Competition among the southern kingdoms was eclipsed by Muslim incursions during the early part of the 14th century. Khaljī raids upon the unwary Hindu kingdoms yielded vast treasures to finance Khaljī enterprises in North India. Ulti- mately they resulted in the establishment of the Bahmanī Sul- tanate in 1347, a base of Muslim dominance in the Deccan which was to endure, under various states, for roughly four centuries. The earliest raid of note was directed against the Yādava capital of Devagiri in 1296 and was followed by an expedition against the Kākatīyas in 1303–4, the latter being led by Malik Fakhr ud-din Jūnā, who later became Sultan Muhammad bin Tughluq. Following this, from 1307 to 1316, was a brilliant series of Muslim expeditions under the slave general of 'Ala ud-dīn, Malik Kāfūr. Striking southwestward from Bengal in 1324 and northeastward from Telingana in 1326, Tughluq armies also invested the territory of the Eastern Ga&ndot;gas and for a time claimed Jājnagar as a Tughluq province. In addition to the drain of treasure caused by these expedi- tions, they discredited and weakened the peninsular Hindu kingdoms and permitted a new kingdom to emerge, which eventually became supreme over much of South India: the Vijayanagara state, founded in 1336.

During the remainder of the 14th century the Bahmanī Sultanate, with its capital at Gulbarga, and the Vijayanagara kingdom, with its capital at the new city of Vijayanagara on the south bank of the Tungabhadra, maintained continuous warfare, most of it inconclusively centered on the Raichur Doab. As elsewhere in the subcontinent, Hindus fought in Muslim armies or as allies of Muslims, and Muslims did the same under Hindu kings. Indeed, the founders of the Vija- yanagara state—Harihara and Bukka—embraced Islam and fought in the armies of the Tughluq sultan before being recon- verted to Hinduism and founding the new state. However, Vija- yanagara kings made the Islamic threat a major ideological feature of their rule. Thus, when the Sultanate of Ma'bar at Madurai was conquered by Kumāra Kampa&ntod;a, son of Bukka I (1344–77), inscriptions praised the conquerer and the dynasty for restoring Hindu religious institutions after the brutal rule of Muslims. The dharmic ideology of the Vijayanagara state, however, did little to affect state military policy. Hindu chiefs and kings of the southern portion of peninsular India were more often the victims of Vijayanagara power than were Muslims.

During the first, or Sa&ndot;gama, dynasty of Vijayanagara (1136–1486), Telugu warriors of the Vijayanagara forces made repeated incursions into Tamil country, and with each of these there remained a residue of Telugu yeomen along the foothills of the Eastern Ghats, attracted by the prizes of war but held by the rich black soil, only sparsely settled with Tam- ils. These Telugu settlements of the 14th century grew in the succeeding centuries of Vijayanagara rule and resulted in the present broad band of Telugu-speakers in the midst of Tamil country.

Sources (in addition to those in the General Bibliography or for plate V.1 or maps V.2 (a) and (c))*/**

Epigraphy and Numismatics

Epigraphia Carnatica (1886–1904, esp. vols. 3–12) **; Epi- graphica Zeylanica (1904–) **; Hyderabad, India (State), Archaeological Department (1919) **; E. Müller (1883) **; Pudukkottai, India (State) (1929) **; V. Rangacharya (1919) **; R. Sewell (1932) **; P. Sreenivasachar and P. B. Desai (1961) **. See also citations for plate IV.1.

Other Primary Sources

'Alī ibn 'Azīz Allāh (b) **; Cūlava&mtod;sa **; Ga&ndot;gādevī (b); S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar (1919) **; Mayūrapāda Thera **; K. A. A. Nilakanta Sastri and N. Venkataramanayya, eds. (1946) **; Rājāvaliya **

Other Works

A. Appadorai (1936) **; R. D. Banerji (1931) **; R. G. Bhandarkar (1957); H. W. Codrington (1947); A. Das Gupta (1967) **; J. D. M. Derrett (1957); J. F. Fleet (1882); J. D. B. Gribble (1896, 1924) **; S. A. Q. Husaini (1960), (1962b); S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar (1921) **; H. Mahtab (1959, 1960); G. C. Mendis (1948b) **; C. S. Navaratnam (1958) **; C. W. Nicholas and S. Paranavitana (1961) **; K. A. A. Nilakanta Sastri (1929) **, (1955), (1966) **; P. K. S. Raja (1966) **; M. Rama Rao (1931) **; H. C. Ray, ed. (1959, 1960) **; B. L. Rice (1909) *; N. K. Sahu (1956) *; Seminar on Hoysala Dynasty (1972) *; H. K. Sherwani (1947) **, (1953) **; M. Somasekhara Sarma (1945) **, (1948) **; A. Sreedhara Menon (1967) **; R. Subbarao (1930/31– 1933/34) *; K. V. Subrahmanya Aiyer (1917, 1967); K. R. Venkataraman (1950) *; N. Venkata Ramanayya (1933), (1942); O. P. Verma (1970).

N.B. Items followed by * apply also to map V.3 (c), while those followed by ** apply also to both V.3 (c) and V.4 (c), (d), and (e).

V.3 (a), (b) and (d). The Career of Tīmũr and the Tīmūrid Empire, 1370–1405; Political Disintegration in Northern South Asia, c. 1390–1450

Because of the constraints of page composition, the logical ordering of subjects as given in the title above is at variance with the spatial ordering of maps on plate V.3. The driving force of the period covered was Tīmūr, and the major political factor then shaping the map of the northern two-thirds of In- dia was his invasion of 1398, which shook the declining Delhi Sultanate to its foundations and ushered in a period of anarchy during which numerous regional powers were able to attain or consolidate their independence. In the discussion that follows we consider first the career of Tīmūr in general; then the par- ticulars of his career that relate specifically to India; next the fate of the sultanate after his devastation of Delhi; and finally some major details relevant to the regional powers that arose in various portions of the crumbling Tughluq domains or along their periphery.

Amīr Tīmūr; widely known in the West as Tamerlane (a corruption of Tīmūr Lang, or Tīmūr the Lame), belonged to the Barlas tribe of the Turks but was connected with the Mon- gols both by marriage and partially by descent. Born in Shahr- isabz (Kesh), then ruled by the Chaghatāi khan, he was ap- pointed to the government of that district and later became vizier to the khan himself. He soon usurped the power, but not the title, of the khan, styling himself "Amīr" or "Beg," and in 1370 he launched his independent career from his capital at Samarkand. His early expeditions were directed northward to Khwārazm and Mughulistān, and in 1378 he was able to help install his protégé, Tokhtamish, on the Eastern Kipchāk throne, which facilitated the union of the Eastern and Western Kip- chāks, under Tokhtamish, in 1380. Thereafter, Tīmūr moved southward and, campaigning incessantly, was able to subdue virtually the whole of the present-day areas of Afghanistan and Iran by 1387. Subsequent campaigns carried his arms as far east as Delhi and the Ganga in India and to Khotan and beyond Almāliq in present-day Sinkiang. In the west he crushed the Burjī Mamlūks of Egypt in Syria and the Ottoman sultan Bāyazīd II, overrunning Rūm (Turkey) as far as the Aegean Sea. He annexed Mesopotamia, parts of Georgia (which he repeatedly invaded), and large parts of Central Asia. His wide- ranging campaigns traversed broad expanses of the Caucasus and southern Russia and were interrupted only by his death at Utrār in 1405 en route to conquer China. Although historians have aptly described Tīmūr's empire as extending "from the Dardanelles to Delhi," the fact is that many of his expeditions, including the one to India, were in the nature of raids and did not result in actual annexation. His empire could not therefore stay intact after his death. (For notes on the successors of Tīmūr, see the text for map V.4 (a).)

Tīmūr professed adherance to Islam and sought its support in his various campaigns. Yet the destruction wrought by his extensive conquests could not be distinguished much from that of the Mongols, his sword sparing neither Muslim nor non- Muslim. The defeat he inflicted on the Turks had the effect of delaying the fall of the rump Byzantine Empire, centered on Constantinople, by about half a century, while his Indian cam- paign virtually put an end to the Delhi Sultanate without re- placing it by any stable government. Similarly, his wars against the Kipchāks of the Golden Horde, although necessitated by military and economic considerations, did not result in a proper organization of his own power in their lands. His acquisitions there were given back to the Chingizid princes who had sided with him, but they soon renounced their loyalty to him and formed independent states.

Tīmūr did, however, renew the glory of Central Asia and considerably raised the importance of Trans-Oxiana, especially by encouraging the caravan trade through it. To his capital, Samarkand, he brought thousands of artists and craftsmen, and under his rule the city attained its greatest splendor. Un- der his successors, both Samarkand and Herat became great centers of learning and scientific progress, and the creativity to which they gave rise immortalized the Tīmūrid line (see text for plate V.4 for further details).

In 1398 Tīmūr launched his invasion of India. Entering the subcontinent via the Bannu Pass, he first conquered the region of Multan. Proceeding to Delhi, he put the Tughluq monarch to flight and utterly devastated the city. Although he advanced into the Ganga-Yamuna Doab, he soon decided to return to his capital with his massive booty and captives to prepare his long-contemplated campaign against the Ottomans. Before leaving Delhi, however, he formally invested control of that city and, according to some historians, of Multan and Dipālpur and perhaps even Lahore as well, to the Sayyid Khizr Khān, who had previously ruled Multan as governor under the weak rule of the later Tughluqs, but who had been ousted from that province by Sarang Khān of Dipālpur. Thereby Tīmūr paved the way for the later Sayyid usurpation of the throne of the sultanate. Khizr Khān and his Sayyid successors continued to profess allegiance to the Tīmūrids until c. 1423; but the ges- ture was little more than a cautious formality.

Kashmir during the period 1390–1450 was independently ruled by the Shāh Mīrs, who had risen to power in 1338. The territory escaped pillage by Tīmūr's forces because its sultan, Sikandar (1389–1413), promised to pay the tribute demanded by Tīmūr's agents. However, during his hasty return from Delhi in 1399, Tīmūr missed the appointment with the com- plaisant sultan, who thus retained both his freedom and his wealth.

When Mahmūd, the last Tughluq sultan, returned to his capital in 1401, after his flight from Tīmūr in 1398, he found his authority acknowledged only in and around Delhi. In 1414, the Tughluqs were replaced by the Sayyids, who then slowly established their control over the Doab, the Punjab, and some adjoining regions, the maximum limits of which are shown on map (b). More than once during the reign of Sultan Mubārak Shāh Sayyid (1421–34) the country was raided by the Mughal (Tīmūrid) deputy governor of Kabul; and though the areas of Lahore and Multan suffered severe damage, the Mughal forces were compelled to retreat every time and annexed no part of Indian territory. India was thus saved from Mughal occupa- tion for another century.

The unprecedented weakness of the Delhi Sultanate, both before and especially after Tīmūr's invasion, led to the creation and consolidation of independent kingdoms in various parts of the country. In the account that follows we begin with Multan, to the west of Delhi, and proceed in a generally counterclock- wise direction to states lying to the southwest, south, and east of the Sayyid domains. We do not, however, consider the Bahmanīs or most other powers of peninsular India whose careers are discussed in the text for map V.3 (c). In follow- ing the discussion the reader will be aided by reference to map (b), the dynastic chart on plate V.2, or, where neither of those suffices, the maps and dynastic bars provided for individual states on plate XIV.4.

On the Indus Plain two new states arose, under the Langās of Multan and the Sammās of Sind. We have already noted that Tīmūr restored the Sayyid Khizr Khān to the governorship of the former area, which he used as a base for gaining the Delhi throne. Both he and his successor, Sultan Mubārak Shāh, held that area firmly. But in 1437, during the reign of the third Sayyid sultan, Muhammad Shāh, a leader of the Langā tribe, known as Budhan Khān Sindhī, marched from Uch and, ex- pelling the last Sayyid governor of Multan, assumed inde- pendent power as Sultan Mahmūd Shāh Langā. He was still ruling at Multan when the Lodīs captured the throne of Delhi in 1451. The territory of Sind had owed allegiance to the first two Tughluq sultans; but soon after the death of Sultan Firūz Shāh in 1388, the Sammā rulers declared their independence and entered into friendly relations with the Sultanate of Gujarat.

In Rajputana, the Sisodiyās of Mewar and the Rāthors of Marwar, never wholly subdued by the sultanate or reconciled to their rule, had risen against the Tughluqs and continued as independent rulers during the period under review. Their close alliance had added to their mutual strength; but in 1438 the as- sassination of Ra&ntod;amalla of Marwar, who was acting as regent at Chitor, created a crisis leading to the occupation of Marwar by the Sisodiyās. The situation was, however, retrieved by Ra&ntod;amalla's son Jodhā, who in 1459 founded Jodhpur, making it his new capital.

Farther south, three new, closely interacting kingdoms arose: Gujarat, Malwa, and Khandesh. In Gujarat, Zafar Khān, who had been appointed governor under the Tughluqs in 1391, de- clared his independence about 1407, assuming the royal title Muzaffar Shāh I. The kingdom was administratively reordered and extended by two outstanding rulers, Ahmad Shāh, (1411– 43), who gave his name to the ruling dynasty and founded the capital of Ahmadabad, and Mahmūd Begarhā (1458–1511), who annexed Junagadh and Champāner. The Sultanate of Malwa became independent in 1401 under Dilāwar Khān Ghūrī, who had been its Tughluq governor since 1390. The Ghūrids were replaced in 1436 by the Khaljīs, under whose first sultan, Mahmūd I, Malwa acquired considerable strength and some extension of territory at the expense of the Bahmanīs, who ceded to him Berar and Illichpur and also let him retain Kherlā. Malwa had remained almost constantly at war with Gujarat, by which it was eventually absorbed in 1531. The nu- cleus of the kingdom of Khandesh was formed by the districts of Thālner and Karanda, which had been assigned by the Tughluq sultan Firūz Shāh to one of his amīrs, Malik Rāja Ahmad Fārūqī. Attaining independence in 1388, under Ah- mad's son Malik Nāsir Fārūqī, the strategically situated king- dom was constantly involved in the affairs of the Bahmanī kingdom to its south, with Malwa, and with Gujarat, whose overlordship it had to acknowledge in 1418.

On the Gangetic Plain, to the east of the Sayyids, the Sultanate of Jaunpur was founded by Malik Sarwar Khwāja Jahān, also entitled Malik ush-Sharq (whence the dynastic name "Sharqī"), who was appointed governor of the region by the Tughluq sultan in 1394. Suppressing rebellions in the Doab and Awadh, Khwāja Jahān soon was able to establish his control over the entire area from Kol to Bihar, including Tirhut.