CHAPTER V.
TWO OLD CAPITALS OF THE DECCAN.
I.—GULBARGA.
GULBARGA, though easily accessible, is not a resort of sight-seers, and is, if the truth must be spoken, an uninviting spot. It lies in an undulating plain of black cotton soil, fertile enough, but in the hot weather, dismal, dusty, and scorched. Yet the town was selected as the capital of a famous dynasty and held its place as the chief city of an important kingdom through the reigns of eight kings, and it still contains some buildings which might entice even the amateur antiquary to the decayed and otherwise unpicturesque town, as well as one building which is, in its design, unique in India. Towards the end of the reign of Muhammad bin Tughlaq of Dehli the amirs in the Deccan, disgusted with his fantastic tyranny, revolted, and proclaimed Ismail Fath, the Afghan, king of the Deccan, under the style of Nasir-ud-din Shah. The new king was besieged in Daulatabad by the emperor, who, though he laid waste the city, was unable to capture the citadel, in which Nasir-ud-din maintained a pretence of regal state, while the surrounding districts were seething with discontent. Suddenly a rebellion broke out in Gujarat and Muhammad bin Tughlaq hastened to repress it, leaving Nasir-ud-din unconquered, and palUating his want of success by the issue of a pompous proclamation of victory in which the exploit of harrying the defenceless traders of Daulatabad was represented as the conquest of the city. The emperor's retreat was the signal for a general outbreak in the Deccan. The aged and unenterprising Ismail Fath had been found wanting, and at the instance of the rebel amirs he gracefully resigned his new-born dignity into the hands of Zafar Khan, better known as Hasan Gangu, the most able, active, and resourceful of those who had raised the standard of rebellion. Zafar Khan, the founder of the Bahmani dynasty which bore sway in the Deccan for about 1 50 years and lingered on afterwards for thirty years, was proclaimed king in 1347 under the title of Ala-ud-din Hasan Kangu (or Gangu) Bahmani, according to most historians. Only one well known historian gives him his correct title,
