The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v2.c15.s2.t5.48

Language: English

v2.c15.s2.t5.48.1

The circumstances which decided Ghiyāṣ-ud-Dīn Tughluq Shāh to send his forces against Telingāṇa are not definitely known; but Firishta, writing in the early years of the seventeenth century, states that ‘Rudradēv, the rāja of Warangal, during the late disturbances had refused to send the tribute’ and Ulugh Khān was therefore sent against him.² This in itself is not unlikely, since Pratāparudra had withheld the payment of tribute once before under similar circumstances. Ulugh Khān marched to Warangal by way of Dēvagiri. Pratāparudra, according to Firishta, opposed the advance of the Muslim army with spirit, but was obliged in the end to retreat to his capital, which was immediately invested by Ulugh Khān.³ The succeeding struggle was indeed both protracted and fierce. Nor was the fighting confined exclusively to Warangal and its neighbourhood. A part of the Delhi army under Majīr Abū-Riza was engaged in besieging Kōṭagiri at the same time as Ulugh Khān was vainly attempting to capture Warangal. It is not at all unlikely that other places of importance in the country were also attacked by various detachments. Nevertheless, Ulugh Khān failed to achieve his object and had to beat a hasty retreat from Teliṅgāṇa, hotly pursued by the Kākatīya army. The failure of Ulugh Khān is attributed by Muslim historians to the machinations of the poet 'Ubaid, a treacherous companion and friend of the prince.

v2.c15.s2.t5.48.2

According to Baranī, Ulugh Khān had closely invested Warangal, and had reduced the defenders to extremities. Of the two forts that surrounded the city, the outer or the mud fort was about to fall, when Pratāparudra sued for peace and offered to submit to the authority of the Sulṭān and to pay the tribute demanded; but Ulugh Khān, who had set his heart on the capture of Pratāparudra and his capital, rejected the offer. In the meanwhile, a change came over the spirit of the Muslim army. Since the postal system had broken down, no recent news had reached the camp from the capital, and at this juncture the poet 'Ubaid and Shaikh Zāda-i-Dimashqī, who were intimate friends of Ulugh Khān, spread in the army the false rumour that the Sulṭān was dead in Delhi, that a usurper had seized the throne, and that the Khān was about to arrest some of the important chiefs of the army, their loyalty being suspect in his eyes on account of their Khalji sympathies. This information, coming as it did from the intimate companions of the Khān, created panic in their minds, and they fled from the camp with their followers. The Muslim army was thrown into confusion as a consequence of their flight, and the Hindus, taking advantage of the sudden misfortune that had overtaken their enemies, stormed into Ulugh Khān's camp and plundered it.

v2.c15.s2.t5.48.3

Unable to withstand their attack, he rallied his troops and retreated in haste towards Dēvagiri.¹ Ibn Baṭṭūṭa, who came to India some ten years after the conquest of Teliṅgāṇa, attributes the disaster to the miscarriage of the ambitious designs of Ulugh Khān himself, and represents 'Ubaid as the unfortunate victim of his treachery. Ulugh Khān who, according to Baṭṭūṭa, was planning to stir up a rebellion against his father, instigated 'Ubaid to spread in the army the false rumour of the Sulṭān's death, expecting that the leaders of the army would swear allegiance to him as their sovereign; but his plan miscarried. The *amīrs* rose against him and would have killed him; but Malik Tīmūr, one of the principal *amīrs* in the army, offered him protection and helped him to flee to Delhi. Though the Sulṭān was aware of the treacherous designs of his son, he accepted the false accusations which the latter levelled against the *amīrs*, and not only punished them severely but also sent him back with men and money to Teliṅgāṇa to retrieve the disaster.² Though Ibn Baṭṭūṭa visited India within a decade after the fall of Warangal, he actually wrote his Risāla from memory in the last quarter of the fourteenth century, after his return to his native Morocco. The accuracy of his account is not free from doubt; for it not only contradicts the evidence of the contemporary Indian Muslim historians but also runs counter to the character of the Sultān.

v2.c15.s2.t5.48.4

Ghiyās-ud-Din Tughluq Shāh was a just and upright ruler. It is not likely that he would have condoned Ulugh Khān’s treachery and sent him back to Telingāna with men and money, if the latter had really acted in the manner described by Baṭṭūṭa.