Do the words Tulakan in Tamil/Malayalam and Turk in Hindi & Marathi in context of past centuries' Muslim invaders/rulers of many parts of India refer to people from Turkey or from Central Asia?

Last updated on 15th Nov. 2019 

I would like to first say that I believe in Shirdi Sai Baba's teaching of "Sabka Maalik Ek" (The master of all is ONE). In other words, I believe in ONE GOD with various religions including Islam being various paths/ways to worship and merge in that ONE GOD. Specifically, I am not against Islam, and am actually supportive of it, so long as it does not interfere in the right of others (like me, a Hindu) to practise their faiths which are different from Islam (e.g. Hinduism, Christianity, Sikhism, Jainism, Buddhism, Judaism). Shirdi Sai Baba used to say "Allah Maalik" (Allah/God is the master) very often; I revere the same Shirdi Sai Baba,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sai_Baba_of_Shirdi, and try to follow His teachings.

The intent of this post is to simply have a more truthful understanding of the past of my country, India, and Kerala state in particular.

This post is based on my part of a recent email conversation.

About Tulakan in Tamil & Malayalam and Turk in Hindi & Marathi, here's an extract (slightly edited to correct obvious typo kind of errors) from a Romila Thapar lecture, http://www.sacw.net/aii/ch2.html:

The notion that there were these two communities (Hindu & Muslim) ties in, again, with the notion of identity: where does one's identity lie? Does it lie with the Hindu community or does it lie with the Muslim community? And if it lies with whichever one, you trace it back to these communities and (which are) said to be constantly in conflict. This is a very crude and an incorrect way of looking at Indian history. To begin with, when the Muslims, whether they were Arabs, Turks, or Afghans, when they first arrived in India, and they came from Arabia, Afghanistan, central Asia, Persia. Let us see what they are called by the local people. Interestingly, they are not called Muslims. There are a series of names that are used which have a historical continuity from earlier times. For example, one of the terms that is used is yavana, a term that was used for the ancient Greeks and later on for anybody that came from West Asia, the Iranians, the Arabs they were all called Yavanas. When the British arrived by sea, the Dutch, the Portuguese and so on, they were also called yavanas, because they were basically from the direction of the west. This is a historical term, which goes back to the period of the Mauryan empire. It was first used in Mauryan sources referring to the Greeks.

Or else, they used the terms Shaka, Shakas meaning the Shakas who came from central Asia. The Turks are frequently referred to as the Shakas, or they are referred to as Turushka. Turushka is the Sanskrit, Turka is the term used in Marathi and Hindi and it is the same as Tulakan, which is used in Tamil. Going back again to Turkish, this is the ethnic name that was used for people that had come from Central Asia; or else they are described as mleccha, this being the term used for those who were outside caste society or did not observe caste regulations.
--- end extract ---

I should mention here that I am not commenting on all of what Romila Thapar has said above. But I think she seems to be right on the Tulakan part, as well as on Turkish being a reference to people from Central Asia (and NOT Turkey).

Prior to me understanding that the Indian language words (in context of past centuries' Indian history), Turk/Turki and Tulakan which I have heard being used by elders in my Tamil speaking Kerala Iyer family a few times, were references to Central Asians, which (understanding) was just a few years back, I think I was under the impression that they referred to people from Turkey! I used to wonder how come these invaders of India came from as far away as Turkey!

It is when I read up about Mongols (especially Mongol empire) that it started dawning on me that Turkey country name (with capital Istanbul/Constantinople) came from Central Asian tribes who had conquered and/or migrated to that country! And that the Turk word was associated originally with Central Asians, well before it started getting associated (in general and not in context of past centuries' Indian history) with the country Turkey). Let me see if I can provide some reference to that.
...
What wondrous and marvellous creations the Internet, search engines and Wikipedia are! I got the info. from simple Google search of the term 'origin of country name Turkey'! We truly are blessed to live in an Information Age never ever seen before in the whole history of humanity.

An extract from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Turkey (with some comments of mine embedded in it), is given below:

The English name Turkey, now applied to the modern Republic of Turkey, is historically derived (via Old French Turquie) from the Medieval Latin Turchia, Turquia. It is first recorded in Middle English (as Turkye, Torke, later Turkie, Turky), attested in Chaucer, ca. 1369.[1][2] The Ottoman Empire was commonly referred to as Turkey or the Turkish Empire among its contemporaries.
...
Turkey adopted its official name, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti, known in English as the Republic of Turkey, upon the declaration of the republic on October 29 1923.

[Ravi: Ottoman empire was founded in Turkey by a Central Asian tribal leader of Oghuz Turks, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oghuz_Turks, background who seems to have hailed from Central Asia. It was founded in 1299 by Osman I, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osman_I.]
...
The first recorded use of the term "Türk" or "Türük" as an autonym is contained in the Old Turkic inscriptions of the Göktürks (Celestial Turks) of Central Asia (c. AD 735).[5] The Turkic self-designation Türk is attested to reference to the Göktürks in the 6th century AD. A letter by Ishbara Qaghan to Emperor Wen of Sui in 585 described him as "the Great Turk Khan."

[Ravi: That's the vital nugget of info. In 585 AD, a Central Asia chieftain described himself as Great Turk Khan to then Chinese emperor! At that time Istanbul would have been Constantinople and the region that is the country Turkey today would have had a mix of people of somewhat recently converted Christians (as the Roman emperor of that area - Eastern Roman (Byzantine) empire - would have been Christian) and, perhaps, of earlier Roman and Greek and other religions but not Islam. Islam had not been founded yet!]

[Wiki Refs]
1. Harper, Douglas. "Turk". Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved 2006-12-07.
2. American Heritage Dictionary (2000). "The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition - "Turk"". bartleby.com. Retrieved 2006-12-07.
..
5. Scharlipp, Wolfgang (2000). An Introduction to the Old Turkish Runic Inscriptions. Verlag auf dem Ruffel., Engelschoff. ISBN 3-933847-00-1, 9783933847003.

--- end wiki extract ---

An extract from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6kt%C3%BCrks is given below:

The Göktürks, Celestial Turks or Blue Turks (Old Turkic: 𐰰𐰼𐰇𐱅⁚𐰛𐰇𐰜‎, Kök Türük; Chinese: 突厥/تُركِئ; pinyin: Tūjué, Middle Chinese: *duət̚-kʉɐt̚ (türkut), Dungan: Тўҗүә; Khotanese Saka: Ttūrka, Ttrūka;[2] Old Tibetan: Drugu[2]) were a nomadic confederation of Turkic peoples in medieval Inner Asia ["Inner Asia refers to regions within East Asia and North Asia that are today part of Western China, Mongolia and eastern Russia.", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_Asia]. The Göktürks, under the leadership of Bumin Qaghan (d. 552) and his sons, succeeded the Rouran Khaganate as the main power in the region and established the Turkic Khaganate, one of several nomadic dynasties which would shape the future geolocation, culture, and dominant beliefs of Turkic peoples.
--- end wiki extract ---

I think that settles the matter clearly that in the context of past centuries' Muslim invaders/rulers of many parts of India, Tulakan in Tamil/Malayalam and Turk in Hindi & Marathi refer to people from Central Asian regions (and NOT from the country, Turkey whose capital is Istanbul/ Constantinople), who invaded India, with many of them settling down in India and intermingling with the existing population thereby getting absorbed into Indian people.
======================================

Given below are my comments (slightly edited) from a comment exchange on my Facebook post,  https://www.facebook.com/ravi.s.iyer.7/posts/2652815258268368, associated with this blog post:

In response to a comment, I wrote:
--Name-snipped-- sir, interesting input. Thanks.

The impression I have formed is that the Moplah/Mapilla Muslim community in Kerala was home-grown over centuries right from 7th century (Islam was founded in early 7th century). They are NOT or should NOT be referred to as Tulakan - if they are referred to in that way, then that is a mixed up reference. Islam would have come along with traders from the Arab world who used the then well established sea route over the Arabian sea between Arabia and Kerala.

But the invaders/rulers of India from Central Asia who steadily made inroads into South India and so would have been a threat to rulers of Kerala, directly/indirectly, are referred to as Tulakan.

Interesting that while you did not hear the word Tulakan being used in your childhood in Kerala, but heard it (as an adult) when you interacted with Tamil speakers in Penang (Malaysia), where it was being used to refer to Tamil Muslims. Interesting to know about the term Chulias.

I think Tulakan would be more well known in Tamil Nadu than Kerala as Tamil Nadu has faced many Islamic invasions and also Islamic rule in past centuries.

The first invasion/raid from Central Asian origin Muslim rulers was during the Khalji/Khilji dynasty, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalji_dynasty, who were the 2nd dynasty of the Delhi Sultanate ruling from 1290 to 1320. The Khaljis were Central Asian origin people who had settled in Afghanistan and then moved to Delhi. So the Khaljis were Turks (Hindi/Marathi) or Tulakans (Tamil/Malayalam).

Malik Kafur's invasion of the Pandya kingdom, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malik_Kafur%27s_invasion_of_the_Pandya_kingdom, tells us, "During 1310-1311, the Delhi Sultanate ruler Alauddin Khalji sent an army led by Malik Kafur to the southernmost kingdoms of India. After subjugating the Hoysalas, Malik Kafur invaded the Pandya kingdom (called Ma'bar in Muslim chronicles) in present-day Tamil Nadu, taking advantage of a war of succession between the Pandya brothers Vira and Sundara. During March–April 1311, he raided several places in the Pandya territory, including their capital Madurai. He was unable to make the Pandya king a tributary to the Delhi Sultanate, but obtained a huge plunder, including elephants, horses, gold and precious stones."

Note that the Pandya kingdom is referred to as Ma'bar in Muslim chronicles and whose capital was Madurai. I think we should not confuse it as a reference to Malabar area of Kerala, even if Muslim chronicles mixed up the two areas.

So this was the first Delhi Muslim ruler raid into Pandya kingdom which would have been an utterly terrifying experience for the entire Pandya kingdom, not only for the rulers but also the common people. As Pandya kingdom then also stretched into at least some parts of Kerala like south Kerala, the news would have travelled to those parts and from there to other parts of Kerala even if they were not under Pandya rule then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandya_dynasty tells us, "An internal crisis in the Pandya empire coincided with the Khalji invasion of south India in 1310–11.[7 -  "Pandya dynasty | Indian dynasty". Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Pandya-dynasty. Retrieved 21 September 2017.] The ensuing political crisis saw more sultanate raids and plunder, the loss of south Kerala (1312), ..."

So south Kerala was under Pandya kingdom at the time of the Malik Kafur led raid under Khalji dynasty of Delhi sultanate.

And there were more raids from Delhi sultanate later! From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madurai_Sultanate: "In the early 14th Century, South India was subjected to repeated invasions by armies of the Delhi Sultanate. There were three separate invasions within a period of fifteen years. The first invasion in 1311 CE was led by Malik Kafur, who sacked Madurai. Following this there were two more expeditions from the Delhi Sultanate - the second in 1314 CE led by Khusro Khan and the third in 1323 CE by Ulugh Khan. These invasions shattered the Pandyan empire beyond revival. While the previous invasions were content with plunder, Ulugh Khan annexed the former Pandyan dominions to the Delhi Sultanate as the province of Ma'bar. Most of South India came under the Delhi's rule and was divided into five provinces - Devagiri, Tiling, Kampili, Dorasamudra and Ma'bar.[1 - Nilakanta Sastri, P.213]

In 1325, Ulugh Khan acceded to the throne in Delhi as Muhammad bin Tughluq."

Ravi: So the Delhi Sultanate, over a period of 12 to 13 years from 1311 to 1323, first raided South India including the areas of what is referred to as Tamil Nadu today, and then annexed most of South India in 1323 to the Delhi Sultanate. For the first time, many areas of South India came under Muslim rule!

Naturally this would have been a tremendous life-changing event for the people of South India and they would have tried to understand and come to terms with what had happened. I think that's when the Tulakan term would have got into Tamil & Malayalam languages to refer to Delhi Sultanate invaders & rulers (distinct from home-grown Muslims of Kerala).

It is not clear to me whether Delhi Sultanate rule in 1323 extended to South Kerala and Central Kerala.

Note that the Vijayanagara Hindu empire rose a few years later as a reaction to Muslim Delhi Sultanate rule. Given below is an extract from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vijayanagara_Empire,

The Vijayanagara Empire (also called Karnata Empire,[3] and the Kingdom of Bisnegar by the Portuguese) was based in the Deccan Plateau region in South India. It was established in 1336 by Harihara I and his brother Bukka Raya I of Sangama Dynasty.[4][5][6] The empire rose to prominence as a culmination of attempts by the southern powers to ward off Islamic invasions by the end of the 13th century. It lasted until 1646, although its power declined after a major military defeat in the Battle of Talikota in 1565 by the combined armies of the Deccan sultanates. The empire is named after its capital city of Vijayanagara, whose ruins surround present day Hampi, now a World Heritage Site in Karnataka, India.[7]
...
[Wiki Refs]
3. Stein 1989, p. 1.
4. By James Mansel Longworth page 204
5. edited by J C morris page 261
6. Sen, Sailendra (2013). A Textbook of Medieval Indian History. Primus Books. pp. 103–106. ISBN 978-93-80607-34-4.
7. "Master Plan for Hampi Local Planning Area" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 30 April 2013.
--- end wiki extracts ---

Puttaparthi area was part of Vijayanagara empire. Bukkapatnam, town close to Puttaparthi, is named after one of the Vijayanagara empire rulers, Bukka (patnam means town/city). Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba did some part of his schooling in Bukkapatnam (in 1930s I guess), walking to the school and back from Puttaparthi.
------

In response to a comment asking what we can distill from (this discussion), I wrote:
--Name-snipped-- sir, I am more of a details guy (verbose guy). This gives me a good idea of the history of the word Tulakan in Tamil and Malayalam. BTW I checked with a Kerala guy in Puttaparthi who grew up in Kerala. He said he had heard of the word Tulakan in his youth itself in Kerala.
------

Checked with a couple of locals in Puttaparthi: Turku + vallu = Turkollu is used in Telugu. The actual reference historically would have been to the Central Asian origin Muslim rulers from Delhi Sultanate, like the words, Turk in Hindi/Marathi and Tulakan in Tamil/Malayalam. One of the locals with whom I checked wrote that he always thought that it denotes Turkey! I think this post may help in clearing up such misconceptions among those people who happen to read this post.

I should also mention that I have heard Puttaparthi locals normally using 'Sahebvallu' (in Telugu) to refer to Muslims in a honourable way. Note that Saheb is a term of respect like sir.

[I thank sacw.net & Romila Thapar, and wikipedia, and have presumed that they will not have any objections to me sharing the above extract(s) from their websites on this post which is freely viewable by all, and does not have any financial profit motive whatsoever.]