मधुराविजयम् /81
This page has been fully proofread once and needs a second look.
and for reference not being made of him in the narrations given in
connection with the Madhura Vijaya Invasion etc. Therefore,
according to this Kavya, there is no doubt, that by 1433 A. D. Hari
Hararaya I was not alive. If so, it may be questioned how the in-
scription of 1353 A. D. by Hari Hararaya became plausible. It must
be understood that that it was second Harihara himself. That Hari-
hara is no other than our Veera Kamparaya himself, and that Kam-
paraja had often fought with and carried on invasions against Mus-
lims, are facts affirmed by history. At page 160 of 'Mohammadiya
Mahayuga', while describing Kamparaya, it is recited that it can be
safely inferred, from the inscriptions in his time, and from the vast
improvements to Vijayanagar and to the empire during his
regime, that he had several times defeated the Muslims and
achieved victory. Even this kavya does not negative the said
fact. (Vide Sloka 23, S. 2 and sloka 20, S. 3 etc.).
It is a fact that in 1352 A. D. Kamparaya raided Kanchi
and killed Champaraya, the right hand man of the Sultan of
Madhura. Then, when he occupied Kanchi and was about to
proceed against himself, the Madhura Sultan would not keep
quiet. He must have attempted to resist him, but must have
failed. It is, perhaps, this incident, that may be, or may have
been, detailed in the inscription. Let critics investigate. Since
the invasion of Kanchi was in 1352 A. D. the defeat of Surathrana
in 1353 at the hands of Harihara is plausible as embodied in that
inscription. This discomfitted person was the Muslim Saamrat of
Madhura who was later assasinated by Kamparaja. This poetess
too has described this sultan as Surathrana. (Slokas 27, 38 in S. 9).
Thus befittingly this poetess commences the theme of this
Kavya with the history as it was in 1343 A. D.
connection with the Madhura Vijaya Invasion etc. Therefore,
according to this Kavya, there is no doubt, that by 1433 A. D. Hari
Hararaya I was not alive. If so, it may be questioned how the in-
scription of 1353 A. D. by Hari Hararaya became plausible. It must
be understood that that it was second Harihara himself. That Hari-
hara is no other than our Veera Kamparaya himself, and that Kam-
paraja had often fought with and carried on invasions against Mus-
lims, are facts affirmed by history. At page 160 of 'Mohammadiya
Mahayuga', while describing Kamparaya, it is recited that it can be
safely inferred, from the inscriptions in his time, and from the vast
improvements to Vijayanagar and to the empire during his
regime, that he had several times defeated the Muslims and
achieved victory. Even this kavya does not negative the said
fact. (Vide Sloka 23, S. 2 and sloka 20, S. 3 etc.).
It is a fact that in 1352 A. D. Kamparaya raided Kanchi
and killed Champaraya, the right hand man of the Sultan of
Madhura. Then, when he occupied Kanchi and was about to
proceed against himself, the Madhura Sultan would not keep
quiet. He must have attempted to resist him, but must have
failed. It is, perhaps, this incident, that may be, or may have
been, detailed in the inscription. Let critics investigate. Since
the invasion of Kanchi was in 1352 A. D. the defeat of Surathrana
in 1353 at the hands of Harihara is plausible as embodied in that
inscription. This discomfitted person was the Muslim Saamrat of
Madhura who was later assasinated by Kamparaja. This poetess
too has described this sultan as Surathrana. (Slokas 27, 38 in S. 9).
Thus befittingly this poetess commences the theme of this
Kavya with the history as it was in 1343 A. D.