feedback, particularly constructive critique, is gratefully
Abdullah Waheed writes
seems to be no doubt that the Maldives was a vassal state
of the Portuguese from around 1550 to 1650. As you say
(Dr Waheed is responding to an email from me here-
Majid), there is of course no proof that the relationship
was formalized . But the facts detailed below seem to
indicate that it was so:
the agreement between Mohammed Thakurufan and the Portuguese
the former was not allowed to hold the title of Sultan
(ref. HCP Bell)
the same time Portuguese (and their Spanish overloads)
recognized Hassan ix and his descendants as kings of
Maldives. They corresponded with the European monarchs
using these titles (ref. Pyrard)
Christian kings of Maldives gave a third of their revenue
to the Portuguese monarch (ref. Pyrard). Revenue records
were recognized as proof of title and ownership of land
in British India, the system still continuing after
India's independence, notably to settle some border
disputes between Bangladesh and India.
the statement that Mohammed Thakurufan and his two
immediate descendants were not real kings, I think you
have hit the jackpot.
I have discovered further evidence to that end as detailed
- As mentioned earlier the agreement with Portuguese
precluded them form becoming king.
the cases of Bodu Thakuru and his son the author of
Taareekh, Hassan Tajuddeen uses the expression "he sat
on the throne" (isheende wadaigathun). For other kings
he uses either "he was elevated to king" (iskurun) or
"he was formally placed on the throne" (weduwun). These
choices of words may appear trivial. But let me illustrate.
When describing the events of November 3, 1988, a historian
might say Luthfee sat on the President's chair using
exactly the same expression Tajuddeen used for Thakurufan,
but not the expressions he used for other kings. [To
be honest about facts, I must admit that Tajudeen used
"sitting on the throne" for another king, Isdhoo Ali
Velaana, Later King Ali Shahbandar. But Tajudeen had
open enmity with him and used derogatory terms to describe
the regime. So, "sitting on the throne" was appropriate
for Tajudeen's frame of mind.]
after the "sitting" on the throne episode Tajuddeen
continues to refer to Mohammed as Thakurufan, never
once using the title "radhun". He did use "rasgefan"
a few times. But this title he also has used for another
person who we know was never formally inaugurated as
king, but was king-elect. That was Hassan the young
heir of Ali Shahbandar.
Kolhufushi Faykolhu, which is still surviving, describes
the man as "al Wazir Mohammed Bodu Thakuru". And this
was obviously, much later than the so-called "sitting
on the throne".
Hanyameedhu Faykolhu written after Kalaafaan's death
continues to describe him as Bodu Thakuru. Kalaafaan
was called "al Ghaazee Ibrahim Faashana". This proves
that none of them were called Sultan in their lifetimes.
Interestingly, using "al Ghazee" for Kalaafaan showed
that the writer of the Faykolhu was scratching the bottom
of the barrel for a suitable title. It did not fit him
because it usually referred to a victor in battle. Obviously,
the author felt that the alternative title of "sultan'
fitted him even less.
other Faykolhu or loamafaanu refers to other kings as
anything but kings.
koli names of these "kings" appear to be faked several
years after their death. The koli names mentioned in
Tareekh and those in Raadhavalhi do not tally. Whoever
faked the names in Raadhavalhi obviously did not have
a copy of Taareekh.
three kings also did not have formal Arabic names. The
name Mohammed Thakurufanul Aazam is a weak attempt to
hoodwink us into believing that this was a formal name.
But as you can see, Thakurufanul Aazam is just an Arabic
rendering of Bodu Thakurufan. The English version "the
great' is even more misleading. Title-wise, he was not
"the great" in the fashion of Alexander, but simply
the bigger of the two Thakurs (the other being Hassan).
I suspect it must be Mohammed Ameen who must have coined
the term "al Azam". In his time Mohammed was called
Thakur. "Fan" was an honorifc added to titles like Kilege
and Thakur much later in history. So the coining would
have occured after this period. Let us check.
describing the reign of Shujai Imadudden, the third
ruler after Bodu Thakur, Tareekh says that Imadudden
restored the lost status of the monarchy. We know he
defeated the Portuguese in battle. Obviously this was
how he restored the monarchy. Whatever it is, the Tareekh
acknowledges that the monarchy was weak before him.
Tareekh could only be referring to the Utheem dynasty.
was also called Bodu Rasgefaanu. What did the word "bodu"
signify? Obviously some people those days felt he was
a bigger king then his predecessors, perhaps because
he was a "REAL" king and not just a regent. Contrast
"Bodu Rasgefan" with "Bodu Thakuru".
Mohammed Thakuru used the title "Kilege". (ref. Pyrard).
It appears that those days there was only one Kilege
(ref. Bell). So it could have meant regent. Later "kilege"
was added to other titles such as Fashana, which became
Fashanakilege, and later Fashanakilegefan. But originally
there was just one kilege.
all the above and your own points, I doubt whether any
other theory could explain all the observed findings.
Certainly not the present official version. Under the
circumstances, your theory is more than just a hypothesis.
It should at least be accepted as an alternative version
of history. Becoming the official version is of course
another story, despite the fact that all our findings
are based on well-documented sources.
to Myth of Portuguese Rule