrate how military architecture shaped urban landscapes. Massive walls, gateways, moats, bastions, and citadels formed integral components of these cities, reflecting the inseparable relationship between warfare and urban planning. Economic historians emphasize that medieval cities served as thriving commercial centres rather than merely political capitals. Irfan Habib argues that the expansion of agriculture generated marketable surplus, which supported urban growth. Cities became centres for the collection of land revenue, redistribution of goods, and manufacture of