Ancient Indian Colonies in the Far East (Vol. I: Champa; Vol. II: Suvarnadvipa) v2.c14.t6.4

v2.c14.t6.4

While there is no doubt that the details given in the above traditions, specially the dates¹, are untrustworthy, we may nevertheless trace some historical basis, so far as the general picture is concerned. Properly analysed, and divested of all unnecessary details, the two stories lead to the presumption that Islam was spreading, at first in the coastland, by way of commerce, and gradually in the interior, by marriage relations and other peaceful means. Thus we find that the dethroned Muslim chief of Pase, Zain-ul-Abedin, took refuge with the king of Java who was related to him. The royal family apparently also contained some converts to the new faith, and the story of the Cem queen may be a fact. By these means Islam got a firm hold on a number of chiefs, as well as members of royal family and high officials at court. When they felt themselves powerful enough, the members of the new faith naturally tried to oust the king as he steadily refused to give up his own religion. It seems to be almost certain, that the Hindu kingdom fell as a result of internal disruption brought on by the clash of religious beliefs, and not by any organised Muslim invasion from outside. The traditions even connect the new Muslim ruling dynasty with the old (for Raden Patah was the son of the king of Majapahit), but this may or may not be true. The episode of Girindravardhana also makes it extremely doubtful if Majapahit was still the chief seat of Hindu authority. Even if it were so, it is by no means certain that the fall of Majapahit meant the downfall of the Hindu authority in Java. The Sengguruh episode seems to show that even after the Hindu king had lost Majapahit, he held out for some time in the eastern part of Java, and only a second defeat compelled him to leave Java and seek shelter in Bali. The story of the destruction of Majapahit is also not borne out by facts. A copperplate, dated 1541 A. D., is expressly said to be written at Vilvatikta.¹ There is no valid reason to suppose that it refers to any place other than the famous city of that name, which, therefore, existed till at least the middle of the sixteenth century A. D. Of course, there is no doubt that having lost its political and commercial supremacy it gradually dwindled in importance.