SAMBUVARĀYAS

II. THE SAMBUVARĀYAS

1. VĪRA CHAMPA

The Madhurāvijayam, as its title signifies, is the story of the conquest of Madhurai by Kumāra Kampaņa told by his wife Gangā Dēvi. But the poem treats also of the factors which formed the prelude to the Madhurai conquest. The way to Madhurai lay through the Tondai mandalam which was at that time ruled by the Sambuva rāyas. It is not certain whether the Sambuvarāya kings were on friendly terms with the new kingdom of Vijayanagar. Apart from the political ambition to add terri tories to the kingdom, there was always the danger of the Muslims overrunning the whole of the Tamil country and proving a serious menace to Vijayanagar. Therefore, there was the need to clear the Tamil country of all forces detrimental to the existence and expansion of Vijayanagar. The Sambuvarāyas cccupied a strategic position in the Tamil country between Vijaya nagar and the Madhurai Sultanate. They should either be reduced to the position of feudatories to Vijayanagar or destroyed. Bukka placed emphasis on the need to remove all the political cobwebs before launching the attack on Madhurai. So the Sambuvarāyas were the first enemies of Vijayanagar that had to be tackled by Kampana. A brief account of the Sambuvaraya rule in the Tondaimandalam region will be of interest to students of early Vijayanagar history.

The Sambuvarāya chiefs of the Sengeni family ruled mainly in portions of the present North Arcot and Chingleput districts. They figure very prominently in the Cāla inscriptions as feudatories of the Cõlas. They distinguished themselves by leading the important campaigns on behalf of their overlords. Edirili Cõla Sambuvarāya of the period of Rājādhirāja Cola secured the departure from the Tamil country of the Singalese General, Lankāpura Dandanāyaka who had invaded the southern part of the Cola empire.

After the decline of the Cola imperialism the Sambuvarāyas, like the Kādavarayas, successfully carved out an independent principality for themselves possibly after a short period of subservience to the Pandyan empire. Kulasēkhara Sambuvarāya, who may be placed between 1278 A.D. and 1304 A.D. was the first Sambuvarāya whose inscriptions are found with regnal years.3 Kulasēkhara was succeeded by Vira Champa, also known as Rājanārāyaṇa Mallinātha.*

We do not know the relationship between Kulasēkhara and Vira Champa, but in all probability Vīra Champa was Kulasēkhara’s son if the assumption that the feudatory Sambuvarāyas named their eldest son after their overlord is correct.5

  1. For an account of the feudatory Sambuvarayas see Professor K. A. N. Sastri, The Colas.
  2. Dr. S. K. Aiyangar South India and her Muhammadan Invaders, page 16.
  3. A.R.E., No. 77 is dated with a regnal year for Kulasekara.
  4. There are a few Virachampa inscriptions extant. From the Ula of Irattaiyar we can establish the identity of Virachampa and Mallinatha.
  5. There was the practice of feudatories naming their eldest sons after the ruling sovereign both in the Cola and in the Pandya kingdoms.

Vīra Champa lived during a troubled period in South Indian history, nay, in Indian history. Northern India was subject to the Khilji imperialism. For the first time Southern India had to bend before the onslaughts of the Muslim invaders during this period. In all probability Vira Champa was a witness to many of the ghastly deeds perpetrated by the invading forces under the leadership of Malik Kafur. There is no evidence of Vira Champa having done anything to check the progress of the invaders. Evidently he had simply to play the role of a silent spectator as he could not contend against the superior numbers which laid waste the country. Vira Champa distinguished himself by his various acts of charity and piety. Both epigraphical and literary sources mention these. He made a golden crown fit enough to adore the head of Lord Ekāmbaranātha at Kāncīpuram. He also presented a beautiful car to the Lord. He built a huge Tulābhāramandapam in the city of Kānci. The Arulālaperumā! inscription of Vira Champa mentions his having presented another new car to the deity of that temple. Under his instructions and at his expense an ascetic by name Gnānātman built a mandapa called Bhadramandapa to the deity of Tiru vallam. The holy man also erected a shrine “in the very prosperous city of Valla” and named it Mārāya Siva. Here are the relevent portions of the ulā of Irattai yar celebrating the deeds of Vira Champa: 0

  1. சம்பு தலத் தொருவன் சாத்துகைக் காம் என் றளித்த செம்பொன் மணி மகுடஞ் சேர்வித்து ………. செம்பதுமை கேள்வன் திருமல்லிநாதனுயர் சம்புபதி நல்குந் தடந் தேர் போல் 3.. ……. பரிபல்லவன் சம்பு தலப் பெருமான் வைத்த துலாபார மண்டபத்தும்

  2. Ekambaranatha Ula, (also the Abidhanacintamani).

Vira Champa was the first Sambuvarāya ruler known to have struck coins to signify his supremacy. These coins continued to be in circulation till a very late period—at least till after fifty years from his death. These coins are referred to in inscriptions as Viracham pan Guligai.?

Vira Champa had a highly talented minister by name Vanabhid who had a profound knowledge of Samskrit and who could compose poetry. It was he who gave publicity to the deeds of valour and piety done by the ruler.

Vira Champa assumed or was given the title of Nidravāsana Vijayī which means “the king who won victories at the time of the completion of his sleep". The Bilavanāthēswara inscription of the king mentions this biruda of his. This title, and the fact of his having issued coins are evidences not only of the independent rule that he had set up over the Tondaimandalam region but also of the important position he occupied in the Tamil country.

2. VENRUMANKONDA SAMBUVARAYA

The successor of Vīra Champa was Ekāmbaranātha Sambuvarāya alias Venrumankondān. He is known better by the title than by his real name. Only one inscription refers to his name and even that reference is incidental. The title Venrumaņkondān was assum ed by him almost at the beginning of his rule. A suggestion was made that this title might imply his having taken his kingdom from the Muslims. This was based on the incorrect supposition that no inscriptions of his, dated earlier than his fourteenth year, are available. But there is a second year inscription dated 1323 24 A.D., which contains the title Venrumankondān.10 Again there is no break between the periods of Vira Champa and Venrumankondān. Even assuming that Vira Champa ruled for eighteen years, as per an inscription of his, from 1304, which was the last year of Kulasēkhara, we get 1322-23 as the last regnal year for Vira Champa and the first for his successor. This is borne out by the data in Venrumankondān’s inscriptions.

The only explanation for the title seems to be that Venrumankondân captured Kanci from the Kākatīya general Muppidi Nāyaka, who was in occupation of the city, having taken it from the Kerala conqueror Ravi varman, till about the accession of Venrumaņkondān."

  1. Dr. N. Venkataramanayya: Early Muslim Expansion in South India. 202, “No traces of his (Venrumankonda’s) rule are found in any part of the country before his 14th regnal.” Ibid., p. 203. It may ve reasonably assumed that Ekāmbaranātha Sambuvarāya reconquered the country from the Mussalmans.
  2. Cf. A.R.E., 206 of 1929-30. The exact date of this inscrip tion is 1323—June, 13.
  3. Dr. N. Venkataramanayya: The Early Muslim Expansion in South India, p. 90.

The departure of Ravivarman Kulasēkhara did not however, release the Pāndyan dominion from foreign domination. New invaders soon made their appearance, this time from Telungana. The Kākatīya King, Pratāparudra, sent a large army in 1317. A.D., to harry the country, and his general Muppidi Nayaka led the Telugu army victoriously up to the Kāveri, defeated the Pança Pāndyas in a battle near Kānci, and installed a Telugu governor in the city.

Also Prof. K. A. N. Sastri: Pandyan Kingdom, p. 213.

This expedition of the Kākatīya general seems therefore to have brought the northern part of the Pandyan Empire for a time under the control, more or less effective, of the Telugu rulers of Warrangal.

Perhaps Venrumaņkondān was a son of Vira Champa, whom he and his son Rājanārāyaṇa might have ad dressed as Anna (father). An inscription of Rājanā rāyaṇa refers to the former addressing Mallinātha as Annāchiyār.12

It is likely that Venrumaņkondān destroyed the Kākatīya rule in Kánci and in memory of the victory took the title of Venrumaņkondān.

  1. Cf. A.R.E., 33 of 1933-34—(page 36 of 1933-34). 13. Dr. N. Venkataramanayya: Ma’bar (J.M.U.), pp. 43-54. 14. Cf. A.R.E., 434 of 1903—S.I.1. Vol. III. 15. Cf. A.R.E., No. 203 of 1912. 16 Dr. N. Venkataramanayya: Ma’bar, p. 43.

Venrumaņkondān’s reign began in 1322, and the first two years of his reign seem to have gone on uneventfully. But we do not hear of him from his third to his fourteenth regnal year i.e., 1335-36. The cause of this interregnum is not far to seek. In 1323 the Muslims had occupied the southern part of the Tamil country13 and the horrors of the Muslim invasion had spread into the entire Tondaimandalam region also. A fourteenth year inscription of Venrumaņkondān refers to the havoc wrought by the muslims in the region.i4 Many inscriptions belonging to Rājanārāyaṇa also refer to the dislocation caused to normal life in the territory as a result of the Muslim occupation. Therefore, as Dr. Venkataramanayya has pointed out, “the extreme rarity, if not the total absence of Hindu inscriptions that are assignable to the interval between 1324 and 1335 seems to indicate that the Hindu political life was in a state of suspended animation and that the country was passing through a period of great distress.”:16

We do not know the exact nature of the Muslim occupation in the Tondaimandalam region. The fact that Venrumankondān could begin his reign again in 1335-36 shows that it had not been actually brought under Muslim rule, as the districts of Madura, Trichi nopoly and Tanjore had been.17 Perhaps the Muslims in the beginning of their South Indian conquest, scattered themselves over a very wide area, and after the conquest, consolidated their position in a few districts, having regard to their resources for the upkeep of the conquered territories.

  1. The Muslim hold on Tiruchirapalli Tanjore and South Arcot must have been very slender. We have evidence that the Muslims had strengthened themselves in Ramnad district.
  2. A.R.E., No. 276 of 1912. 19. A.R.E., 35 of 1933-34.

That Venrumaņkondān had busied himself with administrative arrangements throughout his reign is borne out by all his records. The Muslim invasion had created many social, economic and political problems. Migrations from one place to another had become the order of the day.18 The shifting of population from one village and the overpopulation of another created problems of a tough nature. Refugees came in large numbers into his territories and sought his protection.19 The professional communities were suffering want and misery. Venrumaņkondān thus took charge of an entirely changed kingdom in his 14th year, and no wonder he had to make it his life-work to restore normal life to it. He filled the Tirumadaivilāgams with their usual inhabitants. He provided for his subjects such amenities as water-sheds which had been destroyed during the period of his absence. He opened out some villages as centres for refugees and invited the helpless refugees to settle in them.20 He treated these new inhabitants with sympathy and consideration. He tried his best to encourage handi crafts and gave all sorts of concessions to the professional communities.21 He fixed the rates of taxes pay able by these, as low as possible. He also repaired or reconstructed many temples laid waste by the Muslims.22 Thus he saved his country from moral and political degradation,

While that part of the Tamil country south of the South Arcot district was going through a period of the worst political ordeal, Tondaimandalam was enjoying peace and passing through an era of reconstruction; and the credit of having restored normal life goes to a great extent to Venrumankondān.

That Venrumankoņdān had succeeded to a great extent in his uphill work of reconstruction is proved by references to activities of normal and peaceful life. An inscription of his dated in his seventeenth regnal year refers to the enactment of street plays in Kānçī puram and Tondaimandalam. The inscription says that a licence was obtained by a dramatic troupe from the ruler for enacting plays.23

  1. A.R.E., 35 of 1933-34 coming from Kilminnal. Registers de tails of taxes payable by settlers of the village. The inscription says that the village was made an Anjinan Puhalidam, a place for refugees - in the name of the ruler’s son, Rajanarayana, referred to as Ponnin Perumal. The taxes leviable from weavers colonising there was fixed at 1/4 panam per month on two workers of every loom and 1/8 nanam on others. The rules relating to taxes on oil press are not clear.
  2. A.R.E., 47 of 1932. 22 ARE.. 45 of 1000; 453 of 1903; 42 and 48 of 1921. 23. A.R.E., 42 of 1921.

RAJANARAYANA AND VENRUMANKONDAN II

Venrumaņkondān I was succeeded by his son Rājanārāyaṇa, the greatest Sambuvarāya ruler. It was during his period that the Sambuvarāya kingdom reached the height of its power and glory. Its terri tories included the entire districts of North Arcot, Chingieput and a part of South Arcot. The date of Rājanārāyana’s accession according to astronomical data furnished by his inscriptions is 1338-39. The relationship between Venrumankondān and Rājanārāyana is mentioned in an inscription at Kuttiyam bearing the third regnal year of Rājanārāyaṇa in which Venruman kondān is referred to as Ayyāchiyār or father (of the ruler). On the death of Venrumankondān, Rājanā rāyana performed the necessary obsequies and also arranged for the ashes of his father being consigned to the Ganges, and the srāddha performed at Gaya. He pitched upon an Agambadi Mudaliär of the Palace Guard for carrying the remains to be mixed in the Ganges. The name of the Mudaliār, Elumbodan Gangaiyādi Madhavarāyan, seems to have been assumed by him after his return from the Ganges. The Mudaliar, on his return, was granted the village of Kuttiyam alias Rājanārāyananallür (named after the chief) free of Hayes as Gangāgamana Vritti or maintenance for hav ing gone to the Holy Ganges. This Mudaliār was very much attached to Venrumaņkondān and he consecrated the shrine of Ekāmbranātha in Kuttiyam in the name of his master and made large endowments to it.

  1. This is proved by the provenance of his inscriptions. In the South Arcot district, at Tirukkoyilur, there is a 17th year inscription of Rājanārāyaṇa, A.R.E., 82 of 1935-36.
  2. A.R.E., 33 of 1933-34 Sakalalöka Chakravartin Ponnin Tambirān Rājanārāyana Sambūvaraya.
  3. Ibid. Also A.R.E., 32 of 1933-34. Registers the grant of the villages of Kuttiyam alias Rājanārāyananallur free from taxes as Gan gāmana vritti to Elumbodan.

The first few years of Rājanārāyana’s reign passed off almost uneventfully, but for a heavy flood which caused extensive damage to crops. This was in the sixth year of his reign. The king adopted relief measures one of which was the remission of the taxes payable both in cash and in kind on lands whose crops had suffered.

  1. A.R.E., 33 of 1933-34.
  2. Cf. A.R.E., 410 of 1912; 230 of 1901. S.I.I., Vol. VII, No. 410 from Marudur refers to a peruvellam in the 6th year. No. 230 a 7th year inscription, records that the king remitted taxes payable both in cash and kind on land whose crops had suffered as such lands could not be taken up for cultivation. This order was engraved on the walls of the temples at Tiruvallam, Gudimallur and Kalavai.
  3. The Madhura Sultanate lasted between 1323 and 1371. The period between 1323 and 1334 was the period of the Delhi Viceroyalty in Madhurai. Cf., Dr. N. Venkataramanayya: Ma’bar, p. 42. The Sul tanate extended as far north as Chidambaram (roughly). Cf. Madhuravijayam which says that Vyāghrapuri had become the abode of tigers.

Rājanārāyana’s relationship with Madhurai is not known. There is no evidence of his having come to any clash with the Sultanate. What made both keep their mutual peace is a mystery, What surprises us more is the fact that Rāja nārāyaṇa does not appear to have intervened during the wars in the South. We are now alluding to the great conflict between the Sultan and the Hoysala ruler, Vīra Ballāla III which culminated in the most tragic battle of Kannanur Koppam. This was the last fight in South India put up in order to save the land, from the onslaughts of the invaders and if Rājanārāyana had followed a policy of “non-intervention” to gain some private ends, and allowed the old Hoysala ruler to fight his enemy single-handed history would never put it to his credit.

Rājanārāyaṇa Sambuvarāya enjoyed very good popularity and the reason for this lies in his various acts of public charity. He continued the good work of his father and completed it. He revived worship in all temples; he reorganised the temple precincts; he revived handicrafts. The weavers who played an important part in temple life and whom the kings took into their confidence when settling disputes were still suffering from the after effects of the anarchy. In their despair they even deserted their respective Tirumadai vilāgams ånd caused a dislocation in temple administra tion. An inscription from Nerumbur? says: “The inhabitants of the Tirumağaivilāgam along with the weavers ran away to different villages”. Rājanārāyana coaxed the deserters into returning to their respective places, showing them all concessions. Besides the Tirumadaivilāgams which he thoroughly reorganised, he filled the empty villages with population and remit ted taxes due from the new settlers.

  1. A.R.E., 276 of 1912.
  2. A.R.E., 203 of 1912 (7th year). Many of the valuable belongings of the Tiruvorriyur temple had been buried underground for safety during the Muslim occupation of that territory. But most of these were removed by the Tulukkar and appropriated. Such of the property as had escaped their clutches (including a metal lamp stand) was stolen and similar acts of treachery were practised against god by certain private individuals. The Māheswaras and the trustees of the temple together with the agent of Bhuvanēkabāhudeva instituted enquiries into the matter in the Vyakaranadāna Mandapa.

However, in spite of the good work done by Rāja nārāyaṇa and his father there were still symptoms of lawlessness. An inscription refers to the treachery practised by certain people who took away the valuable belongings of the temple. The matter had not been found out until very late, and by the time it was found out, the culprits had all died. But the king confiscated their lands and dwellings and made them over to the temple. The same inscription refers to the sale of lands and houses belonging to another private individual who had been punished for committing “a very serious state offence”.

Rājanārāyana had also to devote a good part of his time to the settlement of disputes. The most serious of these was that the temple servants called Ishaibhattali yilār, Dēvaradiyār and Padiyilār did not agree among themselves regarding the order of precedence in their service to the temple. The next in importance was a long standing dispute between the villagers of Uttara merür and Tiruppulivanam.10 The disputants were not amenable to any agreement for a long time. The dis pute itself concerned river-irrigation. There was a canal irrigating Uttaramerur, and feeding the tank of Tirupulivanam. The inhabitants of both the villages quarrelled about their respective rights over the control of the canal. The matter was finally settled amicably by arbitration and it was agreed that the canal should irrigate Tiruppulivanam, Mappandar, Pundi and Uttaramerūr.

  1. A.R.E., 212 of 1912. 10. A.R.E., 200 of 1923.

Rājanārāyaṇa, though a Saivite, was tolerent towards all religions. He endowed both Siya and Vishnu temples. 11 The mention of a Jain temple and the setting up of a Jain image by a pious lady during the period of Rājanārāyaṇa suggests that Jainism was still enjoying royal patronage. 12 It might also be noted that an earlier Sambuvarāya ruler constructed at Pundi a Jaina temple dedicated to Ponni nātha but called Vira Vira Jinālaya and gave a large tax-free village to it for its support.13

  1. Cf. A.R.E., 113 of 1932-33. Among the Vishnu temples that he endowed, the Sthalasayanaperumal temple at Mahabalipuram de serves to be noted. During the date of Rājanārāyana the God of the
  2. Southe own as Ulagaland a date of RājanāriMahabalipuram dat
  3. South Indian inscriptions, Vol. I. 70, p. 102. 13. A.R.E., 58 of 1900.
  4. An inscription dated in the 19th regnal year of Räjanārāyana contains the interesting information that the various communities, oil-mongers, washermen and others, collected donations and completed the construction of a temple which had been left incomplete, at Madhevimangalam. A.R.E., 53 of 1933-34. For this act of charity the taxes on these communities were remitted. Also Cf. A.R.E., 36 of 1933-34.
  5. A.R.E., 103 of 1932-33.

Rājanārāyana’s philanthrophy had become so in fectious that even private individuals came forward to supplement the noble work of their ruler.14 Turning our attention to the condition of trade and commerce during his period, we have some evidence to conclude that he did his best to promote them. Sadras was a flourishing trade centre and the suggestion that Rājanārāyana might have taken interest in its growth is got by the new name Rājanārāyaṇapattanam, given to the port, after the ruler.15 The reference to such com munities as Settis, Kaikkolar, Karrai-vada-vanigar and Sekku-vanigar and Saliyar and such taxes as Tarik kadamai and Pērkkadamai also gives us a hint that handicrafts had come back to their own thanks to the interest evinced in them by Rājanārāyaṇa and his father.16

The highest regnal year found in Rājanārāyana’s inscriptions is twenty and we can therefore conclude that his reign ended by 1359 A.D." Rājanārāyana assumed a number of titles and they are: Ponnintam biran and Ponninperumal.18

Rājanārāyaṇa was followed by his son Venruman kondān, whom we may call Venrumankondān II, but he does not appear to have ruled for any length of time. The final attack of the Vijayanagar prince was directed against him and he did not survive it.

  1. A.R.E., 298 of 1910 Tarikkadamai and Pērkkadamai payable by the Kaikkolar, Sāliyar and Vānigar.
  2. A.R.E., 36 of 1933-34 from Kilāminnai, 13. A.R.E., 33 of 1933-34,