Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

South India and her Muhammadan Invaders c12.s1: A Note on the Chronology of Muhammad Tughlak's Reign

South India and her Muhammadan Invaders c12.s1

Language
English

A Note on the Chronology of Muhammad Tughlak's Reign

c12.s1.1

The central fact of Muhammad Tughlak's reign is the revolt of Ma'bar and its setting up independently of him with a sultanate at Madura under the general sent by Muhammad-bin-Tughlak himself. This was Jalalu-d-din Asan Shah, who was the father-in-law of the traveller Ibn Batuta, and whose coins are extant in some number. Dr. E. Hultzsch who examined these coins and published the results of his study in the *Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society* for 1909 ascribes this event to A.D. 1335. The latest coin of Muhammad-bin-Tughlak he finds in the south is of date A.D. 1334. The earliest of Jalalu-d-din is dated A.D. 1335 and carries on it the superscription of which the details are given by Ibn Batuta himself. Dr. Vincent Smith in his recent publication *The Oxford History of India* has the following on page 242. 'The turning point was reached in A.D. 1338-9 equal to A.H. 739 when both Bengal and Ma'bar or Coromandel revolted and escaped from the Delhi tyranny.' The grounds upon which he gives the actual date A.D. 1338-9 are not clear. There is no reference in the chapter to Dr. Hultzsch's article and perhaps he bases this actual date on older information. On the following page 243, he has the following sentence apparently taken from Ferishta, in substance at any rate, 'about the same time approximately 1340, Saiyid Hasan, the Governor of Ma'bar or Coromandel revolted and slew the Sultan's officers.' This date is far too late on the evidence of South Indian coins. Similarly in regard to the change of capital to Deogiri this book has adopted the date A.D. 1326-27 (A.H. 727), admittedly on the basis of the account as given in Ibn Batuta, it may be that Ibn Batuta's narrative in this part is arranged chronologically. Ziau-d-din Barni who certainly did know what he was writing about says actually that the change of capital had taken place when the Sultan went against Kishlu Khan. His rebellion apparently was what directly encouraged the movement in Ma'bar, particularly as the exhibition of Bahau-d-din's corpse brought about the rebellion of this powerful governor of Sind. This diverted the attention of the Sultan to such a degree, 'that he did not proceed to Deogir whither the citizens and their families had removed. Whilst he remained at Delhi, the nobles and the soldiers continued with him, but their wives and children were at Deogir.' The change of capital therefore must have taken place soon after, and in consequence of, the rebellion of Bahau-d-din and in the interval between that and the rebellion of Kishlu Khan in Sind, whose head was seen by Ibn Batuta in Multan on his journey up to Delhi in A.D. 1333-34. We may perhaps date the change of capital in A.D. 1327-8 of which year A.H. 727 we have one gold coin of Muhammad bearing upon it the name Deogir.

c12.s1.2

This arrangement receives unlooked for confirmation from an inscription at Panaiyūr in the Tirumeyyam Talūk of the Pudukoṭṭa State which refers itself to the ninth year of ‘Muhammadi Surattān’ (Muhammad Sultan). This would be the year A.D. 1334 when his authority was acknowledged as a matter of course in the southern part of the Pudukoṭṭa State. The Sultanate of Madura then must be held to have begun in A.D. 1335 and that is the beginning of the end of Muhammad’s empire. There are a number of inscriptions which refer themselves to the Hijira year in the district of Ramnad, of which one is published along with this. They refer themselves in general terms to the rule of Rājādhirāja Sakala Nṛpakulakkōn; the dates given are 732, 761 and 771 in these records which have been referred to the Kollamāṇḍu (Malabar era) in the Epigraphist’s report. But the record from Kaṇḍadēvi published in this work makes it clear that it is the Muhammadan era that is referred to, as the Muhammadan month and its equivalent Tamil month are given in the inscription itself. The record of 732 refers itself to the time of ‘Ādi Surattān’ (First Sultan). These finds put it beyond doubt that the era under reference is the Hijira era, and that the authority of Muhammad Tughlak was acknowledged in the far south up to the year A.D. 1334, and the authority of the Muhammadans, apparently the Sultans of Madura, up to A.D. 1371.

c12.s1.3

Both Ziau-d-din Barni and Ibn Batuta agree that on hearing of the rebellion of Ma’bar, the Sultan marched at the head of his army to put down the rebellion. They again agree that he took ill at Bidar and had to abandon the enterprise, contenting himself with sending an army. When he was in Deogir on his return journey he ordered the inhabitants of Delhi then in Deogir to return, himself advancing slowly owing to illness. This must have been in the year or two following the revolt of Ma'bar in A.D. 1335. After some time came the rebellion of Sahu Afghan in Multan. In the course of Muhammad's suppression of this rebellion came the organized revolt of the Southern Hindus, Warangal, Kampli with perhaps Dvārasamudra behind them. The foundations of Vijayanagar were laid in the fortification of Virūpākshapaṭṭaṇa and the installation of the Hoysala Prince there in the position of heir-apparent respectively in A.D. 1339 and A.D. 1340.

Linked texts (3)