06 HISTORY OF MANAGEMENT

CHAPTER-VI FUNCTIONARIES AND HISTORY OF MANAGEMENT The theory of Tenkalai predominance in the Temple is again canvassed in this chapter by projecting the image of Alagiya Manavala Jiyar and other Tenkalai functionaries who had some connection or other with the Temple in the past. Functionaries like Stanattar, Bandarattar, Karanattan etc. are all described in great detail while safely leaving aside the sustained and continued connection, management and influence wielded by the Tatacharyas in the Temple at least from the 15th century A. D. This is as it should be, since the main aim of the “author in this Treatise’ is to make out a case for the Tenkalai character of the institution. We have already dealt with this wrong assumption earlier. Such a theory of predominance in our Temple is but a figment of the author’s imagination without any historical inscriptional or even a traditional basis. 6 Dr. K. V. Raman could not at the same time avoid mentioning and. recognising the important role of the Tatacharyas in the Temple. The facts and figures stare so glaringly, that he had perforce mention them, while at the same time trying to belittle and under-estimate their services and influence as far as possible. This can be observed by his remarks at page 123. of this chapter wherein he says “The Tatacharya almost lived in royal splendour and could even in one of his inscriptions boast of performing eleven Tulabaras along with his eleven wives! Whether this could have been possible at a time when the Vijayanagar Kingdom lost its glory as Kings Sriranga I and Venkata II were ruling from Chandragiri over a crippled territory threatened by hostile forces is indeed doubtful. But it would be however taken to show the general affluent position of the Tatacharya which enabled him to do many beneficial acts to the Temple like the recoating of the Punyakoti Vimana with gold, the construction of the Vimana over the Tayar Shrine, the presentation of many Vahanas or vehicles”. We are really very much amused at this remark 91 and reminded of an old story of the pond-frog doubting the story of its friend the sea frog about the vastness of the sea. Though the Vijayanagar Empire had a rude shock by the battle of Talikota in 1565 A. D., it never declined or was crippled irretrievably till the middle of the 17th century. The heirs of Tirumala of Aravidu dynasty were able to hold out in tact the Empire from another capital farther south. Dr. Krishnaswamy Aiyangar says: “It is a well-known fact that the Empire of Vijayanagar did suffer vital injury at the so-called battle of Talikota much more fittingly Rakshasathangadi’ in 1565. The Empire held out in tact, though from another capital further to the south and much better placed for defence against the enemies, in Penugonda. Hiri Timmaraya (Tirumala) shifted his capital to Penugonda. He died here leaving three sons, Srirangaraya, Ramaraya and Venkatapatiraya. Sriranga ruled from Penugonda, nominally the whole of Telugu country. Ramaraya had for his share the Kannada country with capital at Srirangapatnam. Venkatapatideva ruled from Chandragiri over the largest portion as would appear viz., over the Tonda, Chola and Pandya Mandalams. After the death of his brothers, the whole Empire devolved upon Venkatapatiraya”. “The last great ruler who can ever be credited with having succeeded to a great extent in bringing the Empire back to its original greatness was the great Venkatapatiraya, Venkata I of Vijayanagar…” Dr. A. Krishnaswamy also testifies to the fact of the Empire continuing to exist with great splendour and glory for more than half a century under the Vijayanagara rulers, Tirumala, Sriranga and Venkata I after Talikota2. This will go to show how the Emipre was held in tact even beyond its original greatness by Venkata I, the royal disciple of Sri Tatadesika, after the battle of Talikota, and the Empire was not a “crippled territory” as described by Dr. K. V. Raman. The author’s own version on page 33 will contradict his comment that it was “a crippled territory”. a crippled territory”. He says here “the reign of Venkata which lasted for nearly three decades was marked by a revival of strength and prosperity of the Empire “. Venkata I’s Empire extended up to even Ceylon. Another telling piece of evidence to the fact that the Vijayanagara 8 કુંવ 98 • Empire was restored back to more than its original glory after the battle of Talikota can be had from the following description. Venkata II.was the greatest sovereign of the Aravidu dynasty, a man of ability and character. By his military genius and statesmanship, he succeeded in retaking the lands that had been lost in the days of his predecessor. He raised the status of the Empire in the eyes of the foreigners, so that several embassies visited Chandragiri in 1604 and presented themselves at his He was also in direct correspondence with Philip III of Spain. According to one Portuguese reporter he was a lord of great authority, prudence and understanding as much as any European. Almost all the Portuguese and Hindu authorities pay a tribute to his wisdom and valour his generosity and love of learning. He was not behind any ruler of Vijayanagara in his liberal donations to Brahmins and temples etc., etc.“4 Another remark of the author for which we take exception is, that “Tatacharya could even in one of his inscriptions boast of performing eleven Tulabaras” etc. Sri Tatacharya never boasted nor inscribed the inscriptions himself. It is the work of his royal and other disciples, subsequent to the events mentioned in them. King Venkatapati gave his whole Kingdom to his guru Tatacharya who managed to have eleven tulabaras out of such bounteousness.” It is most unjust, and uncharitable to make such a remark, about that great soul who merited the exalted. position of deification in our Temple. " The persistent assertion that the “Stalattars of the Temple are all Tenkalais, is yet one more piece of the perverted story of the author in this portion of the Treatise’. In our Temple, the Stalattars” are all Vadakalais. They are five in number. The first are the Tatacharyas. The second and third are the Archakas and Paricharakas. The fourth and the fifth are the Mudaliars and Karnams who are respectively the Sripadam- tangis and accountants. The first three are Brahmins and the last two are non-Brahmins: Among the Karñams, there are a few who wear the Tenkalai sect-mark also. But the majority of them are Vadakalais. The honours and privileges shown to these Stalattars on occasions, can be seen from the Temple records (Registers). 99 One such record is the Stala-Varahan’ account. When Mata- tipatis like Ahobila Swami, Sankaracharya, Madvacharya visit the Temple, they deposit a certain amount called Stala-Varahan into the Temple treasury. The same will be distributed to the Stalattars in a certain proportion. Similarly, in the case of a new Mandapapadi, where Sri Perumal is made to stay for a small time the Ubayakars of these Mandapapadis will have to deposit a certain amount (Stala Varahan) before Sri Swami is taken to the place. Be it as it may. The author’s assertion that the Stalattars are Tenkalais is therefore patently wrong. Dr. Raman has taken pains to report in detail “the Functionaries in the Temple” here. He writes, that “the most highly respected spiritual or religious dignitaries who were in charge of the proper conduct of the religious ceremonies, worship and other procedures were the-Jiyars”. This is not borne out by the evidence of history or the inscriptions. Alagia Manavala Jiyar was only attending to the work of Srikaryam.” He is of course stated to be well-versed in Vedanta’ but the undated inscription does not tell us whether this was the Jiyar of an earlier period. It is quite possible that he alone is meant8: Yet he or his successors are simply referred to as Jiyar, while the Tatacharyas9 and the Ahobila Math Swamisio are referred to as ‘Srimad- vedamarga pratishtapanacharya ubhaya vendantacharya’, the latter having’ paramahamsaparivrajakacharya’ in addition, that is due to an ascetic order. While these epithets are not used with reference to Alagia Manavala Jiyar, it is not proper to describe the Jiyars as the most highly respected, spiritual or religious dignitaries, as far, at least, as our Temple is concerned. The Tatacharyas and other families like those of Nallan Chakravarti, Kandadai, Kidambi, Nadadur have been at Kanchi centuries before Alagia Manavala Jiyar Math came into existence. Is it not improper to imagine that the members of these familes of Acharyapurushas are not respected with Temple honours? Lastly, it is not correct to say that the first person to hold the post of Manager in this Temple was Kandadai Ramanuja Aiyangar in 1538 A. D. The post of the Temple agent or Manager was held by Ramanuja Thiruppanippillai in 1535 A. D.” It is not proper even to assert that Thiruppanippillai 100 was the first person to hold this post. On the strength of inscriptional evidence, we can only note what was obtained then. There is no, evidence to show that the post of Srikaryam was created then in the Temple for the first time. In the last portions of this chapter, he has been narrating the history of management of the Temple twisting it in his usual manner, about the period from 1645 A. D. to the present day. We are also presenting an account of this period based on history, inscriptions and records below, for a correct assessment by the readers. Though the Vijayanagar Empire declined during the middle of the 17th century the Temple did not feel the impact of it. It was already well provided for and improved in all respects by the tireless efforts of Sri Lakshmikumara Tatadesika. But in the last quarter of the 17th century, there appeared a danger in the form of the iconoclastic zeal of Aurangazeb. The Tatacharya custodians secreted the Utsavar Idols of Lord Varadaraja and Nachiars in Udayarpalayam for safety in or about 1688 A. D. They had to put up with this unavoidable grief of parting with the object of their devotion and adoration for more than two decades. This agony was further heightened when in or about 1710 A.D. they tried to bring back the Idols, the Zamindar of Udayarpalayam, refused to part with them, captivated by the divine beauty of the Idols. One Attan Jiyar a Telugu Vaishnavite Sanyasin had come to Kanchi at that time, fleeing Golkonda, his original home, on account of the sacking of the place by the forces of Aurangazeb, which killed the brothers Akkanna and Madanna, his rela- tives12. He had a disciple called Todarmalla who was a general under Sadat- Ullah- Khan, the Nawab of the Karnatic. On hearing about this Jiyar, the Tatacharyas approached him for help. The Jiyar readily agreed and eventually restored back the Idols, through his disciple Todarmalla who went to Udayarpalayam with a contingent of force and forced the Zamindar to part with the Idols. 101 The Tatacharya proprietors of the Temple in their exhuber- ance, granted the wish of the Jiyar to recite his Acharya’s Tani- yan in the beginning of the Prabandam recital. The agreement (Udanpadika) in Telugu which is said to have been entered into with the Jiyar by the Tatacharyas, allowing the Taniyan of Mana- vala Mamuni in the beginning of the Prabandas, is popularly called the “Attan Jiyar Agreement”.12 The Tatacharyas, had even allowed him to look after the affairs of the Temple and run the administration during their absence on tours of Sishyar- tanas. After Attan Jiyar, his daughter Papammal also was running the affairs of the Temple. The Tatacharyas in those days, when there was absolutely no animosity or rancour between these two sects, allowed her and the heirs of the Jiyar full freedom in the matter of running the affairs of the Temple. on their behalf. They were absent on most of the time during the year, busy with their tours and fully complacent with the position of the Temple thinking that they had safely entrusted it into competent and faithful hands. In this, they were completely mistaken, as proved by subse- quent events in the years that followed. This state of affairs continued upto the last decade of the eighteenth century. The complete faith placed by them in the family of Attan Jiyar in attending to the Temple affairs turned out to be a misplaced one. Subsequent to Attan Jiyar the scions of his family made many inroads into the original Vadakalai features of the Temple and also introduced many Tenkalai features. The Tatacharyas, did not notice the changes in the beginning. But gradually when they were able to find them out and wanted to wrest back the power of administration from the hands of the man in charge at that time, they faced opposition. Mr. Rama Rao who was then at the helm and who was a distant relative of the Attan Jiyar family refused to part with the powers claiming that he was there as of right and was not to be disturbed. Thereafter the Tatacharyas had to approach the Collector to dislodge him. It was in 1792 that when the grand Brahmotsava was fast appro- aching, they preferred a petition to Mr. Balfour, the Collector, requesting his intervention and praying that he may prevent Mr. Rama Rao from proceeding with the arrangements for the festival 102 which they urged would cause breach of the peace, if allowed. The Collector issued instructions to Rama Rao not to proceed with the arrangements, pending disposal of the complaints before him. But Rama Rao without paying any heed to the Collector’s order was proceeding with his own arrangements for the festival. This was duly reported to the Collector who at once ordered his removal in a disgraceful manner by beat of tom tom. One Srini- vasaragavachari, a grandson of Tatacharya by daughter, was appointed in his place as the Manager of the Temple by the Collector, on his undertaking to manage the affairs of the Temple on behalf of Tatacharyas. Till 1796 every thing went off well. But there were complaints again against this person also. So in 1796 the Government terminated the services of this person also and took over the administration of the Temple directly through their Collectors. In describing the particulars between 1792 to 1796 the author gives a twisted version even here, by defending Rama Rao and finding Srinivasaragavachari guilty of gross mismanage- ment. Whatever it be, the Government of the East India’ Company was administering the Temple directly through its Collectors from 1796 to 1842. The first such Collector was Mr. Place who is credited with the presentation of some valuable head-ornaments to our Lord. There was one Collector by name Hodgson in the first quarter of the 19th century whose name was perpetuated, till very recently, in Kanchipuram, by the big bazaar, where the Temple’s car stand. is situated, being named after him, as Hodgsonpet. After the attainment of Independence by India in 1947, the name of the bazar has been changed as Gandhi Road. There were two other Collectors by name Henry Vivash and Hyde whose names also appear in our Temple records in the beginning (first quarter) of the last century. In 1842, the East India Company, in pursuance of its policy to give up all sorts of interference with the religious institutions handed over back the Temple to its “original mirasdar” Sri Kumara Tatacharya as the hereditary trustee. Before handing over the administration of the Temple to Sri Kumara Tatacharya, the Government had called for applications from the original trustees of all the temples. After considering all the applications carefully the Government came to the conclusion that the Tata- charyas were the “original church-wardens” of the Temple and 103 rejected the applications of the Tenkalais and the heirs of Attan Jiyar. The facts relating to the several applications and the ultimate decision of the Board of Revenue, are dealt with in detail in Part I of this book regarding the history of the Tatacharyas in connection with the Temple. FOOT NOTES PART II-CHAPTER VI

  1. S. Krishnaswamy Aiyangar: South Indian History I.
  2. Dr. A. Krishnaswamy: The Tamil Country under Vijayanagar page 263.
  3. 92 of 1923 Archaeological Department: 200 of 1916.
  4. A Comparative History of India V. PP-1095-97 (Publications of people’s Publishing House, Delhi).
  5. C. S. Srinivasachari. History of Gingee and its Rulers P 128 CA T. E. Report P. 311
  6. S. 1. T. 1 366, 405
  7. Ibid. 432.
  8. T. T. D. Inscriptions Vol. II-Inscription No. 14.
  9. S. 1. T. 1. 360, 368, 415, 434.
  10. Ibid 346, 358.
  11. S. 1. T. 1. I 389; 655 and 663 of 1919. 11
  12. The Assistant Archaeological Superintendent Report Vol. IV 1919—2i ‘The Vijayanager kings’ (Archaeological Dept Southern circle) Home (Education) No 985 31-8-1920 Para 64/ 12a. The Jd. in O. S. 10 of 1906 has remarked that the doct. is unsigned.