218 THE AGRARIAN SYSTEM OF MOSLEM INDIA 
positions in his kingdom. The following are a few sample 
biographies condensed from this chronicle. 
Taghin Khan (p. 242) was purchased by Shamsuddin, and employed in 
succession as page, keeper of the pen-case! food-taster, master of the 
stable, Muqti of Badan, and Mugqti of Lakhnauti, where the insignia 
of royalty were eventually conferred on him. 
Saifuddin Aibak (p. 259) was purchased by the king, and employed 
successively as keeper of the wardrobe, sword-bearer, Mugqti of Samana, 
Muqti of Baran, and finally Vakil-i dar, apparently, at this period, the 
highest ceremonial post at Court.2 
Tughril Khdan (p. 261) also a slave, Was successively deputy-taster, 
court-usher, master of the elephants, master of the stable, Muqti of Sirhind, 
and later of Lahore, Kanauj, and Awadh in succession: finally he received 
Lakhnauti, where he assumed the title of king. 
Ulugh Khan (p. 281), afterwards King Balban, is said to have belonged 
to a noble family in Turkistan,® but was enslaved in circumstances which 
are not recorded. He was taken for sale to Baghdad, and thence to 
Gujarat, from where a dealer brought him to Delhi, and sold him to the 
King. He was employed first as personal attendant, then as master of 
sport, then master of the stable, then Muqti of Hansi, then Lord Chamber- 
lain, and subsequently became. first. deputy-King of Delhi, and then 
King in his own right. 
It seems to me to be quite impossible to think of such a 
nobility in terms of a feudal system with a king merely first 
among his territorial vassals: what we see is a royal household 
full of slaves, who could rise, by merit or favour, from servile 
duties to the charge of a province, or even of a kingdom— 
essentially a bureaucracy of the normal Asiatic type. The same 
conclusion follows from an examination of the Mugqti’s actual 
position: it is nowhere, so far as I know, described in set terms, 
but the incidents recorded in the chronicles justifv the following 
summary. 
I. A Muqti had no territorial position of his own, and no 
claim to any particular region: he was appointed by the King, 
! Dawat-dar. The dictionary-meaning of ‘“ Secretary of State’ does 
not seem to be appropriate here, for we are told that on one occasion 
Taghan Khan was sharply punished for losing the King’s jewelled pen-case, 
and 1 take the phrase to denote the official responsible for the care of the 
king's writing materials. In later times the Chief Dawatdar was a high 
officer. 
2 The exact status of the vakil-i dar at this period is a rather complex 
question, but its discussion is not necessary for the present purpose. 
3 The chronicler is so fulsome in his praise of Balban, under whom he 
was writing, that this statement may be merely a piece of flattery, but 
there is nothing intrinsically improbable in it, having regard to the cir- 
cumstances of the time. Writing in the next century, Ibn Batiita recorded 
(iii. 171) a much less complimentary tradition; it is unnecessary for me to 
enquire which account is true, because both are in agreement on the 
essential point. that Balban was brought to India as a slave: