What were the Causes of Triumph of the Muslims?

We have already mentioned the circumstances which led to the defeat of the Hindus. The causes of the easy triumph of the Muslims in the south required close study of the conditions prevailing there at that time. We have referred to the internecine battles between the various rulers which prevented them from uniting against a common foe.

Some of the rulers such as Ramadeva of Devagiri became a faithful and permanent ally. He even invited Kafur to help him against his son. Within the royal families also there was little harmony. Ramadeva of Devagiri and his son Singhana were at loggerheads. Ramadeva wanted to surrender to the invaders while Singhana preferred death in a battle to ignoble surrender.

The conditions were even worse in other Hindu states. The Pandya brothers were sworn enemies. Sundara Pandya started a war against his younger brother Vira Pandya who had succeeded to the throne after the death of their father Kulasekhara. Sundara invoked the help of Muslim invader, Malik Kafur.

The people too were divided into several sects such as Sanatanis, Mahanubhavas, Lingayats, Jainas, etc. who were hostile to each other. The Muslim invaders exploited these differences. For example, they exempted the Mahanubhava monks (who dressed themselves like Muslim dervishes) from jaziya which only confirmed the suspicion of other sects regarding their complicity with the invaders.

The position of the four southern powers, the Hoysalas, Pandyas, Kakatiyas and Yadavas was “such and their interests so divided that when the first Muhammadan invasions deluged the territory of the Yadavas of Deogir, there was no common motive or interest among the four powers to adopt concerted policy or take common action.”

This discord and disunity among the South Indian rulers was perhaps the major factor for their ultimate defeat against a disciplined and determined foe who was inspired as much with religious zeal as greed for plunder. The army of the southern rulers was ill-equipped. They were no match against the hardy and well-built Turkish soldiers.

Their swift moving cavalry caused havoc among the enemy ranks, whose slow moving elephants only tampered their own soldiers when they ran amuck. Marco Polo who visited this region during A.D. 1288-94 speaks of the people of Mabar as “going to battle with lances and shields but without clothing and are a despicable unwarlike race”.

He further observes: “They do not kill cattle, or any kind of animals for food, but when desirous of eating the flesh of sheep or other beasts, or birds, “they procure the Sarcens; who are not under the influence of the same laws and customs, to perform the office.”

But their vegetarian diet and non-violent character was not a major handicap is evident from the fact that these very soldiers gave a much better proof of their valour under the command of able generals.

The brave Kanha, governor of Lajaura, rushed to the frontier and with the help of two warrior ladies tried to stem the tide of Turkish invasion. To quote a contemporary chronicler, “The two brave Hindu women who were like tigresses on the battlefield attacked the Turkish army fiercely, thereby exciting the admiration of their foes”.

Prataparudra of Warangal, Kampila of Kampili and Vir Pandya of Mabar offered a stout resistance to the invaders. To quote Prof. R.S. Sharma, “The seven expeditions of the Khaljis into the South were not unlike the seventeen raids of Mahmud Ghazni in the North (1000-27); their aims, character, and results were almost identical.

Both the Ghaznavid and the Khalji adventurers were actuated by predatory motives reinforced with religious fanaticism; both were alike tempted by the opulence and political impotence of the infidels. The military advantages in both cases lay with the Muslim aggressors; revolutionary consequences too were not dissimilar in the two instances.

Politically a portion of the invaded territories nearest to their own kingdoms was annexed by both to serve as a stepping-stone for further encroachments. The Hindus of the south, however, seemed to have learnt nothing from the misfortunes of their co-religionists in the north. Equally rich equally divided and short-sighted, their frantic and fitful resistance was foredoomed to failure. The immediate result of the Khalji incursions was tragic.”

Venkataramanayya has beautifully emphasized that the causes were more cultural than political. Hindus did not attach so much importance to their political freedom as to their religion and culture. They tolerated an alien ruler as long as he confined himself to the establishment of law and order. But if he interfered with their social and religious institutions, they resisted it resolutely and rose in rebellion against him.

In the north, Muhammadan invaders had contented themselves with political conquests but in the south they adopted a different policy. South India was almost entirely populated by Hindus.

They were more orthodox and religious-minded than the Hindus of the north. This was repugnant to the Muslim invaders who tried to impose their religion as much out of political necessity. Hindus were not allowed to exercise their religion publicly. Their temples were plundered and destroyed. Many taxes were imposed on them so that they might not be able to live comfortably.