________________
JANUARY, 1914.)
THE HISTORY OF THE NAIK KINGDOM OF MADURA
overthrowing and driving him away. The royal oriminal, however, promptly proceeded to Delhi, and asked for, and obtained Musalman help for his restoration. The invasion of Malik Kâfûr was, according to these authorities, due to this disputed succession; and it ended, according to Wassaf in the defeat and retreat of "Malik Nabu ”, but, according to Amir Khusrû, in the flight of Vira Pandya from Madura into the jungles and the consequent capture of the city and the burning of the temple. Amir Khusrû says that as many as 512 elephants were captured by the Muhammadans as well as 5,000 horses, and 500 mans of jewels of every description,-diamonds, pearls, emeralds and rubies. There is no question, says Mr. Sewell, of the fact that “this invasion of the Mahomedans actually, if not nominally, effected the entire subversion of the ancient Kingdom of the Pandyans. It convulsed the whole of South India. The Chôļa kingdom went to pieces at the same time, and all over the peninsula there was a period of anarchy and confusion till the rise of Vijayanagar a few years later."9 Mr. Nelson, the author of the Madura Manual, a work of classical authority on the history of Madura, also accepts this view, and says that, as a result of the Musalman conquest of the Pandyan kingdom, it was ruled for the next half a century by a succession of Musalman Viceroys, i.e., from 1310 to 1358 A.D.
The Hindu chronicles, on the other hand, distinctly assert that the year of Musalman invasion of the Paidyan kingdom was Saka 1246, Rudhirotkari, 10 i.e., 1324 A. D. “In.S. 1246 227 years after the destruction of Quilon," says the Pand. Chron., "in the month of Ani, year Rudhirotkari, when a king, Parákrama Pândya11 by name, was holding a precarious sway, at Madura, Adhi Sultan Mulk and Nemian 12 came from Delhi in the North, seized the king, sent him to Delhi, and took forcible possession of the kingdom." "In S. 1246, corresponding to Q. E. 227," says another chronicle, "when one named Parakrama Pandya was reigning, Adhi Sultan Mulk and Nemi (i. e., Malik Naib) came from Delhi in the North, took Parakrama captive, sent him to Delhi, and conquered the country." These statements are corroborated by Col. Dow, according to whom, it was in the reign of Muhammad III, by the year 1326, that the Carnatic " to the extremities of the Deckan and from sea to sea,"13 was reduced to subjection, and compelled to pay tribute. Mr. Taylor accepts this version, and rejects the date 131014, The Tamil work Köyilolugu assigns the conquest of Trichinopoly to 1327.25
8 Elliot III, 91: also Barni's account, p. 204. It appears from Khusra's account that Vira Påndya was not slain. As shown, later on according to Mr. Krishna Sastri Vira Pandya continued to rule till 1356. See Madr. Ep. Rep. 1900, p. 7-8, where Mr. Venksiyah discusses the whole question, Sewell misreads the Musalman historians. He says that Vira Påndys was defeated and Sundara Pandye restored. This is wrong. [Malik Kafür was equally well known as Malik Naib (the Lord Lieutenant). ED.)
9 Sewell's Antiquities, II, 222. It was evidently during this period of confusion that Ravi Varma Kuafokhara, the Kerala king, invaded the east, conquered Vira Pandya, married the Pandyan princess, and crowned himself in Madura in S. 1234 (1312). He must have been subsequently overthrown by the Muhammadans. (See Madr. Ep. Rep. 1890). It is highly probable that Ravi Varma's invasion was caused by the quarrel between Sundara and Vira Pandy. Ravi Varma's original kingdom was around Quilon (Kolamba). He first took Kerala, and then started in his campaign. In 1316 he was in Kanchi. Madr. Ep. Rep. 1900 p. 8; Insc. 349 of 1903 mentions him at Tiruvadi.
10 The exact Q. E. date is 498-9 and not 227. 11 of the Musalman chronicles, which give a different name altogether.
12 This is wrong. There was only one person-Malik Naib Kafor. Nemi is evidently a mistake for Naib. Soo Elliott, III. Dow's Ferishta, I, 301. 13 O. H. M88. II, 100; Wilks, I, 7;
14 The Trichinopoly Gazetteer ; 48 15 i. e., year Akshaya. For a full and completo analysis of this celebrated work, so Ind. Ant. May 1911
