08 sōsale garaḷapurī śāstri family

appendix d:

reconstructed family history of sōsale garaḷapurī śāstri

343

Genealogical Account in Ayyāśāstri’s Hand The translator has located two undated pages, both in the possession of SR Śivasvāmi, Ayyā Śāstri’s grandson, containing historical and genealogical information in Ayyā Śāstri’s own hand. The first is an account of the family’s move from Ānēgondi to Sōsale, and carries the page number 2. The other sheet, bearing no page number, is a family tree (see Plate 9, page 67). It is likely these were prepared together as a two-page manuscript. The second page reads as follows.

Ānēgondiyallidda pradhāni tammaṇṇa śāstrigaḷu
haiderābādina turukara hāvaḷiyinda ā saṁsthānadalli sarvasvavannū kaḷedukonḍu
enṭu kōṇagaḷa mēle ōle pustakagaḷannu hērikonḍu
anantaśayana prāntyakke hōgabēkendu baruttiruvāga
ānekallina baḷige bandu
alli kōṭe kaṭṭisutidda pāḷyagāraninda maryādeyannu hondi
ātana prārthānēyinda ānekallinallē nintaru.
ā pāḷyagāranu hattu vr̥uttigaḷannu koṭṭu
doḍḍadāgi mānē kaṭṭisi koṭṭa-nu.
alli kelavu kāla ivaru sukhavāgiddu
allē kālādhīnarāda kelavu varṣagaḷa mēle
avara makkaḷu śaṇkarabhaṭṭaru
māgaḍige hōgi alliyē nintaru.

ī śaṇkarabhaṭṭara munde 5-nē taleyavaru veṇkaṭarāmaśrautigaḷembavaru. ī 7–8 varṣagala keḷage bahaḷa vr̥ddharāgi māgaḍiyalliddaru.

hinde vidyāraṇyara kāladindalū tammaṇṇa śāstrigaḷavarige
aydu taleya tanaka ī vaṁśadavarige ānegondi saṁsthānadalli pradhāni kelasavu naḍedu band-iruvudu.

śaṇkarabhaṭṭara makkaḷu veṇkaṭarāmabhaṭṭaru ṭī. narasīpurada tāllōku sōsale grāmakke bandu
ā grāmashtharānēkara avalambavannu paḍedu
allē nintaru.
ī venkaṭaramābhaṭṭara makkaḷē sōsale timmappaśāstrigaḷu–

ī timmappaśāstrigaḷa makkaḷu veṇkaṭadāsappanavar embavarē sōsale aṇṇayya śāstrigaḷendu prasiddharāgiddaru.

The translation of this passage is as follows.

As Tammaṇṇa Śāstri, having lost his all to the depredations of Haiderābādi Muslims, was en route from Ānēgondi to the region of Anantaśayana, carrying his palm-leaf manuscripts on eight buffaloes, he came to Ānēkallu and remained there at the request of the local pāḷyagāra, who received him with great respect, and who was then engaged in building a fort. This pāḷyagāra gifted him ten vr̥ttis and built him a large house.

344

345

A few years after he passed on, ¹ having lived there contentedly for some time, his son Śaṇkarabhaṭṭa moved to Māgaḍi and settled down there. A very aged descendant in the fifth generation after Śaṇkarabhaṭṭa, called Veṇkaṭarāma Śrauti, lived in Māgaḍi as recently as 7–8 years ago. In the past, for the five generations from the time of Vidyāraṇya to the time of Tammaṇṇa Śāstri, members of this same family had served in the role of minister in the state of Ānēgondi.

Veṇkaṭrāmabhaṭṭa, the son of Śaṇkarabhaṭṭa, came to Sōsale and remained there, finding support from many of its residents. The son of this Veṇkaṭrāmābhaṭṭa was none other than Sōsale Timmappaśāstri – the son of this Timmappaśāstri, Veṇkaṭadāsappa, was renowned by the name of Aṇṇayya Śāstri.

Establishing a Basis for Analyzing the Genealogy

This account by Ayyā Śāstri closely matches the account starting on page 8, and may well have been used by the author of this biography. This invaluable document is, however, not specific on several crucial points, particularly on the date of Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s departure from Ānēgondi, as well as the reason for his curious choice of Anantaśayana as destination. Anantaśayana (modern-day Tiruvanantapuram [Sircar 1971]) is at a distance of 750 km from Ānēgondi as the crow flies, but the actual distance must have been much greater over the roads of the period. Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s journey took place at a very restive time in the region, and would have been a gruelling and hazardous undertaking for a family travelling with all its possessions. In addition to the eight buffaloes mentioned, the train would have included carts for the ladies and other people of the entourage, as well as for carrying provisions and possessions. There would also surely have been a retinue of attendants. In all, it would have been a substantial caravan, on a long and dangerous journey.

Garaḷapurī Śāstri’s biography implies that the cataclysmic event precipitating Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s journey was the battle of Tāḷikōṭe.² It refers to the sack of the capital, and its allusion to the king’s disappearence is suggestive of Tirumala’s flight from Vijayanagara to Penukoṇḍa. In 1919, when this biography was written, scholarship on Vijayanagara was sparse, and the prevailing sense seems to have been that the battle of Tāḷikōṭe marked the end of the Vijayanagara empire. Thus, in discussing the murder of Sadāśiva, the last Tuḷuva king, Sewell [1900] remarks of the Āravīḍu dynasty: “And *thus began the third dynasty, if dynasty it can be appropriately called.” Subsequent scholarship has shown this view to be grossly incorrect, but there would have been little reason in 1919 to ascribe Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s journey to any period substantially later than Tāḷikōṭe.

346

347

We note, however, that Ayyā Śāstri’s account makes no mention at all of the fateful battle of Tāḷikōṭe. It merely suggests that Tammaṇṇa Śāstri lost his all as a result of the actions of “Haiderābādi Muslims”. As such, it provides no sound basis for the association with Tāḷikōṭe, though Ayyā Śāstri appears not to have contested this implication when he read the biography.

We will see sound reasons for a different interpretation.

Ayyā Śāstri had deep ties to Sōsale, and must have heard this account from his father, and possibly his grandfather, who was only four generations removed from Tammaṇṇa Śāstri. As the only available written account of this history, by a learned descendant of Tammaṇṇa Śāstri, we must treat this document as a primary source. However, it is in the nature of oral traditions to be altered in the transmission, and to be subject to reinterpretation at each recounting. While this is an authoritative account of the tradition at Ayyā Śāstri’s time, it would be risky to take it uncritically.

A Foundation for Further Inquiry

We begin by identifying the most reliable aspects of the account as those most likely to have remained unchanged in the retellings over the generations. We can consider all else in their light.

The genealogy is surely correct. Tammaṇṇa Śāstri and his descendants were all steeped in learning and culture. As proud inheritors of an illustrious family heritage going back centuries, and as descendants of scholars who were ministers at Dōrasamudra and Vijayanagara, capitals of the two most important dynasties in Karnāṭaka’s history, they would have taken pains to preserve their antecedents.³ Also, as traditional and observant brāhmaṇas, the sons would have dutifully performed the śrāddha rituals on each anniversary of their father’s death, when they would have recited the names of their ancestors from the three preceding generations.⁴ The genealogy’s placement of Aṇṇayya Śāstri in the fourth generation after Tammaṇṇa Śāstri cannot be in error. We are also certain that Ayyā Śāstri was in the second generation after Aṇṇayya Śāstri.

An incidental reference in Ayyā Śāstri’s account is also likely to be reliable, and indeed of crucial significance. Ayyā Śāstri states that the local pāḷeyagāra was building a fort at Ānēkallu when Tammaṇṇa Śāstri arrived.

348

Remarkably, this recollection has been preserved over six generations, down to Ayyā Śāstri’s time. The construction of a fort is a major and impressive undertaking, requiring a huge investment of resources, and would have been a landmark event for the community. It seems certain that a genuine memory has been preserved; the very character of the event makes it unlikely to be an invention arising from re-interpretations or creative retellings.

The Sugaṭūru and Ānēkallu Paḷeyagāras

We will try to deduce the time of Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s arrival in Ānēkallu by identifying the fort’s builder and the date of its construction. This task, however, turns out to be unexpectedly difficult.

The pāḷeyagāras of Ānēkallu were a branch of the Sugaṭūru lineage of Gauḍas, whose most distinguished ancestor appears to have been a Timmē Gauḍa of the early 15th century.⁵ The Sugaṭūru and Ānēkallu pāḷeyagāras tended to assume eponymous titles that were derivatives of this ancestor’s name, making it hard to distinguish between them. The eponym appears in inscriptions and in the literature in numerous variant forms, including Timme Gauḍa, Thamma (Tamma) Gauḍa, Timmappa Gauḍa, Tammendra, and Tammappagauḍa. These forms appear to have been equivalent, so that the same individual is sometimes referred to by different variants in different inscriptions. The Ānēkallu Gauḍas were also fond of emphasizing their origins by adding the qualifier Sugaṭūru to their names, confounding the lineages and their members even further.

The use of qualifiers such as *Immaḍi *(“The Second”) or Mummaḍi (“The Third”), or honorifics like Cikka Rāya, by members of the lineage is less helpful than we might expect. These qualifiers have been used as if they were first names, in disregard of their true meanings. Thus, the inscription Ht 94, dated 1564 C.E., mentions a Cikkarāya Tamma Gauḍarayya, whose dominions included Hosakōṭe, as being the son of Tammayya Gauḍarayya and grandson of Mummaḍi Cikkarāya Tammapa Gauḍarayya.

[[349]]

Mummuḍi Cikkarāya
Tammappagauḍa
Cikkarāya Tammegauḍa
Tammappa Gauḍa
(1422–1474)
(1650)

↓

↓

↓

Ta(Ti)mmayya

Cikkarāya Tammegauḍa 1

Mummuḍi Karaḍu

Gauḍa (1559)

(1474–1542)

Tammegauḍa (1699)

↓

↓

↓

Cikkarāya Tammappa

Tammegauḍa 2

Vīranañjunḍa

Gauḍa (1564)

(1522–1605)

Tammegauḍa (1757)

↓

↓

↓

Immaḍi Tammappa

Tammegauḍa 3

Mummuḍi Ayyamagauḍa

↓

(1605–1642)

↓

Mummuḍi Cikkarāya

↓

Cikkarāya

Tammappa (1614)

Cikkarāya Tammegauḍa 2

↓

↓

(1642–1675)

Vīra Cikkarāya

Cikkarāya Tamme

↓

↓

Gauḍa

Cikkarāya Tammegauḍa 3

Cikkarāyalu

↓

(1675–1705)

(adopted)

Mummuḍi Cikkarāya

↓

Tamme Gauḍa (1693)

Śivānēgauḍa (1705–1725)

(a) From Gopal [1985]

(b) From Rice [2005]

(c) From Reddy [1995]

Plate 38: Example Sugaṭūru genealogies from the literature.

According to inscription An 47 [Rice 1905], dated 1614 C.E., however, Mummaḍi Tammappa Gauḍa, then ruling over Hosakōṭe, was the son of Immaḍi Tammappa Gauḍa, and the grandson of Cikka Rāya Tammappa Gauḍa. An 60 is a grant by Mummaḍi Cikka Rāya Tamme-Gauḍarāya in Ānēkallu in the period 1639–1640 C.E. [Rice 1905]. Confusion abounds. Some 105 inscriptions relating to these two lineages are available, but great care is needed in interpreting them. These uncertainties have led to different genealogies for the Sugaṭūru lineage (see Plate 38).

An account called the Kaifiyat of the Ānēkallu Pāḷeyagāras has recently come to light [Reddy 1995]. It was written around 1800 C.E. to press the claims of the Ānēkallu pāḷeyagāras with the British after Ṭippu Sultān’s death at their hands in Śrīraṇgapaṭṭaṇa in 1799 C.E. A large number of Kaifiyats were written at the time, mainly by village officials, such as accountants, and were informal histories, reflecting local tradition [Kalburgi 1994].

[[350]]

Most were sponsored by Colin Mackenzie, a surveyor and cartographer with the British army conquering South India between the late 1700s and the 1820s, C.E. These works contain both historically accurate information as well as folklore, frequently connecting local origins to Puraṇic and mythological events. The ānēkallu Kaifiyat remains in the possession of a descendant of the Ānēkallu lineage, but is not a reliable source of its early history. We shall see, however, that it contains a piece of information of crucial value for us.

Ānēkallu’s History and the Ānēkallu Kaifiyat

The present status of historical research on the Sugaṭūru and Ānēkallu pāḷeyagāras does not permit even an accurate reconstruction of the lineages, let alone their accurate dating. We will hence restrict ourselves to using available evidence to obtain an accurate date for the Ānēkallu fort’s construction, our main object. We will also consider the identity of the pāḷeyagāra responsible for its construction. To allow future corrections in the light of new and more reliable information, and to relieve the more casual reader from having to consult the originals, we will include quotes from our sources.

We begin with the following quote from Rice [1877b, p. 40]:

The origin of the name— áne-kallu, hailstone—is not known. The town was founded about 1603 by Chikka Timme Gauda, a descendant of the original Sugaṭūr chief. The general of the Bijapur State, after seizing Timme Gauda’s hereditary possession of Hoskote, granted him Ānēkal, which formed a hobli of that pargana. He thereupon erected the fort and temple, constructed the large tank to the west, and set on foot such improvements as tended to the opulence and prosperity of the town.

After a reign of 30 years he died, and was succeeded by his son Timme Gauda. The latter reigned 20 years, and left the territory to his son Dodda Timme Gauda, in whose time Ānēkal was conquered by the Mysore Raja. The chief, however, remained in possession, paying an annual tribute of 2,000 rupees, and died shortly after, having completed a long reign of 60 years.

His son Vira Nañjana Timme Gauda then ruled for 24 years, and was in turn succeeded by his son Jama Gauda. This chief, in common with many others, was expelled by Haidar and his possessions annexed to Mysore.

The Bijāpur invasion refered to here occurred in 1638 C.E., as we will soon see. It is claimed by Sathyan [1989], however, on the basis of unspecified literary sources,⁶ that the Ānēkallu fort was built in 1603 C.E. by Timmappagauḍa, the younger brother of Immaḍi Tammendra (or Tammegauḍa i).

[[351]]

[[352]]

This claim conflicts with other accounts, and is hard to evaluate, since it is unclear what literary sources it is based on. Genealogical considerations, however, suggest that 1603 C.E. is too early a date for Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s arrival in Ānēkallu. If Tammaṇṇa Śāstri were even thirty when he arrived in Ānēkallu in 1603 C.E., he must have been born in 1573 C.E. or earlier. The span of two hundred and fifty or more years between his birth and that of Garaḷapurī Śāstri is simply too long for the five generations separating them in the genealogy (see Plate 9). We have already determined that the genealogy is likely to be fully reliable. It appears quite safe to discount the possibility that Tammaṇṇa Śāstri had arrived in Ānēkallu by 1603 C.E.

We pursue the history of the Sugaṭūr Gauḍas with the following excerpt from Rice [1877b, p. 108]:

Timme Gauḍa: The history of the Bangalore District has already introduced us to the story of Baire Gauḍa and the band of refugees of the Morasu Wokkal tribe, . . . On their agreeing to separate, Timme Gauḍa, one of the seven, took up his abode at Sugaṭūr, near Jangamkoṭe. This was about the year 1418. . .

Soon afterwards Timme Gauḍa repaired to the Vijayanagara court, and having ingratiated himself with the authorities, returned with the title of Nāḍ-Prabhu, or Lord of the Sugaṭūr Nāḍ….he had an opportunity of rendering signal service by rescuing some members of the royal family who had fallen into the hands of the Mughals. For this gallant act he was rewarded with the title of Chikka Rāyal, and soon after returned with royal permission to appropriate the treasure he had discovered and with extended authority. He accordingly repaired the fort of Kōlar, built Hoskōṭe (the new fort), and possessed himself of Muḷbagal, Punganūr and the adjacent parts, turning out the descendants of Lakhana and Madanna. To Kōlār he added the hoblis of Vemgal, Bail Sugaṭūr, Kaivāra, Buradagunṭe, and Budikoṭe…

Immaḍi (or the second) Chikka Rāyal Timme Gauḍa succeeded. On his death he divided the territory between his two sons. To Mummaḍi (or the third) Chikka Rāyal Timme Gauḍa he granted Hoskōṭe, and Kōlār to Timme Gauḍa. The latter ruled for five years under the name of Sugaṭūr Timme Gauḍa, and was succeeded by his son Timme Gauḍa, who in turn was followed by his son Chikka Rāyal Timme Gauḍa.

The precise circumstances underlying Cikka Rāya Timmegauḍa’s move to Ānēkal are elaborated by Rice [1877a, p. 358] as follows.

353

. . . The Mughals had taken Daulatabad in 1634, and Aurangzeb was appointed viceroy of the Dekhan; but the contests with the Mughal power were shortly brought to a close for the time by the treaty which extinguished the State of Ahmadnagar and made Bijapur tributary to Delhi. The Bijapur arms were now directed to the south, under Ran-dulha Khan; with whom Shahji, father of the famous Sivaji, was sent as second in command, with a promise of a jagir in the territories to be conquered. . .

. . . The possessions of the Chikka Raya, namely, Hoskote and all the present Kolar District east of it, were then seized, in 1639, and the victorious army, passing below the Ghats, took Vellore and S’enji. Returning to the tableland, Doḍ Baḷḷāpur, Sira and all the south of the Chitaldroog district fell to Bijapur in 1644. . .

The policy of the invaders was, while taking possession of the capital town, and administering the revenues of each principality, to grant the ousted chief an estate in some less productive part of his territory. This resulted in bringing under cultivation and attracting population to the more neglected tracts of the country. Thus Basavapatna and its possessions being retained, Tarikere was given to the palegar; Bangalore was taken but Magadi left to Kempe Gauḍa; similarly Hoskote was taken and Ānēkal granted; Kolar was taken and Punganur granted; Sira was taken and Ratnagiri granted.+++(5)+++

By this account, Ānēkallu was founded in 1603 C.E. by the very pāḷeyagāra who had earlier founded Hosakōṭe. The inscription Ht 186 carrying the date Śaka 1416, ānanda saṁvatsara, Kārtika śuddha 12 (Nov. 19, 1494 C.E.), indeed refers to Tammagauḍa’s construction of Hosakōṭe [Rice 1905]. According to Rice [1877b, p. 95], Hosakōṭe was built in 1595, its name (“new fort”) distinguishing it from the old fort at Kōlār. Our analysis suggests, however, that this date is incorrect.

Mummaḍi Cikka Rāya Tammegauḍa inherited Hosakōṭe from Immaḍi Cikka Rāya Tammegauḍa, and was ousted from Hosakōṭe in 1639 C.E. by Śāhjī, who subsequently granted him Ānēkallu as a jāhgīr. The excerpt on page 351 indicates that he built the fort in Ānēkallu only after being ousted from Hosakōṭe in 1639 C.E. We find support for this account in inscription An 47 which mentions Mummaḍi Tammappa Gauḍa as the son of Immaḍi Tammappa Gauḍa, and the grandson of Cikka Rāya Tammappa Gauḍa, and indicates that Hosakōṭe was part of his dominions [Rice 1905].

[[354]]

Inscription An 60 confirms Mummaḍi Cikka Rāya Tamme-Gauḍarāya’s presence in Ānēkallu at the time, being a grant by him in the period 1639–1640 C.E. [Rice 1905].

There is substantial and reliable documentation of the region’s conquest in 1638–1639 C.E. by the Bijapur armies under Randullāh Ḳhān and his second-in-command, the Marāṭha Śāhji, the father of Śivāji. Śāhji took up residence in Bangalore after driving out Immaḍi Kempēgauḍa, who was granted Māgaḍi.

Evidence from the ānēkallu Kaifiyat

As we have noted, the ānēkallu Kaifiyat cannot be relied on for historically accurate information for our period of interest. Many of its passages are fanciful, and many of its dates are clearly wrong. However, it accurately documents the original pāḷeyagāra family’s own account of its history, and despite its shortcomings, deserves our attention. Its purpose at the time of its composition was to persuade the British to restore the family’s hereditary rights as rulers of the region, of which they were deprived by Haider Ali in 1758 C.E., and for which the Kaifiyat pleads at its conclusion. It appears to have been composed around 1800 C.E., appealing Ānēkal’s incorporation into the Kingdom of Maisūru after Ṭippu’s death at Śrīraṇgapaṭṭaṇa in 1799 C.E. in the Fourth Mysore War, putting it in the time frame of other Kaifiyats.

Kaifiyat writers seem to have been much more than merely literate, but not always scholarly. The ānēkallu Kaifiyat, like many Kaifiyats, is in colloquial, and frequently ungrammatical Kannaḍa. Rather than translate the document, we will therefore paraphrase the sections most relevant to our inquiry.

. . . (the preceding passage describes the flight of Dēvappa Gauḍa and his family from the Kanci region on Āśvayuja Bahuḷa Pratipad of the Prajāpati saṁvatsara, 1012 of the Śaka era 787 ). . . they stopped at a convenient place in the western region, cleared the forest, and built a village, and named it Sugaṭūru after the suraguttaḷi. On the 14th Bahuḷa day of Māgha of the Śrīmukha saṁvatsara, 1014 of the Śaka era,⁷

as Dēvappa Gauḍa’s son Tammēgauḍa slept under a Banyan tree,⁸ a snake was seen shading him with its hood outspread. . . ⁹ they subsequently cleared the forest around, turned it into farmland, and while ploughing these fields, turned up seven pots full of treasure. They put it to good use, clearing more of the forest, and building a bastion in the form of a new fort, expanded their dominions, named the place Hosakōṭe, built the Avimuktēśvara temple in the fort, the large Tammāmbudhi lake, and the Muttukūru agrahāra, and inaugurated all three together on the 15th śuddha day of Māgha of the Yuvan saṁvatsara of the year 1016 of the Śaka era. . . they later built forts at Kōlār and Śiḍḍlaghaṭṭa… In the Īśvara saṁvatsara matching Śaka year 1079, the Cedupaṭṭu-Caṇgalpaṭṭu rulers attacked Narasiṇga Rāya of Penukoṇḍa with their forces, and the Rāya’s forces having being weakened, were able to carry off the Rāya’s family.¹⁰

At this time, Tammēgauḍa of Hosakōṭe, thinking it shameful not to act when his Rāya’s family was being taken away, attacked the Cedupaṭṭu-Caṇgalpaṭṭu forces of his own accord, freed the Rāya’s family, and returned them to the Rāya. . . Pleased, the Rāya conferred on him the following marks of recognition: (1) the title of Cikkarāya,¹¹ (2) a sword of state, (3) crown and signet, (4) thirty-two titles, (5) robes of honour, and control of the regions of Hosakōṭe, Kōlār, and Śiddlaghaṭṭa…

the eldest son of this Tammēgauḍa was Ayyamagauḍa and his third son was Śivānēgauḍa… After the time of Tammēgauḍa, his sons divided his territories, Mummuḍi Ayyamagauḍa, the eldest, gaining Hosakōṭe, Immaḍi Vīranañjunḍa Tammēgauḍa, the second, getting Kōlār, and Śivānēgauḍa, the third, getting Śiddlaghaṭṭa… When Cikkarāya Tammegauḍa, the son of Vīra Nañjunḍa Tammegauḍa and grandson of Mummuḍi Ayyamagauḍa of Hosakōṭe was ruling Hosakōṭe,¹² he was asked for twenty elephants by the Rāya. . . Learning that elephants lived in a certain region of the forest to his south, he had twenty elephants captured near a rock formation thereabouts and sent them to his Rāya.

[[356]]

He then constructed a village, a lake, a grove, and a well on the spot, and appointed one Liṇgēgauḍa as their keeper… When gardeners and peas-ants from surrounding regions such as Patlugere, Śidi Hosakōṭe, Māsti, Mādapantla began creating trouble at Liṇgēgauḍa’s village, he complained to Tammēgauḍa, who arrived with his forces, subdued these areas, and stationed some of his forces locally. . .

In the Vyaya saṁvatsara of Śaka year 1328, representatives of the Pēśva called Ekōji and Śivōji arrived from the north, and under the command of Kāsim Ḳhān,¹³ attacked and occupied Hosakōṭe; the terms of our treaty granted six months for the family to move to a rural region in the south called ānēmale. ¹⁴

Tammegauḍa funded Liṇgēgauḍa to build a fort and a lake, and after himself moving to this location, added a more substantial fort, the Tammāmbudhi lake, the Amr̥tamallikārjuna temple, and the Tammasandra Agrahāra, named the place ānēkallu, and in the Sarvajitu saṁvatsara of the Śaka year 1329, dedicated all of them at the same time. . . Cikkarāya Tammegauḍa’s son was Mummuḍi Karaḍu Tammegauḍa, whose son was Mummuḍi Cikkarāya Tammegauḍa, whose son was Vīra Nañjunḍa Tammegauḍa… In the Bahudhānya saṁvatsara of the Śaka year 1679,¹⁵ Navāb Haidar Ali Bahadūr took control of the state and kept us in prison for 34 years; in the Virōdhikr̥tu saṁvatsara of the Śaka year 1713, when Lord Wallis Mendis attacked Śrīraṇgapaṭṭaṇa,¹⁶ he also occupied Beṇgaḷūru, and Mummuḍi Ayyamagauḍa, the son of Vīra Nañjunḍa Tammegauḍa and Obbayya Daṇi met him, and when after paying his respects, recited the Kaifiyat and reported on the state, he received a sannad. . .

Reflections on the Kaifiyat

The ānēkallu Kaifiyat’s account is in excellent agreement with those of Hunter [1908] and Rice [1877a,b].

[[357]]

The latter accounts in fact, give many details not found in the Kaifiyat, but which we have omitted for brevity.

These accounts appear indeed to have been based on reliable contemporary or historical information.

The dates in the Kaifiyat, however, are clearly problematic. The unfortunate practice in South India of referencing years only by their cyclic saṁvatsara names, paying no heed to the Śaka years, complicates matters.

If we focus on finding a match for the saṁvatsara s based on historically reasonable timelines, the Prajāpati saṁvatsara of the fight from Kāñci is likely to correspond to 1449 C.E., the snake episode to 1451 C.E., and Hosakōṭe’s formal founding likely occurred in the Yuvan saṁvatsara of 1455 C.E. The Kaifiyat shows a lapse of 63 years between the founding of Hosakōṭe and the year Tammegauḍa is said to have received the Cikkarāya title. Going forward 63 years, however, places the latter event in the Īśvara saṁvatsara matching 1517–1518 C.E., firmly in the reign of Kr̥ṣṇadēva Rāya (1509–1530 C.E.), rather than during the reign of a Penukoṇḍa-based Vijayanagara ruler called “Narasiṇga”, as the Kaifiyat says.

All four Vijayanagara kings called “Narasimha” ruled in succession between 1486–1509 C.E., none of them having Penukoṇḍa as their capital.

We know of rebellions by Nāgama Nāyaka and Timma Dannāyaka during Kr̥ṣṇadēva Rāya’s time, but none by Caṇgalpaṭṭu. Any serious rebellion against this most powerful monarch would have been documented, especially if it involved the kidnapping of the royal family. Hunter [1908] suggests, however, that this event occurred in 1577 C.E., a year that does correspond to an Īśvara saṁvatsara. By this time, Śrīraṇgadēva Rāya I (1572–1586 C.E.) had succeeded Tirumala, who had already moved the capital to Penukoṇḍa after Vijayanagara’s defeat at Tāḷikōṭe. Śrīraṇgadēva was relatively weak at this time, as his vassals had begun to assert their independence.

In 1577 C.E., his capital Penukoṇḍa was attacked by the ‘Ādil Śāhi forces of Bijāpur [Sharma and Gopal 1980], and he moved his own residence to Candragiri, causing some disarray in his personal affairs. There appear to be no other reports of a Cangalpaṭṭu revolt in this period, but the time was chaotic, and such a revolt remains a possibility. Tammegauḍa may indeed have received the Cikkarāya title in 1577 C.E. It is also just possible that the *Kaifiyat’s *“Narasiṇga” is a corruption of “Śrīraṇga”.

Cikkarāya was no trifling title, and figures prominently in subsequent events that led to a disastrous civil war.

[[358]]

A nephew of Veṇkaṭāpati Rāya (1586–1614 C.E.) called Śrīraṇga seems to have initially been considered the logical heir to the throne, and addressed as Cikkarāya. However, a palace intrigue involving the powerful Gobbūri family, two of whose daughters were wives to Veṇkaṭāpati, managed to promote the claims of a boy said to be the Rāya’s son by Bayamma of the Gobbūri family, though he was widely believed to be merely a foundling [Sharma and Gopal 1980, Subrahmanyam and Shulman 1990]. This boy appears to have been addressed as Cikkarāya during this period. In 1614 C.E., however, six days before he died, Veṇkaṭāpati reverted to his original choice, and handed over the reins of power to his nephew Śrīraṇgadēva Rāya i, leading to a civil war that ultimately led to Śrīraṇgadēva’s murder by Gobbūri Jaggarāju. In the end, Jaggarāju was himself killed at the battle of Toppūr by the loyalist Vēlugōṭi Yacama. At any rate, it is clear that conferral of the Cikkarāya title on Tammēgauḍa was an act of particular favour on the part of the sovereign.

Bijāpur and the Marāṭhās in the Kaifiyat

The next significant episode in the Kaifiyat is the one of greatest moment for us, namely, Tammegauḍa’s move from Hosakōṭe to Ānēkallu. The Kaifiyat confirms that the Ānēkallu fort was built by Tammegauḍa after he lost Hoskōṭe and was forced to retire to Ānēkallu. Sadly, the Kaifiyat provides inaccurate information here in every other respect. By its account, Tammegauḍa’s defeat occurred in the Vyāya saṁvatsara matching Śaka 1328, corresponding to 1405–1406 C.E. This date is too early by some 233 years.

We know from reliable historical sources such as Satyanarayana [1996] and Rice [1877a] that Tammegauḍa lost Hosakōṭe to Bijāpur in 1638 C.E., matching Śaka 1560 and the Bahudhānya saṁvatsara. His defeat came at the hands of the Bijāpur general Randullāh Ḳhān and his Marāṭha deputy Śāhji, rather than at the hands of Śivāji, Ek ōji, or Kāsim Ḳhān. There is no evidence that Randullāh Ḳhān and Śāhji had any generals with those names on this campaign. In Sharma and Gopal [1980, p. 214], for example, we find names such as Aṇkuś Ḳhān, Ḳhairiyat Ḳhān, Patte Ḳhān, Ādam Ḳhān, Abdullah Ḳhān, Mahmūd Ḳhān, Mallik Śāle Ḳhān, Galiya Ḳhān, Bilhar Ḳhān, Balavant Ḳhān, Sidde Racein, Siddi Mallik Ḳhān, Śāhji, Vedōji, and Rāghava Panḍit. In Laine and Bahulkar [2001, p. 128], we see the additional names Yakut Ḳhān, ‘Ambar Ḳhān, Hussein, Masūd Ḳhān, Pawār, Ghaṭge, Ingḷe, Gaḍhe, Ghorpaḍe. Śivāji, Ekōji, and Kāsim Ḳhān are indeed names [[359]] familiar to history, but nowhere do they come up among Randullāh Ḳhān’s or Śāhji’s generals.

In this instance, the Kaifiyat’s account appears to reflect confused lingering memories of several subsequent historical episodes. The Marāṭha influence in the region begins when Śāhji arrived as a senior commander under the Bijāpuri general Randullāh Ḳhān. Śivāji and Ekōji, who both figure prominently in the later history of the region, were sons of Śāhji by his wives Jījībāi and Tukābāi, respectively. During this period, Bijāpur and Gōlkoṇḍa were busy conquering the remnants of the former Vijayanagara empire. Instead of directly attacking the Vijayanagara sovereign, who ruled by turns from Penukoṇḍa, Candragiri, and Vēlūr, they went about taking it apart pāḷeyagāra by pāḷeyagāra. Bijāpur’s forces came down the western coast into the region of modern-day Karnāṭaka, and Gōlkoṇḍa’s armies took its eastern sections. These campaigns appear to be linked with the circumstances of Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s journey, as we will see.

Śāhji played a leading role in this Muslim conquest of the south as a Bijāpur commander under Randullāh Ḳhān during the reign of Mohammad ‘Ādil Śāh,798 and had stayed on in Beṇgaḷūru to administer the newly formed Karnāṭak-Bijāpur-Bālāghaṭ province, which included Kōlār, Hosakōṭe, Beṇgaḷūru, and Sīra, and which was conferred on him as *jāhgīr *[Rice 1908]. In 1648 C.E., Śāhji had a falling out with his patron king Mohammad ‘Ādil Śāh, and was arrested on July 25 [Sharma 1944], though he was pardoned and released ten months later on May 16, 1649 C.E.¹⁷ At this time, the region of Beṇgaḷūru was restored to him as jāhgīr. He then took up residence at Kanakagiri near Ānēgondi, leaving his southern jāhgīr in the hands of his son Ekōji. The Kaifiyat’s reference to Ekōji is surely a recollection of this period.

[[360]]

Śivāji had held Śāhji’s jāhgīr in Puṇe since boyhood. Ekōji had taken residence at Tañjāvūru after conquering it in 1675 C.E., but had control of Śāhji’s southern jāhgīr, headquartered at Beṇgaḷūru. Śāhji died in early 1664 C.E., and a dispute arose between Śivāji and Ekōji on how to divide their father’s southern jāhgīr. Śivāji demanded that Ekōji hand over the jāhgīr in exchange for a smaller jāhgīr amounting to 300,000 Haṇas, which Ekōji refused to do. A campaign by Śivāji culminated in Ekōji’s defeat in November 1677 C.E. [Sharma 1944]. Śivāji had to turn back in 1677 C.E. to defend his northern dominions against Mughal attacks, but left Ekōji in charge as a vassal. On his return journey, Śivāji took Beṇgaḷūru, Kōlār, Sīra, and several other provinces.

Ānēkallu would have been among these conquests, accounting for the Kaifiyat’s mention of Śivāji. Contrary to what the Kaifiyat says, however, neither Ekōji nor Śivāji had any connection with the Pēśvās, who were in control from 1749 C.E. onwards. The Kaifiyat is using the term Pēśvā simply as a generic allusion to a Marāṭhā power.

The Kaifiyat also mentions Kāsim Ḳhān, who was a Mughal general from a later date. After conquering Bijāpur and Gōlkoṇḍa in 1687 C.E. and 1688 C.E., respectively, the Mughals seized the southern districts subordinate to them, and formed a new province with Sīra as capital, composed of the parganas Basavapaṭṭaṇa, Būdihāḷu, Sīra, Penukoṇḍa, Doḍḍabaḷḷapura, Hosakōṭe, and Kōlār. Kāsim Ḳhān was appointed the Faujdār Dīvān of this province.

Kāsim Ḳhān, interestingly, was also responsible for Beṇgaḷūru’s coming into the possession of the Maisūru kings. Ekōji had continued to rule from Tañjāvūru after Śivāji’s death in 1680 C.E. Finding Beṇgaḷūru to be too far from his capital to control, he offered to sell it to Kaṇṭhīrava Voḍeyar of Mais ūru for 300,000 Rūpīs in 1687 C.E. However, Kāsim Ḳhān first seized the city, and sold it to Voḍeyar for the same price. At any rate, the Kaifiyat mentions three of the four administrators of the region (Śāhji has been left out), but is quite wrong on the dates and the sequence of events.

The Kaifiyat, however, yields up one important nugget of information. By its account, Tammēgauḍa was given six months by Śāhji to establish himself at Ānēkallu after he lost Hosakōṭe in 1638 C.E. We know that Randullāh Ḳhān attacked Śrīraṇgapaṭṭaṇa in January 1639 C.E., sometime after his conquest of Hosakōṭe [Sharma and Gopal 1980, p. 265].

[[361]]

Thus, Tammēgauḍa’s move to Ānēkallu could not have occurred any later than the middle of 1639 C.E. The Śaka year the Kaifiyat gives for Tammēgauḍa’s move (1329) is incorrect. Śaka years, however, are less reliable in traditional accounts than are saṁvatsara s. Indeed, 1639 C.E. corresponds to a Sarvajitu saṁvatsara, the very saṁvatsara the Kaifiyat specifies for Tammēgauḍa’s move. In this respect, the Kaifiyat’s account matches other historical information.

Tammaṇṇa śāstri’s Arrival in Ānēkallu

We now return to our primary inquiry,using the above background as context. Available evidence suggests that the Ānēkallu fort was built immediately after Tammāgauḍa lost Hosakōṭe, which, as we have seen, happened in 1638 C.E.

The Kaifiyat suggests that there were, in fact, two rounds of fort construction, the first by Liṇgēgauḍa at Tammēgauḍa’s behest in the Vyāya saṁvatsara, and the second by Tammēgauḍa himself in the Sarvajitu saṁvatsara, after moving to Ānēkallu. Sarvajitu follows Vyāya in the southern Br̥haspati saṁvatsara cycle, so we can make a fair inference that the second round of fort construction was completed within a year of Tammēgauḍa’s move from Hosakōṭe.

Tammaṇṇa Śāstri must hence have arived in Ānēkallu in 1639–1640 C.E. We note in passing that this date is over seventy-five years after Tāḷikōṭe.

Tammaṇṇa Śāstri was likely in the second or third generation after that event. Can we associate a timeline with the genealogy, working backwards from 1822 C.E., the confirmed year of Garaḷapurī Śāstri’s birth? Reckoning 30 years per generation would place Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s birth at around 1672 C.E., and push his arrival in Ānēkallu into the 1700s C.E. By this time, however, the Mughals were firmly in control of the region, so the pāḷeyagāra is hardly likely to have been building a fort. Also, Ayyā Śāstri’s reference to Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s travails at the hands of the “Haiderābādi” Muslims would make no sense, since the state of Haiderābād had ceased to exist after 1687 C.E., when Aurangzēb’s Mughal forces had occupied its capital city Haiderābād. Even reckoning 40 years per generation yields 1622 C.E. as the likely year for Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s birth, making him barely 17 years of age in 1639 C.E. Some generations in the genealogy appear to have been even longer than 40 years.

We follow the Māgaḍi branch of the family, instead. Ayyā Śāstri belonged to the fifth generation after Tammaṇṇa Śāstri. Veṇkaṭarāmā Śrauti, of the same generation, is said to have been “very aged” seven or eight years prior 1919 C.E., the date we presume for the genealogical document by Ayyā Śāstri.

[[362]]

[[363]]

Ayyā Śāstri was sixty-five years old in 1919 C.E., so Veṇkaṭarāmā Śrauti was probably in his eighties by 1910 C.E., and so was likely born in the 1830s C.E. His father, who would have been in Garaḷapurī Śāstri’s generation, was likely born in the late 1700s C.E. By this timeline, we might expect someone in Aṇṇayya Śāstri’s generation, the fourth after Tammaṇṇa Śāstri, to have been born in the 1760s C.E. Reckoning back four more generations at an average of 40 years each, we arrive at 1600 C.E. as a possible year for Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s birth. This would make him just under 40 years of age at the time of his arrival in Ānēkallu, which appears quite reasonable.

It is usual to reckon 25–30 years per generation in genealogical calcula-tions, so a figure of 40 years per generation is rather high. Unfortunately, we are constrained by a complete lack of documentary evidence, so we must construct our chronology using the most reasonable interpretation of the available facts, and on the elimination of possibilities inconsistent with such facts. Plate 9 on page 67 shows the genealogy given by Ayyā Śāstri annotated with dates.

Additional Questions About the Pāḷeyagāra’s

Identity The pāḷeyagāra who built the Ānēkallu fort after being evicted from Hosakōṭe is referred to variously in the literature as Tammēgauḍa, Cikkarāya Tammēgauḍa, Mummuḍi Cikka Rāya Tammēgauḍa, and so on. We are unable to distinguish this individual from others of his lineage purely by name. As we have seen, names are frequently repeated in this lineage, and epigraphs and other writings use inconsistent names for the same person.

We can, however, ask a different question regarding this person’s identity. One of the Ānēkallu pāḷeyagāras, also referred to variously as Cikkarāya Tammē Gauḍa, Mummuḍi Tammē Gauḍa, Mummuḍi Cikkarāya Tammē Gauḍa, and so on, was himself a considerable scholar. According to Diwakar [1968, p. 686], Mummaḍi Thamma Bhūpāla (one of the many variants we see of his name) wrote Rājēndra Cōḷa Carita, Kumārārjuṉīya and Sundarēśacarita in Telugu, Śankara Samhita in Kannaḍa, Karmādivyākhyāna Rasika Manōrañjana in Saṁskr̥ta, and had the work Śivadarpaṇa compiled by brāhmaṇa scholars. He fostered trade and commerce, and sheltered hundreds of Hindu refugees from Muslim persecution.+++(5)+++

[[364]]

That last point is significant, given Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s own story. Even though we may not be able to distinguish him by name from the others in his lineage, can we determine whether the pāḷeyagāra who sheltered Tammaṇṇa Śāstri in his flight from Muslim persecution was indeed the scholarly Tammēgauḍa? According to [Krishnamurthy 2001], Mummaḍi Tammēgauḍa succeeded Immaḍi Tammēgauḍa around 1608 C.E., and went on to produce the body of scholarship listed above. This same pāḷeyagāra is said in [Sharma and Gopal 1980, p. 240] to have lived during the reign of Veṇkaṭa Dēva Rāya (1633–1646 C.E.), based on information from [Narasimhācār 1929]. If this information is accurate, our answer would be in the affirmative.

Clues from the Maḷeyarāja Cāritra

Sadly, we must peer through murky waters once again. In the first chapter of his Maḷeyarāja Cāritra, the poet Sejjeya Siddhaliṇga, in acknowledging his royal patron, refers to him by the names Tamma, Mummaḍi Tamma, and Mummaḍi Cikkarāya Bhūpālaka, and lauds his accomplishments in having written poetry in three languages ( tribhāṣeyoḷ viracita kavitvamuṁ), leaving no doubt that he lived during the time of the scholarly pāḷeyagāra of our interest [Siddhaliṇga 1989].

The precise Śaka year of the work’s completion is referenced in the fifty-sixth verse of the eleventh sandhi of the third āśvāsa, but is illegible in the available manuscripts. In the colophon, however, the poet declares the work to have been completed on Śukravāra (Friday), the thirteenth śuddha tithi of Vaiśākha of the Dundhubhi saṁvatsara. We see Dundhubhi saṁvatsara s in 1562–1563, 1622–1623, and 1682–1683 C.E. In his preface to Siddhaliṇga [1989], the editor assigns the work to 1562–1563 C.E., quoting information a colleague provided from the Indian Ephemeris by Svamikannu Pillai. This work matches the given tithi and māsa to Friday, April 17, 1562.

This seems too early a date for the work, however. It is earlier than our inferred date of 1577 C.E. for the Cikkarāya title’s having come into the family, and predates even the battle of Tāḷikōṭe. If this date is correct, however, the Tammēgauḍa who moved to Ānēkallu in 1639 C.E. could not be the same person Siddhaliṇgayya refers to in 1562 C.E.

[[365]]

What about the subsequent Dundubhi saṁvatsaras? The stated māsa and tithi also correspond to Saturday, April 13, 1622 C.E., to Tuesday, May 9, 1682 C.E., and to Thursday, May 6, 1742 C.E. We can eliminate the second of these, since we are looking for a Friday. The thirteenth śuddha tithi of Vaiśākha began in the late evening on Friday, April 12, 1622, so this date is a possibility. Similarly, the tithi of interest began in the middle of the day on Friday, May 5, 1742 C.E., so this also remains a possibility.

We suggest that a clue to the correct date of this work is to be found in the first chapter of its first canto. Here, the poet praises his patron for his valour, saying that even at the age of eleven, he defeated a Sikhīndra Pādhā and sported with the heads of his enemies. We reproduce the verse below:

pannondānēya barisadeḷevareyadoḷ śaurya
dunnatikeyindā sikhīndrapādhāvanaṁ
bannambaḍisi koḷuguḷadoḷ ātanaṁ taguḷi mannemānēyarānēllaṁ
pannatikeyiṁ taˆridu talegaḷaṁ ceṇḍāḍidaṁ nirjarāṇgānēyarānandisuttiralnanni mummaḍi cikkarāyabhūpālakaṇginniḷeyoḷeṇegāṇenu || 37 ||

Who exactly was this Sikhīndra Pādhā? Almost surely, Sikhīndra is a corruption of Sikandar. However, no references to a ruler or other military figure by that name seem to appear around 1562 C.E. or 1622 C.E. The only possibility is that Sikhīndra Pādhā is a reference to Sikandar Pādśāh, the last king of Bijāpur, the boy-prince Sikandar ‘Ādil Śāh (born 1668 C.E., ruled 1672–1686 C.E.). Is it possible that Tammēgauḍa fought Sikandar ‘Ādil Śāh?

We recall that the Hosakōṭe- Ānēkallu region was under Ekōji, who maintained his allegiance to Bijāpur till the very end. After Ekōji’s move to Tañjāvūru in 1675 C.E., he found it hard to keep these more distant provinces from becoming autonomous (whence his move to sell Beṇgaḷūru). As noted by Krishnamurthy [2001], the number of inscriptions in the name of the local chiefs shows a distinct increase at this time. Though Bijāpur was a greatly weakened kingdom by this time, it must have made attempts to subdue its vassal pāḷeyagāras, among whom was indeed the Ānēkallu ruler. All such attempts would have been undertaken in the name of Sikandar ‘Ādil Śāh, who had then come to the Bijāpur throne. The poet is likely referring to one such attempt to bring Ānēkallu to heel, in which the forces of his patron Mummaḍi Cikkarāya Bhūpāla prevailed.

A similar observation is made by Krishnamurthy [1994, p. 18], who assigns Mummaḍi Tammegauḍa to the period 1605–1642 C.E., and concludes that the Maḷeyarāja Cāritra has confused either Ibrāhim ‘Ādil Śāh i or his son Mohammad with Sikandar ‘Ādil Śāh. This conclusion is manifestly incorrect.

[[366]]

Given its reference to Sikandar ‘Ādil Śāh, a name that could hardly have been conjured up by its author, the Maḷeyarāja Cāritra must be later than 1668 C.E., the year Sikandar ‘Ādil Śāh was born. However, the Cāritra refers to the scholarly Tammegauḍa in the present tense, rather than eulogistically. Clearly, this Tammegauḍa was contemporaneous with the work, and could not possibly have ruled 1605–1642 C.E.

The likelihood of a later date for the Maḷeyarāja Cāritra seems to be strengthened by its language. It is generally very formal, and employs both pure Kannaḍa words as well as an extensive Saṁskr̥ta vocabulary. Surprisingly, however, the work also uses Urdu words. For example ( aśvāsa-sandhi verse references appear in parentheses), it uses chappan for fifty-six (2-2-29), chattīs for thirty-six (1-1-8), battīs and for twenty-six (2-7-6), jangi and jabar for war and force (3-7-21), tarkas and phauj for arrow and army (2-5-11).

There was a flourishing Dakkhani Urdu tradition long before this time, but Urdu words had to have become common enough in Kannaḍa by the time of this work to be acceptable in formal literary compositions. Not proof, certainly, but evidence in favour of the later date of 1742 C.E. for the Cāritra.

If this scholarly Tammēgauḍa were to have been born around 1670 C.E., he would have been eleven years old in around 1681 C.E. It is possible for him to have fought Sikandar ‘Ādil Śāh (who ruled 1672–1686 C.E.) at the age of eleven, as Cāritra suggests. 1742 C.E., the possible date for the completion of the Cāritra, would be seventy-two years after Tammēgauḍa’s birth. He could have been alive, justifying the Cāritra’s reference to him in the present tense.

If this reasoning is correct, the pāḷeyagāra who welcomed Tammaṇṇa Śāstri to Ānēkallu was not the scholarly Mummaḍi Cikkarāya Tammēgauḍa (Bh ūpāla), but an ancestor, who has been referred to by very similar names.

The Sugaṭūr genealogies in Plate 38 do, in fact, show a Mummuḍi Cikkarāya Tammēgauḍa in the late 1600s C.E., who may have been this scholar. It is also very likely that this scholarly Mummaḍi Cikkarāya Tammēgauḍa was educated by the company of learned brāhmaṇas, including the descendants of Tammaṇṇa Śāstri, who lived in the Tammasandra agrahāra that was built by this Tammēgauḍa’s ancestor when he established Ānēkallu.

The Identity of the Ānēgondi Saṁsthāna

We know from Ayyā Śāstri’s account that Tammaṇṇa Śāstri was a minister in the Ānēgondi Saṁsthāna. The biography’s author infers that Tammaṇṇa Śāstri was a minister at the Vijayanagara court, and that his southward journey to Anantaśayana was triggered by the sack of the city in 1565 C.E. This interpretation is understandable, given the status of Vijayanagara scholarship at the time of the biography’s writing. Our analysis suggests, however, that Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s journey dates to around 1639 C.E. We now ask whether we can make any inferences regarding the origin of this journey and its destination.

The term “ Ānēgondi Saṁsthāna” being a generic allusion to an Ānēgondi-based regime, we must seek its identity in the political context of 1639 C.E. We give a brief account of the developments in the region before and after 1565 C.E.

Prelude to the Battle of Tāḷikōṭe

Contrary to popular impression, the rivalry between Vijayanagara and its Muslim neighbours (the Deccan Sultanates of Ahmadnagar, Berār, Bijāpur, Bidar, and Gōlkoṇḍa) appears not to have been rooted in religion. Their armies were of quite diverse composition, and included local Hindus and Muslims, as well as foreign mercenaries from Ethiopia (the Siddis), Turks, Persians, and Europeans.¹⁸ Soldiers and generals frequently accepted employment with one state, later switching to another. Vijayanagara and the various Sultanates also often appealed to each other for help against one or more of the others.

[[367]] [[368]]

Incredibly, Aḷiya Rāma Rāya (1484–1565 C.E.), who was effectively the Vijayanagara ruler at the time of Tāḷikōṭe, began his career as a general in the Gōlkoṇḍa army [Eaton 2005], switching his allegiance to Vijayanagara only in 1515 C.E., after being dismissed by Gōlkoṇḍa for perceived dereliction of duty.+++(5)+++ He quickly distinguished himself as a general under the great Tuḷuva emperor Kr̥ṣṇadēva Rāya (1509–1529 C.E.), later becoming his son-in-law ( Aḷiya is a sobriquet meaning “son-in-law” in Kannaḍa). The practice of Hindus and Muslims serving in each other’s armies continued even in later years, as the service of Mālōji and Śāhji in Muslim armies amply demonstrates (see footnote 798). Aḷiya Rāma Rāya also appears to have had a very warm friendship with ‘Ali ‘Ādil Śāh of Bijāpur, even referring to the ‘Ādil Śāh as his son. The ‘Ādil Śāh would ultimately become a reluctant ally against Rāma Rāya at Tāḷikōṭe.

Sadāśiva Rāya (1542–1570 C.E.), the last representative of the Tuḷuva dynasty, was nominally king at the time of Tāḷikoṭe, but his regent Aḷiya Rāma Rāya of the Āravīḍu clan maintained complete control of the kingdom during his own lifetime. The Āravīḍu dynasty came into being only after Rāma Rāya’s brother Tirumala Rāya was crowned at Penukoṇḍa after Sadāśiva’s death in 1570 C.E., but the Āravīḍu clan had exercised a great deal of power after the death of Kr̥ṣṇadēva Rāya in 1529 C.E. As Kr̥ṣṇadēva Rāya’s son-in-law, Rāma Rāya had long enjoyed the emperor’s confidence.

He consolidated his power fully during the tragic prelude to Sadāśiva’s coming to the throne.

Aḷiya Rāma Rāya’s Ascent to Power

A bloody battle for succession followed the death in 1542 C.E. of Acyuta Rāya, Kr̥ṣṇadēva Rāya’s successor. Acyuta had placed his son and heir Veṇkaṭa, still a child, under the charge of his brother, most likely Raṇga [Sharma and Gopal 1978, p. 180]. Raṇga, with the support of many nobles, including Rāma Rāya, imprisoned Veṇkaṭa in an attempt to seize power. Pedda and Cinna Tirumala, the late king’s brothers-in-law, intervened on Veṇkaṭa’s behalf, with little effect. Varadāmba, the queen mother, solicited the ‘Ādil Śāh’s help. Coming to their senses, the nobles now threw their support to Raṇga, averting disaster.

Plate 39: Narapati genealogy, as per Aiyangār [1919], the Dēvanahaḷḷi inscription, the Bālabhāgavatam, and the Narapativijayamu. Tātapinnama’s great-grandfather is said to have been Vijjala, who usurped the Cāḷukyan throne. Pinnama is described in inscriptions as being the lord of Āravīṭipura. His son Āravīṭi Bukka was a general of the Vijayanagara emperor Sāḷuva Narasiṁha. The kings of the Āravīḍu dynasty of Vijayanagara were all descendants of Śrīraṇga, at right. See Plate 40.

Plate 40: The Āravīḍu genealogy continued from Plate 39. Names and years of reign for Vijayanagara emperors appear in boldface. Aḷiya Rāma Rāya was never formally emperor, and his son Pedda Timma ruled only Ānēgondi. The descendants of Aḷiya Rāma Rāya continued to be associated with Ānēgondi, while Tirumala I’s descendants were associated with Penukoṇḍa and other Vijayanagara capitals of the post-Tāḷikōṭe period.

[371]

Subsequently, when Rāma Rāya was away on a campaign in the Malabār, the elder Tirumala seized power. When Rāma Rāya turned back towards Vijayanagara, Tirumala panicked, and invited the ‘Ādil Śāh’s help, reportedly even seating him on the Vijayanagara throne [Sharma and Gopal 1978, p. 181]. Rāma Rāya, biding his time, made peace with Tirumala, and convinced him of the danger of inviting the help of Muslims. The ‘Ādil Śāh was persuaded to return to his dominions, albeit only in exchange for a great deal of wealth.

The elder Tirumala,¹⁹ in a grab for power, now killed his nephew Veṇkaṭa, two of his own uncles, and one of Acyuta’s nephews. He then proceeded to have a number of leading nobles blinded. Disgusted with Tirumala, the nobles rallied around Rāma Rāya, who marched on the capital.

The younger Tirumala, who went out to meet Rāma’s forces, lost the battle due to massive desertions, and was executed. The queens now ordered the city gates thrown open to Rāma Rāya. The elder Tirumala, recognizing that his cause was lost, destroyed much of the wealth in the treasury, and committed suicide.²⁰ Sadāśiva, the son of Acyuta’s brother Raṇga, was still a child, but was accepted as the king by all. Sadāśiva was formally crowned, Rāma Rāya took over as regent, and kept power until his death at Tāḷikōṭe.

Sadāśiva, in fact, became Rāma Rāya’s prisoner after 1550 C.E, when he tried to assert power [Datta 2008, p. 96].

Sadāśiva likely enjoyed popular sympathy and support during his lifetime, given the the tragic massacre following Acyuta’s death. It was clearly not expedient for Rāma Rāya to openly depose Sadāśiva and seat himself on the throne. Nonetheless, he seems to have begun preparing for a transfer of power from the Tuḷuvas to his own Narapati lineage, by promoting its association with that of the Cāḷukyas (see footnote 43), which was held in great esteem at the time.

This association is dismissed by Eaton [2005], since Kalyāṇa had been under Muslim control for hundreds of years preceding Rāma Rāya’s time.

This claim was ingeniously justified, however. The Devanahaḷḷi inscription and the Narapativijayam give genealogies showing this clan’s descent from Kaḷacūri Vijjala, usurper of the Cāḷukyan throne in 1157 C.E. A remote ancestor called *Cāḷukya *(92nd from the Pāṇḍava Arjuna himself), is also shown for Vijjala, a literal justification of the title “Cāḷukyan descendant” claimed by later Āravīḍus.+++(5)+++

ravilocana

They claim chalukya descendant not just through vijjala..they claim to be descendants of eastern chalukyas through Raja Raja Narendra, the founder of rajamundry. Also, their ancestor in 1340s was somadeva chalukya who captured several forts from sullas

[[372]]

This Cāḷukyan association was politically necessary. Rāma Rāya was an outstanding ruler and general, and was descended from a prominent warrior clan of Āravīḍu in present-day Karnūl district in Āndhrapradēśa. Even these antecedents could hardly match the acknowledged glory of the Vijayanagara lineage, however. A link to a historically prominent independent dynastic line was essential.

Vijayanagara was quite easily the dominant power of its time in peninsular India, and Rāma Rāya was an extremely confident and effective ruler.

While the Muslim Bahmani kingdom, founded in the mid-14th century C.E., had functioned as a fairly effective counterweight against Vijayanagara, the Deccan Sultanates of Gōlkoṇḍa, Bijāpur, Ahmadnagar, Berār, and Bidar, which were its successors, had never been fully united against Vijayanagara. They constantly fought each other as regional rivals vying for the same territories. More importantly, the power of these Sultanates had been kept in check by the great Kr̥ṣṇadēva Rāya, and later by Rāma Rāya, during his rule of Vijayanagara in Sadāśiva’s name.

Rāma Rāya may have lacked Kr̥ṣṇadēva Rāya’s profile, but he proved to be supremely capable both as a general and as a politician. He kept the Sultanates under check either by force, or by forming alliances with one or more of them, as needed. However, in 1564 C.E., Gōlkoṇḍa, Bijāpur, and Ahmadnagar moved to form a league against Vijayanagara because of what they perceived a series of intolerable insults by Aḷiya Rāma Rāya. Some accounts suggest that Rāma Rāya had treated Muslim envoys with contempt.

A detailed account of Rāma Rāya’s dealings with these envoys appears in *Rāma Rāyana Bakhair *[Sastry and Venkataramanayya 1946, p. 208]. On hearing that the Sultanates were ready to move against him, Rāma Rāya expelled their envoys with disgrace from his court, thereby precipitating the confrontation [Sharma and Gopal 1978, p. 217].

The Battle of Tāḷikōṭe (Rakkasa-Taṇgaḍi)

[[373]]

Their famous battle was fought south of the river Kr̥ṣṇā, across the river from the villages of Rakkasgi and Taṇgaḍgi (Rakkasa-Taṇgaḍi). The armies of the Sultanates camped near Tāḷikoṭe (giving the battle its more common name), and initially found it impossible to cross the Kr̥ṣṇā, the Vijayanagara army having secured the only spot where the river might reasonably have been forded. However, the Muslim armies executed a feinting maneuver, moving along the northern bank for three days. Deceived, the Vijayanagara forces moved from their fortified positions to oppose a possible crossing elsewhere. The Muslim armies suddenly struck camp at night, and moved back to the original spot, where they effected a crossing unopposed.

They then moved twelve miles to the river Hukkēri to oppose Rāma Rāya’s forces.

Rāma Rāya was surprised, but remained confident of victory. Though over eighty years old at the time, he mounted his war elephant and placed himself in the thick of battle, egging on his troops and rewarding bravery instantly with treasure. His troops initially caused so much havoc among the Muslims that the Gōlkoṇḍa and Bijāpur forces on the flanks retreated.

The Ahmadnagar forces, however, remained firm. The next charge by Vijayanagar forces might well have been decisive, but the Muslim artillery now began to use bags of copper coins as ammunition, causing devastating losses at close range among the charging Vijayanagara troops. According to the Italian traveler Cesar Federici, however, this sudden reversal of Vijayanagara fortunes was caused by the treachery of two Muslim generals under Rāma Rāya who abandoned their king, and went over to the enemy [Purchas 1625].+++(5)+++ At any rate, the Muslims now gave chase to these retreating troops. Rāma Rāya himself was captured when his bearers abandoned him in the face of an enemy elephant charge. He was immediately beheaded and his head displayed at the end of a spear, causing panic among his troops, who began to flee the battlefield.

Rāma Rāya’s brother Tirumala, who lost an eye in the battle, now dashed back to Vijayanagara. Instead of mounting a defense of the capital, he fled to Penukoṇḍa, taking with him enormous treasure, as well as the prisoner Sadāśiva. Vijayanagara was left utterly defenseless, and looted, first by marauding tribes from the neighboring regions, and then by the Muslim armies, when they arrived some six days after the battle. They are said to have remained in Vijayanagara for six months, systematically destroying the city.

The ever-present divisions between the Muslim allies quickly came to the fore after their victory, and they were unable to press their advantage and destroy Vijayanagara’s residual power.

[[374]]

Tirumala, too, sued for peace, offering to restore the lands Rāma Rāya had taken in previous wars. The conquerors were now content to withdraw, after agreeing not to invade the region again without mutual consent. Interestingly, they appear to have divided the empire among Rāma Rāya’s sons and nephews before withdrawing [Sharma and Gopal 1978, p. 224].+++(4)+++ Tirumala continued to rule in Sadaśiva’s name from Penukoṇḍa, taking for himself the title of Mahāmaṇḍalēśvara, and finally coming to the throne when Sadāśiva died in 1570 C.E., reportedly murdered by Tirumala’s son Veṇkaṭa, who himself went on to rule as Veṇkaṭa i [Heras 1927, p. 246].

ravilocanaḥ

No proof that sadasiva was murdered. It is presumed. And anyway, no vassal stated that they r revolting due to murder of sadasiva

The Sequel to Tāḷikōṭe

The the city of Vijayanagara appears to have been devastated following the battle. The following account of Vijayanagara was given by Cesar Federici a few years after its destruction [Purchas 1625, p. 97]:

The city was not altogether destroyed, but houses still stand empty, and there are dwelling in them nothing but tigers and other wild beasts.

The enceinte of the city is about four-and-twenty miles, and within the walls are several mountains. The houses stand walled with earth, and no place, saving the palaces of the three tyrants and the pagodas, other than made with earth.

After the Muslim armies withdrew, Tirumala returned to Vijayanagara the following year, with the hope of repopulating the city, reportedly spending seven months there [Purchas 1625].+++(4)+++ Finding the task impossible, he returned to Penukoṇḍa by 1567 C.E. By some accounts, he was frustrated by repeated attacks by the Muslims [Heras 1927]. At any rate, the later Vijayanagara kings would never again try to re-establish their capital at this site, ruling instead from Penukoṇḍa, Candragiri, and Vēlūr.

Though its glory days ended with the battle of Tāḷikōṭe, the Vijayanagara kingdom was far from finished. It continued as a significant, albeit diminished, political and military force in the region. The rivalries between the Sultanates also continued. Hussein Nizām Śāh of Ahmadnagar died a few months after Tāḷikōṭe (in June 1565 C.E.), and his widow Khūnzā proved an incompetent ruler. ‘Ali ‘Ādil Śāh of Bijāpur promptly attacked

Ahmadnagar, who sought the help of the other Sultanates. This pattern of warfare between the Sultanates continued, much to the advantage of Tirumala and his immediate successors, who soon managed to reclaim much of the territory lost to the Sultanates.

[[375]]

Nonetheless, the empire was already coming apart. Many of Tirumala’s vassals refused to accept his authority after Śadāśiva’s murder.+++(4)+++ Some pāḷeyagāras continued to pay tribute in name to the ruler in Penukoṇḍa, but acted freely. Bōḷa Cāmarāja Voḍeyar of Maisūru first began to assert his strength and independence during the rule of Śrīraṇga Dēva Rāya I (1572–1586 C.E.), Tirumala’s son and successor.²¹ It was during the rule of Veṇkaṭāpati Dēva Rāya i (1586–1614 C.E.), the brother and successor of Śrīraṇga I, however, that the empire went into a true decline. Keḷadi and Maisūru became increasingly powerful and independent after 1600 C.E. Relations between Veṇkaṭāpati i and Tirumala Rāja, his viceroy at Śrīraṇgapaṭṭaṇa (and his nephew), had completely broken down. This breach ultimately led to the effective loss of Śrīraṇgapaṭṭaṇa to the Maisūru chief Rāja Voḍeyar in 1610 C.E., who defeated Tirumala Rāja and installed himself in his viceregal position. The year 1612 C.E. saw turmoil in the region of Hosakōṭe, when Ayyama Gauḍa seized control upon the death of Immaḍi Tammēgauḍa, causing Immaḍi Kempēgauḍa of Beṇgaḷūru to intervene. Ayyama Gauḍa complained to Veṇkaṭa i, who sent his forces to subdue Kempēgauḍa, with only partial success. The bloody civil war over Veṇkaṭa i’s succession (see page 357) was the first stage of the true unravelling of the empire. Veṇkaṭa i was succeeded briefly by Śrīraṇga Dēva Rāya i (1614–1615 C.E.), and then by Rāma (1615–1633 C.E.), during whose reigns the pattern of decline accelerated.

The Situation at Ānēgondi After Tāḷikōṭe

The centre of gravity of the Vijayanagara kingdom had shifted decisively southwards after Tāḷikōṭe, to Penukoṇḍa, Candragiri, and Vēlūr. We note, however, that Ayyā Śāstri associates Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s ministerial role with Ānēgondi, although Ānēgondi had ceased to be the center of power a long time before Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s journey. Ayyā Śāstri specifically says ānēgondi Saṁsthāna, instead of Vijayanagara Sāmrājya, say.

[[376]]

Śāstri’s association with Ānēgondi was surely part of the family’s oral history. We examine the political situation in Ānēgondi after Tāḷikōṭe for clues to this state’s identity.

The Royal Line of Ānēgondi

According to the copperplate inscription Mb60, Aḷiya Rāma Rāya had five sons, although some confusion remains regarding the specifics. Sources such as the *Rāmarājīyamu *[Aiyangār 1919, p. 184] and Heras [1927] indicate that his sons were Kr̥ṣṇarāya and Pedda Timma by his first wife Tirumalāmba, Konḍa and Timma by his third wife Koṇḍamma, and Śrīraṇga by his fourth wife Lakṣmamma. Śrīraṇga’s son would go on to become the future Veṇkaṭa Dēva Rāya iI. The Rāmarājīyamu also indicates that Timma, Koṇḍa, and Śrīraṇga were his sons by Lakṣmāmba [Aiyangār 1919, p. 103]. Some accounts suggest that Koṇḍa was the governor of Ānēgondi, although the dates of his tenure are not known. Timma is said to have governed Rāicūr.

According to Farishta [Briggs 1829, p. 132, p. 181], however, one of Rāma Rāya’s sons, Timma by name, but also referred to as Timma Rāja in inscriptions, remained in Ānēgondi after Tāḷikōṭe, and began pressing his claim to the throne as early as 1566 C.E., setting up a confrontation with his uncle Tirumala I, then ruling from Penukoṇḍa. Rāma Rāya’s descendants seem to have continued living in Ānēgondi, continuing their struggle for the throne [Sharma and Gopal 1980, p. 200]. As descendants of the eldest of the Āravīḍu brothers, they had a stronger claim to the throne than the descendants of the younger siblings, a stronger claim, in fact, than Tirumala I himself had.

In 1566 C.E., Timma seems to have appealed for help to the ‘Adil Śāh, who proceeded immediately to the Ānēgondi region.+++(5)+++ Tirumala I, in his turn, approached Ahmadnagar, whose queen Khūnza promptly moved to attack Bijāpur, forcing the ‘Adil Śāh to withdraw. Such attempts to claim the throne by Timma and his descendants generally remained unsuccessful.

It was not until 1633 C.E. that Rāma Rāya’s descendants finally came to the throne. We also have epigraphical evidence of Timma’s presence in Ānēgondi after Tāḷikōṭe. For example, the following appears in Sastry [1968].

[[377]]

No. 685. (A.R̥No. 318 of 1925.)

On a stone lying before the Karnam’s house at Kottur, Kudligi taluk, Bellary district.

This is dated Saka 1502, Vikrama, Margasira, ba. 10, corresponding A.D. 1580 December 1, Thursday (not verifiable), in the reign of Timma-rajaya-Maha-arasu, son of Ramarajayyadeva-Maha-arasu ruling from Ānēgondi. It records that Vadi-Nayaka, son of Machi-Nayaka of Baguli, agent of the king, exempted the shepherds of Kottura-sime from tax on their sheep. The gift was made in the presence of the god Kallinatha of Baguli, for the merit of his parents. Kottura-sime is stated to have been situated in Kogali-venthe, a sub-division of Pandya-nadu in Hastinavati-valita.

According to Mb60, Rāma Rāya’s last son Śrīraṇga had two sons, called Pedda Veṇkaṭa and Pina Veṇkaṭa. Pedda Veṇkaṭa harbored imperial ambitions, but appears to have made little headway until around 1615 C.E., directly after the bloody struggle for succession following Veṇkaṭa i’s death (see page 357). Rāma Dēva Rāya (1615–1633 C.E.) had succeeded the brief rule of Srīraṇga i, at a difficult time for the empire. Rāma Dēva Rāya had to confront two rival aspirants to the throne in Pedda Veṇkaṭa and his nephew Srīraṇga iI, who also happened to have been adopted by Gōpāla, the grandson of Veṇkaṭādri, Aḷiya Rāma Rāya’s youngest brother.

The pāḷeyagāras were divided in their loyalties between Rāma Dēva Rāya, Pedda Veṇkaṭa, and Srīraṅga. None of these three happened to command a dedicated following in any geographical region, and the pāḷeyagāras frequently switched loyalties. Pedda Veṇkaṭa seems to have moved away from Ānēgondi in pursuit of his ambitions, and his stronghold at this time appears to have been Nellore district. References to Rāma Dēva Rāya disappear around 1630 C.E., and Śrīraṇga appears to come to the fore. Shortly thereafter, in 1631 C.E., Veṇkaṭa appears to dominate, and a large number of pāḷeyagāras, among them Cikkarāya Tammegauḍa, declare their allegiance to him around this time.

Pedda Veṇkaṭa finally succeeded in gaining the crown in 1633 C.E., and ruled as Veṇkaṭa Dēva Rāya iI. This Veṇkaṭa is also referred to as “ Ānēgondi” Veṇkaṭāpati, and “Rāma Rāya” Veṇkaṭa, given his connections with Ānēgondi and his descent from Aḷiya Rāma Rāya. Veṇkaṭa Dēva Rāya iI is reported in various inscriptions to have ruled from Penukoṇḍa, Candragiri, as well as from Vēlūr, and appears to have died at Nārāyaṇavanam near Candragiri in 1642 C.E.

[[378]]

The Identity of the Ānēgondi Saṁsthāna

It seems logical for us to identify the Ānēgondi Saṁsthāna referred to in Ayyā Śāstri’s account with the Ānēgondi-based regime established by Rāma Rāya’s descendants after Tāḷikōṭe. Contenders for the throne even from the time of Tāḷikōṭe, they must have always maintained an establishment independent of the official rulers based in Penukoṇḍa and Candragiri.

Information on this saṁsthāna is hard to come by, since the Ānēgondi rulers do not figure much in inscriptions. Two members of this family, Veṇkaṭa Dēva Rāya iI and his nephew Śrīraṇga Dēva Rāya iI, do appear in inscriptions, but mainly after they became official Vijayanagara sovereigns based at places other than Ānēgondi. While the rulers at Ānēgondi may have had limited military power, their pedigree clearly made them very high-status rulers. They were descendants of Aḷiya Rāma Rāya, and therefore represented the senior line of succession to the Vijayanagara throne. They likely saw their status as higher than that of their cousins who ruled from Penukoṇḍa and Candragiri.

We note that inscription A.R. 318 (page 377) refers to Timma by the title Timma-rajayya-Maha-arasu (Timma Mahārāja, effectively), identical to the title conferred upon the great Rāma Rāya in that same sentence. It would have been high treason for a mere vassal to assume such a title.

Timma’s assertiveness clearly reflects weakened central authority. In 1580 C.E., the year of that inscription, the official Vijayanagara emperor Śrīraṇga Dēva Rāya I was taken to the Qutb Śāhi capital by Fazal Ḳhān, a Qutb Śāhi general, from where he returned only after concluding a treaty with the Qutb Śāh. By one account, he went as a captive having lost a battle for Penukoṇḍa, while in another, he went there after being persuaded by Fazal Khan [Aiyangār 1919, pp. 231, 236]. Either way, the story is informative; it is hard to imagine any of the kings of Vijayanagara travelling to a rival capital during the empire’s heyday.+++(5)+++ It is clear that the empire was in serious decline.

[[379]]

We lack any information regarding the Ānēgondi Saṁsthāna’s rulers after Timma, until the time of Pedda Veṇkaṭa, the grandson of Aḷiya Rāma Rāya and son of Śrīraṇga. It is claimed by Sharma and Gopal [1980], on the basis of such inscriptions as Udayagiri 19 and Ck 25, that this Veṇkaṭa was assuming imperial titles by 1615 C.E. This claim is likely incorrect, since the sovereign referred to was more likely to have been Veṇkaṭa i, whose reign had just ended.

It is certain, however, that Pedda Veṇkaṭa had firmly established himself by 1631 C.E. For example, in 1630 C.E., we have the inscriptions Ko 164, 165 of Sugaṭūr Tammegauḍa acknowledging Rāma Dēva Rāya as his sovereign, but exactly a year later, he acknowledges Veṇkaṭa as sovereign in Ko 251. Veṇkaṭa dominates after that point. His capital is unclear, however, since he is stated as ruling from Penukoṇḍa as well as Candragiri. Some inscriptions make no mention at all of his capital. It is possible that he moved around in response to situational exigencies. By 1635 C.E., however, Veṇkaṭa iI was officially on the throne [Sharma and Gopal 1980, p. 201].

While it is certain that Veṇkaṭa iI had left Ānēgondi to pursue his claims to the Vijayanagara throne, it is not clear which members of his family had remained at Ānēgondi. Assuming Tammaṇṇa Śāstri remained at Ānēgondi after Veṇkaṭa iI left, he would have been closely associated with these individuals.

Other Clues Regarding Tammaṇṇa śāstri’s Journey

We know that Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s southward journey occurred around or just after 1639 C.E., and that Pedda Veṇkaṭa of Ānēgondi had become the emperor Veṇkaṭa Dēva Rāya iI in 1635 C.E. We know also that Veṇkaṭa iI did not rule from Ānēgondi, that he ruled from several places at different times, and that he died near Candragiri in 1642 C.E. Was Tammaṇṇa Śāstri associated with his court? If so, where did his journey to Anantaśayana originate? Was he still at Ānēgondi, or at some other location?

We have no historical basis to approach these questions, but will give in to the temptation to speculate. We note first that Ayyā Śāstri alludes to Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s troubles specifically at the hands of “Haiderābādi Muslims”, not merely “Muslims”. Was his use of the qualifier “Haiderābādi” significant, or was it merely incidental and gratuitous? After all, Haiderābād had been the seat of the Āsaf Jāhi dynasty, the dominant South Indian Muslim power since 1724 C.E. This dynasty had partnered with the British in their overthrow of Ṭippu Sultān in 1799 C.E., and it is usual even today in South India to associate Muslims with Haiderābād. If so, this reference conveys little information about the circumstances or date of Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s journey.

We argue, however, that the reference to “Haiderābādi” Muslims is actually significant, and was undoubtedly a part of the family’s oral history.

Ayyā Śāstri himself was a man of deep erudition, and as a Mahāvidvān at the royal court, had a large circle of scholarly friends and colleagues. He had, in fact, been one of the circle of scholars who had assisted Benjamin Lewis Rice in his monumental works on the language, history, and epigraphy of Karnāṭaka. He had also travelled widely with His Highness Cāmarājendra Voḍeyar across the state and the country. There seems to be little doubt that Ayyā Śāstri knew the differences between the various Muslim kingdoms of the South. His use of the qualifier “Haiderābādi” could only have been deliberate.

380 381

We also note that the relevant paragraph in Garaḷapurī Śāstri’s biography (see page 8) begins with a broad reference to the growing power of Muslims in India at the time. Almost immediately, however, it becomes more specific, characterizing Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s tormentors as Haiderābādi Muslims, not simply as Muslims. This sharpened focus is surely significant. It has always been well known in South India that Vijayanagara’s destruction (to which page 8 alludes) resulted from an alliance among the Sultanates, and that Vijayanagara had fought different Muslim kingdoms over its history. The singling out of Haiderābādi Muslims here has to be deliberate.

Ayyā Śāstri, in recounting the family history to the biographer, must have named the attackers Haiderābādis. The allusions to Haiderābād in the biography and in Ayyā Śāstri’s manuscript reinforce each other, diminishing the likelihood that they are both gratuitous.

The Gōlkoṇḍa and Bijāpur Campaigns of 1638 C.E.

If Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s Muslim tormentors had indeed been based in Haiderābād, the reference is quite informative. The city of Haiderābād was founded by Mohammed Quli Qutb Śāh in 1589 C.E., who initially named it Bhāgnagar, after Bhāgmatī, a favourite concubine of his. A year later, he moved his capital from the city of Gōlkoṇḍa to Haiderābād. If Ayyā Śāstri’s reference to “Haiderābādi” Muslims is a genuine part of the family history as handed down, Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s move must have occurred after the kingdom of Gōlkoṇḍa became known as the kingdom of Haiderābād. This was clearly well after 1590 C.E., strengthening the credibility of the timeline we have constructed.

Can we identify any specifics regarding the attack by Haiderābādi Muslims that precipitated Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s journey? Unfortunately, there was incessant fighting among the regional powers after 1600 C.E., as the Vijayanagara rulers began to lose their hold on the region. We will focus on the period following 1635 C.E., the time of most interest to us. In 1636 C.E., the Mughals under Aurangzeb finally annexed the Ahmadnagar Sultanate to their empire. In the process, Aurangazēb defeated Śāhji, the last significant Ahmadnagar general, who now entered the service of the Bijāpur Sultanate.

He would beome one of Bijāpur’s most trusted and effective generals, and serve as a chief commander in Bijāpur’s southern conquests of 1638 C.E.

Bijāpur and Gōlkoṇḍa (likely identified with Haiderābād, by this time) entered into a treaty with the Mughals in 1636 C.E., agreeing to become its tributaries. This treaty secured them from Mughal attacks, and also granted them permission for southern expansion into the Vijayanagar territories.

[[382]]

These Sultanates now went about conquering the Vijayanagar pāḷeyapaṭs one at a time, Bijāpur on the west and Gōlkoṇḍa on the east. The campaigns appear to have a direct bearing on Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s story, Gōlkoṇḍa’s on its beginning, and Bijāpur’s on its end.

Gōlkoṇḍa began a campaign in 1638 C.E., conquering the Telugu and Tamiz pāḷeyapaṭs that were the eastern provinces of Vijayanagara. The Telugu regions were the first to be taken over, according to Sharma and Gopal [1980, p. 226], at least partly because Gōlkoṇḍa had always coveted the diamond mines in the region.²² Ānēgondi is very close to the Telugu provinces, and even today, is adjacent to the border with Āndhra Pradēsh. There is also other evidence that Vijayanagara was under the control of Gōlkoṇḍa (“Hyderābād”) in 1640 C.E. Ephrem de Nevers, a Capuchin priest of French origin, is stated [in Lach and van Kley 1998, p. 257] to have travelled in 1640 C.E. from Surat to Vijayanagara, then occupied by Gōlkoṇḍa.

He befriended its sultan, and proceeded in 1642 C.E. to Madras, which was also under Gōlkoṇḍa’s control. The British, who had built Fort St. George the previous year, welcomed him, and de Nevers established a church there.

In 1649 C.E., the Portuguese arrested him and took him to Goa, where an inquisition was in progress. They released de Nevers in 1651 C.E., under threats from the Papacy, the French and English governments, and the sultan of Gōlkoṇḍa. Tavernier [1889] confirms that de Nevers passed through Bhāgnagar, Gōlkoṇḍa’s capital. By this account, Vijayanagara appears to have been under Gōlkoṇḍa’s occupation in 1640 C.E. Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s move southwards was likely to have been precipitated by this attack by the forces of Gōlkoṇḍa (by then called Haiderābād).

Bijāpur’s armies too, led by Randullāh Ḳhān and Śāhji, swept down the west coast in 1638 C.E., overrunning the Kannaḍa regions of Keḷadi, Santebannūr, Beṇgaḷūru, Hosakōṭe, and Kōlār. It appears that only Kaṇṭhīrava Narasa Rāja of Maisūru, then ruling from Śrīraṇgapaṭṭaṇa, was able to resist this onslaught. Śāhji took Hosakōṭe in 1639 C.E., forcing Tammēgauḍa to move to Ānēkallu.

[[383]]

At the same time, he also took Beṇgaḷūru from Immaḍi Kempēgauḍa, forcing him to move to Māgaḍi. We know from Ayyā Śāstri’s account that Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s son Śaṇkarabhaṭṭa moved to Māgaḍi after Tammaṇṇa Śāstri passed on. Kempēgauḍa ruled for eighteen years in Māgaḍi, so Śaṇkarabhaṭṭa is quite likely to have moved to Māgaḍi during Immaḍi Kempēgauḍa’s time.

Some Speculations About Tammaṇṇa śāstri’s Journey

Ayyā Śāstri’s reference to the Ānēgondi Saṁsthāna does not imply that the starting point for Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s journey was Ānēgondi. Veṇkaṭa iI, for example, had left Ānēgondi in pursuit of his imperial ambitions, and we have evidence of his presence at Penukoṇḍa at this time. Similarly, there is evidence that Śrīraṇga iI, a nephew and rival of Veṇkaṭa iI for the throne, was at Vēl ūr. Tammaṇṇa Śāstri may have been in the entourage of the one or the other.

Plate 41 depicts hypothetical straight-line routes to Anantaśayana from Ānēgondi, Penukoṇḍa, Candragiri, and Vēlūr, the four places where we know Vijayanagara emperors associated with the Ānēgondi Saṁsthāna to have been. Somewhat unexpectedly, the straight-line route that runs closest to Ānēkallu starts from Penukoṇḍa. Ānēkallu is within about 120 km of the straight-line routes to Anantaśayana from Ānēgondi and from Candragiri, but within about 30 km of the route from Penukoṇḍa. This observation cannot be taken as sufficient evidence, however, that Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s journey started from a place other than Ānēgondi.

Roads are very rarely straight lines, and no trip follows a straight-line path, unless by air. The roads of the period surely reflected dominant local transit patterns, rather than carefully planned routes between certain points. Besides, we must keep in mind that Bijāpur was attacking down the west coast in 1638 C.E., concurrently with Gōlkoṇḍa’s campaign down the east coast. Keḷadi and Santebannūr were among the first provinces to fall to Bijāpur, whose military thrust quickly overran even Basavapaṭṭaṇa and Beṇgaḷūru. The straight-line route from Ānēgondi passes through some of these very provinces. Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s party would have had no maps to guide them, and would have relied on local advice to determine waypoints on their journey. They would have adjusted their routes to go around troubled or inhospitable regions.

384

Haiderabad

Bijapur

Ānēgondi

• Harihara*

• Keladi*

• Santebannur*

Penukonda

• Sira*

Candragiri

• Tumakuru*

• Turuvekere*

• Bengaluru*

Ānēkallu

• Basavapattana*

• Maisuru*

• Ginjee*

Tiruvanantapuram

© planiglobe.com 2008

Plate 41: Hypothetical straight-line routes from possible starting points for Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s journey. The pāḷeyapaṭs conquered in Bijāpur’s campaign of 1638 C.E. are shown in italics.

Even if they had started from Ānēgondi, it is quite possible that their route followed a more circuitous course than the straight lines depicted in Plate 41.

There is also strong evidence that Veṇkaṭa iI was resident at Penukoṇḍa at this time, and that his rival Śrīraṇga iI was at Vēlūr [Sharma and Gopal 1980, p. 238]. We know that the Gōlkoṇḍa and Bijāpur campaigns of 1638 C.E. did not confront either of these symbols of Vijayanagara central power directly, to avoid rallying their vassals to their aid. Instead, they went about conquering the vassal states themselves. If Tammaṇṇa Śāstri had been in the entourage of either of these monarchs, he is unlikely to have suffered the personal devastation that the family history describes. There are no historical accounts of attacks by the Gōlkoṇḍa forces on Penukoṇḍa or Vēl ūr during this period matching Ayyā Śāstri’s account.

385

Ānēgondi hence remains a viable candidate as Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s starting point. Plate 41 makes clear that Ānēgondi is closer to the sphere of Bijāpur’s influence than to that of Gōlkoṇḍa, and is more likely to have been attacked by Bijāpur than by Gōlkoṇḍa. Bijāpur did, in fact, wage numerous campaigns in this region, many of them under Śāhji himself. Śāhji, for example, wrote to ‘Ali ‘Ādil Śāh i on July 6, 1657 C.E., aggressively demanding a jāhgīr as reward for his earlier conquest of Kanakagiri (farther south), and of Ānēgondi just a month earlier [Patwardhan and Rawlinson 1978, p. 28].

However, these were extremely turbulent times for the region, and we have no grounds for dismissing the possibility of an attack on Ānēgondi during Gōlkoṇḍa’s campaign of 1638 C.E. Such an attack is unlikely to have met much opposition. This ancient city had lost its political primacy long before this time, and despite the emotional associations it must have held for Veṇkaṭa iI and Śrīraṇga iI, it is unlikely to have figured prominently in their political and military calculus. Both rulers had long been gone from Ānēgondi, and neither one is likely to have wanted to invest much in its defense, even assuming he had the resources to do so. Sadly, we have no specifics on any of the battles waged in this region during the Gōlkoṇḍa campaign of 1638 C.E. We are thus left to speculate that it was most likely some attack in the locale of Ānēgondi by the Gōlkoṇḍa forces during this campaign that was responsible for Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s journey. Ānēgondi’s location would have made it one of the first Vijayanagara principalities overrun by the G ōlkoṇḍa forces in their southward sweep, so such an attack would have occurred early in this campaign, that is, in 1638–1639 C.E.

The Timing and Course of the Journey

Regardless of the starting point for Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s journey, the timing of these events appears to be just right. We proceed with the working hy-pothesis that Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s city of residence was attacked sometime during 1638 C.E. Following this devastation, Tammaṇṇa Śāstri would most likely have taken some weeks, perhaps some months, to consider his options, choose a course of action, and make preparations for his long trip southwards to Anantaśayana. The preparations would have been substantial, since the party would have had to traverse a chaotic, war-torn region, negotiating bad roads and dense forests.

386

They would have taken along substantial resources and provisions, a number of attendants, and would have proceeded with all deliberate caution, adapting their route to local conditions, and making their journey in legs dictated by the spacing between villages en route. They would have traveled in carts, cooked on improvised fires, and at times, perhaps even subsisted on tubers and forest produce. They would have rested in improvised campsites, guarding against marauders as well as against wild animals, including lions, tigers, and cheetahs, which would have been common in the forests at the time. We also know they were accompanied by eight buffaloes, which, apart from being tempting prey, walk at a leisurely pace. It is unlikely that this party could have traveled more than 10 km a day, on average.

At this pace, it is likely that their 320-km journey from Ānēgondi to Ānēkallu would have taken something over a month or so. A similar time frame is likely, even if they had started from a place other than Ānēgondi.

This scenario makes it quite possible for Tammaṇṇa Śāstri and his family to have arrived in Ānēkallu just at the time that Tammēgauḍa had moved there. According to the ānēkallu Kaifiyat, Tammēgauḍa’s treaty with Śāhji granted him six months to make this move after losing Hosakōṭe in 1638 C.E. The Kaifiyat confirms that Tammēgauḍa was fortifying the place at the time, matching this detail from Ayyā Śāstri’s account.

Tammēgauḍa acknowledges Veṇkaṭa iI as his sovereign in inscription Ko 251, and would have been familiar with his Ānēgondi antecedents. He would also have been well acquainted with the Ānēgondi Saṁsthāna, its rulers, and perhaps even with its pradhānis, including Tammaṇṇa Śāstri himself. In establishing his new dominions, he would have sought people of learning and ability, and would have warmly welcomed a person of Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s accomplishments, his generous gift of ten vr̥ttis reflecting his high esteem for Tammaṇṇa Śāstri. The large house Tammēgauḍa built for Tammaṇṇa Śāstri would have been located in Tammasandra Agrahāra that the ānēkallu Kaifiyat mentions, and these ten vr̥ttis would have been in its environs.

We are unable to say much more, given the lack of documentary evidence, either from within the family or from reliable historical sources. We take comfort, however, that our reconstruction of events is a plausible account, and fully consistent with available historical facts and the family’s own oral history. It has a good chance of being close to what Tammaṇṇa Śāstri actually experienced and endured.

The Anantaśayana and Hoysaḷa Questions

It remains unclear why Tammaṇṇa Śāstri would have chosen Anantaśayana as his destination. Anantaśayana (literally “eternal repose”) derives its name from its eponymous temple of Viṣṇu reclining on the Śēśa serpent. Its other names include Tiruvanantapuram and Travancore (a corruption of Tiruviṭaṁkūr from British times). Its rulers have been known as Tiruvaḍis. The kingdom of the Tiruvaḍi rulers is also referred to as Anantaśayana. Thus, Ayyā Śāstri’s account refers to Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s departure for the “province of Anantaśayana”.

Its rulers have enjoyed a strong reputation as patrons of scholarship and the arts,²³ and one might conjecture that Tammaṇṇa Śāstri travelled there in search of patronage. However, the high reputation of the Travancore kings as patrons dates back only to the time of Mārtanḍa Varma (1729–1758 C.E.), a much later time than that we have assigned to Tammaṇṇa Śāstri.

The Travancore region does not appear to have been a particularly prominent principality at Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s time. The Nāyakas of Madurai and Tañjāvūru, as well as the Voḍeyars then ruling Maisūru and Śrīraṇgapaṭṭaṇa had much stronger reputations as patrons of scholarship and the arts. Tammaṇṇa Śāstri might have sought their patronage, much closer to home.

The Tiruvaḍi capital at Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s time was in fact at Padmanābhapuram, some 33 miles from Tiruvanantapuram. An edict of 1634 C.E. mentions Kalkulam, near Padmanābhapuram, as the ruler’s residence [Aiya 1906, p. 302]. Padmanābhapuram remained the region’s capial from ancient times until 1795 C.E., when Tiruvanantapuram became its capital.

Ayyā Śāstri refers to the “province of Anantaśayana” as Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s destination, so Tammaṇṇa Śāstri may actually have been headed for Padmanābhapuram.

His choice of Anantaśayana as destination is puzzling, however. The distance between Ānēgondi and Anantaśayana is a daunting 750 km. Why would Tammaṇṇa Śāstri choose to travel in a time of crisis to a place so far removed from his home? He is very unlikely indeed to have embarked on this journey without some substantial assurance of support in Anantaśayana.

387

388

What assurance of support drew Tammaṇṇa Śāstri to Anantaśayana?

Sadly, we must deal in conjecture once again. Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s departure was almost certainly a one-sided decision, based on a strong anticipation of support at Anantaśayana. There would surely not have been time for communications to have been exchanged between Ānēgondi and Anantaśayana. Such support must have come either from some family connection in Anantaśayana, or from a person of nobility or other substantial means, who knew Tammaṇṇa Śāstri at Ānēgondi, and who invited him to Anantaśayana. Perhaps they travelled south at the same time from Ānēgondi. But what connections existed between Ānēgondi and Anantaśayana?

A Possible Ānēgondi-Anantaśayana Link

The region of Anantaśayana, or “Travancore” in recent historical accounts and analyses, had long been a vassal state on the outer edges of the Vijayanagara empire. A legend exists that the brāhmaṇas of the region had asked the emperor Kr̥ṣṇadēva Rāya to send them a ruler [Aiya 1906, p. 223], although no independent confirmation of this fact appears to exist. It is known, however, that the region suffered invasions by Vijayanagara.

According to the Acyutarāyābhyudayam by Rājanātha ḍiṇḍima [D.in-ḍima 1907], a tributary chief named Cellappa (also known as Sāḷuva Nāyaka and Vīra Narasimha [Aiyangār 1919, p. 12]) and the ruler of the Cēra region (Travancore) had defeated and expelled the Pāṇḍya ruler of Madurai.²⁴

This account suggests that the Tiruvaḍi kingdom had a certain strength at the time. In response, Kr̥ṣṇadēva Rāya’s successor Acyuta Rāya campaigned southwards to Candragiri, and then further towards Śrīraṇgam. Acyuta remained at Śrīraṇgam, but sent his armies under Timma Rāja, his brother-in-law and Salakarāja’s son,808 to vanquish the Tiruvaḍi (the Cēra king). Inscriptions A.R̥No. 542 of 1919 and A.R̥No. 158 of 1924 confirm the broad outlines of this account [Hultzsch 1988].

According to the Bālabhāgavatam of Dōnēri Kōnērinātha, however, it was Aḷiya Rāma Rāya’s cousin Cinna Timma who subdued the Tiruvaḍi.

389

It appears that there were two expeditions, the first under Acyuta himself in 1532–1533 C.E., and another in 1542–1544 C.E., led by Cinna Timma and his brother Viṭṭhala (see Plate 39). The Vijayanagara invasions may also have been prompted by the missionary activities of the Portuguese under Francis Xavier, who were busy converting the coastal Parava fishermen to Christianity. The Vijayanagara sovereign may have felt the need to respond to this de facto change of their alleigance from him to the king of Portugal [Aiyar 1991, p. 123].

Cinna Timma and Viṭṭhala were both sons of Timmarāja, who was brother to Aḷiya Rāma Rāya’s father Śrīraṇga. There is solid evidence that Cinna Timma was at Madurai, and had been Appayya Dīkṣita’s patron (see footnote 213). According to the Bālabhāgavatam, Cinna Timma restored to the Tiruvaḍi the territories that he had taken from him, thereby acquiring the title Tiruvaḍi Rājya-sthāpanācārya, or “establisher of the Tiruvaḍi kingdom”. After this subjugation of the Tiruvaḍis, the brothers Cinna Timma and Viṭṭhala appear to have remained in Madurai for some ten years, establishing Madurai’s supremacy in the region.

The Madurai Nāyakas remained the most powerful Vijayanagara vassals in the region, and their influence over the Tiruvaḍis continued to subsequent times. A grant dated 1634 C.E. exempts farmers from certain taxes, on account of Madurai’s Tirumala Nāyaka having attacked and devastated Anantaśayana on behalf of the Vijayanagara king (“ Ānēgondi” Veṇkaṭāpati Rāya iI, at this time), most likely because of a failure by its ruler to pay tribute.²⁵ Clearly, the Tiruvaḍis were far from being powerful rulers at Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s time.

Why, in the light of this last fact, did Tammaṇṇa Śāstri choose Anantaśayana as his destination? We can only speculate. We start with the observation that Cinna Timma and Viṭṭhala were both scions of the Āravīṭi family, the very same family that we have identified as the likely rulers of Ānēgondi *Saṁsthāna *(see page 376). Perhaps it was the Āravīṭi lineage that Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s ancestors had served as trusted ministers for five generations (see page 7). If so, there would have been long and close associations between the Āravīṭi family and that of Tammaṇṇa Śāstri.

390

Might some members of Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s family have accompanied Cinna Timma and Viṭṭhala on their campaigns to Madurai and Anantaśayana, in their capacity as trusted ministers? We do know that Cinna Timma was resident at Madurai, and that he and his brother Viṭṭhala were active in the south for some ten years [Aiyar 1991, p. 91]. Their entourage and trusted advisers would have stayed there with them. Is it possible that some members of Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s family had stayed behind even after Cinna Timma and Viṭṭhala returned to Vijayanagara? Was this the connection that drew Tammaṇṇa Śāstri to Anantaśayana? Or was it simply the case that Tammaṇṇa Śāstri had travelled south from Ānēgondi with companions who had strong connections in Anantaśayana? We can have no answers at this point. Perhaps some new evidence will come to light in the future, allowing us to resolve some of these intriguing questions. If only some of Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s manuscripts had survived!

The Hoysaḷa Antecedents of Tammaṇṇa śāstri

The biography suggests that Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s ancestors had been at Ānēgondi since the time of Vidyāraṇya. The family tradition holds (see footnote 49) that the remote ancestors of Tammaṇṇa Śāstri had been Hoysaḷa ministers at Dōrasamudra, the Hoysaḷa capital, and had migrated to Ānēgondi after the Hoysaḷa decline. Vidyāraṇya is himself believed to have been from the Hoysaḷa Karṇāṭaka community, to which we know Tammaṇṇa Śāstri belonged. Family tradition also suggests that these remote ancestors were related to Vidyāraṇya himself. These accounts are, of course, completely unverifiable at this point.

Nonetheless, this family tradition appears not to be in conflict with available facts. A considerable body of new evidence suggests that Vijayanagara’s founders had close connections to the Hoysaḷa royals, and used them to establish legitimacy, as the inheritors of a great empire whose memories were still very much alive [Kulke and Rothermund 1998]. A prevailing theory had been that Hakka and Bukka fled Wāraṇgal in present-day Āndhra Pradēsh after its capture, settled at Kampili near Hampi, were taken prisoner by Mohammed bin Tughlaq’s army in 1327 C.E., and converted to Islam. The sultan supposedly sent them back to Kampili, where they came under Vidyāraṇya’s influence and founded Vijayanagara, where Hakka was crowned as Harihara I in 1336 C.E.

391

This theory also states that Harihara I held a great celebration at Śr̥ṇgēri in 1346 C.E. after overcoming the weakened Hoysaḷa king Baḷḷāla IV.

However, recent epigraphical discoveries strongly indicate that Hakka and Bukka were nobles in the Hoysaḷa court already.+++(4)+++ An inscription dating to 1320 C.E. records that Baḷḷāla iI founded the town of Vijayavirūpākṣa Hosapaṭṭana on the spot which became Vijayanagara. After the death of Baḷḷāla IV, the widow of Baḷḷāla iI seems to have participated in the coronation of Harihara I in 1346 C.E.+++(4)+++ Even though Harihara was king in 1349 C.E., an inscription from that date actually mentions her name before that of Harihara, suggesting that he did not yet have independent legitimacy.

It is therefore not inconceivable that as Hoysaḷa Karṇāṭakas, Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s ancestors had been in the service of the Vijayanagara kings since the earliest times. The family tradition that Tammaṇṇa Śāstri’s remote ancestors migrated from Dōrasamudra at this early date does not appear to be inconsistent with available facts.