Ancient Indian Colonies in the Far East (Vol. I: Champa; Vol. II: Suvarnadvipa) v2.c14.t4: 2. Rise and fall of Malacca

Ancient Indian Colonies in the Far East (Vol. I: Champā; Vol. II: Suvarṇadvīpa) v2.c14.t4

Language: English

2. Rise and fall of Malacca

v2.c14.t4.1

Of the independent states in Malay Peninsula that rise into prominence about the beginning of the fifteenth century A.D., the most important was undoubtedly that of Malacca, which rapidly grew to be the leading commercial centre in that region. The early history of this kingdom is involved in obscurity,² as we have to depend mainly upon indigenous traditions, either recorded in native chronicles or handed down by Portuguese writers. Ferrand has collected together all these traditions which seek to trace the history of the kingdom since its foundation.³ It is needless for our present purpose to examine all these in detail. Leaving aside the incredible accounts of Gaspar Correa who places the foundation of Malacca in the eighth century A. D., the remaining authorities date the event in the thirteenth, fourteenth, or the beginning of the fifteenth century A.D. As to the details, those given in ‘Commentaires d’Albuquerque’ are supported in a general way, and particularly as to the names of kings, by Jean de Barros and Godinho de Eredia. They are also confirmed to a certain extent by the Chinese Annals.¹ We may, therefore, begin with the version of Albuquerque² regarding the history of the kingdom of Malacca.

v2.c14.t4.2

² This is, of course, on the assumption that Malaiyur or Malayu is the same as the old state of that name in Sumatra, viz. Jambi. The contrary view is maintained by Ferrand (J. A. 11-XI, pp. 391ff. XII, pp. 51ff) who holds that from 13th century onward Malayu denotes Malacca, and who, therefore, ascribes to Malacca what has been said in the last chapter regarding Malayu from 1281 A. D. Ferrand’s view has been challenged by Rouffaer (B. K. I. Vol. 77, pp. 1ff, 359ff ; Vol. 86, pp. 139ff., 193ff.). I have followed Rouffaer’s view which is generally held.

v2.c14.t4.3

³ Ferrand—J. A., 11-XI (1918), pp. 407-467. For a critical interpretation of indigenous sources, cf. Blagden—Notes on Malay History (J. Str. Br. R. A. S., No. 53, pp. 139ff.).

v2.c14.t4.4

¹ J. A. 11-XI ( 1918 ), pp. 393-405. Groeneveldt—Notes, pp. 123-134.

v2.c14.t4.5

² Ferrand, op. cit., p. 411.

v2.c14.t4.6

There reigned a king Bataratamurel ( Bhaṭāra Tumapel ) in Java, and a king Parimiśura ( Parameśvara ) in Palembang. As there were frequent fights between the two they came to an agreement. Parimiśura married the daughter of the king of Java, called Parimiśuri (Parameśvari), and agreed to pay tribute to his father-in-law. He, however, soon repented of his decision, and refused to pay either homage or tribute to the king of Java. The king of Java thereupon invaded Palembang, and Parimiśura, being defeated, fled with the wife, children and some escorts to Singapura ( Singapore ). It was then a large and wealthy city under Siam and its governor hospitably received the royal fugitive. Parimiśura, however, killed his host and made himself master of the city. On hearing this news his former subjects of Palembang, numbering 3000, came to Singapore. Parimiśura welcomed them and lived there for five years, pillaging, with his fleet, the ships that passed through the Strait of Singapore.³ ‘Then Parimiśura was attacked by the chief of Patani, brother of the governor of Singapore whom he had so foully murdered. Being defeated, Parimiśura fled with his people to the mouth of the Muar river inhabited only by a few fishermen. About this time 20 or 30 fishermen invited him to settle in their village, which was very fertile and yielded all necessaries of life. Parimiśura, being satisfied by an examination of the locality, removed there with his family. The pirates in the sea touched at this port to take water, and being aided and encouraged by Parimiśura they came there to sell their stolen goods. Thus it grew to be a commercial centre, and in two years the population rose to 2000. Parimiśura named the settlement Malacca. Gradually merchants from Pase (in Sumatra) and Bengal came to trade there, and its importance rapidly increased. Parimiśura died seven years after his settlement at Malacca, leaving a son called Xaquendarxa (Sekandar Shah). Although the prince was a Hindu, he had married the daughter of the king of Pase who had adopted the Muhammadan religion a short while ago. Either at the request of his wife, or at the instance of his father-in-law, it was not long before he himself became a convert to Islam. After he had several children, the king, named Sekandar Shah, paid a visit to the Chinese emperor. He became the vassal of China, brought home a seal as a token of his vassalage, and obtained permission to coin tin money. He died shortly after his return and was succeeded by Modafaixa (Muzafar Shah). He conquered Kampar (in E. Sumatra), Pam (Pahang), Dandargiri (Indragiri), and other countries, and converted their kings by force to Islam. He raised Malacca to a great power, and under his son Sultan Masrusa (Mansur Shah) and grandson Alaoadim (Alau d din) the kingdom became one of the richest and most famous.

v2.c14.t4.7

³ There has been much speculation about the early history of Singapore. Scholars have sought to identify it with Mo-ho-sin of I-tsing, Salahat of Ibn Khordadzbeh, Malayur of Marco Polo, and Ma-li-yu-eul of the History of the Yuan Dynasty ; but these are all very problematical. The account given in Malay Annals is a curious jumble of myths and traditions. The identity of Tumasik and Singapore is universally accepted, and as such we find a reference to it in Tao-i Chih lio of Wang Ta-yüan. Reference has already been made above to the conquest of Tumasik by the Javanese about the middle of the fourteenth century A.D. Reference may be made in this connection to the famous 'inscription at the mouth of the Singapore river' which was destroyed by the Public Works Department about a century ago. For a brief account of the old history of Singapore, cf. Winstedt—A History of Malaya (1935), pp. 31-36.

v2.c14.t4.8

‘Alau d din’s successor Sultan Mahamet (Muhammad) repudiated allegiance to Siam and Java, and declared himself a vassal to China. Thereupon, the king of Siam sent a fleet against him, but it was completely defeated. This took place 22 years before the conquest of Malacca by Albuquerque (i.e. in 1489 A.D.)

v2.c14.t4.9

‘A period of 90 years intervened between the time when Malacca became inhabited and its conquest by Albuquerque. At that time Malacca and its suburbs had about a hundred thousand inhabitants.’

v2.c14.t4.10

The account of De Barros varies a little from the above. He describes Paramisara as a fugitive noble from Java, instead of the deposed king of Palembang, and it was the invasion of the king of Siam, and not of the chief of Patani, that forced him to leave Singhapura. With this exception, the two accounts generally agree, except that De Barros places the foundation of the city 253 years before the arrival of the Portuguese in India. He also refers to hostilities between Siam and Malacca, and the acceptance of Siamese suzerainty by Sekandar Shah. This evidently explains the passage in Commentaires d’ Albuquerque that Sultan Muhammad repudiated allegiance to Siam.

v2.c14.t4.11

The Chinese accounts corroborate the above version, at least in its general outline. Thus, Ma Huan, writing in 1416, observes that the king and people of Malacca are Muhammadans¹, and as we shall see later, this refers to the reign of Sekandar Shah.

v2.c14.t4.12

¹ Groeneveldt—Notes, p 123. T’oung Pao (1915), p. 115.

v2.c14.t4.13

The most comprehensive account is given in the History of the Ming Dynasty from which we quote the following extracts.²

v2.c14.t4.14

² Groeneveldt—Notes., pp. 129ff. The account is supplemented by other sources, to which references will be made in the footnotes.

v2.c14.t4.15

‘In 1403 the emperor sent the eunuch Yin Ch’ing as envoy to this country with presents. There was no king in the country, and it was not called a kingdom, but it belonged to Siam, to which it paid an annual tribute of forty taels of gold. The chief, called Pai-li-mi-su-ra¹, sent envoys to the imperial court along with Yin Ch'ing.

v2.c14.t4.16

¹ The name is transcribed as Pai-li-su-ra by Groeneveldt, but it has been corrected as Pai-li-mi-su-la by Pelliot (T'oung Pao, Vol. XXX, 1933, p. 389).

v2.c14.t4.17

'In 1405 these envoys arrived at the imperial court. The Emperor praised their master and appointed him king of the country of Malacca. The envoys said that their king wished his country to be a district of the empire, bringing tribute every year. The emperor gave his assent.

v2.c14.t4.18

'The king of Malacca sent envoys with tribute in 1407 and 1408. In 1411 he came to the court with his wife, his son and his ministers.² His nephew visited the imperial court in 1412.

v2.c14.t4.19

² Rockhill has referred to slightly differing Chinese accounts of this event. He notes that Hsing Cha Sheng Lan places the voyage in 1415, but this is evidently an error according to Pelliot (T'oung Pao, 1933, p. 398).

v2.c14.t4.20

'In 1414, the king's son Mu-kan-sa-u-ti-r-sha came to court and said that his father had died. He was appointed to

v2.c14.t4.21

"T'ung hsi yang Kao says that in 1405, the ruler of Malacca, Si-li-pa-erh-su-la, sent a petition to the Ming Court asking to become a feudatory. It was in response to this request that Cheng Ho was sent in 1409. The king, his successor, who went to China in 1411, was called, the same work says, Pa-li-tieh-su-la".

v2.c14.t4.22

In this connection Ma Huan gives the following account :

v2.c14.t4.23

"In A. D. 1409 the eunuch Cheng-Ho notified the imperial command that Malacca was raised to the rank of a (Feudatory) kingdom and presented, in the name of the Emperor, to its head chief a silver seal, a cap and official robes and declared him king; on this it ceased to be a dependency of Siam. The king, taking with him his wife and son, proceeded to the capital (of China) to express his thanks for being allowed to offer tribute. The emperor granted him a ship to return to his country". (Rockhill—T'oung Pao, Serie II, Vol. XVI, p. 114 and fn. 1)

v2.c14.t4.24

Pelliot places the mission of Cheng Ho in 1408 A. D. (T'oung Pao, 1933, pp. 277ff.).

v2.c14.t4.25

succeed him and presented with gold and silks. After this time they brought tribute every year or every two years.

v2.c14.t4.26

'In 1419 the king came to court with his wife, his son and his ministers. He reported that Siam seemed inclined to attack his country and the emperor accordingly sent an order to Siam which that country obeyed.

v2.c14.t4.27

'In 1424 Sri ma-ha-la succeeded after the death of his father, and came to court with his wife, his son and his ministers.

v2.c14.t4.28

'In the year 1431 three envoys arrived, who said that Siam was planning an attack on their country. The emperor sent a decree to the king of Siam, ordering him to live in good harmony with his neighbours, and not to act against the orders of the court.

v2.c14.t4.29

'In 1433 the king came to court with his wife, his son and his ministers. In 1435 he sent his younger brother to court with tributes.

v2.c14.t4.30

'In 1445 envoys arrived who asked that the king Sri Pa-mi-si-wa-r-tiu-pa-sha might obtain a commission for ruling the country.

v2.c14.t4.31

'In 1456 Sulthan Wu-ta-fu-na-sha sent tribute and asked to be invested as king.

v2.c14.t4.32

'In 1459 this king's son Su-tan Wang-su-sha sent envoys to bring tribute.

v2.c14.t4.33

'In 1481 envoys reported to the emperor that the Annamese who had occupied Champa meditated the conquest of Malacca.

v2.c14.t4.34

'Some time afterwards the emperor sent two officers with a commission to invest the son of the late king Ma-ha-mu-sa as king of the country.

v2.c14.t4.35

'In 1508 an envoy came to present tribute.

v2.c14.t4.36

'Afterwards the Franks (Portuguese) came with soldiers and conquered the country. The king Sultan Mamat ran away and sent envoys to inform the imperial government of this disaster. The Emperor issued a decree upbraiding the Franks, told them to go back to their own country and ordered the kings of Siam and other countries to assist their neighbour in this need; none of these obeyed, however, and so the kingdom of Malacca was destroyed.’

v2.c14.t4.37

If we now compare the Chinese account with the native tradition handed down by the Portuguese, a great deal of general agreement is easily perceived. First, as to the names of kings which we place below side by side.

v2.c14.t4.38

v2.c14.t4.39

¹ As noticed above, the name of this king is written in Chinese annals as Ma-ha-mu-sa and Sultan Mamat. Both are here taken as Chinese renderings of the name Sultan Muhammad Shah. Blagden, however, takes the first name as Muhammad, and the second as Sultan Ahmad, his successor (Actes du XIe congres International des orientalistes—2e section, pp. 239-253.).

v2.c14.t4.40

Now, the name of the second king in the Chinese list has been corrected by Blagden as Mou-Kan-sa-kan-ti-eul-cha or Muhammad Sekandar Shah². In the name of the first we

v2.c14.t4.41

² Op. cit., pp. 245 ff. Cf. Pelliot—T'oung Pao, Vol. XXX (1933), p. 397, fn, 2.

v2.c14.t4.42

The dates of the kings put within bracket are those obtained from Chinese sources. The grave-stone of Mansur Shah gives the date 1477 as the date of his death. The date 1489 is given in the Commentaries of Albuquerque as that of the defeat of Siamese army by Muhammad. Sultan Alau d din’s reign is to be placed between 1477 and 1489 A.D.

v2.c14.t4.43

can easily discern Parameśvara. The third and fourth Chinese names are Śrī Mahārāja and Śrī Parameśvaradeva Sāha. The fifth and sixth names can be equated without difficulty to Muzafar Shah and Mansur Shah. The seventh king is obviously Mahmud Shah.

v2.c14.t4.44

Thus the Chinese account adds two Hindu names after the second king, and omits the name of Alau d din. The explanation is not far to seek. Now we have seen above, that Sekandar Shah was the first ruler of Malacca to be converted to Islam by marrying a Muhammadan wife. It is apparent that he was succeeded by two Hindu kings, either his brothers, or sons by a Hindu wife, before his Muhammadan son Muzafar Shah ascended the throne. Their names were obviously omitted in the later Muhammadan tradition because they were Hindus.¹

v2.c14.t4.45

¹ Blagden ( op. cit. ) thinks that the two Hindu names were those of Muzafar Shah ; but the Chinese annals say that in 1445 king Sri Pa-mi-si-wa-r-tiu-pa-sha asked for a commission to rule the country, while eleven years later, Sulthan Wu-ta-fu-na-sha asked to be invested as king. It is, therefore, difficult to identify these two kings. The native chronicles, consulted by Yalentyn, also put some Hindu kings between the reigns of Sekandar Shah and Muzafar Shah ( Ferrand, op. cit., p. 462 ).

v2.c14.t4.46

The explanation of the omission of the name of Alau d din is also furnished by the Chinese account. After the embassy sent by Su-tan Wang-su-sha ( Sultan Mansur Shah ) in 1459 A.D., there is a long gap before the next embassy was sent in 1481. The name of the king who sent this embassy is not mentioned, and there is no necessity to assume that he was Su-tan Wang-su-shah. The next king Ma-ha-mu-sa, is also simply referred to as the son of the late king. This explains the absence of the name of king Alau d din in the Chinese annals.

v2.c14.t4.47

We may thus draw up the following list of kings of Malacca :—
1. Parameśvara (1403-1414 A.D.)
2. Sekandar Shah (1414-1424 A.D.)
3. Sri Ma-ha-la (1424-c. 1445)

v2.c14.t4.48

4. Sri Pa-mi-si-wa-r-tiu-pa-sha (c. 1445-c. 1456)
5. Sultan Muzafar Shah (acc. c. 1456 A.D.)
6. Sultan Mansur Shah (c. 1459 to 1477 A.D.)
7. Sultan Alau d din.
8. Sultan Mahmud (was reigning in 1489 A. D., and ruled till 1511 A. D.)

v2.c14.t4.49

Having thus established a general agreement between the Chinese and native sources (handed down by Albuquerque) regarding the succession of kings, we may next proceed to discuss the date of the foundation of the kingdom of Malacca. The History of the Ming Dynasty makes it quite clear that Pai-li-mi-su-ra founded the town towards the beginning of the fifteenth or end of the fourteenth century A.D. It is expressly stated that in 1403 A.D. Pai-li-mi-su-ra had not yet obtained the rank of king, and he was a mere tributary chief under Siam. This is confirmed by two other Chinese accounts, Ying Yai Sheng Lan of Ma Huan (1425-1432 A. D.) and Hsing Cha Sheng Lan (1436) which state that Malacca was raised to the rank of a kingdom in 1409 A.D.¹ by imperial command.

v2.c14.t4.50

¹ T’oung Pao, Ser. II. Vol. XVI (1915), pp. 114, 118.

v2.c14.t4.51

The date given in ‘Commentaires d’Albuquerque’ is in entire agreement with this. It says that the country formerly belonged to Siam, and Malacca became a kingdom about 90 years before the arrival of Alfonso d’Albuquerque. As this latter event took place in 1511 A.D., the foundation of the kingdom goes back to about 1421 A.D. As 90 years are put as merely a round number with an express qualification ‘more or less’, the agreement between the two sources may be regarded as complete.

v2.c14.t4.52

Now both the sources also agree in stating that previous to this the region belonged to Siam. This is confirmed by the fact, noted above, that the Palatine Law of Siam, enacted in 1360 A.D., included Malacca among the dependencies of the country. If we believe in this, we have to dismiss the native legends concerning the origin of the name Malacca, as have been handed down by the Portuguese authorities. Thus we read in the Commentaries of Albuquerque :

v2.c14.t4.53

"This Parimiśura gave the name of Malacca to the new colony because, in the language of Jaoa (Java), when a man of Palimbao flees away, they call him *Malayo*; and since he had come to that place fleeing from the kingdom of Palimbao, of which indeed he once was king, he gave the place the name of *Malacca*. Others say that it was called Malacca because of the numbers of people who came there from one part and the other in so short a space of time, for the word *Malacca* also signifies 'to meet', and therefore they gave it the name of city (of Malacca) in contradiction (to the other meaning of 'fugitive'). Of these two opinions let each one accept that which he thinks to be the best, for this is the truth of the matter."

v2.c14.t4.54

Nobody need take seriously this kind of popular explanation of the origin of the name of a city which afterwards became so distinguished¹. We must also take due note of the mass psychology which seeks to ascribe the foundation of a city to the ruler under whom or whose family it came to achieve greatness or distinction. The case of Lengkasuka furnishes an exact analogy in both these respects. Here, again, the native Malay tradition, recorded in the Hikayat Maroṅ Mahāvaṃśa, ascribes to him the foundation of the city, and gives a popular etymology of the name. As Cœdès has pointed out, the inscription of Rājendra Cola and the discovery of the old ruins in the neighbourhood, reaching back to the fifth century A.D., completely falsify the popular legends².

v2.c14.t4.55

¹ Valentyn, who dereved his information from native chronicles, states that Malacca was named after a tree ( Mirobolan ) ( Ferrand, op. cit., p. 461 ).

v2.c14.t4.56

² B.E.F.E.O., Vol. XVIII, No. 6, pp. 12-13.

v2.c14.t4.57

In respect of Malacca, too, while we may assign the growth of an important kingdom on that site to early fifteenth century A.D., we need not date the foundation of a city under that name also to the same period. According to the popular version, there was only a village of twenty or thirty fishermen at the time when Parameśvara laid on it the foundations of the city of Malacca, and he survived it only for seven years. His death took place, according to the reliable Chinese version, some time between 1412 and 1414 A.D. Thus the future Malacca must have been, according to popular legends, merely a fishing village at least as late as 1405 A.D. Yet, in 1403 A.D., the Chinese emperor regarded Malacca as a port or a capital of sufficient importance to send his envoy there with presents. On the other hand, Ma Huan expressly says that the name Malacca came into use after 1409 A.D., though it was formerly called 'five islands' and was a tributary state under Siam¹. According to a Chinese map of the time of Cheng Ho, probably prepared by his companion Fei Hsin, one of these five islands, called Yiu-men, was a flourishing centre of trade before the rise of Malacca².

v2.c14.t4.58

¹ Groeneveldt—Notes, p. 123.

v2.c14.t4.59

² Journ. China Br. R.A.S., Vol. 21 ( 1887 ), p. 38. Rouffaer, op. cit., p. 164.

v2.c14.t4.60

The popular version about the origin of the city of Malacca cannot thus be accepted in minor details, and there is no reason to discredit the Siamese source according to which Malacca existed in 1360 A.D. It may be noted that Jean De Barros places the foundation of the city about 1250 A.D., and Valentyn, following Malay traditions, refers it to about the same period³.

v2.c14.t4.61

³ Ferrand, op. cit., pp. 432, 461.

v2.c14.t4.62

While, therefore, we are unable to state when exactly the city of Malacca came into existence, there is no reason to reject the broad facts whose authenticity is proved by a general agreement of Chinese history and native traditions. We may thus accept the view, that Malacca was raised to an important kingdom early in the fifteenth century A.D. by a chief called Parameśvara. That he was a Javanese Hindu, belonging either to Java itself or its colony Palembang, may also be provisionally accepted. The story of emigration, on a large scale, which followed the flight of king Parameśvara, from Palembang to Singapore, and Singapore to Malacca, may or may not be true, but the rise and fall of the Majapahit empire during 1360 to 1410 A.D., involving important changes in the political condition both of Palembang and Malay Peninsula, may easily account for, and may even be held as conducive to similar migrations of people. According to some native traditions Singapore was cruelly sacked by the king of Majapahit, and that caused the flight of Parameśvara to Malacca¹.

v2.c14.t4.63

¹ Malacca Sultanate—by R. J. Wilkinson in J. Str. Br. R.A.S., No. 61, p. 67; also cf. No. 53, p. 62.

v2.c14.t4.64

With Parameśvara began a glorious period in the history of Malacca. For nearly a century it enjoyed three-fold distinctions as a great political power, an important commercial centre, and the stronghold of Islam in the Far East. We shall separately review these three aspects of the kingdom of Malacca.

v2.c14.t4.65

According to the Commentaries of Albuquerque the kingdom of Malacca was bounded by the kingdom of Keddah on one side and Pahang on the other. It extended into the interior as far as the central chain of hills which divided it from Siam. All these territories formerly belonged to the kingdom of Siam.²

v2.c14.t4.66

² Ferrand, op. cit., pp. 411-12.

v2.c14.t4.67

Malacca shook off the yoke of Siam as early as 1403 or 1409. Though the Chinese authorities represent it almost as a vassal state of China, paying tribute to and seeking investiture from the emperor, it does not denote anything more than a nominal allegiance or even ordinary diplomatic compliments paid by the ruler of Malacca to the Chinese emperor.

v2.c14.t4.68

The second king, Sekandar Shah, laid the foundations of the greatness of Malacca. He first of all tried to divert the trade centre from Singapore to Malacca. With this object he guarded the Straits of Malacca and neighbouring sea with a strong flotilla, and compelled the ships passing through it to take to Malacca instead of to Singapore. As it threatened complete ruin to the trade of Singapore, the king of Siam made preparations to fight. Sekandar, however, entered into an agreement with him. He acknowledged the suzerainty of Siam, and agreed to pay as tribute a sum equivalent to the revenues derived from Singapore. In return, all the islands from Singapore to Pulan Sembilan and the corresponding coastal region were ceded to Malacca.¹ By this master-stroke of policy Sekandar shah laid the foundations of the greatness of Malacca on the ruins of Singapore.

v2.c14.t4.69

¹ De Barros ; Ferrand, op. cit, p. 437.

v2.c14.t4.70

Jean De Barros, to whom we owe this detailed information, no doubt derived his facts from indigenous sources, and it is impossible not to trace in them the hand of Siamese officials who wanted to hide their discomfiture by an alleged acknowledgment of the suzerainty of Siam on the part of Malacca. The History of the Ming Dynasty clearly refers to hostilities between Siam and Malacca in 1419 A.D. in the reign of Sekandar Shah, and also, after his death, in 1431 A.D. From the general nature of the case also it would appear more likely that hostilities continued between the two countries, rather than that Malacca accepted the suzerainty of Siam. In any case the suzerainty of Siam must have been more nominal than real, and even that was repudiated, as Barros himself affirms,² by the successors of Sekandar.

v2.c14.t4.71

² Ibid., p. 438.

v2.c14.t4.72

An idea of the political importance of Malacca may be formed from a passage in the History of the Ming Dynasty concerning Java, which has been quoted above. It says that shortly before 1415 A.D. the king of Malacca claimed possession of Palembang, which was then under Java, falsely pretending that he had an order to this effect from the Chinese emperor. The emperor informed the king of Java that he had issued no such orders.¹ This shows that Malacca was now aspiring to occupy the position of supremacy which Java lately held in the Archipelago.

v2.c14.t4.73

¹ Groeneveldt—Notes, p. 37.

v2.c14.t4.74

That the apprehensions of China and Java were not unfounded is clearly proved by the conquest of Pahang, in the Peninsula, and of Kampar and Indragiri in Eastern Sumatra by Muzafar Shah. When kings of Pahang and Indragiri revolted in the next reign, they were defeated and their tribute was doubled.²

v2.c14.t4.75

² Albuquerque. Ferrand, op. cit. pp. 421-2.

v2.c14.t4.76

According to Sajara Malayu³ Muzafar defeated the Siamese who attacked Malacca both by land and sea. He was the first ruler of Malacca who was designated as Sultan by the Chinese and the Portuguese. The next king Mansur extended the power of Malacca still further, both in the Peninsula and in Central Sumatra. In 1489 the fleet of Siam was again completely defeated by Sultan Mahmud.⁴

v2.c14.t4.77

³ Quoted by Rouffaer, B.K.I., Vol. 77. (1921), p. 588.

v2.c14.t4.78

⁴ Albuquerque. Ferrand, op. cit. p. 423. I do not know on what authority Krom gives the date as about 1500 A.D. ( Geschiedenis—p. 454. )

v2.c14.t4.79

Sultan Mahmud who thus gave promise of a vigorous and prosperous reign was destined to bring his kingdom to utter ruin. This was mainly due to his personal character, which was marked by vanity and cruelty. He killed his own son and uncle, and no less than seventeen nobles who were all related to him. He then plundered their wealth and took their women to his own harem.

v2.c14.t4.80

The Sultan was addicted to opium and left the cares of government to his ‘Bendahara’ and maternal uncle Śrī Mahārāja Tun Mutahir. The term Bendahara, perhaps derived from Sanskrit Bhaṇḍāgārika, was the designation of a minister who had by this time practically usurped the royal power in Malacca.

v2.c14.t4.81

The rapid growth of the power of Malacca naturally brought it into conflict with Java. In 1509 Malacca was expecting an invasion from Java. But before that could materialise, Malacca met with a tragic end in an unexpected manner.

v2.c14.t4.82

In 1509 a few Portuguese ships arrived at Malacca. At first they were well received, but subsequently the Bendahara imprisoned twenty Portuguese and refused to set them at liberty. After the departure of the Portuguese ships, the king quarrelled with the Bendahara and killed him. When the country was thus passing through a period of turmoil and confusion, Albuquerque reached Malacca with a strong fleet (July 1511) to avenge the wrongs done to his countrymen. The Sultan conceded most of the demands of Albuquerque. He set the Portuguese prisoners at liberty and even granted permission to Albuquerque to build a fort. But the latter soon came to know of the internal condition of Malacca, and was joined by Timutarāja or Utimutarāja, the chief of the Javanese settlers in Malacca. Throwing aside all ideas of compromise Albuquerque invaded the city which surrendered in August. The unfortunate Sultan fled, at first to Pahang and then to Bintan. A few years later, he made an attempt to recover Malacca, but his efforts proved unsuccessful.¹

v2.c14.t4.83

¹ For a detailed account of the capture of Malacca by Albuquerque, cf. J. Str. Br. R.A.S., No. 61, p. 71. A detailed account of Malacca and other Malay states under the Muslim Sultans and of the commercial importance of Malacca is beyond the scope of the present work. For this, readers may consult R.O. Winstedt—A History of Malaya, chaps. III—IV.

v2.c14.t4.84

Thus perished a great and flourishing kingdom after a glorious career for about a century. As we have said above, Malacca was not only the seat of a great political power, but also a big centre of trade and commerce. Its commercial importance is described in glowing terms by the Portuguese writers who saw it in its days of glory. Duarte Barbosa, writing in the beginning of the sixteenth century A.D., gives the following graphic account of its trade and commerce.¹ “Many Moorish (Muhammadan) merchants reside in it and also Gentiles (Hindu), particularly Chetis who are natives of Cholmendel (Coromandel coast): and they are all very rich and have many large ships, which they call jungos (junks). They deal in all sorts of goods in different parts, and many other Moorish and Gentile merchants flock thither from other countries to trade; some in ships of two masts from China and other places, and they bring thither (here follow a long list of articles of merchandise). There also come thither many ships from Java which have four masts...From this place many ships sail to the Molucca islands...They also navigate to Tanasery (Tennasserim), Peygu, (Pegu), Bengala (Bengal), Palecate (Pulicat), Cholmendel (Coromandel), Malabar, Cambay and Aden with all kinds of goods, so that this city of Malacca is the richest trading port and possesses the most valuable merchandise, and most numerous shipping and extensive traffic, that is known in all the world. And it has got such a quantity of gold that the great merchants do not estimate their property, nor reckon otherwise than by *bahars* of gold, which are four *quintals* each *bahar*. There are merchants among them who will take up three or four ships laden with very valuable goods, and will supply them with cargo from their own property...... The king of Malacca has got much treasure, and a large revenue from the duties which he collects.”

v2.c14.t4.85

¹ Hakluyt Society Publications, Vol. XXXV; Ferrand, op. cit., pp. 407 ff.

v2.c14.t4.86

In the Commentaries of Albuquerque we find a similar description of the commercial importance of Malacca as a trading centre between the east and the west, where the ships, coming from the Eastern countries such as China, Java, Formosa, and other islands of Archipelago, exchange cargo with that coming from Northern Sumatra and different ports in India and Arabia on the west. This city contained 100,000 souls and extended over a great length along the sea-coast.¹

v2.c14.t4.87

¹ Ferrand, op. cit., pp. 425. ff.

v2.c14.t4.88

There are many other evidences to testify to the commercial greatness of Malacca and its untold wealth. But we need not pause to refer to them at length. We may next pass on to describe the part played by this rich and powerful city as a stronghold of Islam, and a centre of propaganda of that faith in the Far East. An inscription from Trengganau, dated in 1326-7 (or 1386-7) A.D., proves that Islam had already obtained a footing in that state.² But evidently it did not make any substantial progress in Malay Peninsula until the kings of Malacca took up the cause in right earnest. We have already seen how the second king married a Muhammadan lady and himself adopted the new faith. Although it is likely, as we have seen above, that he was followed by two Hindu kings, under his son Muzafar Shah the new faith was rapidly extended, partly by force, and partly by persuasion. When he defeated the kings of Pahang, Kampar, and Indragiri, he converted them to Islam by force and married them to three daughters of his brother. A number of Muhammadan merchants from Gujarat and Persia settled in Malacca, and, with the patronage of the king, these became powerful instruments of conversion. Duarte Barbosa says that ‘the Moors of the town and foreign Moors established their trade in the city, in which they increased so much in wealth, that they revolted with the country and caused the neighbouring inhabitants to turn Moors and they set up a Moorish king over them’.³ The last statement may refer to the setting up of Muzafar Shah, in preference to other Hindu claimants, or it may be a general view, held in later days, to explain the conversion of the kings of Malacca to the Muhammadan faith. The following passage in the account of Jean de Barros clearly indicates that Malacca was a strong proselytising centre of the new faith. "At the instigation of the Moors of Persia and Gujarat who had settled at Malacca for purposes of trade, the people were converted to the sect of Muhammad. The conversion rapidly spread among different nations, and this infernal pest of Islam began to be propagated, not only in the neighbourhood of Malacca, but also at Sumatra, Java, and in all the islands situated round these countries."

v2.c14.t4.89

² J. Mal. Br. R.A.S. (1924), pp. 252-263.

v2.c14.t4.90

³ Ferrand, op. cit., p. 407.

v2.c14.t4.91

In other passages also De Barros gives expression to the same idea. The merchants from Singapore and Malacca had spread Islam to Molucca islands about 80 years before the arrival of the Portuguese i. e. about 1430 A. D. "The pest of Islam, following by way of commerce," had also reached the ports of Java and the island of Banda.

v2.c14.t4.92

There is thus no doubt that the wealth and the commercial importance of Malacca gave a great impetus to the cause of Islam in Malaya, and must be regarded as the deciding factor in the almost complete triumph of that faith in Malaya Peninsula.

v2.c14.t4.93

The last Malay ruler of Malacca became the first ruler of Johor. By him and his descendants Islam was introduced into Johor, Riau, and Lengga. It is to be noted that almost all the present Sultans of Malaya (outside Selangor) claim descent from Parameśvara, and they are all followers of Islam.

v2.c14.t4.94

Even as late as 1537 A. D. vestiges of Hindu culture still remained at Malacca ; for Hai-yu tells us that 'the people write with Indian letters.'² As Wilkinson observes, "to this day, when the casual visitor walks from the landing steps to the Stadt-house, he can see on the slopes of the hill a weird image of a Makara, the sole surviving relic of the time when the ruler of Malacca was still a Hindu."³

v2.c14.t4.95

¹ Ferrand, op. cit., p. 438.

v2.c14.t4.96

² Ibid , p. 428.

v2.c14.t4.97

³ Wilkinson, J. Str. Br. R.A.S., No. 61, p. 68.

v2.c14.t4.98

END OF HINDU RULE IN JAVA.

v2.c14.t4.99

We have seen above how Islam had obtained a footing in the northern coast of Sumatra and the kingdom of Malacca, and how from these centres it gradually spread all over Malayasia. The new faith also penetrated into Java, following mainly the line of trade and commerce. The accounts of the Chinese traveller Ma Huan (1416 A. D.) clearly indicate that while the Muhammadans formed an important colony in Java, mainly composed of foreign traders, permanently settled there, they had not as yet acquired any political power in the country.¹

v2.c14.t4.100

¹ Groeneveldt—Notes, P. 49; Rockhill, Toung Pao, Serie II., Vol. XVI (1915), p. 242.

v2.c14.t4.101

The spread of Islam in Java is also indicated by a few inscriptions on grave-stones. The earliest one at Leran, dated A. D. 1102 or 1082², is that of a daughter of Meimūn. It has been suggested that the inscribed stone was brought from outside to Java at a later date. Even if that were not the case, this isolated instance does not enable us to form any general conclusion, as it merely refers to a private individual, perhaps a relation of a Muhammadan merchant trading in Java. The grave-stone of Malik Ibrahim at Gresik is dated in 1419 A. D.³ The popular tradition regards him as a preacher of Islam, and this may well be the case. The grave-stone of Majapahit, traditionally ascribed to Putri Champa, a Cham princess and a queen of Majapahit, is dated in 1448.⁴ As we shall see later, she plays an important part in the traditional account of the downfall of Majapahit, though her date is given therein as 1398. But there is no certainty that the grave is really that of the queen.

v2.c14.t4.102

² Moquette in Congres I, pp. 391-399. T.B.G. Vol. 65 (1925), pp. 668 ff.

v2.c14.t4.103

³ Schrieke—Het Boek Van Bonang, p. 28.

v2.c14.t4.104

⁴ Rapporten, 1907, pp. 42 ff.

v2.c14.t4.105

It appears, however, from the Portuguese accounts¹ that towards the close of the fifteenth century some of the harbours of Java were in the hands of Muhammadans, most probably Javanese converts. But they still recognised the authority of the Hindu king, and there is no reason to suppose that the latter had suffered much in power or prestige. In 1509 the great Sultan of Malacca was afraid of an invasion by the king of Java, a fact which testifies to the latter's power and command over the sea². Apart from the political rivalry referred to before, the immediate cause of the dispute between Malacca and Java is not known from the Portuguese accounts. There was an intimate intercourse by way of trade between the two countries, and a large number of Javanese lived in Malacca. It was the head of the Javanese colony in Malacca that treacherously helped Albuquerque in conquering that kingdom from Sultan Mahmud. When Albuquerque was returning from Malacca (1512 A.D.), the king of Java sent an envoy with presents, and promised him assistance in his wars against the Sultan on the ground that the latter subjected the Javanese subjects in Malacca to heavy extortion. The Javanese king always acted in a friendly manner towards the Portuguese and sought to establish an alliance with them. In this connection Castanheda has made the following remarks about the king of Java: "The king of Java is a heathen (i.e. neither Christian nor a Moor; in other words, a Hindu). He lives inland, is a great king, master of large territory and people. On the sea-coast are Moorish (Muhammadan) kings, subject to the authority of the king. They some time rebel against the king, but are again subdued by him.”

v2.c14.t4.106

¹ The accounts of the Portuguese and other European writers have been taken from the summary given by Krom (Geschiedenis, pp. 449 ff.); cf. also Tiele in B.K.I., 1878, pp. 321-420. Rouffaer in B.K.I., 1899, pp. 119 ff.

v2.c14.t4.107

² Journ. Str. Br. R.A.S., Vol. 17 (1886), p. 130. T.B.G., Vol. 58 (1919), p. 426.

v2.c14.t4.108

The Portuguese have preserved some detailed accounts of one of these Javanese sea-lords on the coast. After the departure of Albuquerque, the Portuguese Admiral Perez d’Andrade had driven Pati Katir, a Javanese sea-lord, from the neighbourhood of Malacca, and forced him to proceed to Java. Pati Unus, chief of Japara, in Java, was an ally of Pati Katir, and, unaware of the defeat of the latter, he proceeded against Malacca with hundred ships mostly manned by Javanese from Palembang. Perez d’Andrade defeated this Javanese fleet after a heavy fight, but Pati Unus broke through the Portuguese line and safely reached his own country. He placed his ships on the sea-beach as a memorial to that fight. His brave deeds were talked about for long and he later became king of Demak.

v2.c14.t4.109

A few months later, a Portuguese ship, returning from Moluccas islands, was stranded on the Javanese coast near Tuban. A ship was sent out from Malacca to bring the goods, and its captain Joao Lopez Alvim was received in a friendly manner by Pati Unus at Siḍayu. Probably Pati Unus dared not act in a hostile manner as the Javanese king was a friend to the Portuguese. After the return of this ship, Ruy de Brito, the Portuguese governor of Malacca, wrote as follows to king Manuel in January, 1514 : “Java is a great island. It has two Kafir kings ; one, the king of Sunda, the other the king of Java. The sea-coast belongs to Moors, who are very powerful. Great merchants and nobles call themselves governors of these places. They are very rich and possess many ships. They always carry on trade with Malacca. Some of them are our friends, others very hostile.” This is the last definite mention of a Hindu king in Java.

v2.c14.t4.110

In 1515 the new Portuguese Governor of Malacca planned a punitive expedition against the Muhammadan chiefs of Javanese coast, viz. Pati Katir, Pati Unus, and Pati Rodien, but nothing is mentioned in this connection about the Hindu king in Java.

v2.c14.t4.111

But Barbosa, who wrote between 1516 and 1518 A.D., refers to the great Hindu king of Java, named Pate Udra, who was yet recognised as suzerain by the Muhammadan chiefs on the sea-coast. Barbosa expressly states that when any of these chiefs revolts, the king forcibly subdues him. It must be noted, however, that of late, great doubts have arisen regarding the authenticity of Barbosa’s account, and it is doubted whether his account is not merely borrowed from older books.

v2.c14.t4.112

The next account of Java we get from the writings of Pigafetta, an Italian sailor, who accompanied the Spanish captain Fernao de Magalhoes in his famous voyage of exploration in 1519 A.D. Pigafetta’s ship lay before the port of Timor from the end of January to the beginning of February, 1522, and we find the following entry in his journal: “The greatest cities in Java are these: Majapahit, whose king, when he lived, was the greatest of all these islands and was called Raja Pati Unus, Sunda,—in this grows much pepper—, Daha, Demak, Gajahmada, Mentaraman, Japara, Sidayu, Tuban, Gresik, Surabaya, and Bali.”

v2.c14.t4.113

Rouffaer concludes from the above account that Majapahit was till the last the centre of Hindu power in Java, and was conquered by the Muslim chief, Pati Unus, some time before 1522 A.D. There is, however, one difficulty. Barros says, in connection with the invasion of Malacca by Pati Unus, that this chief later became king of Sunda. Now, Henrique Leme found a Hindu chief in Sunda in 1522. It is, therefore, exceedingly improbable that Pati Unus, who died in the beginning of 1522, should have brought both Majapahit and Sunda under his control before his death. Rouffaer thinks that Barros wrongly wrote Sunda instead of Majapahit, and he therefore takes Pigafetta’s account as true.

v2.c14.t4.114

Krom, on the other hand, thinks that there is no reason to conclude that the mistake was necessarily on the part of Barros, and not of Pigafetta. He rather thinks that Barros, to whom historical documents were available, is more reliable than Pigafetta, who wrote his diary in a sea-port town, mainly from the oral evidence. All that we can definitely infer from Pigafetta’s statement is that there was no longer a king in Majapahit, but the existence of a Hindu king at some other place is not incompatible with Pigafetta’s statement.

v2.c14.t4.115

The *terminus ante quem* for the downfall of the Hindu kingdom of Java has been fixed by Krom at A.D. 1528, as in that year one Hindu chief Panarukan sent an agent on his own account to Malacca to establish friendly relations with that state. Krom thinks that this fact is incompatible with the existence of a central Hindu ruling authority in Java. Thus the fall of Majapahit, or rather of the Hindu authority in Java, may be dated between 1513, or 1515 (if we may believe in Barbosa’s account), and 1528 A.D.

v2.c14.t4.116

The Portuguese and other European accounts mentioned above thus give us a general outline of the course of events leading to the downfall of Majapahit. It appears that Islam at first made converts of the coastal chiefs, and these ultimately overthrew the central authority at Majapahit. If Rouffaer’s theory is provisionally accepted, as it appears to us very reasonable, we may conclude that this overthrow took place before 1522 A.D., and was mainly the work of Pati Unus, chief of Japara, evidently a Javanese coastal chief converted to Islam, who had already distinguished himself in daring naval fights against the Portuguese.

v2.c14.t4.117

From Java itself we possess no trustworthy records for the history of this period. There are only some native traditions which profess to give a detailed account of the Muslim conquest of Majapahit. While there is no doubt that they possess a kernel of historical truth, they are so full of improbable legends and fancies of supernatural character, that it is absolutely impossible to rely upon them as historical sources, except in a very general way. We give below a summary of these accounts.