02-04-2007, 09:54 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><<<Sundara Pandyan made off with Rajaraja III's queen.>>>
What is the primary evidence?
In case you are referring to Maravarman Sundara Pandyan (1206 A.D.),
then you are wrong. This king attacked Kulotunga III and defeated
him. He then drove the crown prince Raja Raja III and the king into
exile. But, Kulottunga III sought the help of Hoysala king Ballala
II, who responded by despatching his army under the command of his
crown prince Narasimha. Maravarman Sundara Pandyan didn't see much
hope of winning, and returned the kingdom to Kulottunga, after the
latter accepted him as suzerain.
In case you are referring to Sundara Pandya (1310 A.D.), then there
was no Raja Raja III who was his contemporary. This Sundara Pandya
was the son of Kulasekhara Pandya, who preferred his younger son Vira
Pandya to be the crown prince. A bitter feud ensued. Sundara Pandya
turned a fellow traveller of Malik Kafur, the eunuch general of Alla-
ud-din-khilji and invited him to attack his brother. He also put his
army at the services of Kafur. Initially, after a few skirmishes,
Vira Pandya started retreating and Malik Kafur sacked all the cities.
While he looted much of the treasure, he entrusted the kingdom to his
fellow traveller Sundara Pandya. When finally he descended on
Madurai, he decided to attack Sundara Pandya himself. Sundara Pandya,
who had turned a zimmi, and practically a Muslim, was shocked by
this, and ran away. Madurai was left undefended, and Malik Kafur
sacked it. He looted the treasure, killed children and raped women.
This brought the deeply religious Vikrama Pandya, over 80 years old
then, and the maternal uncle of Vira Pandya, out of retirement. Ably
assisted by his aging (name not mentioned in records) brahmin
general, he put together a force of 30,000 and launched a ferocious
and courageous attack on Malik Kafur. After 4 days of battle, Vikrama
had lost over 2,000 soldiers, but Kafur had lost over 12 times that
number. Worse, Kafur was made to retreat over 40 miles in that time
span. Many battalions of the Muslim army was terrorized by the
suicidal Pandya army that was furiously and successfully set to
avenge the rape of their women. The Muslims often took flight and
Kafur's army was in total disarray. Towards twilight on day 4, Kafur
was personally caught by the aging brahmin general, who spat on
Kafur's face, dragged and brought in front of Vikrama. Kafur
prostrated at Vikrama's feet, begged for life and promised to
retreat. But Kafur was a smart man. He had already conveyed the vast
treasure to Delhi.
Vikrama Pandya made the cardinal mistake of forgiving Kafur and let
him return with his army, instead of ruthlessly putting them all to
sword. He had repeated the same mistake of Prithviraj over 100 years
ago. This was another instance when the Hindus hadn't learnt their
lesson.
Nevertheless, here too, I have not come across any instance when a
Hindu king violated women. Even the fellow traveller of Muslims
Sundara Pandya is not known to have done that. I would wait for your
primary evidence. Even if he had done - quite unlikely, unless you
cite primary evidence - we must remember that this was post-Islamic
era, and this king was a fellow traveller and colloborator of the
Muslims. He couldn't have taken Raja Raja III's queen, as they
weren't contemporary. If at all he did, it must be someone else's
queen.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianCivili...n/message/36430<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What is the primary evidence?
In case you are referring to Maravarman Sundara Pandyan (1206 A.D.),
then you are wrong. This king attacked Kulotunga III and defeated
him. He then drove the crown prince Raja Raja III and the king into
exile. But, Kulottunga III sought the help of Hoysala king Ballala
II, who responded by despatching his army under the command of his
crown prince Narasimha. Maravarman Sundara Pandyan didn't see much
hope of winning, and returned the kingdom to Kulottunga, after the
latter accepted him as suzerain.
In case you are referring to Sundara Pandya (1310 A.D.), then there
was no Raja Raja III who was his contemporary. This Sundara Pandya
was the son of Kulasekhara Pandya, who preferred his younger son Vira
Pandya to be the crown prince. A bitter feud ensued. Sundara Pandya
turned a fellow traveller of Malik Kafur, the eunuch general of Alla-
ud-din-khilji and invited him to attack his brother. He also put his
army at the services of Kafur. Initially, after a few skirmishes,
Vira Pandya started retreating and Malik Kafur sacked all the cities.
While he looted much of the treasure, he entrusted the kingdom to his
fellow traveller Sundara Pandya. When finally he descended on
Madurai, he decided to attack Sundara Pandya himself. Sundara Pandya,
who had turned a zimmi, and practically a Muslim, was shocked by
this, and ran away. Madurai was left undefended, and Malik Kafur
sacked it. He looted the treasure, killed children and raped women.
This brought the deeply religious Vikrama Pandya, over 80 years old
then, and the maternal uncle of Vira Pandya, out of retirement. Ably
assisted by his aging (name not mentioned in records) brahmin
general, he put together a force of 30,000 and launched a ferocious
and courageous attack on Malik Kafur. After 4 days of battle, Vikrama
had lost over 2,000 soldiers, but Kafur had lost over 12 times that
number. Worse, Kafur was made to retreat over 40 miles in that time
span. Many battalions of the Muslim army was terrorized by the
suicidal Pandya army that was furiously and successfully set to
avenge the rape of their women. The Muslims often took flight and
Kafur's army was in total disarray. Towards twilight on day 4, Kafur
was personally caught by the aging brahmin general, who spat on
Kafur's face, dragged and brought in front of Vikrama. Kafur
prostrated at Vikrama's feet, begged for life and promised to
retreat. But Kafur was a smart man. He had already conveyed the vast
treasure to Delhi.
Vikrama Pandya made the cardinal mistake of forgiving Kafur and let
him return with his army, instead of ruthlessly putting them all to
sword. He had repeated the same mistake of Prithviraj over 100 years
ago. This was another instance when the Hindus hadn't learnt their
lesson.
Nevertheless, here too, I have not come across any instance when a
Hindu king violated women. Even the fellow traveller of Muslims
Sundara Pandya is not known to have done that. I would wait for your
primary evidence. Even if he had done - quite unlikely, unless you
cite primary evidence - we must remember that this was post-Islamic
era, and this king was a fellow traveller and colloborator of the
Muslims. He couldn't have taken Raja Raja III's queen, as they
weren't contemporary. If at all he did, it must be someone else's
queen.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianCivili...n/message/36430<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->