Myth of Kamala Devi and Devala Devi

The stories of Kamala Devi and Devala Devi, often presented as historical facts involving their supposed enslavement and romantic connection to the Khilji dynasty, are increasingly being challenged by scholars. These narratives, originating from the poetic work Ashiqa by Amir Khusrau, are now viewed by many historians as fictional constructions lacking credible historical foundation.

Origins in Fiction: The "Ashiqa" and Its Claims

The tale of Kamala Devi and Devala Devi first appeared in Ashiqa, a romantic poem composed by Amir Khusrau. The first part of the poem was written in 1316 CE, with the second part completed no earlier than 1320 CE. The work portrays Kamala Devi, queen of Gujarat, being enslaved by Alauddin Khilji and married to him, while her daughter Devala Devi is later captured and married to Khizr Khan, Alauddin's son.

Despite its literary nature, the Ashiqa became a widely cited reference in later historical and fictional accounts, giving rise to a highly romanticized yet historically dubious story.

Historical Counter-Evidence and Scholarly Criticism

Modern historians such as R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Raychaudhuri, Kalikinkar Datta, A.L. Srivastava, and Satish Chandra have repeated the story from Ashiqa, often without critically questioning its credibility. However, others such as K.M. Munshi and G.H. Ojha have outright rejected its authenticity, labeling the story as a fabrication with no historical backing.

K.M. Munshi pointed out significant inconsistencies, including the claim of two invasions of Gujarat under Ulugh Khan, which is contradicted by multiple sources. Ulugh Khan is known to have died in 1302, yet Ashiqa places him leading a second invasion in 1306, years after his death. Contemporary chroniclers like Barani, Muhnot Nainsi, and Isami refer only to one invasion of Gujarat in 1299, during which Karna of Gujarat lost his throne.

Unanswered Questions and Logical Fallacies

The Ashiqa claims that Kamala Devi requested Alauddin Khilji to retrieve her daughter from Gujarat and arrange her marriage with Khizr Khan. This story raises multiple logical contradictions:

1. Why would Kamala Devi, a Rajput queen, request a Muslim ruler to abduct her daughter from her natural guardian?
2. If Karna and Alauddin were enemies, why would Karna agree to marry his daughter into the Khilji family?
3. If a marital alliance was acceptable, why would Alauddin launch a military invasion instead of pursuing diplomatic negotiations?

These inconsistencies have weakened the credibility of the narrative.

Inconsistent Chronology and Implausible Timelines

Amir Khusrau’s account of ages and timelines is internally contradictory:

• Devala Devi is said to be six months old in 1299, yet eight years old in 1306, which is mathematically inconsistent.
• Khizr Khan is described as ten years old in 1306 and twenty-two at the time of his assassination in 1318, yet he was already governor of Chittor by 1302 and had a ten-year-old son by 1316, implying he fathered a child at the age of twelve, an implausible scenario.
• The Ashiqa also claims Devala Devi was with Khizr Khan during his death, yet Ibn Battuta, who stayed in India from 1333 for ten years, makes no mention of her existence.

Historians like G.H. Ojha, A.L. Srivastava, K.R. Qanungo, and Beni Prasad have thoroughly analyzed the inconsistencies and dismissed Ashiqa as fictional.

Absence in Reliable Contemporary Accounts

Other major historians of the time, including:

• Nizam-ud-din Ahmad (Tabaqat-i-Akbari)
• Abdul Qadir Badauni (Muntakhab ut-Tawarikh)
• Haji-ud-Dabir
• Firishta

…either omit the story entirely or clearly base their narratives on Khusrau’s original without adding new or verifiable information. Badauni, known for his detailed accounts, does not mention the enslavement of any Rajput women by Khilji. In fact, an inscription dated 6 June 1299 confirms that the invasion of Gujarat occurred in 1299, further undermining the timeline presented in Ashiqa.

Amir Khusrau’s Reputation and Biases

Amir Khusrau is known to have praised every ruler he served, often changing his tone after their death. For instance, he lauded Mubarak Shah in Nur-Sipahr but later described him in derogatory terms. His tendency to fabricate tales, glorify Muslim conquests, and insult Hindu deities in his writing casts further doubt on the historical reliability of Ashiqa.

Modern Misuse and Academic Caution

The uncritical repetition of Ashiqa’s story by modern writers has led to its false acceptance as historical fact. Scholars like A.K. Majumdar have shown that misinterpretations and mistranslations of texts like Firishta only added to the confusion.

In reality, there is no mention of women named Kamala Devi or Devala Devi in contemporary Rajput records of Gujarat, suggesting that these characters may never have existed. The absence of historical evidence, combined with the logical flaws in Khusrau’s narrative, strongly implies that the tale was a propaganda tool meant to degrade the dignity of Hindu women and falsely elevate Islamic rulers.

Conclusion

The story of Kamala Devi and Devala Devi is a myth woven from poetic imagination, not a product of verified historical evidence. It reflects the prejudices of its time and should be approached with scholarly skepticism. For the sake of historical integrity and to honor the dignity of the Rajput women, such accounts must be re-examined, questioned, and, where necessary, rejected.