The Foundation of Muslim Rule in India: A History of the Establishment and Progress of the Turkish Sultanate of Delhi, 1206–1290 A.D. c21.40

c21.40

A word may be said about the slave-king, a social anachronism. In Islam the potentialities of a slave are many, for except in name, he suffered little visible social disability. A bondslave, wearing a crown was, besides, not a peculiarly Muslim phenomenon; the Byzantine history also affords a number of instances. But, correctly, the Turkish wearers of the crown in 13th century India can hardly be designated as slaves, for every one of them died a free man. Aibak alone was technically a slave when he assumed power at Lahore; but he lost no time in obtaining manumission from his master's heir, Ghiyasuddin Mahmud¹. Iltutmish obtained his freedom quite early, even before Aibak had obtained his own². Freedom undoubtedly was an asset, though not the main qualification, and there were formalist lawyers whom it was prudent to satisfy, for it was they who would be expected to proclaim the ruler's name from the pulpit as 'the defender of the Faith' and 'the Lord Protector of Muslims. In the ceremony of oath-taking on Iltutmish's accession, before the assembled people had sworn allegiance, the lawyers, we are told by Ibn Battuta, "entered the monarch's presence and sat down". The Sultan knew what they wanted to speak about, and so he raised the corner of the carpet on which he was sitting, and presented to them the deed of his manumission. The qazis and the lawyers read it and then took the oath of allegiance¹. We have no explicit mention of Balban's manumission but it is more than probable that his close family ties with the ruling house had procured his freedom.