TIPU Sultan’s place in history has to be judged primarily in terms of the prolonged contest between Mysore and the East India Company (EIC). The Company had to engage in four large-scale wars (the four Anglo-Mysore wars) for over thirty years, from 1766 to 1799, to subjugate Mysore. Throughout the latter half of the eighteenth century, Mysore was the main obstacle to British expansion and consolidation in India. The relentless struggle of Haidar Ali, and more so of Tipu Sultan, against the Company assumed epic proportions due to the ability of Mysore to mobilise military resources on a scale that made the contest a real one. The modernisation of the army by Tipu Sultan, the adoption of advances in technology, and the skilful deployment of rockets (two specimens of which are preserved at the Royal Artillery Museum, Woolworth), forced the British to update their own military organisation involving a massive financial commitment. The defeat of Tipu Sultan paved the way for the subjugation of the Marathas, and ensured the supremacy of the Company by the beginning of the nineteenth century.

Haidar Ali began his career as a military officer in the Mysore army. He rose to prominence during the struggles of the 1740s in southern India. Having successfully intervened at several critical moments to defend Mysore during various regional conflicts, he emerged as the principal commander of the state’s army by the end of the 1750s, and de facto ruler of the state in 1761. Within the next two decades, Mysore became the leading state of the region with an army that could effectively challenge the EIC. The state’s borders extended to the river Krishna in the north; its territories encompassed much of present-day Karnataka, large portions of Andhra, most of western Tamil Nadu barring the extreme south, and northern Kerala.

The EIC was the main target of Haidar Ali’s military offensive. He inflicted defeat on the British in two successive wars, the first and second Anglo-Mysore wars. The first Anglo-Mysore war began in 1767 and ended in 1769 when Haidar Ali’s forces reached the outskirts of Madras, compelling the company to sue for peace on his terms. This was a severe blow to the company’s prestige. The second Anglo-Mysore war (1780-84) was a fiercely fought military contest ranging over a vast area stretching from Mangalore on the west coast to Arcot in the east. In one of these engagements, the battle of Pollilur (Pullalur, near Kanchipuram) in September 1780, in which the Mysore army was led by Tipu Sultan, the EIC suffered massive losses -- ‘the severest blow’, it was noted at that time, ‘that the English ever sustained in India’.

Haidar Ali passed away in December 1782 while the war was in full swing. He was succeeded by Tipu Sultan who continued the fight against the company with extraordinary vigour and succeeded in checking British expansionist designs in south India for the time being. Tipu Sultan seems to have been much more aware than many of his contemporaries in Asia of trends in global politics. For this reason, he attempted to forge international alliances by sending embassies to Turkey and France. His relationship with France became more cordial after the revolution in which his sympathies lay with the Jacobins. This does not necessarily mean that Tipu Sultan endorsed Jacobin radical ideals (though he did become a member of the ‘Jacobin Club’ that was established in Mysore), but his declarations in favour of the Jacobins should be read as a political move to enlist the support of France in his struggle against the British.

Given that Mysore was the main obstacle to British expansion in south India, the destruction of the state became a matter of great urgency for them. This objective was accomplished between 1789 and 1799 through the third and fourth Anglo-Mysore wars. The third Anglo-Mysore War (1789-92) began when governor-general Charles Cornwallis launched an offensive against Mysore to prevent it from extending its territory in Kerala. The company managed to enlist the support of Hyderabad and the Marathas against Tipu Sultan in the effort. The rulers of the states of Travancore and Cochin in south Kerala were already hostile to Mysore. Tipu Sultan was compelled to fight simultaneously on several fronts which overstretched his military resources. The war resulted in his losing nearly half of his kingdom, besides having to pay a heavy indemnity.

The company acquired control over north Kerala (Malabar) while Mysore lost its access to sea. The task of subjugating Mysore was completed by Richard Wellesley who became governor-general in 1798. Wellesley was sent out with a mandate to ensure British ascendancy over the Indian subcontinent. Napoleon Bonaparte, who was then in power in France, had just begun preparing for an invasion of Egypt, announcing his intention to significantly expand the French colonial empire in Africa and Asia. The possibility of an alliance between Tipu Sultan and Napoleon against the British was sought to be pre-empted by sending troops to invade Mysore in 1798.  This marked the beginning of the final Anglo-Mysore war. A massive offensive was launched by Wellesley. Mysore was attacked from both the east and west simultaneously. Tipu Sultan died valiantly defending his capital Seringapatam (Srirangapatna) in the culminating battle of the war (4 May, 1799).

A close reading of the reign of Tipu Sultan would show that the image that is being made out today by the various right-wing groups of him being a ruthless and a demon ruler is far from truth. The administration of Tipu Sultan, for instance, was composed largely of Hindus who occupied majority of the important offices. One can cite the examples of Krishna Rao who was the treasurer, Shamaiya Iyengar who was the minister of Post and Police, Ranga Iyengar (brother of Shamaiya Iyengar) who was an officer, Purnaiya who held the important post of Mir Asaf, Moolchand and Sujan Rai who were Tipu Sultan’s chief agents or representatives at the Mughal court in Delhi and Suba Rao who was the ruler’s chief Peshkar.

There is also sufficient evidence which reveal that a number of temples were receiving grants from Tipu Sultan on a regular basis. In this context one can cite the Mysore Gazettes edited by Srikantaiah. The Gazettes list around 156 temples that received patronage and grants directly from Tipu Sultan.  Some of those are the Sharada temple in Sringeri, the Kollur Mookambika temple in Dakshina Kannada district, the Nanjangud Srikanteshwarar temple near Mysore, the Lakshmikanta temple in Nanjagud taluk of Mysore and the Ranganathaswamy temple in the Mandya district. The gifts made by Tipu Sultan as well as the correspondences of deeds or sanads (which according to sources numbered to around 34) made between Tipu Sultan’s court and temples are still to be found in several of these temples. For instance, in the Nanjangud Srikanteshwarar temple, one can still find the jeweled cup gifted to it by Tipu Sultan. To the same temple, according to the temple documents, he made a gift of a green linga which is to this day in the possession of the temple. Similarly, to the Ranganathaswamy temple Tipu Sultan made a gift comprising of silver cups and silver camphor burner.

Moreover, in the Kollur Mookambika temple there is still an oral tradition of a special puja being performed everyday called Salam Mangalarathi in honour of Tipu Sultan who had paid a visit to the temple. In the same vein one may also mention the set of letters that were discovered by the Archaeological Survey of India in 1916 which were written by Tipu Sultan to the math of Sringeri Shankaracharya in the local language of the area, namely Kannada. Besides, the language and the tone of the letters is highly respectable, devout without any trace of malice and arrogance. The Sankaracharya had sought help from Tipu Sultan when the math was plundered by the Marathas in 1791. The Sultan readily agreed to help in all possible manners so that the math to attain its former glory and prestige.

The allegation that Tipu Sultan during his reign took away the land grants made by former kingdoms to brahmanas does not stand its ground in the light of available evidence. It can be pointed out that only those grants of land that were not backed by authorised documents were taken away while those which had proper sanads backing them were not taken away. This is a practice that has been followed by almost all kings irrespective of their religious backgrounds throughout the course of Indian history and Tipu Sultan was just following the established kingship norms and traditions and nothing else.  However, this did not made Tipu Sultan anti-brahmanain any way. In fact, it is recorded that the Sultan called upon brahmanas officers on regular basis to give him a ritual bath. On more than one occasion he gave fresh grants of land to several of the brahmanas residing in his domain.

It is often forgotten that one of the most radical and emancipatory social developments aimed at protecting the economically uplifting and protecting the dignity of the lower castes -- shudras -- in southern India took place under Tipu Sultan. He is credited with taking away lands from the clutches of the brahmanas and redistributing most of them to the shudras. Tipu Sultan is also said to have stopped the cruel custom wherein shudras were compelled to roam naked waist above.

It is perhaps because of these inclusive measures as well as far reaching outlook that made Tipu Sultan popular among majority of his subjects and this did not go unobserved even by British officials. We can mention the observation made in this regard by a British official named Major Alexander Dirom in 1792. He noted that “government, though strict and arbitrary, was the despotism of a politic and able sovereign, who nourishes, not oppresses, the subjects, who are to be the means of his future aggrandizement….”. (emphasis mine) (pp.25-27).

It may be mentioned that the demonisation of Tipu Sultan as a religious fanatic may be traced back to the well-known Malabar Manual (1887) compiled by William Logan, a British official posted in Malabar. This is not to suggest that the excesses of rulers, or the ruthlessness and violence that they often resort to in situations of war and conflict, should be glossed over by historians. However, history-writing involves questioning one’s sources. To accept or reproduce official British accounts of Tipu Sultan uncritically is to ignore the long history of the colonial demonisation of one of their most formidable foes.

In fact it would do us more good to read authoritative works on the ruler and his reign such as those of Mohibbul Hasan (History of Tipu Sultan, Calcutta, 1951), Kate Brittlebank (Tipu Sultan’s Search for Legitimacy: Islam and Kingship in a Hindu Domain, Delhi, 1997) and the two edited works by Irfan Habib (State and Diplomacy under Tipu Sultan: Documents and Essays, Delhi, 2001 and Confronting Colonialism: Resistance and Modernization under Haider Ali and Tipu Sultan, London, 2002), instead of relying merely on the skewed picture presented in the colonial officials’ accounts like those of W Kirkpatrick and M Wilks who were part of the British forces that defeated and killed Tipu Sultan. These officials had a vested interest in presenting Tipu Sultan in a negative light who was after all the Company’s most formidable opponent.

On Controversy over Tipu Sultan

The following is the statement issued by the Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust on November 17

IT is extremely regrettable that the commemoration of Tipu Sultan’s great fight against the British through his birth anniversary celebration has been made a divisive issue by the BJP and other communal elements in Karnataka and outside. Tipu Sultan has always been treated in our own national movement as a hero and martyr for his resistance against British aggression. Moreover, his role as a moderniser, in bringing in modern industrial technology, establishing a state trading company and instituting Mysore’s silk industry stands out as a unique achievement for his time. Much has already been written on his support of Hindu seers and shrines and his large-scale employment of Hindus up to highest offices, to show that there is no truth in picturing him as a persecutor of Hindus. We, therefore, support the commemoration in its treatment of Tipu Sultan as a national hero and a ruler who did much for the prosperity of that state, and appeal to all concerned not to be led away by the denunciatory propaganda against him that goes back directly to the interested writings of his British enemies.     

We strongly condemn the threats to noted playwright Girish Karnad for voicing his opinion on the role of Tipu Sultan.