Viajayanagara invasions of Tondaimandalam

IV. VIJAYANAGAR INVASIONS OF TONDAIMANDALAM

1. THE SAVANNA INTERREGNUM

It is believed by some scholars that it was Venrumankondān I the Sambuvarāya ruler (1322 1339) who was overcome by Kampana. But this view is far from correct as the earliest inscription of Kampana bears only the date 1352.2 His invasion of Tondai mandalam could never have taken place prior to that year. Venrumaņkondān had a peaceful death and the period was also calm and quiet in his territory, and this is borne out by the fact that his son Kājanārāyana was able to send the remains of his royal father to be consigned to the Ganges..

  1. Dr. S. K. Iyengar: South India and her Muhammadan In vaders: p. 15 and pp. 60-61. The epigraphicai reporis, too, contain the mistake. Dr. S. K. Iyengar seems to be caught in confusion when we read his lectures, two and six. An analysis of the points he has raised in these two lectures regarding Kampaņa’s defeat of the Sambuvarāyas will show the confusion. In his second lecture he says: “We find two rulers who assumed high titles indicating independence. Of these the first is Sakalaloka Chakravartin Venrumaņkonda Sambuvarāyan whose date of accession is A.D. 1322-23 followed by Sakalakūka Chakravartin Rājanārāyana Sambuvarāyan whose date of accession is 1337-38 and whose reign extended upto 1356-57. It was apparently this later ruler that was overcome by Prince Kumāra Kampana of Vijayanagar.” He changes his view in the sixth lecture and states an entirely new theory: “It looks very probable that it was Sakalalokachakravartin Venrumaņkondan Sambuvarāya whose date of accession is Saka 1245 (1322-23) that was overthrown by Kampana, sometime about 1347 which is the first date of his successor Sakalalökachakravartin Rājanā rāyaṇa Sambuvarāyan.” We are at a loss to understand why the learned professor propunded such theory and how he got 1347 as “the date of the defeat of Venrumaņkondīn by Kampa.
  2. Cf. A.R.E., 297 of 1919, (dated saka 1274). 3. Cf, A.R.E., 32 of 1933-34,

Rājanārāyana’s rule must have extended upto, at least 1359, as we have inscriptions of his bearing his 20th regnal year. The presence of Vijayanagar inscriptions in his territory in the eleventh and twelth years of his rule implies that he had come into clash with the Vijayanagar rulers already. If Kampana’s invasion had taken place by about 1351 we have to account for the following:

  • (1) The Madhurāvijayam explicitly says that the Sambuvarāya ruler was killed in the battle. If Rājanārāyana had been killed in 1351-52 how could records have been issued in his name after this date ?
  • (2) Some of Kampaņa’s relations and generals who were associated with the campaign assumed the title Sambuvarāya sthāpanācārya, meaning ’establisher of the Sambuvarāva.? Where does the question of establishing come in, if the Sambuvarāya had been slain in battle ?
  1. Cf., A.R.E., 36 of 1933-34 from Kīlminnal. 5. Cf. A.R.E., 297 of 1919 No. 357 of 1928-29.
  2. Mangu took this title as will be noted in a later chapter. Some of the members of the Sāluva family also assumed this title till very long after the actual event of the Sambuvarāya defeat. Sāvanna Udaiyār also took the title. Also refer to the Udāharanamāla (Sources: pp. 49 and 50), where another member claims to have overcome Champa.
  3. Eg Cf. 18 of 1899 (also p. 22 of the same report) dated saka 1287 (1365 A.D.), ref. to the taking ‘permanent possession of Rājagam bhīrarājya.’

In answer to the above it may be pointed out that the Madhurāvijayam refers only to the ultimate conquest of the Tondaimandalam region. We have evidence from epigraphs also for that conquest.? Therefore, we have to see in Kampaña’s Tiruvannāmalai inscription, an evidence of a preliminary conquest in which Kampaņa probably played a minor part but some one else on Kampaņa’s side played the significant , part. We have a number of inscriptions in the Tamil country, belonging to Sāvanna Udaiyār, son of Kampa I, Viceroy of Udaiyagiripattanam. These inscriptions bear regnal years. One of these bearing the regnal year 1350 is possibly one of the earliest Vijayanagar inscrip tions discovered in the Tamil country. Sāvaņņa Udai yār succeeded to his father’s Viceroyalty in Udaiyagiri and assumed the title the Lord of the Eastern Ocean. He seems to have been fired with the same enthusiasm as roused Kampaņa to action and came to the South as his inscriptions indicate, with the same objects as Kampana’s, viz., putting an end to the Muslim rule and vanquishing the ruler of Tundīra. It is not unlikely that Kampana and he had a previous under standing by which they were to start on the campaigns simultaneously from their respective headquarters Kampana eastward and Sāvanna southward.10 Sāvanna’s first inscriptions in the Tamil country is in Ponnēri (north-eastern boundary of the Chingleput district) dated 1359.10a

  1. A.R.E., 357 of 1928-29; 503 of 1906; 500 of 1906; 8 of 1899; 350 of 1927-28; 213 of 1912; 240 of 1912; 504 of 1906; 523 of 1919; 188 of 1903 (this list is almost exhaustive).
  2. A.R.E., 357 of 1928-29 from Tiruppalaivanam-Ponnēri Taluk Chingleput Dt. dated 1272 Saka (1350) A.D.
  3. A suggestion is made that Kampana came to Tiruvannamalai on a pilgrimage and he constructed a long outer wall to the temple. (Cf. Abidhānachintāmani). But the meeting of Kampaņa andVīra Savanna in the Tamil country appears to us to be something more than a mere coincidence. 10a. A.R.E., 357 of 1928-29.

Vīra Sāvanna must have come into clash with the Sambuvarāya ruler immediately after the date of this inscription and an inscription of his at Sēndalai (Tanjore) dated 1352-53 suggests that the struggle with the Sambuvarāya must have been finished before 1352. The Tiruvannāmalai inscription of Kampa dated 1352 also confirms this.

Vira Sāvanna seems to have played the most im portant part in this preliminary campaign against the Sambuvarāya undertaken by about 1350-51. Vira Sāvanna’s general Sāluva Mangu distinguished himself in this campaign as his title Sambuvarāyasthāpanā cārya should indicate. 11

Kampana might or might not have actually taken part in the first campaign. It is likely he sent in his reinforcemenis and after the subjugation of the Sam buvarāya territory he stayed in Tiruvannāmalai the temporary capital of the Hoysala ruler Vira Ballāla III for a short time. Vira Sāvanna, after defeating the Sambuvarāya, reinstated him in his position evidently on his recognising Vijayanagar overlordship. 12

We do not have inscriptions of Kampana in the Tamil country for some years after 1352 while we have inscriptions of Vira Sāvanna during this period. We may, therefore, conclude that Kampaņa returned to Mulbagal after the end of the first campaign leaving the Tamil country under Sāvanna’s control.13

  1. This title is not only mentioned in some literary works (Ref. the section of Saluva Mangu in this essay) but also in an inscription coming from Villiyanur (A.R.E., 1936-37, p. 80).
  2. Kampana must have started early enough from Mulbagal, say about 1350 to direct the operations. The whole affair (viz. the subjugation of the Sambuyarāya) must have ended before 1352 and the Tiruvannāmalai inscription of Kampana must have been cut only after the end of the victory.

There are two records of ‘Sāvanna dēva Mahāraja’ at Villiyanallur MARE. 195 and 196 of 1936-37) which refer to Sāvanna as Sambuva nāvasthāpanācārya. These are among the very last records of Sāvanna.

  1. Cf. Madhurāvijayam. Reference is made to Kampana’s start ing from the Vijayanagar capital on his final campaign the Sambuva rāya.

References to the fact that the Vijayanagar prince, reinstated the Sambuvarāya in his position are found in literary sources and also inscriptions. The Jaimini Bhāratam which in its introductory verses gives an ac count of the deeds of Mangu says explicitly : He established the Sambuvarāya in his kingdom and was distinguished by the title Samparāyasthāpanācārya or the establisher of Champa. The Sāluvābhyudayam states: “He then overcame the Sambuvarāya in battle whom he reinstated in his kingdom.” An inscription from Villivanallūr refers to the general’s title assumed after the defeat of the Sambuvarāya.14

Sāvanna Udaiyār seems to have actually set up his rule over the Tondaimandalam territory, possibly, as the overlord of Rājanārāyana. An inscription of his found in Tiruvorriyūr, dated 1354-55 refers to the act of negligence on the part of forty eight Agambadiyārs who were punished by Sāvanna.15 These Agambadiyārs were doing policing work for a long time. During Sāvanna’s rule, they neglected their duty with the result that crimes increased. Perhaps by neglecting their duty these Agambadiyārs wanted to mark their protest against the foreign rule. For the same inscription tells us that they had done their duty previously satisfactorily, without proving refractory.

  1. Already referred to.
  2. This record gives interesting information. The Agambadiyārs of Paduvūr “though they had long lived in that place and had been discharging the duties of kāval (police) many dacoities and disturbances had occurred in the village and that consequently the particu lar Agambadiyārs—about 48 in number—had either to be punished or otherwise corrected.” This incidentally throws light on the responsibility of the police officers during that period. The practice of punishing police officers for undetected thefts (and other crimes) is not uncommon in the history of South India. Cf. A.R.E., 240 of 1912.

Disturbances similar to this seem to have characterised the Vijayanagar rule. Another inscription bears evidence to this.16 It says that the images of Nāyanmārs in the Tirukkārīswara temple were desecrated during the period of confusion in the days of Sāvanna and these images had to be reconsecrated in 1367 by Kampana. All these suggest that while the Vijaya nagar overlordship had been accepted by Rājanārāyana by about 1352 the subjects of Rājanārāyana did not leave the conqueror in peace.

2. KAMPANA’S INVASION AND CONQUEST

Inscriptions and other sources are silent on the circumstances leading to the second and the final invasion of the Tondaimandalam region by Vijayanagar. The ‘disturbances’ during Sāvanna’s rule caused by the people of Tondaimandalam might have suggested the unwisdom of the overlord and his vassal ruling side bv side. The vassal was the beloved of the subjects whilc the overlord was only tolerated on account of his superior strength. To remove the danger of a possible surprise rising against the overlord, a total destruction of the vassal’s rule might have suggested itself to the Vijayanagar prince. Or could it be that he feared an alliance between the Sambuvarāya and the Sultan of Madhurai? Even if there were no basis for this doubt the destruction of the Sambuvarāya rule in Tondaimandalam might have been considered a necessary prelude to the invasion of Madhurai; for there was no depending on the ruler of Tondaimandalam when such a mighty task, likely to yield the best results if completed success fully, was undertaken. So by way of abundant precaution, Kampaņa might have wiped out the independent kingdom of the Sambuvarāya before making his historic march on Madhurai. The fact that he under took the Ivíadhurai campaign only a decade later (i.e. in 1371) suggests that he took time to stabilise himself in the conquered territory and did his best to endear himself to his new subjects.17 Inscriptions and the Madhurāvijayam refer to a large scale remission of taxes during this period and also to various acts of philanthro pic characier.” He conferred high honours, titles and privileges on the leading men in the conquered territory to win their co-operaiion and support.19 All these perhaps enabled him to get the whole-hearted support of his new subjects which would be impossible if the Sambuvarāva rule had been allowed to continue.

  1. The Madhurāvijayam: Bukka advised his son Kampa first to consolidate his position in Tondaimandalam by ruling with due regard to the wishes of the people as the lord of wealth does in the city of Alaka.” The interesting point here is he makes these suggestions so that, “it would be easy for you to break the power of the Turushka” (Canto III).
  2. Cf. S. Thiruvenkatachari Kampana as viceroy of Vijayanagar. 19. Ibid., (Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, 1946). 20. A.R.E., 267 of 1919.
  3. A.R.E., 267 of 1919 dated Saka 1285–1363 states that Gandar güli Māraya Nāyaka vanquished Venrumaņkondān.32

This invasion must have taken place only after 1359, the last regnal year of Rājanārāyana, but before 1363, for by that time, as an inscription denotes, it was a fait accompli.20 Only one inscription mentions the name of the Sambuvarāya ruler whom Kampana defeated and it says that it was venrumankondān. Obviously it was not the father of Rajanārāyana Sambuvarāya, but his son, whom we have referred to earlier as Venrumaņkondan II.21 This Venrumankondān might have, in all probability, provoked the Vijayanagar prince even during the life-time of Rāja nārāvana. That we have no record of the successor of Rājanārāyana clearly indicates that he was not allowed to rule over his father’s kingdom for any length of time, but was opposed, overthrown, and slain at his accession.

As we have already stated, Kampaņa returned to his seat of Viceroyalty (Mulbagal) soon after finishing his work in the Tamil country in 1352, and spent the period between 1353 and 1359 there. This is suggested not only by the total absence of his inscriptions in the Tamil country, but also by an explicit statement in the Madhurāvijayam.22 According to it Kampana stayed with his father for sometime, took his advice and then went and stayed at Mulbagal, biding his time. The news about the death of Rājanārāyana and the state of affairs existing in the Tamil country would have been communicated by Savanna who was closely watching events in the Tondaimandalam region as its overlord.

  1. madhurāvijayam: Canto III. 23. Madhurāvijayam: Canto IV.

We do not know the exact date on which Kampana started on his campaign. In all probability it must have been soon after Rājanārāyana’s death, which must have taken place sometime about 1362. Kampaņa started with a large force consisting of “more than a hundred troops of formidable-looking elephants, war-steeds faster than wind and foot-soldiers in proper dress”. 23 He placed Māraya Nāyaka at the command. Starting from the capital of Vijayanagar he crossed the Karnata province in five or six days and reached the city of Kanțakānana (Mulbāgal-or-Mul Vāi). He spent some days in that city biding his time to march against the Sambuvarāya ruler.24 Starting on an auspicious day, he reached the enemy country by stages. He first halted at Virinçipuram for sometime and when the hour for striking arrived, he dashed on the Sambuvarāya capital, Kānçi, and laid siege to it. A fierce battle followed between the Vijayanagar forces and the ‘dramila’ forces. The dramila forces were put to rout by the superior forces of Vijayanagar. “A large number of the Tamil soldiers threw away their weapons in their flight.” The Sambuvarāya himself ran away to his Padaividu fortress and took refuge in it. Kampaņa and his forces stayed at Kānci for sometime, perhaps to pre pare themselves for the final attack. Then they started to attack the impregnable Rājagambhīranmalai. They succeeded in scaling the walls of the fort and reached the heights of the hill. The entire forces of the Sambuvarāya on the hill were blocked up and they suffered seriously at the hands of the Vijayanagar troops. The inscriptions credit Māraya Nāyaka with having destroyed the formidable enemy (Aliyā Aran) while the Madhurāvijayam refers to a duel fought between Kampana and the Sambuvarāya in which the latter lost his life.25

    1. Ibid. A.R.E., 255 of 1934-35 also 267 of 1919,

After the destruction of the Sambuvarāya, the whole of Tondaimandalam was annexed to the Mulba gal Viceroyalty of Vijayanagar. Kānçi became the secondary capital for the Mulbagal Governor. The Madhurāvijayam concludes the account of the Vijayanagar victory thus : “After his (Kampaņa’s) victory, he established himself at Kānçi and ruled the Tundīra (Tondaimandalam) kingdom protecting it from anarchy. From that great city of Maratakanagara he ruled the earth peacefully and well”. 26 An inscription corroborates the poet thus: “Kampaņa Udaiyar became permanent on the throne after taking possession of Rājagambhirarājya”.??

  1. Madhurāvijayam: Canto IV end and Canto V, commencement. There is absolutely no need for any doubt regarding the identification of Maratakanagara. ‘Maratakanagara’ and ‘Kanci’ have been used alternative names in the kavya. Also see Dr. N. Venkataramanavva: Early Muslim Expansion in South India, page 63.
  2. A.R.E., 18 of 1899.