Madurai’s historic Thiruparankundram hill temple has become the epicenter of an intense controversy over ownership claims between Hindus and a section of Muslims, allegedly backed by the ruling DMK and its allies, along with parties like AIADMK, TVK (founded by actor Joseph Vijay), and NTK led by Seeman. However, a pivotal legal precedent set by the Privy Council had long ago affirmed that the entire hill belongs to the temple, reinforcing its Hindu heritage.
Escalating Tensions and Religious Disputes
The conflict escalated when Muslims, allegedly backed by political groups, opposed the age-old Hindu tradition of lighting lamps atop the hill during Karthigai Deepam. Historically, the site has been home to the revered Murugan temple, yet in recent years, claims have emerged regarding the presence of a dargah at the location. Notably, even Tamil Nadu’s official tourism literature places the Sikkandar dargah in Goripalayam, Madurai, contradicting the recent claims of ownership.
Matters worsened when the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI), the political arm of the now-banned PFI, announced plans to conduct a “Kandoori” ritual atop the hill. Muslim scholars themselves acknowledge that Kandoori is not an orthodox Islamic practice but rather a cultural tradition involving the preparation and distribution of biryani. Tensions reached a boiling point when Ramanathapuram MP Navas Kani, who also serves as the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board Chairman, climbed the hill with his supporters and consumed biryani there, seen as a deliberate provocation. Reports emerged of attempts to sacrifice animals at the site, further heightening communal sensitivities.
Hindu Munnani’s Protest and Police Crackdown
Amid these tensions, the Hindu Munnani called for a large-scale protest on February 4, aiming to prevent what they termed the “Islamization” of the sacred Murugan temple. However, as expected, the state government, through the police and district administration, denied permission and imposed Section 144 across Madurai to curb the demonstration. In an excessive show of force, police arrested individuals in various districts, even those unrelated to the protest, and detained families—including women and children—inside marriage halls.
The Truth About Sikandar Shah: The Last Sultan of Madurai and Row Over Thiruparankundram
The Dark Rule of the Madurai Sultans
The story of Thiruparankundram hill is deeply entangled with historical conflicts, invasions, and religious transformations. In the 14th century, Madurai fell under the brutal rule of the Delhi Sultanate when Alauddin Khilji’s general, Malik Kafur, invaded South India between 1310 and 1311. His expedition left a trail of destruction, with numerous Hindu temples, including those in Chidambaram and Madurai, being looted and demolished. This invasion marked the beginning of the region’s darkest period.
After a brief period under Delhi’s control, Madurai became an independent Muslim-ruled state in 1331, known as the Ma’bar Sultanate (Persian for Coromandel). Over the next 48 years, ten different Muslim sultans ruled Madurai, imposing severe hardships on the local Hindu population. Thousands were slaughtered, temples were desecrated, and Hindu religious practices were either banned or restricted.
Sikandar Shah, the last ruler of the Madurai Sultanate, reigned from 1369 to 1378 AD. Much like Aurangzeb centuries later, Sikandar Shah was notorious for his oppressive policies against Hindus. His administration subjected them to heavy taxation, religious persecution, and systematic destruction of temples. This led to widespread resentment and resistance from the Hindu population.
The Rise of the Vijayanagara Empire and the Fall of Sikandar Shah
In response to the brutal rule of the Madurai Sultans, Hindus rallied to establish a powerful kingdom that could reclaim their land and restore their faith. This led to the formation of the Vijayanagara Empire in 1336, founded by two Yadava brothers, Harihara Raya I and Bukka Raya I, under the guidance of the Sringeri Mutt seer, Vidyaranya.
Determined to end the oppression in Madurai, Bukka Raya’s son, Kampanna Deva (also known as Kambannar), led a military campaign against Sikandar Shah in 1364. His forces, supported by the Konda Veedu Reddy regime, successfully defeated various Muslim rulers and eventually reached Kanchipuram. During his campaign, his wife, Ganga Devi, documented the Hindu plight under Muslim rule in her famous book Madura Vijayam (Victory Over Madurai).
One of the most powerful passages in Madura Vijayam describes a divine intervention: A woman from Madurai, tormented by the Sultan’s rule, approached Kambannar and gifted him an ancient sword that had once belonged to the Pandya kings. She revealed herself as Goddess Meenakshi and vanished, signifying divine support for the Vijayanagara army.
In 1378, Kambannar finally defeated Sikandar Shah in battle. The defeated ruler fled to Thiruparankundram hill and challenged Kambannar to a one-on-one duel. He lost the fight and was severely punished—his right hand and left leg were severed. His body was then impaled on a sharp pillar as a warning to future invaders.
The Death and Burial of Sikandar Shah
According to historical records, Sikandar Shah’s lover secretly retrieved his body and took it to Goripalayam in Madurai, where he eventually succumbed to his injuries. His remains were buried there, and the site is today known as the Goripalayam Dargah. Even Tamil Nadu’s state tourism literature confirms that his tomb is located in Goripalayam, not Thiruparankundram.
Despite this well-documented history, a section of Muslims—backed by political groups—have recently laid claim to a structure atop Thiruparankundram hill, falsely identifying it as a dargah. However, critics argue that this claim has zero historical validity. As one netizen rightly pointed out, “If Muslims believe that Allah is the only god and do not worship human figures, why are they now claiming a dargah at Thiruparankundram?”
Hindu Resistance and the Restoration of Madurai Temple
After the fall of Sikandar Shah, Kambannar undertook the massive restoration of the Madurai Meenakshi Temple, which had been left in ruins by the Sultanate. Upon entering the temple, he witnessed a miraculous sight—a lamp still burning and a garland of fresh flowers untouched by time. Interpreting this as divine approval, he declared the temple’s revival.
Having successfully reclaimed Madurai, the Vijayanagara rulers reinstated the Pandya dynasty as vassals, ensuring Hindu dominance over the region. The Vijayanagara Empire continued to protect Madurai for over 150 years until 1528, when the Chola kings attempted another invasion, leading to the rise of the Nayaka dynasty.
The Manufactured Controversy Over Thiruparankundram Hill
Today, the site of Sikandar Shah’s burial is well-established in Goripalayam, yet an effort is being made to create a fabricated Islamic history at Thiruparankundram. The recent attempts to rename the hill as ‘Sikandar Malai’ and conduct Islamic rituals there—such as **Kandoori, a non-Islamic practice involving meat sacrifices and communal feasts—**have led to widespread tensions.
The involvement of the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI), the political wing of the banned PFI, in asserting these claims has raised suspicions. Their attempt to conduct rituals at the hilltop has been seen as a deliberate attempt to stake ownership over the sacred Hindu site. The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board, led by MP Navas Kani and MLA Abdul Samad, has also played a role in advancing these claims, despite historical records proving otherwise.
The historical facts are clear and irrefutable—Sikandar Shah was an oppressive ruler despised by Hindus and was buried in Goripalayam, not Thiruparankundram. The fabricated narrative surrounding his so-called dargah at the hill is a modern-day attempt to erase Hindu heritage and falsely Islamicize a site of deep religious significance to Hindus.
Invader sikander was actually buried at Goripalayam
The building on the hilltop has 0 validity pic.twitter.com/0CxEFp6LTi
— ஹரிஷ் தமிழன் (@Raja_MSV_fan) February 5, 2025
Thiruparankundram Hill: A Sacred Hindu Heritage Site
Madurai, Tamil Nadu: The historical Thiruparankundram hill, a site of immense religious significance for Hindus, has once again become the center of controversy as claims over its ownership and religious identity continue to spark debate. While historical records, court rulings, and literary evidence firmly establish the hill as a Hindu religious site dating back over 2300 years, a century-old dispute between the Madurai Meenakshi Temple administration and the Sikkandar Avulia Dargah has resurfaced, fueling fresh tensions.
Ancient Origins: A Hindu Spiritual Center for Millennia
Thiruparankundram’s history can be traced back 2,300 years, with evidence of Jain monks carving stone beds with Tamil inscriptions into the hill’s rocks. As early as the Sangam period (circa 3rd century BCE – 3rd century CE), the hill was revered in Tamil literature. Akananuru, a collection of Sangam-era poems, refers to it as Murugan Kundram, or the sacred hill of Lord Murugan, worshipped by the local hunter-gatherer community.
By the 6th century CE, the hill was recognized as Parankundram in the devotional hymns of Tamil saint-poet Thirugnanasambandar in Thevaram. In the 8th century CE, Pandya kings Parantaka Varagu and his general Santhan Ganapathy commissioned a rock-cut temple dedicated to Soma Skanda (Shiva, Murugan, and Parvati together), along with a shrine for Vishnu—a rare feature in Murugan temples. The temple also houses a sannidhi for Jyeshta Devi (Moodevi in Tamil), the goddess of misfortune, reflecting its deep-rooted Hindu heritage.
The Colonial-Era Conflict: Temple vs. Dargah
Conflicts over the ownership of Thiruparankundram hill date back to the early 1900s, when disputes arose between the Madurai Meenakshi Temple Devasthanam and the Sikkandar Avulia Dargah administration. The matter escalated in 1915, when the dargah’s hukdars (caretakers) attempted to quarry stones from the hill to build a rest house (mandapam) for Muslim pilgrims at Nellithope. The Madurai Meenakshi Devasthanam opposed the construction, arguing that the hill had always been a Hindu pilgrimage site and that the dargah did not have exclusive rights over it.
The temple administration moved the Melur court under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), presenting a kyfeet (land grant document) dated January 11, 1837, which stated that the entire village of Thiruparankundram and its surrounding hamlets had been given to the temple for Tirugspadithanam by the Pandya ruler Parakram Pandyan.
On the other hand, the Muslim litigants cited an Inam title deed that referred to the hill as “Sikkandar Dargah” and claimed that it had been allocated for the maintenance of the mosque.
The district collector intervened, ruling against the hukdars’ illegal quarrying activities and construction of the mandapam without approval. He also stated that no burials should take place on the hilltop without a license from the Taluk Board. However, recognizing the complexity of the issue, a petition was submitted by High Court lawyer C.S. Narayanaswamy, recommending that the matter be resolved through legal channels rather than through administrative decisions.
Legal Battle and the Privy Council Verdict
In 1923, a subordinate judge in Madurai ruled in favor of the temple, declaring that the entire hill, except for Nellithope and the actual mosque site with its flagstaff and steps, belonged to the Hindu temple administration.
The case eventually reached the Privy Council in London, the highest court of appeal in British India at the time. On May 12, 1931, the Privy Council upheld the ruling in favor of the temple, stating that the mosque on Thiruparankundram hill was an “infliction which the Hindu occupants of the hill might well have been forced to put up with.”
Modern-Day Controversy and Rising Tensions
Despite this clear historical and legal precedent, attempts to Islamize Thiruparankundram have continued over the years, often backed by political interests. A prominent temple activist recently highlighted the 1931 Privy Council ruling, questioning why the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (TNHRCE) Department has failed to defend Hindu rights over the hill.
In a widely circulated post on social media platform X (formerly Twitter), the activist called for the implementation of Sections 3 and 4 of the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which protects religious sites from alteration based on historical claims.
Journalist D. Suresh Kumar wrote in The Hindu that the 110-year-old dispute had resurfaced due to renewed claims by certain Muslim groups seeking to establish exclusive ownership over parts of the hill. These claims were met with strong resistance from Hindu organizations, who see this as a direct attack on their religious heritage.
Hindu Sentiments and Government Inaction
A recent government document on Tamil Nadu tourism also omitted any reference to a dargah on Thiruparankundram hill, confirming that the official historical record does not recognize any Islamic claim to the site. However, critics argue that the Tamil Nadu government and TNHRCE have remained silent in the face of aggressive encroachments on Hindu temple properties.
As one social media user pointed out, “If Muslims do not pray to humans, why is there an attempt to claim a mosque and dargah on a sacred Hindu hill? Sikandar Shah was buried in Goripalayam, not Thiruparankundram. This is a deliberate attempt to erase Hindu history.”
What Lies Ahead?
With rising tensions and a renewed push for legal clarity, Hindu groups are now demanding that the Tamil Nadu government officially recognize the entire Thiruparankundram hill as temple property, as per the Privy Council’s 1931 ruling. They are also calling for greater protection of Hindu heritage sites, citing concerns that politically motivated encroachments are threatening ancient temples across Tamil Nadu.
According to the judgment of the Top Court in 1931, the mosque on Tirupparankundram Hill:
"was an infliction which the Hindu occupants of the hill might well have been forced to put up with"
True Words – Final Verdict.
Blissfully ignorant Hindus & a Govt Department… pic.twitter.com/9g2X0zjOLx
— trramesh (@trramesh) February 5, 2025
The sacred Thiruparankundram Hill, a site of deep religious significance for Hindus, has once again become a subject of heated debate. A century-old legal dispute over the ownership of the hill was settled in 1931 by the Privy Council in London, which ruled in favor of the Thiruparankundram Sri Subramanya Swamy Temple. However, recent discussions have reignited the controversy, with some questioning the legitimacy of historical claims made by Muslim groups regarding a mosque on the hill.
Historical Significance: A Hindu Pilgrimage Site for Over 2,300 Years
Thiruparankundram is one of the six sacred abodes (Aarupadai Veedu) of Lord Murugan and is revered in Sangam-era Tamil literature. The Akananuru, an ancient Tamil poetic anthology, describes it as Murugan Kundram, indicating that it was worshipped by the hunter-gatherer communities. The 6th-century Tamil saint-poet Thirugnanasambandar mentioned it in his Thevaram hymns, calling it Parankundram.
During the 8th century CE, Pandya King Parantaka Varagu and his general Santhan Ganapathy commissioned a rock-cut temple dedicated to Soma Skanda (Shiva, Murugan, and Parvati). The temple complex also houses a Vishnu shrine, a Jyeshta Devi (Moodevi) temple, and numerous other smaller shrines. Over the centuries, Hindu religious activities flourished on the hill, reinforcing its importance as a spiritual landmark.
Early 20th-Century Conflict: Temple vs. Dargah Administrators
The ownership of Thiruparankundram Hill became a legal dispute in the early 1900s, when a conflict arose between the Madurai Meenakshi Temple Devasthanam and the Sikkandar Avulia Dargah administration.
In 1915, the Hukdars (caretakers) of the dargah attempted to quarry stones from the hill to build a mandapam for Muslim pilgrims in the Nellithope area. The temple administration objected, stating that the entire hill was a Hindu religious site. They presented a kyfeet (land grant document) from January 11, 1837, which recorded that the village of Thiruparankundram and surrounding hamlets had been granted to the temple by Pandya King Parakram Pandyan.
The Muslim claimants cited an Inam title deed, which referred to the hill as “Sikkandar Dargah.” In response, the district collector intervened, declaring that the hukdars had no right to quarry stones or construct a building without permission. He also ruled that no burials could take place without a license from the Taluk Board.
Legal Battle: 1923 Madurai Court Ruling
The case was first heard in 1923 in a Madurai court, which ruled mostly in favor of the temple. The judgment granted ownership of the hill to the temple, recognizing that it had exercised control over the land for centuries. However, two exceptions were made:
- The actual site of the mosque, including its flagpole and steps.
- The Nellithope area, which was allocated to Muslim claimants.
- The British government’s claim over the hill was completely rejected.
Dissatisfied with the ruling, the Muslim litigants appealed to the Madras High Court in 1926. However, a single judge ruled that both Hindus and Muslims had established certain rights to the hill but did not define ownership. Instead, the court declared that the government owned the hill and dismissed the Muslim appeal.
The temple administration was not satisfied with the Madras High Court ruling and took the case to the Privy Council in London, which was then the highest court of appeal. After hearing all arguments and examining historical documents, the Privy Council ruled in favor of the temple on May 12, 1931.
The Privy Council made the following key observations:
- The temple had controlled the hill for centuries, with records dating back to 1835 showing temple maintenance work, including repairing the Giri Veedhi (hill circumambulatory path), constructing mandapams, and improving water supply for pilgrims.
- The Director-General of Archaeology in India had recorded in his report that “the whole rock is worshipped by the Hindu community as a Linga” and that Madurai was the center of this form of worship.
- Historical documents, including British-era records and temple grants, referred to the hill as “Swamimalai” or “God’s Hill,” affirming its religious significance to Hindus.
- There was no historical evidence to suggest that the hill had ever been taken over by secular authorities.
- Muslim settlers likely built the mosque and homes on the hill during periods of Islamic rule in Madurai, but this was considered an “infliction” on the Hindu occupants rather than proof of ownership.
The Privy Council’s final ruling was clear:
✅ The temple owns the entire hill, except for the mosque site, its flagpole, steps, and the Nellithope area.
✅ The government has no claim over the hill.
✅ There is no evidence that the temple ever passed into secular hands.
Ongoing Controversy and Hindu Concerns
Despite the clear ruling from the highest court, the dispute over Thiruparankundram Hill has resurfaced in recent years. Some Muslim groups continue to claim ownership rights, leading to concerns among Hindu activists and temple devotees.
A prominent Hindu temple activist recently called for the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (TNHRCE) Department to defend Hindu rights over the hill. In a social media post, he urged the implementation of Sections 3 and 4 of the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which protect religious sites from alteration.
Journalist D. Suresh Kumar of The Hindu also reported that the Tamil Nadu government had omitted any reference to a dargah on Thiruparankundram Hill in official tourism records. This suggests that the state recognizes the hill as temple property.
Hindu groups are now demanding that the Tamil Nadu government formally recognize the Privy Council ruling of 1931 and reinforce temple ownership over the hill. They argue that politically motivated attempts to alter history must be stopped.
It held that “the conclusion of the Subordinate Judge was right and no ground has been shown for disturbing his decree”.
Madurai left MP Su Venkatean who authored a book Kaval Kottam which bagged sahitya academy award for 2011 fully describes the sultan Sikkandar’s atrocities on locals and how he was defeated by nayaks.
The Muslims wantonly pushes up this issue hoping the ruling DMK , it allies and AIADMK, NTK, TVK would support them blindly for their votes depriving the Hindus of their rightful rights. No doubt that It may slowly snow ball into a issue like Ayodhya Ram janmabhoomi or Madurai or Kashi .
Comments