If King Kulasekara Pandyan had better communication skills things may have been different.
1st his brother Vikrama Pandyan mutinied. If VP was well communicated with and given the responsibilites of military expansions - he might have had a more synergestic influence
And if Veera Pandyan and Sundara Pandyan were mentored and councelled into being brothers in arms and not brothers up in arms ..... Madurai would have not even been an option for Malik Kafur
Too many ifs and buts. God Knows what the scenario really was those days:) But that nationalistic passion to preserve our kingdom in our hearts gives rise to a lot of retrospective speculation.
I think the two pandyas were like today's arasiyalvaathis.. completely corrupt, inept and selfish.. wanting as much as they could grab. As I keep saying, human behavior hasn't changed in 1000s of years.. and even if we want to romanticize earlier timeframes, people were all probably similar.. You had the " good" kings.. and then you had the sutha ayOggiyans.. the pandyan sahotharargaL were probably the latter!:)
in my view the pandyas were too succesful for their own good. their writ ran for a long distance from madurai. the cholas and the others were petty fief doms. when malik came in, there was no resistance at all . he was not made tired or slowed down till he reached the capital. his momentum at the end of such a long trip is phenomenal
getting the help of other kings to fight against a brother was not new. cholas, singalas and cheras were constantly involved in pandya infighting. in fact kulasekaran the last but one king involved took chera support to defeat his brother vikrama.
How many years was he Malik alive after his south conquest Venkat? Not many I think.
One thing I noticed when I read Vantharkal Vendrarkal is that almost all of the successful Muslim king's really died a troubled death. I cannot help feel a bit happy reading the sad end of each king.