Medieval History

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Jul 21 2007, 12:07 PM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Jul 21 2007, 12:07 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Ala-ud-din may have had only limited success in Rajputana, but he was able to defeat Karnadeva and control Gujarat. Even before he became Sultan he defeated Ramachandra, the Seuna Yadava king of Devagiri. The loot that he extorted from him helped him to win the throne at Delhi. Thereafter he again defeated the Seunas a few years later and made them a regular tributary. After Ramachandra's death in 1312, his son Singhana rebelled, was defeated and the Mahratta country came under Muslim rule. Ala-ud-din's armies also fought against Pratapa Rudra Kakatiya of Warangal and Ballala III of Hoysala. Pratapa Rudra repulsed one invasion in 1303-4. After Ala-ud-din's death, during the reign of Ghiyas-ud-din Khilji, Kakatiyas succumbed to the Muslim invasion. This was in 1324. Though Hoysalas were defeated in 1310, they never submitted to Muslim rule.

Overall in effect, the permanent gains were Gujarat and Mahratta country, however the Telugu country and the Hoysala dominions, even after the extinguishing of the Kakatiya dynasty never reconciled to Muslim rule. The same thing that Digvijay said about Rajputana i.e. frequent attacks on Muslims in the countryside, not letting them live in peace happened in the Karnata and Telugu country also. They were not allowed to collect their taxes, nobody submitted to them, they had to shut themselves up in their fort.

So it is not correct to give blanket declaration that Ala-ud-din did not make any gains and also on the other side to say that the Hindu rulers were flattened. Maharashtra and northern parts of Karnataka were significant gains, which later passed on to the Bahmani sultans, while south of the Tungabhadra, while there were many Muslim raids, they were never able to rule those dominions.

Overall we got to accept that Ala-ud-din whatever his character was, he was very ambitious and does have significant achievements to his credit.
[right][snapback]71411[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good points Kartik. But we have to keep Khilji's own admission in context here:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Professor Herman Kulke in his book "A History of India, ISBN: 0415154820, Publisher: Routledge; 3rd edition (March 1998)" records:

<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
Ala-ud-din was also quite realistic when he mentioned that his order would be obeyed only upto a distance of about 100 miles from Delhi; beyond that limit military intervention was required if he wanted to impose his will on the people.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This shows that even at the height of power, Khilji barely controlled the outskirts of Delhi and rest of India was not under his control.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


So when a fort fell or a battle won the muslim historians record "chittor is paying tribute to Delhi". But what they do not record is when the tribute became a trickle and when it ended. So the impression gets created "Oh the entire rajasthan/Gujarat is paying tribute" which is ofcourse patently false.

-Digvijay