MANORAMA WROTE, THE MAPPILAS ARE SAVAGES

Variyamkunnan A Cart Puller

In 1921, the fanaticism that marked the earlier Mappila outbreaks acquired a far more religious dimension with the nation wide Khilafat movement. Ironically,it took the form of a religiocommunal conflict. The Rebellion acquired a communal colour because of the leadership of Thangals and Musaliyars. The combination of religious appeals with poltics, created a volatile situation, highly susceptible to communalist propaganda.The reports in the print-media, reflect the communal cleavage within Malabar society.

C Gopalan Nair's Moplah Rebellion 1921 is a jouney through the news paper reports that appeared mainly in the English media.Abani Mukherji who interpreted and distorted it as the class war for the first time,turned to the reports of The Hindu and The Times,for facts.As a person who had been in journalism for 40 years,I can tell you that it is a profession that deals only with facts-it has corrective measures,when facts go wrong.Today's tendency among a large group of researchers in Kerala,is to misinterpret the factual reporting of 1921;it creates the impression that communalism is a sobriquet for communism.

The Rebellion caused an acrid narrative war of words within the print media, not only in Malabar but throughout the nation. The print media constructed the narratives of the victims. During the period between 1921-23, both vernacular and the English press regularly published reports on the Rebellion, depending upon the colonial official reports,as well as the victims who had sought asylum at Kozhikode.The Malayalam papers contained reports of Moplah outbreaks, the sources being the press communiqué issued by government , reports published by English newspapers,victim's versions and commentaries.Most of the reports of vernacular papers,presented the victim's version,while a few nationalist as well as pro-Khilafath muslim papers, presented the attacker's version.Nationalist papers had to resort to this,since Gandhi had painted the Khilafat as a national movement.

Among the newspapers, Malabar Islam, Swaraj and Muslim,were the mouth pieces for the Islam. Keralapatrika (Calicut), Malayala Manorama, Nazrani Deepika, and Yogakshemam used forceful language in their reports about the Rebellion.They wrote of the craftiness and cunningness of Mappilas. Some of the write-ups taunted the Hindus for their slavish mentality. Ellis, the Malabar Collector, convened a meeting of the editors of newspapers of Calicut in June 1922 to discuss the ways by which communal amity could be restored in Malabar( Malayala Manorama, 8th June, 1922. NMML, Delhi.).This meeting was attended by editors of Keralapatrika, Mitavadi, Reformer, Kerala Sanchari, Malabar Journal and Margadarsi while editors of Manorama and Spectator boycotted it.

Mathrubumi was started on 17 March 1923 and Al-Ameen in 1924. 

Yogakshemam, the official organ of Yogakshemasabha published a series of articles related to the Rebellion. In its editorial captioned Malabarile Chelakalapam, Yogaksehamam came to the conclusion that 'the rioters consisted of three distinct set of people, one set that wanted to fight the government, another set that was out to loot while a third set were religious fanatics who wished to convert as many as possible. The bulk of the rioters belonged to the second set'.( Yogakshemam, 2 September,1921, NMML, Delhi; FNR dated 10 September 1921, No.37, 1921, Home (General), p.289. TNA.) 

The paper was surprised that Hindu population of the disturbed areas could not offer any united resistance to Mappila rioters and called upon them to organise themselves for defense.This editorial traced the rebellion back to the time of Tipu Sultan in 18th century and hence the title Chelakalapam. Another editorial of the same paper commented:"'Everybody is busy in searching the cause of the revolt.There is no need to tell that Moplas need no cause for revolt".

R H Hitchcock,in the History of Malabar Rebellion,from first hand experience sas SP of Malappuram had reached the conclusion, that "the saddest part of the whole affair was its want of reason". We come across several instances of such convergence between vernacular press reports and colonial official narratives,beacuse they are the facts. M.P. Thuppan Nambudiri, in his article, 'Malabar Lahala' in Yogaksehmam, said: "from Tipu's invasion onwards, their [Mappila's] desire was to convert the whole Malayalis into Islam. It was the British which prevented them from materializing that and we owe a great deal to British for the same . . . . No more self rule is needed in Malabar. We have had enough of the taste of Mappila swaraj and their Khilafath".

Nazrani Deepika from Mannanam,also published reports on the Rebellion. Deepika reported that Mappilas under the veneer of non-co-operation, took the opportunity to loot and convert Hindus to their religion. To prove the vandalism of Mappila rebels, the paper reported that Mappilas entered the Trikandiyur temple and placed a copy of Quran inside the Srikovil (sanctum sanctorum).Congratulating the Magistrate E F Thomas for suppressing the rebellion, Deepika in its editorial commented, 'Thus even the Malabar Mappilas have received an experience of Swaraj and the flavour of Hindu-Muslim unity and a sense of the might of British government. May the British flag now continue to fly in all glory".( Nazrani Deepika, 2 September 1921, 9 September 1921, NMML, Delhi; FNR, 10 Sept. 1921, Home (General), p.352, TNA).

Extreme  language was used by 'Malabari', the South Malabar correspondent of Malayala Manorama, in covering the rebellion. He wrote, "It will be interesting to the readers to know that our Vasudeva Varmamaraja [Variyamkunnath Kunhamad Haji, the leader of the rebellion] who is Collector, Colonel and Governor [of Khilafath Raj] is infact a cart-puller . . . . It is heard that wife of Seethi Koya Thangal [another rebel leader] has eloped with someone and out of grief he is hiding in the forest'.( Malayala Manorama, 19 November 1921, NMML, Delhi.).

On another occasion, sarcastically, he commented: 'The Mopla Rebellion has brought name and fame to our district. Is it not a great honour to us that discussions about our district take place in our parliament".(Malayala Manorama, 8th December 1921, NMML, Delhi).

The Malabar correspondent of this paper,wrote: "Among this family of demons, the prominent ones – Sumali [Chemprasseri Thangal] and Malyavan [Seethi Koya Thangal] have been caught by the police. Only Mali [Kunhahammad Haji] who has done much Kurumalis [mischiefs] remains to be caught hold of . . . . These Thangals were mere Thongans [Impotents] and Moplas attribute Thungatha [fame] to them due to their fanatical spirit . . . . Among these wretched demons, Chempraseri ranks first for mutilating the Hindus alive'(Malayala Manorama, 29th December, 1921, NMML, Delhi).

Ali Musaliyar, a fundamentalist, was depicted in this vein by Kerala Patrika. The paper wrote, "This Musaliyar spoke that if one kills a Hindu, he can marry a houri [celestial beauty] in heaven"(Kerala Patrika, 5 September 1921.).

Malayala Manorama had reported on 25 August 1921 itself that the Mappilas had set fire to buildings and documents ,and looted weapons,cash and instruments.On August 30 it wrote that only two Britishers have been killed not in relation to rebellion:they were Inpector Reedman and Kalikavu Rubber Estate Manager S P Eton.When they shot Eton,they spared Kuttath Raman Nair,saying,they are targetting only Britishers ( Raman Nair's eyewitness account,The Hindu,14 September 1921).

The Thuvvur massacre of Hindus on 25 September was reported by Malayala manorama on 6 October 1921 and Deepika on 7 October:This had been an act of vengeance as in the case of the killing of Khan Bahadur Chekutty,the report said.The Hindus and Muslims of Thuvur village had informed the British.This infuriated the Mappilas.This gave anothe dimension to the revolt.It was not possible for the military to know the move of the mappilas without the ground support.The mappilas reached Thuvvur immediately after the military left.They massacred 34 Hindus and two mappilas and threw the dead bodies into a well.

That the report was published only after 11 days of the incident proves that the reporters had waited to cross check the facts.

Manorama wrote that it was a political blunder to have co-opted the quarelling Mappilas in the Khilafat,non co-operation movements (7 th,17th September,1921). "Mappila rebellion was the after effect of politicizing the Mappilas.Teaching the non co-operation lessons to the fanatic Muslims was like igniting the fire arms"( Malayala Manorama,30 August 1921;Sathyanadham,27 August).

Concluding his long article titled 'Jonakappada' in Malayala Manorama, Moorkoth Kumaran,who belonged to a Thiya noble family of Thalassery, made an observation regarding the measures for prevention of such outbreaks in future. He observed, "In this background two remedies are possible – crush the fanaticism of Mappilas or make Hindus equally fanatic"(Malayala Manorama, 17 September 1921, NMML, Delhi).

While compulsory primary education through common school could wipe out Mappila fanaticism, the latter could be achieved only through the unity of Hindus. He added:"'And in the meantime the Hindus must have fanatism. There should be unity among them. They have to be vigilant and purge out the Mopla phobia . . .. Do you think that so long as Hindus live in unity and harmony, the Moplas will dare to rebel or try to convert Hindus? Caste distinction alone is the cause of this disunity'.( Malayala Manorama, 17th September 1921, NMML, Delhi.)Following the pattern of colonial narratives, Malayala Manorama, in another article traced the cause of the rebellion to the inherent character of Mappilas. The article says, 'These Mappilas, who are of Arab descent, are notorious for their bigotry and blood thirstiness "(Malayala Manorama, 20 September 1921, NMML, Delhi).

Malayala Manorama opined that "fanaticism and hot-temperance were prevalent among Mappilas of other parts of Kerala but only when they got the support of South Malabar Mappilas, they showed the courage to make furcas".( Malayala Manorama, 18 September 1921, NMML, Delhi).

The English papers were pro-Government and as such they presented their most authoritative accounts of the rebellion. The West Coast Reformer, an English paper from Calicut, published a lead article regarding the rebellion. On  October 1921, the paper wrote:

"More than six weeks have passed by since the declaration by Mopla fanatics of Malabar of Jihad in the name of Khilafath. Ali-Musaliyar, the first Sulthan appointed in Tirurangadi mosque has surrendered . . . and stands in the dock with his lean hungry look facing his trial for the greatest offence . . .. The robber chieftain Variamkunnath Kunhahamed Hajee, is still at large perpetrating the cruellest deeds of savagery on the Hindu population. The criminal impudence and effrontery with which this uncrowned king of Nilambur imposes his will upon the trembling Hindus, reminds one of the marauding chieftains of the Robber hordes of Spanish Sierras … Beheading, the common game of oriental despots, is freely visited by this freebooter on Hindus of uncompromising faith without least compuction . . . . The interior of Ernad and Walluvanad taluks are still shivering with dread for this inhuman wretch and his compeer Chembrasseri Thangal".

Though Mathrubhumi was started only in 1923, two years after the Rebellion, umpteen articles and editorials dealing with Rebellion appeared in it during 1923 and 1924. In the year of its inception itself, K. Madhavan Nair,the editor and the Congress leader, wrote a series of articles examining the cause and course of the Rebellion. In one such article which elaborately deals with the fanaticism of Mappilas, he said: "The Mopla right from his childhood hears the songs that extols the martyrs died for the cause of religion and it generates wild desires in him. Or else, he hears about the case of apostasy and believes that he, who does not prevent such disgrace to religion, is outside its fold. In this matter, though Islam forbids forcible conversion, he follows the footsteps of Tipu Sulthan, not that of Prophet Mohamed and kills the Hindus indiscriminately"( K. Madhavan Nair, "Hindu-Muslim Relations" in Mathrubhumi, 24 May, 1923).

In another article of the same series Madhavan Nair wrote, "If Nairs, Thiyyas and Cherumas were united, they could have resisted the Mappila rebels. But due to age-old oppression of Nairs by Nambudiris, of Thiyyas by Nairs and of Cherumas by Thiyyas, the lower orders of Hinduism felt happy over the difficulties caused by the Rebellion to the higher castes'.(Mathrubhumi, 1 May, 1923.)

Murkoth Kumaran

The editorial of Mathrubhumi of May 26, 1923 said:" If the Hindus had the same reverence to their temples as the Muslims had to their mosques, this much of temples would not have been destroyed in the Rebellion zone. It would have been a matter of pride to Hindu community, if a single Hindu was hurt in the attempt to defend the sanctity of his temple"( Mathrubhumi, 26 May, 1923.)

Mathrubhumi in its editorial, countering the allegation of The Muslim, a Muslim journal, reiterated its secular stand and stated that "if a letter is not published in the paper, it is being considered as debasement of a community. We used to get articles written by Nairs,Nambudiris, Nambisans and Mappilas. It is not by considering the caste or creed of the writer, that articles are published in Mathrubhumi".( Mathrubhumi, 25 March, 1924).

The articles and editorials of Mathrubhumi triggered a controversy among the leaders of the Congress and a group under Mohamed Abdurahiman and Moidu Moulavi wrote a series of articles in Al-Ameen, a nationalist paper from Calicut, attacking the anti-Muslim tone of such articles( E. Moidu Moulavi, Charithrachinthakal, Calicut, 1981, p.45.).

Vidwan T.K. Raman Menon, who had served as sub-editor in Al-Ameen, observed:"The relation between Mathrubhumi and Al-Ameen was not smooth. Overtly or covertly, Al-Ameen indulged in countering the editorials and misinterpreting the ideals of Mathrubhumi. I could not see any reciprocity or unity existing between these two nationalist dailies during that period".(S.K. Pottekkat et al. (ed.), Mohammad Abdurahiman (Mal.), Memorial Committee, Calicut, 1978, pp.145-146).

Due to this controversy that Madhavan Nair abruptly stopped publishing the remaining parts of the articles. Later, these articles were collected and published in a book form titled Malabar Kalapam in 1971 by his wife Kalyani Amma. About this book, Moidu Moulavi,who had made communal speeches during Khilafat movement, remarked that "it only helped to strengthen the anti-Muslim sentiments among Hindus and it was a fierce arrow aimed at the Mappila community ... Any Hindu who read this work with an objective mind would turn to be a staunch enemy of Mappilas"( E. Moidu Moulavi, op. cit., pp.46-47.)

Madhavan Nair in his book, traced the root of the rebellion back to Tipu, who not only caused many a hardship to Hindus of Malabar but became the guru (preceptor) of later Mappila revolts(K. Madhavan Nair, Mappila Kalapam, Mathrubhumi Publishers, Calicut, 1971, p.15).

In its editorial of 18 January 1935, titled Mathrubhumikku Mathamilla ('Mathrubhumi has no religion') the paper stated, "To Mathrubhumi both Hinduism and Islam are alike . . . we don't consider it a sin either embracing or deserting a particular religion. Al-Ameen has to understand that K Kelappan is not an Arya Samajist."( Mathrubhumi, 18 January 1935).

Kerala Chandrika, a pro-Khilafat muslim journal wrote: "The government have been trying to disprove the tenets of their religion and injuring their leaders and the inglorious collector of Malabar with a military force entered the holy mosques and stirred the ire of the community. If, while the revered Malappuram Thangal, one of the heads of their religion was praying in the mosque that the holy temple of God should be surrendered by military, which Mohammedan could keep still?" (Kerala Chandrika, 29th August 1921. Also see Fortnightly Report, No.36, 1921, Home (General), p.244. TNA).

K Madhavan Nair

The Muslim ( 28 September 1922) and Kerala Chandrika (2 October 1922) published an article 'Condition of Muslim Women in Malabar' which narrated exaggerated stories about the atrocities committed by Hindus on Mappila women.Muslim Sahakari, another muslim journal also believed that "there was truth in the allegation of Hindu atrocities on helpless Mappila women in the area".(Muslim Sahakari, Calicut, 5 October 1922, MNNPR, 1922, TNA.)

Kerala Chandrika in an article to stir up the wealthy muslims to a sense of their duty towards afflicted muslims in Malabar said, "At night some police officers and their attendants come riding on the white horse [Fully drunk-Tr] and begin to outrage the chastity of helpless muslim women! Who is there to attend to the wretchedness of these poor people?"( Kerala Chandrika, 24 July 1922, MNNPR, 1922, TNA.)

A note in the same paper in 1921 opined that the reports about Mopla's looting Hindu houses, was altogether unfounded, that absolute falsehood against the Muslims were published in English-owned papers.( F.N.R. No. 36, 1921, Home Administration, p.245, TNA.)

Referring to the plight of Hindus in Malabar during the Rebellion, Dr.B S Moonje,Hindu Maha Sabha leader, in his article in Indian Social Reformer (Bombay) wrote, "With us [Hindus] it is a serious problem of scientific investigation into our sociology to find out the causes of such helplessness and unpreparedness of Hindus to defend their homes and women folk . . . Division and hatred have made us cowardly and slavish"(The Indian Social Reformer, Bombay, 26 March 1922, NMML, Delhi).

Malayala Manorma replied to Muslim allegations: "it is to be regretted that Muslim papers in Bombay and Punjab are publishing reports about the vandalism of Hinduism in Malabar. They report that, in the absence of male Mappilas in South Malabar, the Hindus are consternating the Mopla orphans and raping their mothers"(Malayala Manorama, 7 October 1922, NMML Delhi.).

Gandhi,in repentece, stated that "Moplas were never particularly friendly to the Malabar Hindus. They had looted them before. Their notions of Islam were of a very crude type (Gandhi, Collected Works, Vol.21)

Gandhi wrote to the editor of Vishala Keralam (Madras), "How to reach the Moplas as also the class of Hindus whom you would want to reach through your news paper, is more than I can say, but I know that Hindus should cease to be cowardly. The Moplas should cease to be cruel. In other words each party should become truly religious" ( Gandhi, Collected Works, Vol. 23 ).

The impact was not over even after 18 years.In 1939,Mathrubumi in its editorial titled, 'Communalism in the garb of Nationalism' wrote, "However, certain Muslim congress men held an exclusive meeting under the banner of Kerala Muslim National party to discuss the matter [secret circular issue]. To hold a communal meeting to discuss a common issue may be due to the fact that ( Muhammad) Abdurahiman is a Muslim. What will be the future of congress, if a communal group is formed within it... The Hindus, Muslims and the Christians within the congress have to be ready to address common issues without communal biases."(Mathrubhumi, 8 April 1939.)

_______________________________

NMML:Nehru Memorial Museum and Library

TNA:Tamilnadu Archives

© Ramachandran 

MARUTHANAYAGAM-CONVERSION AS OPPORTUNISM

He Had Captured Puli Thevar Too

“The mutiny in Meerut, which many claim as India’s first war of Independence, took place in 1857. However, almost a 100 years before that rebellion broke out, Marudhanayagam took on the British. To stop him, the British had to spend an amount that is almost on par with the amount that the US had to spend to vanquish Saddam Hussein in recent times",said Kamal Haasan on Marudhanayagam,while he was on a project on the so called hero.

Marudhanayagam,was Muhammad Yusuf Khan thoughout his mature life.So why the movie is titled Maruthanayagam?To appease the Hindus?

The British had his body dismembered and his body parts displayed on the principal gateways of the city of Madura for a while before despatching it to various other places as a warning to others who might harbour thoughts of rebellion against them.

Kamal had shot 30 minutes of the film and two hours were left.His then wife Sarika was the costume designer.But why Kamal shelved his dream project?As a political analyst,I infer that the movie,if made would be in hot waters,because Marudhanayagam,a Vellala Pillai,had got converted into Islam,and for long years in his life,he was Muhammad Yusuf Khan.He is not a hero of Hindus,neither of the Tamils.For people of Travancore,he was a brabarian,who looted the state every season.

His life is a contrast to the life of Chempaka Raman Pillai,the modern day anti British warrior,who never changed loyalities,unlike Marudhanayagam-It is better Kamal do a film on Chempaka Raman Pillai.

There are different accounts and versions on Marudhanayagam, but one of the most extensively researched accounts happens to be by an Englishman called Samuel Charles Hill.Hill, in his book on Marudhanayagam tilted Yusuf Khan, The Rebel Commandant, says Marudhanayagam was born a Hindu at Pannaiyur in Ramnad district and that he ran away from home as a boy. Later, he converted to Islam and took the name Muhammad Yusuf aafter which he seems to have entered the services of a couple of Europeans.

Yusuf Khan tomb

Yusuf seems to have rendered  service, both as a military general and as an administrator. From the time he provided security to the convoys bringing supplies to the forts at Tirunelveli to the countless victories he won for the British, his services were ubiquitous. As a result, he was appointed Governor of Madurai and Tinnevelly. Yusuf Khan (1725 – 15 October 1764) or Maruthanayagam Pillai (correctly Mathuranayagam Pillai) was born in Panaiyur, Ramanathapuram District, Tamil Nadu, India in 1725. From humble beginnings, he became a warrior in the Arcot troops, later Commandant for the British East India Company troops. The British and the Arcot Nawab used him to suppress the Polygars (Palayakkarar) in the south of Tamil Nadu. Later he was entrusted to administrating the Madurai country when the Madurai Nayaks rule ended. Later a dispute arose with the British and Arcot Nawab, and three of his associates were bribed to capture Yusuf Khan; he was hanged in 1764 in Madurai.

Polygar (also spelled Palegara, Palaiyakkarar, Poligar, Palegaadu, Palegar, or Polegar, or Paalegaadu was the feudal title for a class of territorial administrative and military governors appointed by the Valmiki Nayaka rulers of Southern India (notably Vijayanagara Empire, Madurai Nayakas and the Kakatiya dynasty) during the 16th–18th centuries.

The Polygars of Madurai Country were instrumental in establishing administrative reforms by building irrigation projects, forts and religious institutions. The Polygars who worshipped the goddess Kali did not allow their territory to be annexed by Aurangzeb.

Their wars with the British East India Company after the demise of the Madurai Nayakas is often regarded as one of the earliest struggles for Indian independence. The British hanged many and banished others to the Andaman Islands. Dheeran Chinnamalai, Veerapandya Kattabomman, Maveeran Alagumuthu Kone, Puli Thevar, the Marudu brothers and Uyyalawada Narasimha Reddy were some notable Polygars who rose up in revolt against the British rule in Southern India. The war against the British forces predates the Indian rebellion of 1857 in Northern India.

Maruthanayagam Pillai (or Mathuranayagam Pillai) alias Yusuf Khan was born circa 1725  in a Hindu farming family of Saiva Vellalar caste.Being too restless in his youth, he left his native village, and converted to Islam. To make a living, he served as a domestic hand at the residence of the French Governor Monsr Jacques Law in Pondicherry. It was here he befriended another French, Marchand (a subordinate of Jacques Law), who later became captain of the French force under Yusuf Khan in Madurai. Whether Yusuf Khan was dismissed from this job or left on his own is unclear. He left Pondicherry, for Tanjore and joined the Tanjorean army as a sepoy (foot soldier).

Around this time, an English captain named Brunton educated Yusuf Khan, making him a learned man well-versed in several languages. From Tanjore he moved to Nellore (in present day Andhra Pradesh), to try his hand as a native physician under Mohammed Kamal, in addition to his career in the army. He moved up the ranks as Thandalgar (tax collector), Havildar and finally as a Subedar and that is how he is referred to in the English records ('Nellore Subedar' or just 'Nellore'). He later enlisted under Chanda Sahib who was then the Nawab of Arcot. While staying in Arcot he fell in love with a 'Portuguese' Christian (a person of mixed Indo-European descent) girl named Maasa (?Marsha /?Marcia), and married her.

In 1751, there was an ongoing scuffle between Muhammed Ali Khan Wallajah, (who was the son of the previous Nawab of Arcot Anwaruddin Muhammed Khan hence the rightful claimant) and Chanda Sahib his relative and a pretender, for the throne of Arcot. The former sought the help of British and the latter the French. Chanda Sahib initially succeeded and became the Nawab, forcing Muhammed Ali to escape to the rock-fort in Tiruchirapalli. Chanda Sahib followed and with the help of the French, besieged Trichy. Muhammed Ali and the English force supporting him were in a grim position.

 

 Robert Clive, (who had earlier joined the East India Company as a writer) with a small English force of 300 soldiers made a diversionary attack on Arcot to draw away Chanda Sahib's army from Trichy. Chanda Sahib dispatched a 10,000 strong force under his son Raza Sahib to retake Arcot. Raza Sahib was aided by the Nellore Army and Yusuf Khan as a Subedar must have been in this force. At Arcot, and later at Kaveripakkam, Chanda Sahib’s son was badly defeated by Robert Clive, and it was now Chanda Sahib's turn to escape to Tanjore where he was killed by Mankoji, a Tanjorean general. The English quickly installed Muhammed Ali as the Nawab of Arcot and most of Chanda Sahib's native forces defected to the English.

Madurai during Yusuf Khan

Yusuf Khan's military career started during the Carnatic Wars. Under Major Stringer Lawrence, Yusuf Khan was trained in the European method of warfare and his natural talent in military tactics and strategy blossomed to its full potential.Over the next decade, as the Company fought the French in the Wars of the Carnatic, it was Yusuf Khan's guerrilla tactics, repeatedly cutting the French lines of supply, that did the French in, particularly during Lally's siege of Madras in 1758.Thomas Arthur Lally was to later describe the role of the Nellore Subedar's sepoys in these words: "They were like flies, no sooner beat off from one part, they came from another.

His greatest supporter during this period was George Pigot, the English governor in Madras. 

George Pigot

In March 1956 Yusuf Khan was sent to Madurai to collect taxes and restore order. But during that time Madurai was under control of one Barkadthullah of Chanda Sahib days, with the support of Hyder Ali of Mysore. During this time an old Fakir climbed the top of the Madurai Meenakshi Temple and was preparing to build a dargah for himself, which angered the locals. Barkadthullah justifying the Fakirs attempts further added fuel to the fire. During this time Yusuf Khan arrived with little as 400 troops to take control of Madurai, showing his brilliance in defeating Barkadthullah’s large army, with Barkadthullah fleeing to Sivaganga Zamin and the Fakir, got whacked out of the town.

Once again Yusuf reached Madurai on May 20, 1759, only to find the place in total chaos. He is believed to have restored order swiftly and was able to remit his rent regularly. 

Puli Thevar statue in  Nerkattumseval

During this time Yusuf Khan battled with Puli Thevar, (pronounced Pooli Thevar; the correct full name was 'Pooludaiya Thevar' or in short 'Poolu Thevar') a polygar of Nerkattumseval(Original Name was Nelkettaanseval), a small town to the south-west of Madurai. Puli Thevar was rebelling against the Nawab and the British. Yusuf Khan quickly separated Travancore Raja from Puli Thevar's group after entering into an agreement. Yusuf Khan captured several of Puli Thevar's forts which were earlier tried unsuccessfully by the British. Later in a battle Puli Thevar was captured by Yusuf Khan, however Puli Thevar disappeatred in Sankarankovil (some believe he disappeared in Sankarankovil Gomathi Ambal Sannithi ). It is believed that Puli Thevar  escaped to regions of Hyderabad Deccan along with his followers where he was planned to be hanged. Puli Thevar remains a legend in the area and no further details about him is available.

Hill in his book points out that apart from remitting his rent regularly, Yusuf Khan managed to create and equip a force with which he could take on the combined forces of the Nawab and the British.

Reports of Yusuf Khan's victories  filled the Arcot Nawab with jealousy and alarm that he might depose him. Yusuf Khan  instructed all the traders to render taxes directly to him, while the Arcot Nawab wanted to have taxes routed through him. The British Governor Pigot diplomatically advised Yusuf Khan to do as per Arcot Nawab’s order, also some British traders supported the same citing Yusuf Khan as Nawab’s employee. To make matters worse the Nawab’s brother Mahfuz Khan started planning to poison Yusuf Khan, with the whole hearted support of the Nawab.

In 1761, and again in 1762,Yusuf Khan  offered to lease Tinnevelly and Madurai for four years more at seven lakhs per annum. His offer was refused, and whether he was enraged at this, or whether he thought himself powerful enough to defy his masters, he shortly afterwards threw off his allegiance and began to collect troops in an ambition to be the lord of Madurai.

Charles Hill book 

Around this time some British traders reported  to the Nawab and the Company, on Yusuf Khan "as encouraging people with anti-British sentiments, spending vast sums on his troops”. Nawab, in turn with the British sent Captain Manson with orders to arrest Yusuf Khan.

Yusuf Khan sent a note to Sivaganga Zamindari reminding them on their pending Tax arrears.Sivaganga’s Minister and General came to meet Yusuf Khan in Madurai, and after not getting their expected respect, got a rude warning, citing annexure of certain territories for the failure of arrears. The enraged Sivaganga Zamindar, immediately ordered Yusuf Khan to be “captured and hanged as like a dog”. Ramnad Zamin’s general Damodar Pillai and Thandavarayan Pillai met the Arcot Nawab in Trichy,complained on Yusuf Khan’s plunderings of Sivaganga villages, his cannon manufacturing plant in association with a certain French Marchaud, whom he a befriended earlier, with plans for a war against the Nawabs.

Arcot Nawab and the British quickly acted by amassing a huge army. For a start they aroused Travancore Raja against Yusuf Khan.In the ensuring battle the Travancore Raja was defeated and the British flags in his domains were chopped and burnt, and joined hands with the French and also hoisted the French flag on the Madurai Fort. When Governor Thomas Saunders in Madras called Khan for a meeting, he refused evoking the wrath of the East India Company.Delhi’s Shah and Nizam Ali of Hyderabad, the Arcot Nawab’s overlords proclaimed Yusuf Khan as the rightful legal governor of Madurai and Tirunelveli regions. Arcot Nawab along with the British was hell bent on finding a reason to capture and kill Yusuf Khan.

Yusuf Khan had enemies lurking around him everywhere. Earlier working for the Arcot Nawab and British he earned the wrath of Mysore, and had slaughtered most of all rebellious Polygars who were anti-British, and the remaining were on the prowl. Now the Tanjore, Travancore, Pudukkotai, Ramnad, Sivaganga kingdoms joined with the British and the Arcot Nawab to attack Yusuf Khan, who by this time had proclaimed himself independent ruler of Madurai and Tirunelveli. In the First siege of Madurai in 1763, the English could not make any headway because of inadequate forces and the army retreated to Tiruchi citing Monsoons.

Nizam Ali of Hyderabad once again proclaimed Yusuf Khan as the Rightful governor, while the Arcot Nawab and the British issued death sentence for Yusuf Khan as “to be captured alive and hanged before the first known tree as like a dog”.

In 1764 again the British troops surrounded the Madurai Fort, this time cutting supplies to the fort.Yusuf Khan and his troops went without food and water for several days inside the fort,surviving on horse and monkey meat according to European sources,but held on with great energy and skill, renovating and strengthening the fort at great expense, and repelling the chief assault with a loss of 120 Europeans including nine officers,killed and wounded. At the end of that time little real progress against him had been made, except that the place was now rigorously blockaded.

The Arcot Nawab consulted Sivaganga General Thaandavaraaya Pillai, along with Major Charles Campbell, hatching a  plot to bribe Yusuf khan’s Dewan Srinivasa Rao, Marchand the captain of the French mercenaries and Khan’s doctor Baba Sahib. One morning, when Yusuf Khan was offering his prayers inside the fort, Marchand, Srinivasa Rao and Baba sahib went in quietly and pinned Yusuf Khan to the ground and tied him up using his own turban. Hearing this commotion, one youth called Mudali, close to Yusuf Khan, raised an alarm. He was quickly caught and cut down. As the news of the coup reached Yusuf Khan's wife, she rushed to the scene with a small posse of troops. But they were helpless against the well armed French and other European mercenaries, standing guard around the fallen ruler. Under cover of darkness and an even darker veil of secrecy, Marchand whisked away Yusuf Khan out of the fort and handed him over to Major Charles Campbell, who commanded the English among the besiegers. The major part of Yusuf Khan's native forces remained totally unaware of the fateful drama that had been enacted inside his house.

The next day, in the evening of 15 October 1764, near the army camp at Sammattipuram, on the Madurai- Dindigul road, Yusuf Khan was ignominiously hanged as a rebel by Muhammed Ali Khan Wallajah, the Nawab of Arcot. This place is about two miles to the west of Madurai, known as Dabedar Chandai (Shandy), and his body was buried at the spot.

What motives forced the three main conspirators, who were Yusuf Khan's close confidantes, to betray him? It is said that Yusuf Khan had once flogged Marchand with a whip (the first time a European officer had been whipped by a native ruler) and so he was waiting for an opportune time to take revenge. It is also possible that extreme misery of the people and soldiers inside the fort  might have forced the Dewan Srinivasa Rao and Baba Sahib, the physician of Yusuf Khan to decide that handing Yusuf Khan over to the English, would make them lift the siege and relieve the people of their intense agony and suffering.

Records show that the British tried to hang yusuf Khan thrice and twice the rope broke.Twice the noose broke down and he fell down alive, for which Yusuf Khan ordered the troops to remove a neck brace before hanging.The agitated Nawab ordered his men to chop his body into several parts and place them all over his domains. As went his head to Tiruchirappalli ,arms to Palayamkottai, legs to Tanjore and Travancore for public viewing and later buried at Periyakulam city near Madurai. The remaining body was buried at Madurai.In 1808, a small square mosque was erected over the tomb in Samattipuram, in Madurai, which exists to this day on the left of the road to Theni, at Kaalavaasal, a little beyond the toll-gate, and is known as 'Khan Sahib's pallivasal'. 

Hill's book sums up his life with this quote: “Of Yusuf Khan, there now remains only a little white mosque, a street in Madura known to the people by his name though officially it bears another designation and a fast fading memory of one who, though he died a rebel, had been a gallant and skilful soldier...."

Why Yusuf Khan got converted in the first place? We can only guess based on his other actions and the signs of those times. Between the fall of the Nayak Kingdoms and British take over, Tamil Nadu was total mess, with Arcot, Mysore, Palayakaras, Travancore, French, British, Dutch, Zamindars and all trying to feast on the pieces.

Each bent on betraying the other, making and breaking alliances turns and twists.

Yusuf Khan reminds us of the Condottieri ,mercenary adventurer captains, who switched allegiances by the day. French today, tomorrow Arcot. Day after the British-always looking to make money and aggrandize himself.

For such a person, faith is also matter of convenience. Being a Hindu in those tumultuous times would not have been any advantage and given his colour, Europeans hardly are going to accept him as one of his own.

Condottieri were Italian captains contracted to command mercenary companies during the Middle Ages and multinational armies during the early modern period. They notably served European monarchs and Popes during the Italian Wars of the Renaissance and the European Wars of Religion. Notable condottieri include Prospero Colonna, Giovanni dalle Bande Nere, Cesare Borgia, Andrea Doria, the Duke of Parma, and the Marquis of Pescara.

The term condottiero in medieval Italian originally meant "contractor", given that the condotta was the contract by which the condottieri put themselves in the service of a city or of a lord, but became a synonym of "military leader" during the Renaissance and Reformation era. Some authors have described Guido da Landriano (the real figure behind the legendary Alberto da Giussano) as the "first condottiero" and Napoleon Bonaparte (in virtue of his Italian origins) as the "last condottiero". According to this view, the condottieri tradition would span a huge diverse period from the battle of Legnano in 1176 to the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. Most historians would narrow it down to the years from c.1350 to c.1650, with a particular focus on the rise of the commanders of free companies (capitani di ventura) and their transformation into captain generals fighting for the major powers during the struggle for political and religious supremacy in Europe.

In 1494, the French king Charles VIII's royal army invaded the Italian peninsula, initiating the Italian Wars. The most renowned condottieri fought for foreign powers: Gian Giacomo Trivulzio abandoned Milan for France, while Andrea Doria was Admiral of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. In the end, failure was political, rather than military, stemming from disunity and political indecision, and, by 1550, the military service condotta had disappeared, while the term condottiere remained current, denominating the great Italian generals (mainly) fighting for foreign states; men such as Gian Giacomo Medici, Ambrogio Spinola, Alexander Farnese, Marcantonio II Colonna, Raimondo Montecuccoli and Prospero Colonna were prominent into the sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries. The political practice of hiring foreign mercenaries, however, did not end. For example, the Vatican’s Swiss Guards are the modern remnants of a historically effective mercenary army.

The end of the Thirty Years' War in 1648 and the birth of Westphalian sovereignty diminished Roman Catholic influence in Europe and led to the consolidation of large states, while Italy was fragmented and divided. The condottieri tradition greatly suffered the political and strategic decline of Italy and never recovered.

Portrait of a condottiero by Ermanno Stroiffi

Contrast Yusuf Khan with Puli Thevan.Puli Thevar, one of Yusuf Khan’s enemies, fought for his own heritage, land and freedom and died for it.Puli Thevan was a Tamil Polygar who ruled Nerkattumseval, situated in the Sankarankoil taluk, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu. He is notable for fighting against the imperial British rule in India.Puli Thevar was born in the Maravar community in Puli Nadu, a part of Pandya Nadu.Venni Kaladi, was the general of Puli Thevar's army.

Yusuf Khan’s loyalties changed by the hour. Finally he grew too large for his boots and the same Nawabs and Colonials who aided his growth, ganged up on him and killed him.

He is not worthy of any honour, just because he was eventually killed by India’s oppressors.

While an adventurer’s story would be an exciting read/movie, Kamal Haasan maybe trying to make him into  some kind of an oppressed lower caste hero who rebels against his society, converts and fights against oppression. That is just hijacking an opportunist for his own agendas.

Going to the other conversion,Yusuf Khan had married a christian.

The Catholic Mission in North Arcot dates back to 1604. 

The last great prince of the declining Vijayanagar empire (now in Andhra Pradesh), Venkatapathy Deva Rayalu, conquered the kingdom of Vellore in January 1604 and named it Raya Elluru. Elapuri or Elluru in Telugu language would mean city or town. Raya Elluru was meant a town conquered by the king Rayalu and thus the town was named after him - combination of two words Raya and Elapuri.

There were then some Jesuit Fathers at the court of King Rayalu at Chandragiri. He took them also to his new court at Vellore. The word Vellore derives from the Tamil word ‘Vel’ which means 'spear'; according to another conjecture there were idols of Tamil God ‘Murugan’ holding ‘Vel’ in and around Vellore. Vellore was formerly called Velappadi (a place thickly surrounded by a particular tree called ‘Velamaram’) and for this reason and background the name Vellore came into existence. 

Ancient Jesuit documents show that among these Jesuits, there was one named Fr. Antonious Rubunus, a preacher and confessor, who was commuting between Chandragiri and Vellore. He was sent to Japan on 12th August 1642. On 22nd March 1643 he was killed at Nagasaki.

In 1610, there was a general upheaval against the Jesuits,because of persecution.It was due to the dishonourable conduct of the Jesuits that their residences both at Chandragiri and at Vellore were suppressed by a Royal order of the king Philip III of Spain and Portugal in 1611.

© Ramachandran 

THERE WAS A TEMPLE WHERE BABRI MASJID STOOD

Excavations Proved It

The history of the excavations at Ayodhya proves beyond doubt that the Babri  Masjid was built after destroying a pre existing temple.The court verdicts have recognized the findings.Here is the c complete story:

In 1862-63, Alexander Cunningham, the founder of Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), conducted a survey of Ayodhya. Cunnigham identified Ayodhya with Sha-chi mentioned in Fa-Hien’s writings, Visakha mentioned in Xuanzang’s writings and Saketa mentioned in Hindu-Buddhist legends. According to him, Gautama Buddha spent six years at this place. Although Ayodhya is mentioned in several ancient Hindu texts, Cunningham found no ancient structures in the city. According to him, the existing temples at Ayodhya were of relatively modern origin. Referring to legends, he wrote that the old city of Ayodhya must have been deserted after the death of Brihadbala “in the great war” around 1426 BCE. When King Vikramāditya of Ujjain visited the city around first century CE, he constructed new temples at the spots mentioned in Ramayana. Cunningham believed that by the time Xuanzang visited the city in 7th century, Vikramaditya’s temples had “already disappeared”; the city was a Buddhist centre, and had several Buddhist monuments. Cunningham’s main objective in surveying Ayodhya was to discover these Buddhist monuments.

In 1889-91, an ASI team led by Alois Anton Führer conducted another survey of Ayodhya. Führer did not find any ancient statues, sculptures or pillars that marked the sites of other ancient cities. He found “a low irregular mass of rubbish heaps”, from which material had been used for building the neighbouring Muslim city of Faizabad. The only ancient structures found by him were three earthen mounds to the south of the city: Maniparbat, Kuberparbat and Sugribparbat. Cunningham identified these mounds with the sites of the monasteries described in Xuanzang’s writings. 

Like Cunningham, Führer also mentioned the legend of the Ramayana-era city being destroyed after death of Brihadbala, and its rebuilding by Vikramaditya. He wrote that the existing Hindu and Jain temples in the city were modern, although they occupied the sites of the ancient temples that had been destroyed by Muslims. The five Digambara Jain temples had been built in 1781 CE to mark the birth places of five tirthankaras, who are said to have been born at Ayodhya. A Svetambara Jain temple dedicated to Ajitanatha was built in 1881. Based on local folk narratives, Führer wrote that Ayodhya had three Hindu temples at the time of Muslim conquest: Janmasthanam (where Rama was born), Svargadvaram (where Rama was cremated) and Treta-ke-Thakur (where Rama performed a sacrifice). 

According to Führer, Mir Khan built the Babri mosque at the place of Janmasthanam temple in 930 AH (1523 CE). He stated that many columns of the old temple had been utilized by the Muslims for the construction of Babri mosque: these pillars were of black stone, called kasauti by the natives. Führer also wrote that Aurangzeb had built now-ruined mosques at the sites of Svargadvaram and Treta-ke-Thakur temples. A fragmentary inscription of Jayachandra of Kannauj, dated to 1241 Samvat (1185 CE), and a record of a Vishnu temple’s construction were recovered from Aurangazeb’s Treta-ke-Thakur mosque, and kept in Faizabad museum.

The team of archaeologists of the ASI, led by former Director-General ASI (1968–1972), B.B. Lal in 1975–76, worked on a project titled “Archaeology of Ramayana Sites”, which excavated five Ramayana-related sites of Ayodhya, Bharadwaj Ashram, Nandigram, Chitrakoot and Shringaverapura. At Ayodhya, the team found rows of pillar-bases which must have belonged to a larger building than the Babri Mosque. In 2003 statement to the Allahabad High Court, Lal stated that after he submitted a seven-page preliminary report to the Archaeological Survey of India, mentioning the discovery of “pillar bases”, immediately south of the Babri mosque structure in Ayodhya. Subsequently, all technical facilities were withdrawn, and despite repeated requests, the project wasn’t revived for another 10–12 years, despite his repeated request. Thus the final report was never submitted, the preliminary report was only published in 1989, and in Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR) volume on historicity of Ramayana and Mahabharat. Subsequently, in his 2008 book, Rama: His Historicity Mandir and Setu, he wrote, “Attached to the piers of the Babri Masjid, there were twelve stone pillars, which carried not only typical Hindu motifs and mouldings, but also figures of Hindu deities. It was self-evident that these pillars were not an integral part of the Masjid, but were foreign to it.”

B. B. Lal’s team also had K. K. Muhammed, who in his autobiography claimed that Hindu temple was found in excavation and said that left historians are misleading the Muslim communities by aligning with fundamentalists.

Accordingly, archaeological findings of burnt bases of pillars made of brick, a few metres from the mosque, indicated that a large temple stood in alignment with the Babri Mosque since the 11th century. In a trench at a distance of four metres south of the mosque, parallel rows of pillar-foundations made of brick-bats and stones were found.

In July 1992, eight eminent archaeologists (among them former ASI directors, Dr. Y.D. Sharma and Dr. K.M. Srivastava) went to the Ramkot hill to evaluate and examine the findings. These findings included religious sculptures and a statue of Vishnu. They said that the inner boundary of the disputed structure rests, at least on one side, on an earlier existing structure, which “may have belonged to an earlier temple”. (Indian Express, 4 July 1992.) The objects examined by them also included terracotta Hindu images of the Kushan period (100-300 AD) and carved buff sandstone objects that showed images of Vaishnav deities and of Shiva-Parvati. They concluded that these fragments belonged to a temple of the Nagara style (900-1200 AD).

Prof. S.P. Gupta commented on the discoveries:

“The team found that the objects were datable to the period ranging from the 10th through the 12th century AD, i.e., the period of the late Pratiharas and early Gahadvals. (….) These objects included a number of amakalas, i.e., the cogged-wheel type architectural element which crown the bhumi shikharas or spires of subsidiary shrines, as well as the top of the spire or the main shikhara … This is a characteristic feature of all north Indian temples of the early medieval period (…) There was other evidence — of cornices, pillar capitals, mouldings, door jambs with floral patterns and others — leaving little doubt regarding the existence of a 10th-12th century temple complex at the site of Ayodhya.”

The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) excavated the Ram Janambhoomi/Babri Mosque site at the direction of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court Uttar Pradesh in 2003. The archaeologists also reported evidence of a large structure pre-existed the Babri Masjid. A team of 131 labourers, including 52 Muslims was engaged in the excavations. On 11 June 2003 the ASI issued an interim report that only listed the findings of the period between 22 May and 6 June 2003. In August 2003 the ASI handed a 574-page report to the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court.

The ASI, who examined the site, issued a report of the findings of the period between 22 May and 6 June 2003. This report stated:Among the structures listed in the report are several brick walls ‘in east-west orientation’, several ‘in north-south orientation’, ‘decorated coloured floor’, several ‘pillar bases’, and a ‘1.64-metre high decorated black stone pillar (broken) with figurines on four corners’ as well as inscription of holy verses on stone in Arabic language” 

Earlier reports by the ASI, based on earlier findings, also mention among other things a staircase and two black basalt columns ‘bearing fine decorative carvings with two crosslegged figures in bas-relief on a bloomed lotus with a peacock whose feathers are raised upwards’.

The excavations gave ample traces that there was a mammoth pre-existing structure beneath the three-domed Babri structure.

Ancient perimeters from East to West and North to South have been found beneath the Babri structure. Beautiful stone pieces bearing carved Hindu ornamentations like lotus, Kaustubh jewel, alligator facade, etc., were used in these walls. These decorated architectural pieces were anchored with precision at varied places in the walls. A tiny portion of a stone slab is sticking out at a place below 20 feet in one of the pits. The rest of the slab lies covered in the wall. The projecting portion bears a five-letter Devanagari inscription that turns out to be a Hindu name claimed by VHP but is disputed and thus still unproven whether it is a Hindu name or not. The items found below 20 feet should be at least 1,500 years old. According to archaeologists about a foot of loam layer gathers on topsoil every hundred years. Primary clay was not found even up to a depth of 30 feet. It provides a clue to the existence of some structure at that place over the last 2,500 years.

More than 30 pillar bases have been found at equal spans. The pillar-bases are in two rows and the rows are parallel. The pillar-base rows are in North-South direction. A wall is superimposed upon another wall. At least three layers of the floor are visible. An octagonal holy fireplace (Yagna Kund) was found. These facts prove the enormity of the pre-existing structure. Surkhii has been used as a construction material in our country for over 2,000 years and, in the constructions at the Janma Bhumi, Surkhii has been extensively used. Molded bricks of round and other shapes and sizes were neither in vogue during the Middle Ages nor are they in use today. It was in vogue only 2,000 years ago.

 Many ornate pieces of touchstone (Kasauti stone) pillars have been found in the excavation. Terracotta religious figures, serpent, elephant, horse-rider, saints, etc., have been found.

The Supreme Court order recognised the deity Ram Lalla’s title rights to the disputed 2.77-acre Ayodhya land.In its judgment, the Supreme Court referred to an Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) report to observe that the Babri Masjid, which stood on the disputed site until its demolition in 1992, was not built on vacant land and that there was evidence of a temple-like structure having existed on the land before the mosque was built.

ISLAM COMES TO INDIA 18/JAYAPALA IMMOLATES HIMSELF

Islam Comes to India 18

Maharaja Jayapala was the ruler of the Hindu Shahi dynasty in India from 964 to 1001 CE.
His kingdom stretched from Laghman to Kashmir and Sirhind to Multan, with Peshawar being in the center.He was the son of Maharaja Hutpal and the father of Maharaja Anandapala. Epithets from the Bari Kot inscriptions record his full title as “Parama Bhattaraka Maharajadhiraja Sri Jayapaladeva”. 

Jayapala is known successfully defending his kingdom against the Ghaznavids in the modern-day eastern Afghanistan and Pakistan region his entire life, until finally being defeated in Peshawar due to a snowstorm. Jayapala saw a danger in the consolidation of the Ghaznavids and invaded their capital city of Ghazni both in the reign of Sebuktigin and in that of his son Mahmud, which initiated the Muslim Ghaznavid and Hindu Shahi struggles. Sebuk Tigin, however, was defeated, and he was forced to pay an indemnity to Jayapala. Jayapala stopped receiving tribute and took to the battlefield once more. Jayapala, however, lost control of the entire region between the Kabul Valley and Khyber Pass. 

Before his struggle began Jayapala had raised a small army of Punjabis. When Jayapala went to the Punjab region, his army had 10,000 horsemen and an smaller host of foot soldiers.

 

According to Ferishta:
“The two armies having met on the confines of Lumghan, the Maharaja ascended a hill to view the forces of Sabuktigin, which appeared in extent like the boundless ocean, and in numbers like the ants or the locusts of the wilderness. However, Jayapala considered himself as a wolf about to attack a flock of sheep: calling, therefore, his chiefs together, he encouraged them to glory, and issued to each his commands. His soldiers, though few in number, were divided into squadrons of five hundred men each, which were directed to attack successively, one particular point of the Mooslim line, so that it might continually have to encounter fresh troops.“ 

However, the army was hopeless in battle against the eastern forces, particularly against the Punjabis.In the year 1001, soon after Sultan Mahmud came to power and was occupied with the Qarakhanids north of the Hindu Kush, Jayapala attacked Ghazni once more and upon suffered his first defeat by the powerful numerous Ghaznavid forces, near present-day Peshawar. After the Battle of Peshawar, the Maharaja planned in his last day’s further attacks.
Battle of Peshawar, was fought on 27 November 1001 between Mahmud of Ghazni and the army of Jayapala, near Peshawar. Jayapala was defeated and captured, and as a result of the humiliation of the defeat, he later immolated himself in a funeral pyre. This is the first of many major battles in the expansion of the Ghaznavid Empire into the Indian subcontinent by Mahmud of Ghazni .

Last stand of Jayapala

Alp Tigin’s successor Sebuk Tigin started to vigorously expand his domain, first capturing Kandahar, then began a struggle with the Hindu Shahi kingdom. Jayapala attacked Sebuk Tigin, but was defeated, then again later when his army of a reported size of over 100,000 was beaten.Lamghan was plundered, and Kabul and Jalalabad were annexed by the Ghaznavids. In 997, Mahmud ascended the throne at Ghazni, and vowed to invade India every year until the northern lands were his. In 1001 he arrived at Peshawar with a select group of 15,000 cavalry, and a large corps of ghazis and Afghans. 

An account of the battle between the invading Turkic Ghaznavids and the Shahi kingdom was given by Al-Utbi in Tarikh Yamini.According to Al-Utbi, Mahmud pitched his tent outside the city upon reaching Peshawar. Jayapala avoided action for some time waiting for reinforcements, and Mahmud then took the decision to attack with swords, arrows, and spears. Jayapala moved his cavalry and elephants to engage his opponent, but his army was decisively defeated. 

Jayapala, along with members of his family were captured, and valuable personal adornments were taken off the prisoners, including a necklace of great value from Jayapala. The figures of Hindu dead ranged from 5,000 to 15,000,and five hundred thousands were said to have been taken captive. Judging from the personal adornments taken off captured Hindus, Jayapala’s army was not prepared for battle and thousands of children were taken captive as well.
Jayapala was bound and paraded, and a large ransom was paid for the release of members of his family. Jayapala felt the defeat to be a great humiliation, and later he built himself a funeral pyre, lit it, and threw himself into the fire.
Mahmud later conquered the upper Indus region, and then in 1009, defeated Jayapala’s son Anandapala in a battle at Chach. The battle is known as the battle of Waihind. He then captured Lahore and Multan, giving him control of the Punjab region.
Anandapala who ascended his father Jayapala’s throne at Lahore (in about March/April AD 1002) already proved an able warrior and general in leading many battles prior to his ascension. According to ‘Adáb al-Harb’ (pp. 307–10) in about AD 990, it is written,

“the arrogant but ambitious Raja of Lahore, having put his father in confinement, marched on the country of Jayapála with the intention of conquering the districts of Nandana, Jailum (Jehlum) and Tákeshar“ 

(in an attempt to take advantage of Jayapala’s concentrated effort with defence against the armies of Ghazni). “

Remains of Nandana Fort

Anandapala defeated Bharat of Lahore and took him prisoner in the battle of Takeshar and marched on Lahore and captured the city and established his kingdom from there.
However, during his reign as emperor many losses were inflicted on his kingdom by the Ghaznavids. During the battle of Chach between Mahmud and Anandapala, it is stated that “a body of 30,000 Gakhars fought alongside as soldiers for the Shahi Emperor and incurred huge losses for the Ghaznavids”. However, despite the heavy losses of the enemy, he lost the battle and suffered much financial and territorial loss.

This was Anandapala’s last stand against Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni. He eventually signed a treaty with the Ghaznavid Empire in AD 1010 and shortly a year later died a peaceful death. R.C Majumdar (D.V. Potdar Commemoration Volume, Poona 1950, p. 351) compared him to ancient “King Porus, who bravely opposed Alexander but later submitted and helped in subduing other Indian rulers”. And Tahqíq Má li’l-Hind (p. 351) finally revered him in his legacy as “noble and courageous”. Nandna was a fort built at strategic location on a hilly range on the eastern flanks of the Salt Range in Punjab Pakistan. Its ruins, including those of a town and a temple, are present. It was ruled by the Hindu Shahi kings until, in the early 11th century, Mahmud of Ghazni expelled them from Nandana. Anandapala, the son of Jayapala of the Hindu Shahi dynasty, had erected the Shiva temple in Nandana.