South India and her Muhammadan Invaders c9.32

c9.32

of Kāñchi having killed Gaṇḍagopāla in battle.¹ When his brothers threw themselves upon his mercy, he restored the kingdom to them. He then continued his advance apparently inflicting a terrible defeat upon the Telungas and their allies the Āriyas at Mudugūr, and drove them up to the Pērāru (Krishna).² It is in this state of his campaign that he is described as a tiger to the antelope, Gaṇapati, a kūṭapākala fever to the elephant Kāṭaka, the slayer of Gaṇḍagopāla, etc. The reference to the Āriyas seems to be to the Yādavas of Dēvagiri. If the Rāma Mahīpati³ in one of the Śrīrangam epigraphs could be held to refer to Rāmacandra or Rāmadēva, the Āriyas would undoubtedly be the Maharattas. Such an inference seems warranted as the Āriyas are referred to in close association with the Hoysalas in all the three references to them we have.⁴ The only other possibility seems to be that this Rāma Mahīpati was the Chēra ruler who was put to death for treacherous conduct as an ally. The Kākatīya king Gaṇapati, must have died some time before this if the order adopted above is correct (on this point see the Tiruppuṭkuli¹ Ins.) though there is the possibility that the Hoysala Somēśvara was killed in a campaign on Sundara Pāṇḍya’s return journey, a contingency which seems very highly probable as the Hoysala monarch is definitely stated to have fled when Kaṇṇanūr fell, and Sundara held it unwarlike to press on a flying enemy and fight with him again. The Kāṭaka apparently has nothing to do with Kaṭak in Orissa as a record of Sundara’s co-regent Bhuvanēkavīra Vikrama Pāṇḍya states explicitly that he did not go upon his campaign farther north, as he ceased to be angry because of the two fishes, the eyes of Gaṇapati, and since he heard that the ruler there was a woman.² This is decisively against any assumption of his war having reached farther north than the Krishna.