Life and Conditions of the People of Hindustan (1200–1550 A.D.) c5.s4.t4: III. Domestic and Slaves
Life and Conditions of the People of Hindustan (1200–1550 A.D.) c5.s4.t4
- Language
- English
III. Domestic and Slaves
c5.s4.t4.1
In our enumeration of Muslim social classes, we might conveniently treat here the important class of domestics and slaves who were a familiar feature of every respectable Muslim home, and as has been pointed out above, incidentally added to the growing Muslim population of Hindustan.⁴ The life of a Muslim nobleman was so much divided between war (razm) and pleasures (bazm) that he hardly found any time to attend to his personal and domestic work. In course of time the code of social behaviour began to view domestic work as unworthy of a gentleman's dignity and honour.
c5.s4.t4.2
⁴ Compare B., 192 for the opinion of Sultan Jalal-ud-din Khalji regarding the occupations of the nobles; also *ibid.*, 226 under ‘Ala-ud-din. Compare T.D., 82 for the soldier’s fondness for courtesans’ quarters.
c5.s4.t4.3
The most important section of these domestics was comprised of male and female slaves. Slaves were imported into India from many countries; those of Turkistan and India had acquired a classical reputation all over the East.¹ Among the slaves of Indian origin, those of Asam were especially valued because of their strong physique and their powers of endurance, their price being many times that of slaves of other nationalities.² Other Indian slaves were not dear; their skill in many things was great; their only defect, if any, was their strong attachment to their ancient faith and culture.³ A special class of slaves was employed for the care of the female inmates of the haram. They were usually bought in childhood and castrated. Trade in eunuchs was carried on in Bengal in the thirteenth century. They were sometimes imported also from the farthest Malay islands.⁴
c5.s4.t4.4
¹ Compare K.R., I, 240.
c5.s4.t4.5
² Ibid., II, 144.
c5.s4.t4.6
³ Compare Notices, etc., 200 for the skill of the Indian slaves; Amir Khusrau's opinion of their defects in I.K., I, 169.
c5.s4.t4.7
⁴ Compare Yule, II, 115; Barbosa II, 147.
c5.s4.t4.8
Female slaves were of two kinds, those employed for domestic and menial work, and others who were bought for company and pleasure. The former, wanting in education and skill, and bought expressly for rough domestic work, were often subjected to all sorts of indignities⁵; the latter had a more honourable and sometimes even a dominating position in the household. Apart from the slave girls of India, female slaves were also imported from China and Turkistan.⁶ On the whole the selection of the female slaves was made somewhat on the lines humorously suggested by a Mughal noble : ‘Buy a Khurasani woman for her work, a Hindu woman for her capacity for nursing children, a Persian woman for the pleasures of her company, and a Transoxianian for thrashing her as a warning for the other three.¹
c5.s4.t4.9
⁵ Compare the remarks of Amir Khusrau. I.K., IV, 334, 169-170; F.F., 47b.
c5.s4.t4.10
⁶ Compare Ibid., I, 166-167.
c5.s4.t4.11
¹ Compare Blockmann, I, 327.
c5.s4.t4.12
After some time the employment of slaves became general and was by no means confined to the Muslims alone. Hindu noblemen and chiefs began to employ slaves for military and domestic purposes.² Even public women in the Deccan began to employ slaves for attendance and service.³ As late as the close of the last century slavery existed in the native States of Rajputana as it probably did in earlier periods.⁴
c5.s4.t4.13
² Compare T.M.S. 459; Sircar, 113.
c5.s4.t4.14
³ Compare Major, 29.
c5.s4.t4.15
⁴ Compare Tod, I, 207-210 for a detailed discussion of slaves in Mewar. Apart from agricultural bondage (known as *basai*, which is redeemable) slavery existed in other forms, the slaves being usually known as *golas* (probably an abbreviation of *ghulam*?) and *dases*. The *golas* were the general body of slaves who had lost their liberty and the *dases* (literally 'slaves') the illegitimate sons of a ruling prince, who had no rank or legal position in the State, though they were liberally provided for by the Raja. The marriages of slaves (both *golas* and *dases*) were confined to those of their own class. Their offspring were also slaves, generally esteemed in public according to the quality of the mother—whether she was a Rajputani, a Muslim or one of the degraded tribes. With the familiar advantages or disadvantages of a caste, the slaves also formed a caste of their own, which took away part of the social stigma. Tod bears testimony to the fact that they were well treated in Mewar and even held confidential positions about the chiefs 'whose body they were'. Their distinguishing mark was the wearing of a silver ring round the left ankle.
c5.s4.t4.16
The status of slaves.—It is usual to assume that slaves had no defined status or rights under Muslim rule in Hindustan. Such an opinion is not warranted by facts. Theoretically speaking, since a slave was usually a convert to Islam he possessed the same rights as any other member of Muslim society which is still conspicuous for a certain amount of feeling of brotherhood and equality. Thus, his moral claims, though they might not receive due and full recognition, could never be denied.⁵ If he was originally a Hindu, and probably of a lower caste, the social change was decidedly for the better. Even if he had belonged to a higher caste, he had lost his status in Hindu society and could not go back to it except under very humiliating conditons.
c5.s4.t4.17
⁵ Compare for instance Yusuf Gada (T., 14b) and saint Hamadani (Z.M., 77) both of whom insist that according to the earlier traditions of Islam the master of a slave should provide more or less the same comforts for his slave as he does for himself. Hamadani specifically enumerates seven rights that accrue to a slave as against his master, which include the right of religious education, of working for a fixed number of hours and of leave during hours of prayer, of being treated without indignity and contempt, and finally of refusing the performance of work opposed to *Shari'at*.
c5.s4.t4.18
In practice, the position of a slave was very different. He was usually a prisoner of war, and according to the military usage of the age, his life was at the mercy of his captor, who had full power of killing him or of otherwise disposing of him. This was clearly understood on both sides long before a military engagement commenced. So when a conqueror (now master of the slave) chose to spare the life of a slave and employ him for menial work, it was an act of favour and of special benevolence on the part of the former. Similarly, when the prisoner of war had been sold in the market and bought by a purchaser, he was as much the property of the buyer as any other commodity, and as such, could be given away as a gift or disposed of in any other way.¹ No shrewd captor or buyer, however, neglected to take good care of his property which, given proper attention, could be converted into ready money, perhaps with a good deal of profit. This property in a slave was widely recognized and even finds expression in a legal precept where a Sultan is enjoined to pay proper compensation if he desires to release a slave from the custody of a master.² In other respects, a slave was not considered to be a free agent at law and could only be punished in the presence of his master.³
c5.s4.t4.19
¹ Compare J.H., 218 for a characteristic illustration to show that in relation to his master, a slave had nothing which he could claim as his own, even his name or identity. Everything depended on the absolute will of his master. Compare also the feeling of Muhammad Tughluq regarding his erstwhile slave Targhi on the occasion of the latter's rebellion, in Barani.
c5.s4.t4.20
² J.H., 105.
c5.s4.t4.21
³ Compare, F.F., 186.
c5.s4.t4.22
Under these conditions it is difficult to apply the modern definitions of industrial slavery to the institution of that age.⁴ The slave of those days, for instance, was not on a lower level than the mass of the people. As has been pointed out, he was decidedly in a better social position if he had originally belonged to a low Hindu caste. Again, if a slave found his way into the household of a monarch (as quite a number of them did) though he was nominally a slave, his condition of servitude was shared by the majority of courtiers and other royal employees. In fact, when the liberty of an alleged free man may sometimes have been conspicuously displayed in the doubtful privilege of being allowed to starve, the slave was provided with a secure and fairly comfortable livelihood. A slave in the service of the Sultan was usually manumitted after some time, and was provided with an honourable position, even with rank and an elevated social status.¹ The political conditions and the general instability of life at times helped to raise a talented and enterprising slave to such heights of social eminence as were not ordinarily within reach of the highest and the noblest in the kingdom.²
c5.s4.t4.23
⁴ Compare for instance Nieboer's definition of a slave as a person 'who is the property of another, politically and socially, at a lower level than the mass of the people and performing compulsory labour' (vide 'Slavery as an Industrial System', page 5).
c5.s4.t4.24
¹ Compare for instance the slaves of Firuz Tughluq A., 444.
c5.s4.t4.25
² Examples have been cited in previous sections. Compare the estimate of Lane Poole 64; of Gibb 30, in their respective works.
c5.s4.t4.26
The reactions of the institution of slavery on the manners and the outlook of the age were, however, very different, and of a far reaching character. In a slave holding society, as Nieboer finds, the ruling classes, having learned to command and domineer over their slaves, get used to highly undemocratic ways of life, which is prejudicial to the social well being of a society. It creates in the long run an offensive and brutal upper class on the one hand, and a bitter and vindictive lower class on the other. Similarly a long tradition of slavery creates a set of persons born to work that others may not work, and another set of persons to think so that others may not think. Another obvious inference from this unhealthy division of classes is that manual labour becomes identified with slave labour and, therefore, discredited. Among other effects Nieboer finds that slavery often engenders cruelty or at least harshness, that slaves are demoralized because of the lack of proper education, and because of want of normal family relations, and that slavery prevents the development of the sense of human dignity which lies at the foundation of morals.³ All this gives to a slave-holding society the stamp of unprogressiveness and a socially unhealthy character. These social consequences, though not so pronounced, are fairly well marked in the social development of mediaeval Indian society.
c5.s4.t4.27
³ Compare the observations and conclusions of Nieboer, 436. Compare the estimate of Barani in F.J., 72.