In India the Muslims established a number of slave trade centres. Besides Delhi and cities in Bengal there is mention of Badaon in Uttar Pradesh and Mandor in Rajasthan.62 But of course from the narrative of the chroniclers it appears that slave markets existed in almost all important places in the country, for slaves were also sold in fairs held in major cities.
In this inhuman business the Hindus were not interested. Firstly, they were themselves at the receiving end, they themselves were the victims. And secondly, as W.H. Moreland points out, “We may infer from della Valle’s statements that the principal Hindus at Surat - perhaps the most humane people that ever lived - disapproved entirely of slavery.” Now few people are as good traders as Gujaratis. They would have excelled if they had taken to slave-trading.
But catching and selling of slaves did not fit in with the Hindu psyche. Although, commenting on the statement of della Valle, Moreland says, “but I do not think that this remark can be extended to Hindus generally… though in Akbar’s time at least it did not secure the approval of all Hindus… The existence of slavery is testified to by the travellers Abdur Razak, Conti and Barbosa.”63 It would be safe to presume that it prevailed in the Deccan, because it prevailed farther north in the country whence the Deccan dynasties had sprung and we may believe Nikitin’s statement that in his time there was a trade in ‘Black people’ in Bidar.”64 But the trade was carried on by Muslims and not Hindus, for Moreland adds that in 1643, “a Nayak, or chief, rejected a Dutch request for leave to buy up to 1000 slaves yearly on the ground that the sale of human being was not only a scandal but a sin.”
You had alot of self respect on this
