Madurai conquest

1. THE POLITICAL CONDITION PRECEDING THE CONQUEST

Among the territories that suffered the worst rapine and plunder was Ma’bar. According to Khusrau’ Ma’bar lay within that distance from Delhi which could be reached after a normal journey of twelve months. As Khusrau says, the Muslim arrows had never reached that distant land”. As regards the identity of ĪMa’bar there is no doubt. The region of the Coromandal east of Peninsular India might be said to correspond roughly to what was known to Arab geographers as Ma’bar. The author of Taquivim ul-Buldān quoted by Al-Qalquashandi (Subh ul-A-sha) (Ed. by Otto Spies) says that Ma’bar “lies to the east of Kaulam (possibly Kollam or Quilon at three or four days journey in a southerly direction”). Ibn Sa’ib quoted by the same source says, “it is well-known and muslin is exported from there; its washermen are proverbial” What was the condition of Ma’bar at that time ?

1. Khazā’n-Futuh.
2. Otto Spies: An Arab account of India in the 14th century, (page 38).

The Pāndyas who had taken the sovereignty of the South from the Cõlas were ruling with Madhurai as their capital and Bihr dhal or Vira Dhāvalpattanam as a sort of a secondary capital. The empire had, probably as a result of a dynastic feud, come under the rule of more than one king. Marco Polo testifies to the plural monarchy in Ma’bar. Epigraphical evidence lends confirmation to this position just on the eve of Malik Kafur’s invasion. Dr. Venkataramanyya is of the view, which is tenable, that “each of these five princes seems to have held independent sway over some part of the empire, though the senior most or the most powerful of them was recognised as the supreme head of the state. He alone was most probably crowned; and on him devolved the right of directing the general policy of the empire” Troubles set in when a war of succession started in the Pandyan Kingdom. Māravarman Kulasēkhara had two sons, Sundara and Vira, the former born of his queen and the latter born of a concubine. Kulasēkhara nominated Vira Pāndya to be his successor as he dis played great talents and remarkable shrewdness. Sundara Pāndya in great fury assassinated his father and crowned himself king. Vira Pāndya the heir designate met his half-brother in a battle near Madhurai and though he was not successful in the beginning, ultimately managed to drive away Sundara Pandya and seized the throne.

3. Dr. N. Venkataramanayya: Early Muslim Expansion in South India.
4. Wassaf.

According to Wassaf, “Sunder Pandi, trembling and alarmed, fled from his native country and took refuge under the protection of Ala-ud-din of Delhi and Tira Pandi (Vīra Pāndya) become firmly established in his hereditary kingdom”. 4 This story is not easily acceptable as the event is placed in the middle of June 1310. Prof. Nilakanta Sastri rightly doubts its veracity because there are inscriptions of Kulasēkhara dated in his forty-fourth regnal year which commenced only in the middle of A.D. 1311.5 “It is very unlikely that records continued to be dated in the regnal years of a monarch who had died at his son’s hands till more than a year after the event and that too near the capital of the kingdom”. Again while Amir Khusrau refers to the enmity between the two brothers (“the two Rais of Ma’bar, Bir Pāndya and Sundar Pāndya”) he does not mention Sundara’s taking asylum in Delhi. But on the authority of Wassaf, most of the historians who have written on Malik Kafur’s South Indian raids, say that it was Sundara Pāndya’s treachery to vent a private wrath against his rival Vira Pandya that brought the Mussalman invader to the distant South. Even Wassaf does not connect the alleged flight of Sundara Pāndya to Delhi with the raids of Malik Kafur. Therefore we will not be wrong in taking the raid of Malik Kafur as being timed at an opportune moment and that the Muslim invader was interested neither in Sundara Pāndya nor Vira Pāndya but in the fabulous wealth that belonged to both.

5. K. A. Nilakanta Sastri: The Pandyan Kingdom.

After a halt in the Yādava capital of Dēvagiri during which Malik Kafur obtained from Rāmadēva (the Rāyi-Rāyan) all the materials needed for the Southern campaigns, the Malik started on his campaign guided in his route by one Paraṣurām Daļavāi a deputy of Rāmadēva who had been instructed to lead the Muslim invader safe out of the Yadava territory. Dr. Venkata ramanayya thinks that the Yādava ruler who had been nurturing a deep grievance against the Hoysala Vira Ballāla III gave all possible assistance to Malik Kafur in his campaign against Dwārasamudra. But, while such a view is not wholly untenable, there being nothing to the contrary in the available sources, it will not be fair to question the conduct of the Yādava king by suggesting that he betrayed a fellow-Hindu ruler to avenge former wrongs on the part of the Höysala. The Yādava king was helpless when the Malik led his incredibly strong army into Dēvagiri and demanded help, not as an ally, but as a bully, on the point of the sword. Dr. Venkataramanayya himself refers to the fact of Malik Kafur having brought a “formidable force’ with superior weapons. Naturally the same fear that later made Vīra Ballāla meekly submit to the mis deeds of the Malik made Rāmadēva offer all the help that the invader needed in his onward march against Dwārasamudra and Ma’bar.

• Dr N Venkataramanayya: Early Muslim Expansion in South India: (M. U. Historical Series No. 17) Chap. on Alauddin Khilji. The learned author has shown that the invasion of the Malik had no political significance..

Malik Kafur raided Dwārasamudra when Vira Ballāla III was absent at Ma’bar trying to capitalise the situation that had arisen as a result of the quarrels between Sundara Pandya and Vira Pandya. As Dr. Venkataramanayya thinks, Vira Ballāla must have considered the outbreak of civil dissensions in the Pāndyan kingdom, “a favourable opportunity for re gaining what his uncle and grandfather had lost”. Malik Kafur entered Dwārasumudra in February 1311 after doing great havoc en route. Vira Ballāla who had to hurry back from the Tamil country did not put forth any stout resistance to the Muslim invader because he knew that his military strength was nothing before that of Malik Kafur. He sued for peace and accepting humiliating conditions from the Malik, he agreed to be an ally of the invader in the latter’s invasion of Ma’bar.

Malik Kafur’s forces reached the frontiers of Ma’bar on the ides of March, 1311. Vira Pāndya, unlike Ramadeva and Vira Ballāla, preferred to give fight to the Muslims rather than meekly submit to them. He put all his strength into the fight and when the reck less invaders advanced, Vīra Pandya decided to flee for safety, and from Bir Dhul, where he was encamped he escaped, much to the consternation and chagrin of the avengeful Malik. As soon as Malik Naib discovered that he had been outwitted by Vīra Pāndya, he resolved to go to Kannanūr and proceeded with a regiment to Kannanūr. But Vira Pāndya gave the slip here also. Thus it was a regular game of hide and seek between Vira Pāndya and Malik Kafur. It was a great tragedy, which however could not be helped, that Ballāla had to play “the faithful ally”, to the marauding forces. After vain pursuits, Malik Kafur gave up the idea of capturing Vīra Pāņdya but turned his attention on the primary object of his raid, viz., plunder. From Kannanūr he proceeded to Kānçipuram and laid waste the temples found in that great city. After plundering the temples, the Malik went back with his army to Bhir Dhul where he had originally struck camp. From Bhir Dhul his idea was to make a surprise attack on the Pāndyan capital where Sundara Pāndya was in authority. Sundara Pāndya was forewarned; and by way of abundant caution he had left the city with his household, leaving a couple of temple-elephants in the city. The Malik’s assault on Madhurai therefore proved a first rate miscalculation. All that he could do was to set fire to the temple. Madhurai appeared to him to be too distant and unsafe a place for any lengthy halt. So he had to be more on the defensive in Madhurai. The Pandyan princes forgot their private quarrels at this hour of danger and under the leadership of Vikrama Pāndya launched an attack on the invading Muslims. This time Malik Kafur sustained a crushing defeat and had to beat a hasty retreat. But by now he had accumulated in his Southern raids a fabulous booty and he carried it safe to Delhi. In recognition of the loyal help that Ballāla had rendered to Malik Kafur, Alauddin decorated the Hoysala ruler’s son at a special Durbar and presented him with the usual robes of honour.

Not a small number of historians have exaggerated the significance of the raids of Malik Kafur. The Tarikh-i-Firoz-Shahi mentions a larger booty than that mentioned by the Tarikh-i-Alai quoted above:? The invasion of Malik Kafur had of course no political significance but as a brilliant military raid it had caused as much havoc as one could imagine.

• Eliot and Dowson—Vol. III, p. 204. “The army reached Delhi bringing with it six hundred and twelve elephants ninety-six thousand horses“… “No one could remember anything like it nor was there anything like it recorded in history.”

2. THE MADHURAI SULTANATE

Thus troubles had set in for the South with the expedition of Malik Kafur. In 1323 there was another invasion of the South by the Muslims of Delhi during the reign of Ghiyasuddin Tughlak when the Mussalmans succeeded in establishing a Viceroyalty for the Delhi Empire in the distant Madhurai. This Viceroyalty lasted a decade, i.e., till 1334. In 1333 taking advantage of the distance that separated Delhi and Madhurai, one Jalal-Uddin Ahsan Shah put an end to the Viceroyalty and became the independent ruler of Madhurai. His rule lasted for five years and he was succeeded by a number of Sultans, the chief among them being Ghaiyas-uddin Damghani at one time trooper in the service of Malik Majur Abu Raja, the Commandar of the Imperial Army stationed in Devagiri.

8. For an account of the history of the Sultanate of Madura see Dr. S. K. Iyengar: South India and Her Muhammadan Invaders. Also Dr. N. Venkataramanayya’s ma’bar from 1323 to 1317 ij. iv. U. The author is of the opinion that nothing can be said definitely about the period of the Muslim Viceroyalty in Madhurai. But he says: “Though no information is available about the governors of Ma’bar contempo rary evidence, both historical and epigraphical, bears ample testimony to the continuity of Muhammad Tughlak’s rule in Ma’bar up to 1334.” The Maduraittalavaralāru (see App. E. to Sri R. Satyanatha Iyer’s Nāyaks of Madura, p. 373) is not dependable. It gives of course the names of the governors of Madura but as Dr. N. Venkataramanayya remarks is not possible to accept these names and dates as genuine.
9. Dr. S. K. Iyengar, South India and Her Muhammadan Invaders.. Even Ibn Batuta admits that Ghysud-d-din was the worst tyrant.
10. Dr. N. Venkataramanayya: Ma’bar (J.M.U.) also the Pandyan Chronicle. According to it the Muslim rule lasted forty-eight years. “From the year Salivahana (Sāka 1246—1323-24) the Muhammadan ruled the kingdom (Vol. I of Tayllor, p. 35).
11. K. A. Nilakantasastri: Foreign Notices: also Briggs: Ferishta’s Mahomedan Power—Vol. I, pp. 347–352. Also Elliot and Dowson, Vol. II—Barni’s Tarikh-i-Firoz-Shahi, pp. 184-185. Extracts from both have been given above.42

The Muslim rule lasted for forty-eight years in Madhurai i.e., between 1323 and 1371.10 The sufferings of the people, especially non-Muslims during the period have been described by both Hindu and Muslim historians. One has only to read the frightful accounts of Ibn Batuta, the Moorish traveller and the Madhurā vijayam of Gangā Dēvi l2 to get the details of the Muslim policy towards the Hindus. Inscriptions too refer to the terrible ‘Mussalman days’.13

12. Madhurāvijayam,-Canto VIII.
13. 4 CE ARE.. 434 of 1903 (also S.I.I., Vol. VIII), A.R.E., for 1913. page 128. No. 203 of 1913, a seventh year inscription of Rajanárky Sambuvarāya.

The statements of Ibn Batuta must be of especial importance to us as they are records of his own personal experiences and not based on heresay or previous chronicles. Ibn Batuta had himself, though reluctantly, to witness some of the most ghastly sights. Thus he describes his experience when he went with Ghiyasud-d din in the latter’s anti-Hindu campaigns:

“The country we had to traverse was an impenetrable jungle of trees and reeds …. All the infidels found in the jungle were taken prisoners. Each was accompanied by his wife and children and they were thus held to the camp. It is practice here to surround the camp with a palisade having four gates. There may be a second palisade round the king’s habitation. Outside the principal enclosure they raise platforms three feet high and light fires on them at night”.

“Slaves and sentinels spend the night here, each holding in his hand, a bundle of very thin reeds. When the infidels approach for a night attack on the camp,11 the sentries light their faggots, and thanks to the flames, the night becomes as bright as day and the cavalry sets out in pursuit of the idolators. In the morn ing the Hindus who had been made prisoners the day before were divided into four groups and each of these was led to one of the four gates of the main enclosure. There they were impaled on the posts they had themselves carried. Afterwards their wives were butchered and tied to the stakes by the hair. The children were massacred on the bosoms of their mothers and their corpses left there. Then they struck camp and started cutting down the trees in another forest and all the Hindus who were made captive were treated in the same manner. This is shameful practice and I have not seen any other sovereign adopt it; it was because of this that God hastened the end of Ghiyasud-d-din”. 14

14. Foreign Notices.

The above gives an idea of the treatment accorded to prisoners. From what has been said above it will become clear that the Sultan without actually facing opposition went on campaigns just for the sake of striking terror in the minds of the ‘infidels’. Ibn Batuta’s account reads more like the description of an animal hunt of an idle autocrat than the military expedition of a powerful sovereign. Even the Moorish traveller whose sympathy naturally ought to be with his distinguished host, points his finger of scorn at the way in which he treated his subjects and sees in his incredible cruelty the reason for his eariy death.

More paining is the account that the traveller gives about the Sultan’s treatment of his Hindu subjects in his day to day administration. One day the Qazi and he (the traveller) were with the Sultan, the Qazi being to his right and he to his left. An idolator was brought before the Sultan with his wife and son aged seven years. The Sultan made a sign with his hand to the executioners to cut off the head of the idolator. Then he said to them in Arabic “and his son and wife”. They cut off their heads and at this the traveller turned his eyes away. When he composed himself he found their heads lying on the ground.

On another occasion he was with Sultan Ghiyasud d-din when a Hindu was brought to him. He spoke words that his guest (the traveller) could not under stand and at once many of his followers drew their swords. Ibn Batuta got up hurriedly and the Sultan asked, “Where do you go?” The guest replied: “I go to my afternoon prayers”. He understood the guest’s motive, laughed and ordered the hands and feet of the idolator to be cut off. On his return Ibn Batuta found that unhappy man swimming in his blood.

The temples suffered no better fate than men. Amir Khusrau gives a painful account of what Malik Kafur did in one place in the Tamil country.15

“In Brahmaispuri there was a golden idol round which many elephants were stabled. The Malik started on a night expedition against this place and in the morning seized no less than two hundred and fifty elephants. He then de termined on razing the beautiful temple to the ground. You might say that it was the Paradise of Shahdad which after being lost, these hellites had found and that it was the golden Lanka of Ram. The roof was covered with rubies and emeralds. The malik dug this up from its foundations with the greatest care. The heads of the Brahmins and the idolators danced from their necks and fell to the ground at their feet. The stone image called Ling Mahadeo which had been a long time established at that place, upto this time the kick of the horse of Islam had not attempted to break. The Mussalmans destroyed all the beings and Deo Narain fell down and the other gods who had fixed their seats there raised their feet and jumped so high that at one leap they reached the foot of Lanka and in that fright the beings would have themselves fled had they any legs to stand on”.

This was the fate that many other temples suffered during this period. We have a number of inscriptions referring to the damages and desecretion caused to Hindu temples.16

15. The Tarikh– Alai of Amir Khusru (Elliot and Dowson, Vol. UTS n 01 Brahmatspuri has been identified with Chidambaram by Dr. SK Tvengar. This can he accepted only as a possible identification. Cf. couth India and Her Muhammadan invaders. Also Historical Inscrin tions oj South India by Sewell, p. 177,
16. A.R.E., 162 of 1936-37 from Kannanur, the quondam capital of the Hoysalas in the Tiruchirāpalli District. It states that the temple of Posaliswaram Udaiyar constructed by Vira Somēswara was demolished upto the Adharasilai and converted into a mosque by the Muhammadans during their occupation of the place. It was only after Kampana’s conquest that the temple was reconsecrated. A.R.E. of 1909: The temple of Tiruttaliyanda Nāyanar at Tiruppattur was occupied by the encamped Muhammadans ‘whose time it was’ and ruined. In consequence of this the inhabitants of the place became unsettled. At this juncture a certain Visalayadeva of Karaikudi reconsecrated the temple and saved the people from moral and religious degradation”. Therefore the villagers conferred on him certain privileges and besides assigning a specified quantity of corn from the harvest reaped by each individual. Also 434 of 1903.
17. A.R.E., 203 of 1912.

A reference to open plunder of the temple proper ties by the invaders is found in an inscription of Rāja nārāyaṇa Sambuvarāya coming from Tiruvorriyur.17 Before the Muslims took possession of the temple the temple authorities had hidden all the valuable belongings of the temple underground. The Muslims located the hidden treasure and carried away a large part of it. The general effect of the establishment of the Sultanate at Madhurai was disastrous. Hindu religious activities ceased; temple properties were confiscated. Large scale migrations became the order of the day:18 handicrafts suffered; there was a large number of un employed workmen suffering from want.19 Cultivation was not regular and many fields were lying empty.20 In the field of art the product of many years’ labour all perished.

18. A.R.E., 276. 19. Ibid.
19. A.R.E., 64 of 1916. “The times were Tulukkan times: The dēvadāna lands of the gods were taxed with kadamai; the temple worship however, had to be conducted without any reduction! The ulava or cultivation had to be done by turns (for want of sufficient number of men)”.

3. THE MADHURĀVIJAYAM ACCOUNT

The Madhurāvijayam gives a graphic account of the condition in which the Vijayanagar conqueror of the Tamil country found the various holy cities. In Srirangam the Lord of Serpents was warding off the heaps of bricks with the hood lest their fall should disturb the sleep of Yoga in which Hari was worship ped. When one looked at the state of ine temples of the other gods also, one’s distress knew no bounds.

The foldings of their doors were eaten up by wood worms. The arches over the inner sanctuaries were rent with wild growths of grass. Those temples which were once resonant with the sounds of Mridanga drums were now echoing the fearful howls of jackals. The river Kaveri became deflected very much from her time honoured course and was flowing in all sorts of wrong directions imitating the ruthless invaders. The Brahmin streets where once the sacrificial smoke was seen rising and the chanting of the Vēdas always greeted the ear, now sent out the musty odour of meat and resounded with the war-cries of the drunken marauders.21

The groves of Madhurai had all been destroyed. The cocoanut trees had all been cut and in their places were to be seen rows of iron spikes with human heads sticking at the points. În the highways which were charming with the sounds of anklets of beautiful women, one heard the ear-piercing noise of the Brah mins being dragged, bound in iron-fetters.

Webs woven by spiders took the place of silk veils with which the dolls adorning the outer-towers of the city were once covered. Royal courtyards which were once cool with the spraying of ice-cold sandal, now con tained only the tears of the afflicted Brahmins. The waters of the Tāmrapari which were white with the sandal paste washed from the breasts of charming maidens were now flowing red with the blood of cows slaughtered by the miscreants. Screechings of owis in worn-out pleasure groves did not afflict one so much as the voice of the parrots taught to speak Persian in the houses of the foreigners.

“Vyāghrapuri (Chidambaram) has become in fact the abode of the vyaghras (tigers).” Earth was no longer the producer of wealth. Rains failed. The god of Death took his undue toll of what was left of the lives not destroyed by the invaders. The Kaliyūga deserved the deepest congratulation; for it was now at the zenith of its power. “Hidden is refine ment; hushed is the voice of Dharma; destroyed is discipline and gone is nobility of birth”.

21. Madhurāvijayam, canto VIII.
22. Ibn Batuta also mentions this fact. Relevant passages from his accounts have been quoied aiready. Cf. K. A. N. Sastri, Sources, pp. 278-279.

The state of affairs described above made an immense impression in the minds of the Hindus of South India. In the significant words of Sewell,23 “Although fighting had been incessant throughout the centuries it had been only between Hindus and what ever suffering was entailed on the mass of the population it did not touch the Brahmin priests or the temple. Dynasties might be wiped out for ever; the chiefs killed, the country devastated but the temples and the persons of the Brahmins were inviolate and these temples were immensely wealthy. For many centuries the civil rulers had lavished on them the revenues of innumerable villages, laid enforced taxes for their support on the people and presented them with all kinds of valuables, precious stones and gold in quantities. And whatever slaughter of people went on the Brahmin remained untouched. The deadliest curse that could be pronounced on a man was as is evidenced by the inscriptions that his punishment hereafter should be like that awarded by the high gods to a man who had killed a Brahmin. And yet there now came down on the Hindus those masses of marauding foreigners sacking the cities, slaughtering the people destroying the ancient fanes and killing even the sacred Brahmins in the name and for the glory of God. The thing was monstrous-unheard of. The result was that the whole of Southern India was con vulsed by this catastrophe; the one hope in men’s minds was that some Hindu power would arise to defend the. country from any such disaster in future; and when, a few years later, certain princes took the lead, they were enthusiastically supported by almost all parties”.

23. Sewell: Historical Inscriptions of South India, p. 177

4. EARLIER ATTEMPTS

The first attempt made by any Hindu ruler in the South to relieve the situation was undoubtedly that of the Hoysala ruler Vīra Ballāla III. He moved from Dwārasamudra and was camping at Tiruvannāmalai between 1328 and 1340 waiting for an opportunity to strike.24 He did strike in 1341 at the battle of Kanna nur Koppam and was very near ousting the Muslims. He put his entire strength into this final struggle and according to Ibn Batuta he had “100,000 men besides 20,000 Mussalmans, rakes, criminals and fugitive slaves while the Muslim army numbered only 6000 troops”. With his large army he “routed the Muslims near Kubban (Kuppam). He besieged it for six months at the end of which the garrisons had provisions for only fourteen days”.

24. E.C., Vol. XI, Db. 14; Dv. 60, v. Ak. 66 (also p. 71 of Vol. IX). Also Sewell: Historical Inscriptions of South India, p. 183.
25. K. A. N. Sastri: Foreign Notices, p. 280.

The Muslims made overtures for peace and Ballāla said he would agree if he was allowed to occupy the town. The Muslim soldiers said they would not accept any responsibility but should get the consent of the Sultan. The Hoysala ruler offered them a truce for a fortnight and informed the Sultan about the terms of the peace. The ‘Faithful wept and said, “We will sacrifice our lives to God; if the infidel takes that town (Kuppam) he will then lay siege to us; we prefer to die by the sword”. Then the Muslims soldiers engaged to expose themselves to death and set out the very next day removing their turbans from their heads and placing them round the necks of their horses to indicate that each of them sought death.26 In the battle that followed again, between the forces of Ballāla and those of the Sultan, luck was on the side of the Muslims; Ballāla was captured and later put to death in a very cruel manner. “His skin was stuffed with straw and hung up on the wall of Madhurai where I saw it in the same position”. 27

Thus Bailāia III the most persistent and dangerous enemy of the Sultanate was destroyed.

For a period of thirty years after the Hoysala defeat no organised attempt was made by any Hindu ruler to strike again. But the ground was kept ready for Kampana by Sāvanna Udaiyār who began his work of clearing even as early as 1352. The presence of his inscrip tion dated 1352-53 at Sendalai shows that he had cleared the path for his cousin as far as the Tanjore District.28 It is very likely he had been helped by the Mulbagal army, for Kampaņa was then camping at Tiruvannā malai and it is not unlikely that Sāvaņņa had been fully instructed by him in regard to the work to be done by him.29

26. Ibn Batuta. Cf. Foreign Notices. 27. Ibid. 99 Refer to section on Vijayanagar invasions of Tondaimandalam. 29. This has been already discussed.

After his occupation of Kāncīpuram in 1359, Kampana took time to stabilise his position in Tondai mandalam. It may be assumed on the strength of the available evidence that he waited for over a decade to launch his attack on Madhurai.

5. KAMPANA’S CONQUEST

The favourable circumstances which Kampana awaited came during the rule of Qurbat Hassan Kangu the last ruler of Madhurai. He had absolutely no previous experience in South India for he had been brought from Daulatabad to fill a vacant throne in Madhurai.30 Evidently there was no suitable person to rule over Madhurai after Nasiruddin. To go to Delhi with a request for a suitable occupant was out of the ques tion not only because the Muslims had severed their connection with it but also because it was very distant.

30. Cf., Tarikh-i-Firoz-Shahi: “When the great king Sultan Muhammad died firmans bearing our signatures were despatched to you. You had shown no obedience to our orders and went to Daulatabad, brought Qurbat Hassan Kangu and set him up in Ma’bar.” (Tr. by Dr. N. Venkataramanayya, Ma’bar, pp. 58-59).
31. S. H. o. Hadivala: Studies in Indo-Muslim History, p. 326.

Again the Muslims of the Madhurai Kingdom had al ready a powerful Hindu neighbour in Kampana whom they had to guard against. By this time the Bahmani and Vijayanagar kingdoms had come to look upon each other as rivals. So the Muslims of Madhurai wanted to get into touch with the Bahmani kingdom with whose assistance they could destroy the Vijayanagar power near their own territories. This Qurbat Hassan was a relative of Hassan Kangu, most probably his son in-law; for Qurbat means son-in-law.31 In a sense by the election and elevation of Qurbat to the throne the Bahmani rule was established in Madhurai. It is interesting now to note that while in the Deccan the Vijayanagar and Bahmani kingdoms stood side by side frowning upon each other, in south their viceroyalties stood side by side in mutual fear and suspicion. But the choice of Qurbat, though based on high politi cal and ambitious considerations, was not at all a satisfactory choice. And this was the Vijayanagara ruler’s golden opportunity. in the South their viceroyal Qurbat did not get on well with his own people. He had displeased them by foolish and vulgar acts. When he held court in the hall of audience “he would put on his hands and feet and neck all the ornaments of women; he would engage himself …. in base actions. In short when Qurbat Hassan Kangu commenced to do such things in the city of Ma’bar the people of Ma’bar were indefinitely distressed on account of him and were disgusted with him and his activities.“32

32. Dr. N. Venkataramanayya’s Translation, p. 63 of Ma’bar. Elliot and Dowson have translated the passage in Shams-Siraj Afif’s Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi thus: “When this Kurbat held his court he appeared decked in hand and foot with female ornaments and made himself notorious for his puerile actions.” (Page 339 of Vol. III). But Mr. S. H. Hodivala in his Indo-Muslim History, (pp. 326-327) says: “What Shams really charges him with is something much more culpable and flagitious than puerility. It is pederasty or homo-sexual vice.”
33. Canto VIII.
34. Cf. Shams-Siraj Afif: Tarikh-i-Firoz-Shahi: (Elliot and Dow son. Vol. III, p. 339). A neighbouring chief named Bukkan at the head of a body of men and elephants marched into Ma’bar. Cf. Madhu rāvijayam. Canto VIII. According to this work the Muslims also employed a large number of elephants.

The opportunity was made use of by Kampaņa who marched against Madhurai sometime before 1371. Kampaņa had a vast force which included a good number of well-trained war elephants.33 This fact receives confirmation both from the Muslim and Hindu sources.34 The battle between the Hindu and Muslim forces was a tough one and was for a time undecisive.

But when the “crow banner” of the Yavana king which worked like the personification of the crown of Kali was destroyed by Kampaņa the Muslim hope of victory, was also gone. Determined to make an end of the Yavana king Kampana armed himself with the divine sword ‘which looked as terrible as Yama himself’.35 That sword, as it was being waved by the hand of Kampa, looked like a serpent about to drink the life blood from the Yavana’s body. Kampaņa having seated himself on his agile horse avoiding the blows aimed by the Yavana cut off the head of the Yavana. The head of the Suratrana fell on the ground—the head that never knew the art of bowing down servantlike, the head that had so long borne the royal burden of the Turushka Sāmrājya and which had not bent down even before gods. Kampaņa was astonished to see that even after the head has fallen, one of the hands of the enemy was still holding the reins of the horse while the other was in the act of striking back.36

Both the Madhurāvijayam and the Rāmabhyu dayam refer to a duel in which the Sultan met his death. In the former the duel is said to have taken place between Kampana and the Sultan while in the latter it is said to have taken place between Mangu and the Sultan.37 While such information has its own interest, it is very much to be doubted if there was even a duel at all though the final result, i.e., victory of Kampaņa is beyond dispute. So far is Gangā Dēvi’s account of the battle.

35. Madhurāvijayam, Canto VIII. 36. Ibid. 37. Ibid. Also, Rāmābhyudhayam.

The Muslim account is different: “A neighbouring chief named Bukka at the head of a body of men and elephants marched into Ma’bar and made Qurbat Hasan Kangu prisoner. He made himself master of all Ma’bar which had belonged to Muhammadans; their women suffered violence and captivity in the hands of the Hindus and Bukka established himself as ruler of Ma’bar” 38

The death of the Sultan was not however immediately followed by the surrender of the Muslims. The Muslims seem to have shut themselves up inside the fort while the battle was going on between Kampaņa and Qurbat outside the gate. As soon as the Sultan fell, the Hindu troops began to march towards the interior, but the gate was closed. The Jaimini Bharatam refers to the smashing of the gate by Saluva Mangu after which the Muslims were forced to surrender.39 According to the last stanza of the Madhurā vijayam which is incomplete, the king (Kampa) “vouchsafed safety to the defeated warriors in the enemy rank” though Shams-Siraj Afif says that the vanquished (especially women) suffered violence at the hands of the Hindus.

38. Cf. Shams-Siraj Afif. 39. Jaimini Bharatam (Sources: p. 29.)
39. Madhurāvijayam. (last canto, last stanza) and Elliot and Dow son, Vol. III, p. 339.

Even after their defeat the Muslims made frantic attempts to revive their Sultanate at Madhurai. Now that an experiment with a representative from the Bahmani dynasty had been tried and had failed miserably, they could only think of Delhi. The Tarikh-i Firoz-Shahi gives us the interesting information that the vanquished Muslims went to Delhi and pleaded forgiveness for their folly and requested Firoz Shah the Emperor to give them help. But Firoz Shah seems to have sent them away with an evasive reply.

“When Firoz Shah succeeded to the throne, his edicts were sent into Ma’bar but the people of the country rebelled and going to Daulatabad they made Qurbat Kangu king of Ma’bar. So as soon as the mes sengers from Madhurai gave the woeful tidings and craved pardon for overthrowing the Imperial Authority, the Sultan reproached them for their repudiation of his authority and for now resorting to him in their distress. He told them that his army was weary and exhausted with the late campaign (at Thatta) and long marches but that after it had rested and recouped its strength he would proceed towards Ma’bar. The ambassadors were sent back with assurance of forgiveness and he devoted himself to business.”:41

Firoz Shah being the wisest Sultan of the Tughlak dynasty did not think it worthwhile to keep his promise of capturing Madhurai. For besides the strain it in volved on the army there was no guarantee if the second viceroyalty of Madhurai would not shake off its allegiance to Delhi and with the lesson he had learnt once he took a vow never more to trust distant viceroys. So the Muslim rule ended for ever in Madhurai in 1371, with its destruction by Vijayanagar. 42

41. Elliot and Dowson, Vol. III, p. 339.
42. There is a theory, resting on flimsy grounds that Kampana restored the Pandyas to their former position in Madhurai after instituting enquiries regarding a suitable representative from the Pandyan family. This receives the support of no less a scholar than the Rev. Father Heras himself. (cf. The Aravidu Dynasty, p. 106). “One of the most transcendental acts of Kumāra Kampana in the South was the resper sons of their race and their respective rights. The result of these in quiries was the coronation of Soma Sekhara Pandya as the Pāndya sovereign.”

Except the evidence of the Taylor O. H. Mss., on which Rev. Father Heras has based his theory we have no other strong evidence. (ref. Taylor 0. H. Mss.–Supplementary Mss., p. 202).

APPENDIX

The Sultans of Madhurai (1334 to 1371)

• Jalal-ud-din Ahsan Shah .. 1334-1339
• Ala-ud-din Udaiji .. 1339-1340
• Qutb-ud-Din 1340
• Ghiyas-ud-din Damghani 1341-43
• Nasir-ud-din 1343-1352
• Qurbat Hassan Kangu 1353-1371