Delhi--who made it the capital

[out of place]

hello friends;


can anyone tell me which muslim ruler first made Delhi the capital of India? and since then it became the seat of central govt.?
was it qutbuddin aibak or iltutmish?????????
In the case of aibak, we also read about Lahore...where as Iltutmish paid great attention to Delhi...


so what do you say???

[Azhar Hussain Memon]

i think it's Aibak..

Regards
Azhar Hussain Memon

[Muhammad T S Awan]

Yes it was Qutbuddin Aibak. Initially he made Lahore a capital but later on he shifted capital to Delhi, which was moreorless a central place in looking after the affairs of government.

[shozab.hussaini]

According to me it was Iltumish who made delhi a capital

have a look at this:

Q. The first sovereign ruler of the Sultanate of Delhi was:
A. Iltumish


Q. The first Sultan of Delhi to issue regular currency and declared Delhi as the capital of his empire was:
A. Iltumish.

SOURCE:
http://www.cssforum.com.pk/css-optio...-indo-pak.html



and not only here it is written on the other books as well

[engr.Mansoor]

I think it was Qutab-uddin-Aibak who in 1205 laid the first muslim rule in Dehli.
The date may be wrong but i am abit optimistic abt Aibak

[Xeric]

Aibak as the new Sultan. It was he who shifted the capital first from Ghazni to Lahore, and then from Lahore to Delhi, and thus is considered as the first Muslim ruler of South Asia.



http://www.storyofpakistan.com/person.asp?perid=P045

[javed_iqbal7863]

Qutb ud Deen, first made delhi the capital.
consult
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qutb-ud-din_Aybak

[umarabbas]

Brothers....historically it was Iltutmish....he laid the foundation of the Delhi Sultanate... he was the first ruler of Muslim India to nominate Delhi as a seat of power/government....

Confusion arises whether Aibak was the person who gave importance to Delhi by making it seat of Muslim power...but it is not the case....it was Iltutmish...

the historical proofs for this are:

1- At Aibak's time, both Delhi and Lahore were used as "MILITARY HEADQUARTERS"....there was no permanent seat of government...after the nobles of Delhi placed Iltutmish on the throne, he gave Delhi the status of capital.......
2- Iltutmish is the real founder of the Slave Dynasty in India...(the first Muslim rulers)....During Tughluq era a list of Sultans of Delhi was compiled...Aibak was excluded from that: reasons are he never had a khutbah read in his name, he did not strike any coins in his name, he was not recognized by the Khalifa as a Sultan of Delhi and many others...
3- V.D Mahajan and Ishwari Prasad and other prominent historians all regard Iltutmish as the real founder of the Delhi Sultanate....


so it was Iltutmish who elevated Delhi to the status of capital of Muslim Rule in India....

[out of place]

lets delineate the difference carefully. From the CSS point of view.

1- Iltutmish was the REAL founder of slave dynasty....The operational word here is REAL,,,which means this statement has to be followed with logical arguments and reasons...and yes there are many...so there is no doubt that Iltutmish was the REAL founder of slave dynasty.
BUT....and this is big BUT......From CSS point of view, as far as MCQs are concerned, if it is asked as it was asked in the MCQs of css paper of 2009 that "THE FOUNDER OF THE SLAVE DYNASTY WAS........" and the options are a) qutbuddin aibak b) iltutmish c) nasiruddin mahmud shah d) balban e) none of these
The answer has to be QUTBUDDIN AIBAK and not ILTUTMISH...


2) Similarly no doubt qutbuddin played between two headquarters and delhi rose to prominence during iltutmish's reign....yet, it was during qutbuddin aibak's rule of few years that Delhi for the first time caught the fascination of the rulers as the abode in India and it is during this era that it first appeared on the political map of India.....no doubt, this is moot point but from the xam's point of view,,,especially MCQs,,,,Qutbuddin aibak is a safer bet....

[umarabbas]

this seems to be out of place...

Delhi was an important city before the arrival of Muslims...it was the seat of government of "Prthviraj Chauhan" who ruled "the Kingdom of Delhi and Ajmer"....

secondly....there is a difference between founding a dynasty and giving prominence to a city and using a city as a seat of government....Aibak didnot leave a will (to choose his heir apparent that is, prolly he never had a son)....Iltutmish, just by chance, was his son-in-law and he was raised to the throne by the Amirs of Delhi....so we cannot say that Aibak even left a Dynasty or something...

The position of Aibak is unique....although the example i am about to quote might sound a bit out of the way but it co-relates to it....it was like the Uncle of Hazrat Muhammad helped him alot but he was not a Muslim (or a prophet himself)...so Aibak's contributions are no doubt important but he is not the First Sultan of the Slave Dynasty!!! (he ruled as the governor of Indian interests for the Sultans of Ghazni...who may be either Ghori or his nephew Ghiyas-ud-Din)