H. SOUTH INDIA
I.
THE PANDYA KINGDOM
At the close of the thirteenth century A.D. Māravarman Kula- sekhara Pandya ruled over a rich, prosperous and extensive king- dom which included, besides the Pandya kingdom proper round about the capital city Madura, the greater part of the South Indian Peninsula. As noted above, it was during the reign of 'Alä-ud-din Khalji that the Delhi Sultanate made the first attempt to conquer this Hindu kingdom in the far south, but the invasions of Malik Käfür2 were more of the nature of plundering raids than serious attempts at annexation. The same may also be said of the later invasion under Khusrav.3 These invasions resulted in the plunder of wealth and desecration of temples and images of Hindu gods, and inflicted untold miseries upon the people which are reflected in contemporary inscriptions.4
Unfortunately,
at the time of the first Muslim invasion, the country was suffering from the
inevitable effect of a war of succes- sion between two sons of Kulasekhara
Pandya, namely, Vira Pändya and Sundara Pandya. The position was rendered more
serious by the fact that Sundara Pandya, defeated by his brother, sought the
protection of the Muslim invader. This action of Sundara has been regarded by
some as the direct cause of Käfür's invasion, but this may be doubted. The
probability is that the Pāṇḍya prince did not go to Delhi court for help, as is
generally believed, but fled to Malik Kāfür when he was actually in the south.
The extent to which he received any help from the Muslims is also uncertain.
There is no positive evidence to support the view that Sundara was placed on
the throne by Kafür who left a garrison at Madura to protect him. 7
In
any case there remained no trace of Muslim influence in the Pandya country
after the departure of Kafür, and epigraphic evidence shows that the two Pandya
brothers and their successors continued to rule over the country. But the
fratricidal war and the Muslim invasion had undermined the strength and
solidarity of the Pandya ruling family and paved the way for the rise of new
The first to take advantage of the situation was Ravi- varman Kulasekhara,
ruler of Kerala, whose territory had somehow or other escaped the invasion of
Käfür. He defeated both the Pandya rivals and established his authority over
the Cholas and the Pandyas. Some time about A.D. 1312-13, he crowned himself on
the banks of the Vegavati, which has been identified by some with a river near
Kañchi and by others with the well-known river of that name in the Madura
District. But Kulasekhara certainly advanced as far as Kanchi, and probably
defeated another king named Vira Pandya who was forced to seek refuge in
Konkan, and then in the forests.8
Soon,
however, Vīra Pāṇḍya managed to raise a force and seems to have gained the
alliance of Hoysala Vira Ballāla III and one Vīra Udaya Marttaṇḍavarman; a
rebellion also broke out in Kerala. The combination of these circumstances
forced Ravivarman to retire from the northern part of Pandya empire, though he
clung to its southern part for about two years more.9
But
the unfortunate country was not destined to enjoy peace. Shortly afterwards,
the Kakatiya Prataparudra sent an expedition under Muppidi Nayaka to invade the
south. Faced with this cala- mity, the five Pandyas namely Vira, Sundara,
Vikrama, Kulasekhara and Parakrama, joined their forces and faced the enemy in
a battle just outside Kanchi. But Pratäparudra, who had by this time joined his
army, emerged victorious, captured Käñchi and placed it under his own governor.
Vira Pandya and Sundara Pāṇḍya attempted to drive out their enemy, but were
again defeated,
The evils of the system of co-regents, namely, the joint rule of a number of members of the ruling family, also made themselves felt. At a time when the Pandyas could only be saved by a strong united opposition, internecine quarrels broke out among the coregents, particularly between Vira Pandya and Parakrama Pandya in which the latter was joined by Vira's son, Samudra Pandya As usually happens, the feudal chiefs took advantage of the weakness and disunion of the central government to throw off their yoke, Kulasekhara, belonging to the family of the Sambuvarayas of North Arcot, who had been feudatories, successively, of the Cholas and the Pandyas, continued his allegiance to Vira Pandya till about AD. 1317-8, and then declared his independence. Another fcuda- tory, who also probably followed in his footsteps, was a member of the illustrious Chola Imperial family. He was Semapillai, the son of Rajendra III, who issued inscriptions in the old Pudukkottai State. 10. The invasion of Khusrav Khān10a further hastened the process of disintegration.
Though
shorn of the empire the Pandyas continued to rule in South India. Sundara
Pandya ruled till A.D. 1319, or probably 1320,11 while Vīra Pandya issued
inscriptions from the Rainnad district till A.D. 1341.12 It was during the
latter's reign that the Muslims obtained a firm footing in South India; for, as
noted above, during the reign of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-din Tughluq, his son Ulugh
Khan, the future Muhammad bin Tughluq, conquered Madura in A.D. 1323, and made
it the headquarters of the Muslim province in this region, known in Muslim
history as Maʼbar. The history of Ma'bar will be dealt with in the next section
of this chapter. But it is necessary to point out that the establishment of
Ma‘bar did not mean the extinction of the Pandya rule, even in the neighbour-
ing districts of Madura, Ramnad and Tanjore. Maravarman KulaRāmnād sekhara,
probably the younger brother of Sundara Pandya mentioned above, is known to
have ruled till A.D. 1346, and his epigraphic records prove that his rule
extended to all the districts from Tinnevelly to Tanjore. Inscriptions of Jaṭāvarman
Parākrama Pandya, whose rule covered the period from A.D. 1315 to at least
1347, are found in the Tinnevelly, Madura, Rämnäd and Tanjore districts as well
as in the old Pudukkottai State. One Märavarman Vira Pandya issued an
inscription in the Ramnäd district in A.D. 1364, the 31st year of his reign,
and probably ruled till A.D. 1380. The records of another king, Mäṛavarman
Parakrama Pändya, who ruled from A.D. 1335 to 1352, are found in the districts
of Rämnád, Tanjore, South Arcot and Chingleput. One Jațăvarman Parakrama Pandya
exercised authority in the Ramnad district, the old Pudukkottai State and as
far as Nagercoil in the southern extremity of the Peninsula from A.D. 1357 to
1380.13 It would thus appear that the Muslim principality of Ma'bar was a tiny
State which could not oust the Pandyas from their homeland. The establishment
of Muslim authority in this region was resisted not only by these Pandya
rulers, but also by the Hoysala king Vira Ballāla III Ma'bar thus led a
precarious existence till it was finally swept away by the powerful Ifindu
kingdom of Vijayanagara in the third quarter of the fourteenth century A.D. But
even after this the Pandyas conti nued to rule, and we know the names of at
least three rulers, two of whom bore the name Parakrama, and another, Jatavarman
Kula- sekhara, who ruled respectively from 1367 to 1387, 1384 to 1415 and 1395
to 1411. All their records were, however, found in the Tinnevelly district, and
it seems that their authority was restricted to this region in the extreme
south of their homeland. 14
II.
MA'BAR
The
Tughluq Sultans of Delhi were not destined to enjoy for long their southernmost
province of Ma'bar. As mentioned above, 15 a rebellion broke out in Ma'bar in
A.D. 1334 and Sultan Muhammad was unable to suppress it. Jalal-ud-din Ahsan
Shah, who headed this rebellion and established the independent Sultanate of
Madurä, was probably the kotwal of Ma'bar though Ibn Batutah, who had married
his daughter, describes him as the governor of the province. 16 Jalāl-ud-din
could not reign in peace as the Hindus Look advantage of his rebellion to
liberate this region from the yoke of the Muslims. Ekambaranatha, one of the
Sambuvarayas, mention- ed above, rose against the Muslim rulers and, with the
help of Vira Ballāla III and Kāpaya Nayaka, wrested the northern parts of the
country.17 Ibn Batutah does not give any details of the reign of Jalāl-ud-din,
but merely says that he was killed after a reign of five years, and was
succeeded by one of his amirs, namely, ‘Ala-ud- din 'Udaiji. According to Ibn
Batutah, 'Udaiji, after he had ruled for a year, set out on an expedition
against the Hindus and return- ed with immense booty. Next year he again
defeated the Hindus and "massacred very many of them", but as he
incautiously raised his helmet to drink water, was pierced by an arrow and died
instantly. 18 It may be presumed that the first two Sultāns of Ma'bar had to
fight against the Hindu chiefs mentioned above as well as the Pandya rulers
who, as noted above, exercised authority in various parts of South India,
including territories adjacent to Madura.
After
the death of 'Udaiji his son-in-law, Qutb-ud-din, was raised to the throne, but
was killed after a reign of forty days. Ghiyâs-ud-din Muhammad Shah Dāmaghānī,
a son-in-law of Jalāl- ud-din Ahsan Shah, then ascended the throne. During his
reign Ibn Batutah visited Ma'bar and has left an eye witness' account of the
revolting man-hunt and mass execution practised by this ruler. The Sultan, Ibn
Batutah relates, entered a jungle with his soldiers one night and all the
Hindus who had taken shelter there were captured Next morning all the male
prisoners were impaled on stakes which they had been forced to carry the
previous night. "This done, their women were slain along with their
children, their hair being tied to the stakes; they were left there in the same
condition. Afterwards, the camp was pitched and they took to cut- ting down the
trees of another part of the forest, and they treated in the same manner the
next batch of Käfirs (i.e. Hindus) whom they had captured. This was a hideous
thing which I have never seen being indulged in by any king. On account of
this, God hastened his death", 19
Probably
such unheard of cruelties perpetrated on the Hindus, added to the general
desire to liberate the country from the Muslims, spurred to action the Hoysala
king, Vira Ballala III, then over eighty years of age. He invaded Ma'bar and
besieged Kannanur, one of the strongest forts held by the Muslims. Ibn Batulah
has left a graphic account of the fight. The Muslim army met him in battle in
the outskirts of the city of Konnanur,20 but he rouled them and they withdrew
to Madură, leaving Ballāla free to besiege Konnanur. After the siege had lasted
for ten months, the garrison was left with little food, and Vīra Ballāla
promised them safe-con- duct if they capitulated. The garrison then proposed
that they should get permission from their Sultan and this was allowed by
Ballala. But the messenger of the besieged army returned with reinforcement
from Madura which fell upon the besieging army when it was off its guard. The
Hoysala army was routed and its king taken prisoner. Dämaghānī at first treated
Ballala kindly and wrested from him all his riches, elephants and horses
promising to release him. But after he had stripped him of all his possessions,
he killed and flayed him. Vira Balläla's skin was then filled with straw and
hung on the wall of Madura where Ibn Batutah saw it suspended. Shortly after,
Ghiyas-ud-din Dāmaghānī died as a ro- sult of taking an overdose of
aphrodisiac. A few days carlier his only son and wife had died of cholera which
was then raging in an epidemic form at Madura.
Ghiyas-ud-din
was succeeded by his nephew, Nasir-ud-din, who was once a domestic servant in
Delhi. One of his first acts on com- ing to the throne was to murder his
cousin, the son of his paternal aunt, and to marry his widow, the daughter of
Ghiyās-ud-din Dāmaghāni.
Ibn
Batutah, whose account is the only source for a connected history of the
Sultans of Ma'bar, left the country shortly after the accession of
Nasir-ud-din, and no definite information about the history of Ma'bar
subsequent to his departure is available.
There
is, however, no doubt that the royal dynasty came to an end during the next
decade. When Firüz Tughluq ascended the throne he sent a farman to Ma'bar. But
instead of submitting to the authority of Delhi, Ma'bar sought help from the
Bahmani king to maintain her independence. Agents from Ma'bar came to
Daulatabad and took back with them Qurbat Hasan Gangu whom they placed on the
throne. In some manuscripts of 'Afif's Tārīkh- i-Fīrüz Shāhī, which alone
mentions this episode, the first part of the name, Qurbat, is written as Qurba
or Qarib, meaning 'relative', 'kinsman', and it is thus quite likely that the newly
elected king of Ma'bar was not named Qurbat, but was a relative of Hasan Gangũ
Bahmani. Howsoever that may be, the new king was a worthless debauchee and the
people got disgusted at his conduct. Taking advantage of this, a neighbouring
chief, Bikan, invaded Ma'bar with a large army. The king was captured and
killed, and the whole of Ma'bar came under the sway of Bikan.2 21
There is no doubt that 'Afif here refers to the conquest of Ma'bar by Bukka, the king of Vijayanagara, which will be described in Chapter XII. According to 'Afif, Ma'bar, at this great crisis, appealed to Firuz Tughluq for help. But the Sultan reminded the ambassadors of the past attitude of Ma'bar towards the Delhi Sultanate and politely refused any help on the ground that his army was very tired after the expedition to Gujarat. This would indi- cate that the invasion of Ma'bar by Vijayanagara army, resulting in the death of Qurbat Hasan Gangü and the conquest of his king- dom, took place not long after the Gujarat expedition of Firüz in A.D. 1363-4.
Afif's
account is corroborated by other evidences. According to the Telugu
Jaimini-Bharatam, a work of the late 15th century, Saluva Mangu, a general of
Kumāra Kampana, son of Bukka, who led the expedition against Ma'bar, put to
death the Sultan of Madura. The exploits of Kampana are also graphically,
though somewhat romantically, described by his consort Gangädevï in her
celebrated work, Madhurāvijayam or Kamparayacharitam. She proudly relates how
her valiant husband killed the Sultan in a duel after the Muslim army had taken
to flight.
Afif's
statement that the whole of Ma'bar was conquered and annexed by Vijayanagara,
shortly after A.D. 1364, after the death of Qurbat Hasan Gangü, requires some
modification in the light of numismatic evidence. We possess a series of coins
issued by 'Adil Shah, Fakhr-ud-din Mubarak Shāh, and 'Alā-ud-din Sikandar Shāh
with dates ranging between A.D. 1356 and 1378. The testimony of these coins has
been rejected on the ground that except for the fact that these coin were
discovered in South India there is nothing to indicate that the Sultāns
mentioned in these coins ruled over Ma'bar.22 But the sequence of dates in the
series of coins, their find-spots and the absence of any other Muslim dynasty
ruling in this region about that time certainly favour the theory that the
coins were issued by the rulers of Ma'bar. If we accept this view we may easily
identify Qurbat Hasan Gangū with Fakhr-ud-din Mubarak Shāh whose coins cover
the entire period from 760 A.H. to 770 A.H., year by year, with the exception
of years 762 and 766 A.H.23 It would thus appear that he certainly ruled
between A.D. 1358-9 to 1368-9. This fits in fairly well with what 'Afif says
about Qurbat Hasan Gangū and also with the Vijayanagara sources. There is some
apparent conflict between the testimony of coins men- tioned above and the
general assumption of the historians of Vijaya- nagara that Ma'bar was annexed
after the campaign of 1370. This view is supported, among others, by the
statement in the Madu- raittala Varalaru, a fifteenth century chronicle of
Madura, that the place was under Muslim sway from A.D. 1324 to 1371,24 But this
is not irreconcilable with the issue of the coins by 'Alä-ud-din Sikandar Shāh
in 779 A.H. (A.D. 1377-8). It merely indicates that even after the loss of the
major part of their dominions, some time about A.D. 1370, the Muslim Sultāns
continued their resistance for about a decade more. The very fact that Ma'bar
sent for help to Firüz Tughluq even after the death of Qurbat Hasan Gangu and
the conquest of Ma'bar by Vijayanagara, proves that some sort of resist- ance
was still continued by another Sultan.
It
should be noted in this connection that the date of Kam- pana's expedition or
more probably a series of expeditions against Ma'bar is not definitely known.
Some scholars have placed them during the interval between A.D. 1343 and
1355-6,25 while others concluded that Kampana's expedition took place after
A.D. 1378;25 it has also been suggested that Kampana led his expeditions bet-
ween A.D. 1361-3 or about A.D. 1364.27
While
it is not possible to arrive at a definite conclusion on this point, it has to
be admitted that there are indications that Kampana gained his famous victory
over the Ma'bar Sultans in A.D. 1370.28 In an inscription, dated A.D. 1371,
Kampana's general Goppana claims to have slain the Tulushkas, and two
inscriptions show Kampana ruling a portion of Ramnäd district in A.D. 1371 and
1374,29
It
is, however, possible that Kampana's victory was the culmi- nation of a war
which was started by his grandfather, Sangama. An inscription claims that
Sangama, the father of Bukka, had defeated "...... Pandya, the proud lord
of Madhura the fierce valorous Turushka, the king Gajapati and others."
Even after due allowance is made for the exaggerations from which this type of
literature is never free, it is evident that Sangama gained some success
against the Sultāns of Ma'bar, and it is possible that he took up arms after
the tragic death of Ballala III.30
It
would thus appear that ever since the foundation of the Sultanate of Madura, it
had to carry on a prolonged fight with the neighbouring Hindu States. The
second Sultan died in course of a battle against them. Next, Vira Ballāla made
a gallant attempt to conquer Ma‘bar but failed. It is probable that Sangama had
started the war against the Sultan and gained some notable success. Ultimately
his grandson Kampana took up his unfinished task and destroyed the power of the
Sultanate of Ma'bar. Though Kampana had probably broken the back of the Muslim
power in the south by A.D. 1370, or even a little earlier, the last Sultāns
seem to have main- tained a feeble struggle against Vijayanagara till A.D.
1377-8,31
Reference
1.
Vol. V, p. 259.
2.
Above, pp. 35-37.
3.
Above, p. 43.
4.
K. A. N. Sastri, The Pandyan Kingdom, pp. 209-10.
5.
Ibid. 206.
6.
According to S. K. Aiyangar (South India and her Muhammadan Invaders, 123)
Malik Kāfur "left a garrison behind in Madura, the headquarters of the
Pandya Kulasekhara who had fled for protection to Delhi. Whether the garri- son
was left to safeguard the interests of Kulasekhara is not clearly stated, but
seems quite likely" (Kulasekhara is obviously a slip for Sundara Pandya).
K. A. N. Sastri, however, observes that our authorities "do not suggest
that Malik Käfür's invasion of Ma'bar was either caused by these differences
(between the two brothers) or undertaken in the interest of one of the parties
and on an appeal from him....There is thus no reason to suppose that Sundara
Pandya was restored to the throne of Madura and that a Muhammadan garrison was
left behind in the city for his protection" (op. cit. 207-8).
7.
Sastri, op. cit. 208.
8.
Sastri, op. cit. 211-2; EI, IV. 146-8; Ann. Rep. S. Ind. Ep., No. 34 of 1911.
9. For a detailed treatment of the history of Ma'bar during this and the
ensuing period cf. N. Venkataramanayya's two articles: (1) Maʼbar (1311-1323)
in JOR, XII, part ii, 136 ff. and (2) Ma'bar (1323-1371) in the Journal of the
Madras University (1939), XI, 41-65; also Sastri, op. cit.; S. A. Q. Husaini:
The History of the Madura Sultanate, Journal of the Asiatic Society of
Pakistan, II, 90-130. 10. Sastri, op. cit., 213-4.
10a.
Above p. 43.
11.
Sastri, op. cit., 214-245.
12.
Sastri, op. cit. 210.
13.
For these records cf. Sastri, op. cit., 245-6. Jatavarman Parakrama Pandya's
rule in Nagercoil is not mentioned by Sastri, but is proved by a local
inscription (EI, VII, 12).
14.
Sastri, op. cit., 246-7.
15.
Above p. 74.
16. IBH, 99. As Ibn Batutah was not only a contemporary writer but was also closely related to Jalal-ud-din, his evidence undoubtedly carries great weight, and has been accepted by many (CHI, III. 148). On the other hand Isami, another contemporary writer, definitely asserts that Jalal-ud-din was the kotwal of Madura and that he usurped the government of the province after murdering the officers who were in charge of the administration (Futüh-us- Salātin, p. 449). This is also partially corroborated by Yahya (N. Venkataram- anayya, The Early Muslim Expansion in South India, 123, f.n. 50). In judging the comparative value of the evidence respectively of Ibn Batutah and 'Isami, we must make duc allowance for the natural desire or tendency of the former to exaggerate the importance and status of one whose daughter he had married. 17. Venkataramanayya, Early Muslim Expansion in South India, 205. See also the Madhurāvjayam of Gangadevi ed. by S. Thiruvenkatachari, introduction, 15. 18. IBH. 226
19.
IBH. 227-8. In the passage quoted, Ibn Batutah has referred to the persecuted
people as Kuffür (plural of Käfir) which Dr. Husain has translated as 'enemy'.
But as Ibn Batutah does not refer to any buttle or any hostile action, it is
not easy to understand why the normal meaning of Kafir should not be ac- cepted
here. Dr. Husain, also, has not assigned any reason for interpreting it
diflerently. It therefore seems preferable to follow Defremery and San-
guinetti's translation where the word kafir has been translated as 'Hindu'.
(Voyages D'Ibn Batutah, Text and translation by C. Defremery and B. K.
Sanguinetti Paris, 1922 IV, 192). There is no doubt that Ghiyas-ud-din
Dāmaghānī was hunting out peaceful people who might have taken shelter in the
forest to escape from his clutches. Therefore, to describe them as enemies
seems inappropriate. Hence I have taken the word Kafir used by Ibn Batutah in
its normal sense to mean the Hindus. It seems that Gangadevi refers to this
inhuman act when, lamenting on the condition of Madură after Muslim occupation,
she writes: "I very much lament for what has happened to the groves in
Madhura. The cocoanut trees have all been cut and in their places are to be
seen rows of iron spikes with human skulls dangling at the points."
Gangādevī, op. cit., 61.
20.
ibn Batutah calls the place Kubban, IBH, 229, which has been identified with
Konnanur-Koppam. S. K. Aiyangar, op. cit., 173-4; N. Venkataramanayya, Journal
of the Madras University, XI. 48.
21.
Tarikh-i-Fīrūz Shāhī, (Text, B. I.) 261-2. Tughluq Kalin Bharata, II. 109-10
Hodivala,-Studies
in Indo-Muslim History, I, 326-7.
22.
For a discussion of this problem see N. Venkataramanayya, op. cit.
23.
Hodivala, op. cit., 327.
24.
K. A. N. Sastri and N. Venkataramanayya, Further Sources of Vijayanagara
History,
I. 40.
25.
S. K. Aiyangar: op. cit., 181.
26.
E. Hultzsch: The coinage of the Sultans of Madura, JRAS, 1909, 667.
27.
K. A. N. Sastri, op. cit., 224. T.V.Mahalingain, Two centuries of Madura,
PIHC,
1945, 198.
28.
See. N. Venkataramanayya, op. cit. Also cf, ch. XII.
29.
E. Hultzsch, Ranganatha Inscription of Goppana, EI, VI, 330; Tirumelli Copper
clato
grant of Bhaskara Ravivarman, E. Plate II; IA, XX, 289.
30.
For the struggle between Vijayanagara and Madura, cf. Ch. XII; also JRAS,
1909,
pp. 682-3. For Sangama's victory, cf. JBBRAS, XII. 876-77. 31. K. A. N Sastri,
op. cit., 244; also Ch. XII.
Post a Comment