A new site, built from published sources. Spotted a mistake? Please tell us
Telugu Historyతెలుగు చరిత్ర

Malik Kafur

Slave general of Sultan Ala-ud-din Khalji, called Malik Naib. He besieged Warangal in 1309–10 and forced the Kakatiya king Prataparudra to give up his treasure and pay yearly tribute. Then he crossed the Telugu country on his way to the far south, and he collected its tribute from Devagiri. This page covers only his part in the history of the Telugu country.

Malik Kafur was a general of Sultan Ala-ud-din Khalji of Delhi.1 In 1309–10 he besieged Warangal and forced the Kakatiya king to give up his treasure and promise yearly tribute.2

The slave general

Kafur was a eunuch slave who rose to command the armies of Sultan Ala-ud-din Khalji.1 Haig, in the Cambridge History of India (1928), records that he was first nicknamed Kafur.1 Later he was called Hazardinar, “the thousand dinar Slave”, from the price paid for him.1 He became the sultan’s favourite and deputy for the kingdom.1 The chroniclers call him Malik Naib, the sultan’s deputy, and Amir Khusrau also calls him Malik Naib Barbak.345

The siege of Warangal, 1309–10

In 709 AH (1309) Ala-ud-din sent Malik Naib Kafur and Khwaja Haji against Warangal.5 Barani says the sultan told him to do his utmost to take the fort and overthrow “Rai Laddar Deo”.5 But if the Rai agreed to give up his treasure, elephants and horses, and to send tribute the next year, Kafur was to accept the terms “and not press the Rai too hard”.5

The army marched by way of Devagiri.56 There the Yadava king Ramadeva gave it supplies and sent men ahead “as far as the borders of Arangal” to collect food.56 Ferishta and Haig name the frontier town where it entered Telingana as Indur.78 Both say that Kafur laid the country waste as he advanced.78

Amir Khusrau describes the march to the fort of Sarbar, “considered among the provinces of Tilang”, and on to Warangal.4910 There Kafur’s men took the hill of Anumakonda, Hanamkonda, to look down on the city.4910 Khusrau describes the stockaded camp, the bombardment of the mud wall, the storming of the outer fort and the attack on the inner stone fort.4910 At last the king asked for peace.4910

Kafur took the whole of the Rai’s treasure.2 He threatened a general massacre if anything was found to have been held back, and he made the Rai promise yearly tribute.2 He left Arangal in March 1310 with “a thousand camels” of treasure.2

Barani gives the spoils as a hundred elephants, seven thousand horses and jewels.117 Ferishta gives three hundred elephants and seven thousand horses.117 See Warangal Fort, Hanamkonda and Prataparudra.

Tribute from Telingana

Khusrau says that in 1310–11, on Kafur’s way to the far south, “the Rai of Tilang sent twenty-three powerful elephants for the royal service”.12 At the end of 711 AH (1311–12) twenty elephants came to Delhi from Laddar Deo.1314 With them came an offer to pay the promised treasure at Devagiri.1314

Ferishta says that this offer gave Kafur a reason to ask for another command in the Deccan.1415 In 712 AH (1312) he went to Devagiri and killed its raja.1415 From there, “realising the tribute from the Princes of Tulingana and the Carnatic”, he “despatched the whole to Dehly”.1415 Haig adds that Prataparudra had asked for an officer to be posted within reasonable reach of Warangal to receive the tribute.16

The editors of the Vilasa grant pointed to a Telugu verse that describes a duel fought at Delhi.17 It was fought before Sultan Ala-ud-din, a “Malik Nemar” and the seventy-seven nayakas (chiefs) of the Kakatiya court.17 The fighters were Prataparudra’s commander Potugamti Maili and a Telugu Choda chief.17 The editors took “Malik Nemar” to be perhaps Malik Naib Kafur.17 They saw the scene as a sign of close ties between Delhi and Warangal in the years of tribute.17

Evidence and disagreements

  • The spoils of 1310. A hundred elephants (Barani) or three hundred (Ferishta), with seven thousand horses in both.117
  • Telugu claims. The Vilasa grant says that Prataparudra defeated the sultan seven times before the last campaign. Its editors doubted that the Kakatiyas were always so successful.1817

Footnotes

  1. Wolseley Haig (ed.), The Cambridge History of India, Vol. III (1928), p. 100 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  2. Elliot and Dowson, Vol. III (1871), p. 84, Amir Khusrau (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  3. H. M. Elliot and John Dowson, The History of India as Told by Its Own Historians, Vol. III (1871), p. 78, Amir Khusrau (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩

  4. Elliot and Dowson, Vol. III (1871), p. 80, Amir Khusrau (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  5. Elliot and Dowson, Vol. III (1871), p. 201, Barani (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  6. Elliot and Dowson, Vol. III (1871), p. 202, Barani (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2

  7. Muhammad Qasim Ferishta, tr. John Briggs, History of the Rise of the Mahomedan Power in India, Vol. I (1829), pp. 371–372 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  8. Haig, Cambridge History of India, Vol. III (1928), pp. 114–115 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2

  9. Elliot and Dowson, Vol. III (1871), pp. 81–82, Amir Khusrau (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  10. Elliot and Dowson, Vol. III (1871), p. 83, Amir Khusrau (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  11. Elliot and Dowson, Vol. III (1871), p. 203, Barani (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  12. Elliot and Dowson, Vol. III (1871), p. 86, Amir Khusrau (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩

  13. Elliot and Dowson, Vol. III (1871), p. 204, Barani (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2

  14. Ferishta, tr. Briggs, Vol. I (1829), p. 378 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  15. Ferishta, tr. Briggs, Vol. I (1829), p. 379 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  16. Haig, Cambridge History of India, Vol. III (1928), p. 118 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩

  17. Venkataramanayya and Somasekhara Sarma, “Vilasa Grant” (1957–58), pp. 246–247 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). Paraphrased. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  18. N. Venkataramanayya and M. Somasekhara Sarma, “Vilasa Grant of Prolaya-nayaka”, Epigraphia Indica XXXII (1957–58), p. 244 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). Paraphrased. ↩

References

Sources (4)
  1. H. M. Elliot and John Dowson (eds.), The History of India as Told by Its Own Historians: The Muhammadan Period, Vol. III (opens in a new tab), Trübner and Co., London, 1871, pp. 78–86, 201–204. [Public domain]
  2. Muhammad Qasim Ferishta (tr. John Briggs), History of the Rise of the Mahomedan Power in India till the Year A.D. 1612, Vol. I (opens in a new tab), Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green, London, 1829, pp. 371–372, 378–379. [Public domain]
  3. Wolseley Haig (ed.), The Cambridge History of India, Vol. III: Turks and Afghans (opens in a new tab), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1928, pp. 100, 114–115, 118. [Public domain]
  4. D. C. Sircar and B. Ch. Chhabra (eds.), Epigraphia Indica, Vol. XXXII (1957–58) (opens in a new tab), Archaeological Survey of India, 1959, pp. 243, 246. N. Venkataramanayya and M. Somasekhara Sarma, introduction to the Vilasa grant. Paraphrased. [Public domain in India]

Spotted an error on this page? Tell us

Last updated: