|
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
victories over Muslim armies of Delhi.[1] The Pratāpacharitra, a late quasi-historical prose work,
states, like the present record under consideration, that there were no less than eight Muslim
invasions against Warangal, and that though Pratāparudra vanquished and put them to flight
on the first seven occasions, he suffered defeat during the last expedition. Warangal fell into
the hands of the Turakas, and he himself was carried away as a prisoner to Delhi.[2]
Though the Muslim and the Hindu sources are in perfect agreement regarding the final
conquest of the Kākatīya kingdom and the captivity of Pratāparudra, they are at variance about
the number of Muslim expeditions and the events that happened in them. Whereas contemporary
epigraphic evidence fixes their number at eight, Muslim historians mention only five. The
difference is perhaps due to the omission, by the latter, of abortive attempts of conquest, which
they considered unworthy of notice. While the Hindu sources claim victory uniformly over the
Mussalmans in all expeditions excepting the last, the Muslim historians admit defeat only twice
which they attribute to unforeseen circumstances. There is reason to believe that the Kākatīyas
were not so uniformly successful against the Mussalmans as the Hindu records would have us
believe. Chāṭu verses addressed to Pōtugaṇṭi Maili, one of the Nāyakas in the service of
Kākatīya Pratāparudra, describe an event which happened in the court of ‘ Alā-ud-dīn Kḥalji
at Delhi. For some reason unknown at present Maili is said to have vanquished the Telugu-Chōḍa chief Bijjana at Dakhoḷ in Delhi in the presence of Sultān ‘ Alā-ud-dīn, Malik Nēmār
(Malik Nā’īb Kāfūr ?), the unrivalled hero, and the seventy-seven Nāyakas (of Prataparudra’s
court).[3] The presence of so many Kākatīya nobles at Delhi, and the duel between Maili and
Bijjana at Dākhōḷ before ‘Alā-ud-dīn and Malik Nēmār seem to indicate the existence of intimate
political relations between Delhi and Warangal. The Muslim historians refer, as a matter of
fact, to the arrival of Kākatīya officials to the court of the Sultān to pay the annual tribute into
the imperial treasury.[4] Maili and Bijjana probably escorted the tribute to Delhi on one of the
occasions, when during their stay in the capital, the duel described in the Chāṭu verses was fought.
_________________________________________________
[1] The chiefs of the Gōsagi family, for instance, claim to have wrested from Ulugh Khān, the seven constitutents
of his royalty : Ulughu-Khāna-saptāṅga-haraṇa (Mack. Mss., 15-5-32).
[2] J.Tel.Ac., Vol. VII, pp. 304-5.
[3] See Chāṭupadyamaṇimañjari, ii, p. 63 :
Ḍhillilō Surathānuḍ=Allāvadīn-dhar-ādhayakshuṇḍu pratyaksha-sākshi-gāga,
mahanīya-jayaśāli Maliki Nēmāruṇḍu jagad-ēka-śūruṇḍu sākshi-gāga
jagatipai ḍebbad=ēḍuguru nāyaṁkulun=akshīṇa-bala-yutul sākshi-gāga
sahaja-sāhasa-yuddha-sannaddha-vara-bhṭ-āśrayam=aina Dākōlu sākshi-gāga
Sūrya-vaṁśōdaya-khyātuḍ=ārya Telugu-
Bijjala-nṛipālu gelche dad-bhīma-baluḍu
vairi-gaja-bhīmuḍ=amita-satya-priyuṁḍu
ghana-bhujāśāliy=agu Pōtugaṁṭi Maili.
[4] Elliot, History of India, Vol. III, p. 204 : ‘At the end of the same year (H. 711) twenty elephants arrived
in Delhi from Laddar Deo, Rāi of Tilaṅg, with a letter stating that he was ready to pay at Dēvgīr, to any one
whom the Sultān would commission to receive it, the treasure which had been engaged to pay, thus fulfilling the
terms of the treaty with Malik Kāfūr.’ On another occasion, some of the Kākatīya officials who were on their
way to Delhi are said to have paid tribute to the Malik Nā’īb Kāfūr whom they met in his camp on the banks
of the Narmadā. See Khusrū, Khazain Khaz-ul-Futūḥ, p. 83 :
[5] After the rivers, mountains and valleys had been crossed, a present of twenty-three elephants, huge as
Elburz, arrived from the Rāi of Tiling.’
Isāmy also alludes to Pratāparudra’s practice of payment of tribute to Delhi.─
[6] “ I am a slave of the king ”, said Rudradēv, and “ I shall go to the Khān, the commander of his forces. It was
in my mind to send the tribute to the king in the capital ; but as the roads are infested with malefactors I
hesitated to send it to the court.” See Futūḥ-us-Salātīṇ (Madras end.), p. 362.
|
