Thirupparankundram witnessed a large-scale protest on 4 February 2025 under the leadership of Hindu Munnani, as tensions escalated over the historical and religious dispute concerning the hill known as Sri Skandar Malai or Sikandar Malai. Protesters gathered in significant numbers, voicing their opposition to what they claim is an attempt to alter the hill’s religious identity. The controversy, deeply rooted in history, has reignited debates over temple ownership, religious rights, and the role of historical judgments in defining the present.

Historical Background And Malik Kafur Invasion

Historical records trace the conflict back to the 13th century when the region was invaded by the Delhi Sultans. At the time, the Pandya dynasty was in decline, and Malik Kafur, a general of the Delhi Sultanate, launched a military campaign that led to the capture of Thirupparankundram. The region remained under the rule of the Sultans for nearly 50 years, with Sikandar being one of the last rulers of this period. However, his reign was brought to an end by the Vijayanagara Empire, which launched a decisive military expedition to reclaim the region, restoring Hindu rule and temple worship.

Today, the core claim being contested is that Sikandar’s tomb exists on the hill. Protesters argue that after the Vijayanagara Empire restored Hindu rule, there was no record of any such burial site. They view this as an attempt to rewrite history and assert control over a hill that has been a sacred Hindu site for centuries.

Legal Disputes And Ownership Controversy

The ownership of the hill has been the subject of legal disputes for over two centuries. The earliest documented case emerged in 1801, questioning whether the hill and temple fell under municipal authority or the Devasthanam (temple administration). The ruling at the time confirmed that the entire hill, including its temple streets, belonged to the Devasthanam and had always remained in its possession.

In 1920, a judge reaffirmed the 1801 judgment, explicitly stating that the Mughals, British, and other invaders had arrived only to loot and plunder, with no legitimate claims to the land.

The case provided crucial evidence that in 1920, a judge reconfirmed the 1801 judgment, which stated: “The entire hill, including its surrounding area, belongs to the Devasthanam and has always been under its possession and enjoyment.”

In 1931, the Privy Council ruled that Tirupparankundram Hill belonged to the Murugan Temple, except for the mosque site and Nellitope area. The temple had exercised ownership for over a century, maintaining roads, water supply, and structures. The British government’s claim was rejected, as the land was not “waste” but sacred to the temple. There was no evidence of Muslim rulers taking over the hill, though a mosque was built. The Madras High Court’s ruling was overturned, restoring the 1923 decision that upheld temple ownership while allowing the mosque to remain on its designated land.

It was the Privy Council in London which ruled in favour of the claim of the temple to the sacred Tirupparankundram Hill by quoting the historical documents of the temple, including that from ASI. It observed

“There seems to be no suggestion that the Tirupparankundram temple or… pic.twitter.com/kGwE4gUovx

— 𑀓𑀺𑀭𑀼𑀱𑁆𑀡𑀷𑁆 🇮🇳 (@tskrishnan) February 5, 2025

Protesters argue that the temple’s original community, the Devendra Kula Vellalars, have been the rightful custodians of the site for generations. They question the stance of the DMK government and officials who claim to support Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) communities yet allegedly fail to uphold their rights over this sacred site.

Emergence Of Dargah In 1905 And Karthigai Deepam Dispute

Another major point of contention is the construction of a dargah on the hill. According to a book published by Damayanthi Publications, written by Nagappa Nachiyappan, Thirupparankundram Temple Vearkottam. It states that: “In 1905, funds were collected from Muslims, and a person named Ilayangudi Meera Mukkai Deen Rawthar built a structure on the hill.”. Protesters question how such a structure suddenly appeared in 1905 and why historical records prior to that time make no mention of it.

Adding to the ongoing religious disputes, the Karthigai Deepam festival, a sacred Hindu tradition, has been restricted since 1912. A legal case filed that year resulted in a prohibition on Hindus lighting the ceremonial lamp at the peak of the hill. Since then, the deepam has been lit at an alternate location called Moksha Deepam, sparking anger among devotees who see this as a violation of their religious rights. Protesters demand that Hindus be allowed to restore their traditional practice of lighting the deepam at its original location.

Encroachments 

Another alarming revelation has surfaced regarding encroachments on the hill. The Thirupparankundram Temple Vearkottam book, published in 1981, stated that only two bodies—Sikandar’s and his minister Lukman Sharif’s—were buried at the site. However, recent reports indicate that at least eight additional burials have taken place, raising concerns over encroachment on temple land.

In recent weeks, tensions have further escalated due to the Sandanakoodu Festival (Sandalwood Festival) flag hoisting controversy. Traditionally, the festival flag has been hoisted for three days. However, protestors allege that there is now a demand for it to remain hoisted for seven days, 24/7. Most controversially, the demand includes tying the flag to the Kalathi Maram, the sacred tree of the Thirupparankundram Temple. Protesters argue that such an act is an outright violation of temple traditions and an infringement on Hindu religious rights.

Historical Warriors And Fight For The Hill

Thirupparankundram has long been a site of resistance, and history remembers warriors who fought to preserve its sanctity. One such figure is Kuttaiya Pillai, a 13th-century warrior who fiercely resisted Malik Kafur’s invasion. According to folklore, before his death, Kuttaiya Pillai tattooed a message on his arm, declaring that if the hill were taken from Hindus, his spirit would return to seek justice. Many devotees believe his presence continues to protect the temple from encroachments.

The controversy surrounding Skanda Malai versus Sikandar Malai is not just a question of historical interpretation—it is a battle over religious identity, legal ownership, and the right to preserve sacred traditions.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.