The Aravidu Dynasty of Vijayanagara, Vol. I v1.c26: Chapter XX. The End of the Kanarese Viceroyalty
The Aravidu Dynasty of Vijayanagara, Vol. I v1.c26
- Language
- English
Chapter XX. The End of the Kanarese Viceroyalty
v1.c26.1
SUMMARY.—1. Vindication of Viceroy Tirumala. His rule.—2. Tirumala and the Jesuits.—3. Conquests of Raja Wodeyar of Mysore. His relations with the Viceroy.—4. Muhammadan invasion of the Kanarese country.—5. Second inroad of Manjun Khan. Conquest of Mysore.—6. The Viceroy Tirumala leaves Seringapatam.—7. Occupation of Seringapatam by Raja Wodeyar. His relations with Venkata II.—8. The Nayaks of Ikeri.—9. The Queen of Ullal and her fortress against Mangalore.—10. Kempe Gowda II of Yelahanka.—11. The chiefs of Chitaldroog and Bellur.—12. Portuguese interests in Kanara.
v1.c26.2
CONTEMPORARY SOURCES.—1. Hindu inscriptions and grants.—2. Jesuit letters.—3. *Moncoes do Reino* (Pangim Archives).—4. Ferishta.—5. Guerreiro.—6. Anquetil du Perron, Travels of Pietro della Valle.—7. *Chikkadevaraya Vamsavali*, *Annals of the Mysore Royal Family*, *Sivatattvaratnakara*.
v1.c26.3
THE concocted story of the *Chikkadevaraya Vamsavali*, about how Prince Tirumala was bribed by the Nayak of Madura in the beginning of Venkata's reign, and then retreated to Seringapatam in a rebellious attitude against his uncle, has found its way into several modern works. The character of the Kanarese Viceroy has thus come to be associated with the specially repulsive ideas of rebellion and treachery, totally at variance with the historical personality of the unfortunate nephew of Venkatapatiraya. Can it be possible that the energetic and warlike Emperor would have waited fourteen years till he saw his supposed rebellious nephew expelled from the capital of his viceroyalty? On the other hand, no word on this supposed attitude of Tirumala is found either in Anquetil du Perron, who merely remarks that he was residing at Seringapatam ¹; or in the Jesuit letters, which testify, however, that Venkata had a natural predilection for Tirumala's younger brother, Ranga ¹. Moreover we know two of Tirumala's inscriptions of the year 1585, in the Mysore district, in which he is styled Mahamandaleswara ²,—a title which suggests a subordinate rank under the Emperor. His rule as Viceroy of the Kanarese country could not be stigmatized as either weak or fictitious; for in 1609-10, just on the eve of his departure from Seringapatam, the Kalasa-Karkala chief, Bhayirarasa Vodeya, (son of Vira Bhayirarasa Vodeya, who did not acknowledge the suzerainty of Vijayanagara), is said in one of his inscriptions to rule as feudatory of Venkata II ³. Fr. Coutinho says in one of his letters that Tirumala 'is liked by more as well as more powerful chieftains' than his brother Ranga ⁴. Now, the above mentioned inscription of the Kalasa-Karkala chief proves that, instead of taking advantage of this friendship and respect of the subordinate chiefs for rebelling against his uncle, he obtained the acknowledgment of his sovereignty at least from one who did not pay homage to his predecessors since the time of the battle of Raksas-Tagdi ⁵.
v1.c26.4
¹ Anquetil du Perron, l. c., p. 167.
v1.c26.5
¹ Cf. Ch. XXIV, No. 6.
v1.c26.6
² *Ep. Carn.*, III, Sr, 39 and 40.
v1.c26.7
³ Ibid., Mb, 63. Cf. H. Krishna Sastri, *Karkala Inscription of Bhairava II*, *Ep. Ind.*, VIII, p. 127.
v1.c26.8
⁴ From Fr. B. Coutinho to Fr. N. Pimenta, Chandragiri, July 17th, 1600, Ap. C. No. V.
v1.c26.9
⁵ Cf. Ch. X, No. 17.
v1.c26.10
Very little information about his internal administration has reached us. In 1598 he remitted the customs-dues on the village of Akalankajayya; and when Bachihalli-Pamappa Nayaka heard of this, this chief too granted a similar exemption to the village of Vijayapura ⁶. In 1607 he made a grant for the service of the god ⁷. Again, in 1610 he made another grant to Holinahala Linganna of the Seringampattana matha ⁸; and another inscription of the same year seems to mention one of his dependants named Ramanujayya, who is styled 'the establisher of the path of the Vedas, follower of both Vedanta' ⁹.
v1.c26.11
⁶ *Ep. Carn.*, IV, Gu, 52.
v1.c26.12
⁷ Ibid., Hs, 36.
v1.c26.13
⁸ Ibid., Ch, 194.
v1.c26.14
⁹ Ibid., Gu, 40.
v1.c26.15
2. Tirumala’s character is fully described in the letters of the Jesuits who were living at this time at the court of Venkata. He was determined that at least one of the Fathers should reside at Seringapatam, and erect a church for the Christians of his country¹. On July 17th, 1600, Fr. Coutinho wrote to Fr. Pimenta: "Trimaragius, the eldest son of the King's brother, heir of his kingdom, urges us again and again inviting us to his court. He sent us a letter which I am going to copy here:—
v1.c26.16
¹ Guerrero (sic), *Relacion Anual...en los anos de 600 y 601*, p. 137. Cf. Heras, *The Jesuit Influence*, Q.I.M.S., XIV, p. 133-4.
v1.c26.17
"Trimanus, Mahanda Lispara, Ramarragius Trimarragius, Lord great prince, sends this letter to the Fathers. I shall rejoice very much when I shall hear that you are coming to this town of mine; I shall give you then a good piece of land in this city to build a house and church; moreover five hundredfold pagodes yearly. Besides, I shall receive you with great honour and generosity. So I swear by Lord Zanganatam (Ranganatam) and by the feet of my father Ramaraja. You will learn the rest from my ambassador. Come at once, and do not make me wait"².
v1.c26.18
² From Fr. B. Coutinho to Fr. N. Pimenta, Chandragiri, July 17th, 1600 Ap. C, No. V.
v1.c26.19
This seems to have been Tirunala’s first invitation to the Jesuits to come to his court. Later in the same year two of the Fathers went through Seringapatam in the company of Venkata’s ambassadors to the Viceroy of Goa, as will be related in the following chapter. On this occasion Tirumala constantly urged the Fathers 'that one of them would stay with him on returning'³. But they did not gratify his wish; partly because of the want of missionaries, and partly on account of the antipathy of Venkata II towards his nephew, the Viceroy. In 1606 Tirumala sent once more a message to the Fathers residing at the imperial court, and addressed them the following letter:—
v1.c26.20
³ Ibid.
v1.c26.21
"In the year Subaratut, in the 10th month, on the 10th day after full moon. Letter of Trimalaraju, Ramaraju's son, the greatest Prince, Raju among Rajus, sent to the Fathers at Ciandagrini (Chandragiri). I received your letter you sent me through your Raju, and I kept it over my heart. All your presents are also in my possession. I was very glad to know that you have spoken in my interest with the King and the Princes of the kingdom, about my journey to the court. You told me, when passing through here on your way to Goa, that you would soon come back for good. I am astonished you are not yet here. Come soon; do not hesitate. My envoy will tell you the rest" 1.
v1.c26.22
This second letter of Tirumala is a most valuable document for determining the relations between him and his uncle. He was desirous to go to the court; a strange disposition of mind to be expected from a rebellious feudatory, as he is commonly depicted. To attain this object he used the Jesuit influence at the court of his uncle. The Jesuits spoke to Venkata about Tirumala's coming; but apparently the Emperor disliked the proposal, or at least was loth to give his approval to it 2.
v1.c26.23
In 1608 the Jesuits had not yet gone to Seringapatam. Another letter of Fr. Coutinho, written in this year, says that "Tirumalarayu, the Prince, is continously writing ollas to us from Cirangapatao (Seringapatam), where he resides, calling us (to his court) and showing by writing the same friendship he showed personally to us while going to Goa, along with the ambassadors of the King" 3.
v1.c26.24
Tirumala's wishes were never granted. The year 1610 witnessed the end of his viceroyalty; and several years passed before the opening of the Jesuit mission in Mysore.
v1.c26.25
3. One of the influential chiefs of the Kanarese country at the beginning of Venkata's reign was, beyond doubt, Raja Wodeyar of Mysore. We have seen elsewhere how at the end of Ranga's reign, he began the policy of annexing petty States to his own. As Madura was in the Tamilian, so too he wanted to become supreme lord of the Kanara country; and yet always, it seems, under the sovereignty of the Vijayanagara Emperor. With this aspiration he continued now to absorb systematically the territories of the neighbouring chiefs. According to Wilk's list the territories seized by the Raja of Mysore in the beginning of Venkata's reign were the following: In 1545, he conquered from one Tima Raja, Rang Sammudir containing twelve villages. In 1590 he captured Kembala by assault. In 1505 Narmalli and Karugalli were taken from one of his relations. In 1600 Arrakerra, the primitive jagir of Jagadeva Raya, was likewise annexed; and in 1606 he took Sosilla and Bannur from the Raja of Talakkad, and Canniambaddi from Dudeia Prabhu ¹.
v1.c26.26
¹ Litterae Annuae of the Province of Malabar, 1604-1606, Ap. C, No. XXII.
v1.c26.27
² Can this agree with the following words condemnatory of the conduct of Tirumala towards his uncle: "This coolness (of Tirumala towards Venkata) led directly to the taking of Seringapatam by Raja Wodeyar of Mysore." Richards, Salem Gazetteer, p. 67. We shall see later on that the capture of Seringapatam was due precisely to the coolness of Venkata towards Tirumala. Cf. No 6 infra.
v1.c26.28
³ From Fr. B. Coutinho to Fr. C. Aquaviva, Vellore, October 11th, 1608, Ap. C, No. XXIII.
v1.c26.29
¹ Wilks, History of Mysore, I, p. 44.
v1.c26.30
Such accession of power naturally aroused the suspicions of the Seringapatam Viceroy. That was perhaps the reason why he besieged the town of Kesara, which depended on the Wodeyar. But the Mysore forces defeated the army of the Viceroy, one elephant being among the plunder. "But Raj Wadeyar", says Wilks, "sagely reflecting, as the manuscript states, that he could maintain thirty soldiers at the same expense as one elephant, sent the animal as a peace offering to the Viceroy. The next year," continues Wilks, "we find him received with particular favour at the court; and immediately afterwards, not only refusing to pay his tribute on pretence of some damage done to his plantations by the people of the Viceroy, but receiving a further grant of land to compensate for the injury" ².
v1.c26.31
² Ibid., p. 38.
v1.c26.32
The Government of Seringapatam was unwillingly yielding to the powerful chief; and an attempt on his life was made, but without success. "The opportunity", says Wilks, "was expected to be obtained by the mission of an officer of the court, attended as usual by a large but select retinue, for security after the perpetration of the murder, and ostensibly charged with a secret and confidential message from the Viceroy. The Raja, unsuspicious of treachery, without hesitation ordered all attendants to withdraw; but a more vigilant observer took the precaution of concealing himself behind one of the pillars of the hall of audience; and on perceiving the officer to grasp his dagger, instantly inflicted on the assassin the fate intended for the Raja¹.
v1.c26.33
¹ Ibid., p. 39.
v1.c26.34
4. The Viceroy, however, was not the only one who was scheming to seize the newly-acquired territories of Raja Wodeyar. A new foe had sprung up in the person of the Sultan of Bijapur. Early in 1587, while Venkata was waging war with Golkonda, Ibrahim Adil Shah II despatched one of his generals, Balil Khan, with twelve thousand horse, "to collect the arrears of tribute from the Rays of Malabar (Kanara); and in case they refused payment, to reduce their forts"². He was in Kanara for one year, during which 'he nearly brought affairs in that quarter to a final adjustment'³. But he was suddenly recalled to the court to join the Sultan's army against Ahmadnagar. When he received his order "he was just on the point of receiving a large sum as part of the arrears of tribute, which would have been lost to the treasury had he immediately made public his orders of recall; and the troops would also have met with great difficulties", as he himself confessed in the presence of the Sultan, according to Ferishta⁴. Finally he retreated to Bijapur with several Rajas of the Kanarese country, who "accompanied him to pay their compliments to the King"⁵. These chiefs were afterwards honoured by Ibrahim Adil Shah with precious robes⁶. One chief was, according to Ferishta, the son of Arsappa Nayaka⁷. Another was named, as the Portuguese sources tell us, Sam Carnao Botto (?) We have been unable to identify this person, whose territory was near the fort of Basrur. When the Portuguese sovereign was informed by his Viceroy of the intention of this chief to relinquish his dominions to Bijapur, he sent his instructions as follows : “As regards the business of Sam Carnao Botto, which is of great importance, as is clear from the way it goes on, I recommend to be very careful, and to consent by no means that those fortresses be handed over to Idalxa (Adil Shah), using every possible endeavour to this end”¹. But shortly after tidings were sent to the King of the actual surrender of these forts to Bijapur: “Again the same governor informs me that, on account of the entrusting of the fortresses to Idalxa by Sao Carnao Botto the fortress of Barcelor (Basrur) is in a great distress”².
v1.c26.35
² Ferishta, III, p. 161.
v1.c26.36
³ Ibid.
v1.c26.37
⁴ Ibid., p. 162.
v1.c26.38
⁵ Ibid.
v1.c26.39
⁶ Ibid., p. 163.
v1.c26.40
⁷ Ibid.
v1.c26.41
¹ From King Philip II to the Viceroy Mathias de Albuquerque, Lisbon, January 12th, 1591, Ap. B, No. I.
v1.c26.42
² From the same to the same, Lisbon, January 12th, 1591, Ap. B, No. II.
v1.c26.43
5. Nevertheless this subjection of the North Kanara petty rulers to the sway of Bijapur was due only to the force of the latter’s arms; for from the time of Balil Khan’s retreat in 1588 up to the year 1593 all of them ‘had neglected to pay their tribute’. Ibrahim Adil Shah resolved this year to humble these chiefs. “For this purpose”, says Ferishta, “he despatched Manjun Khan with a considerable army. This general on arriving at Bakapur halted, and summoned all the Rays to meet him with their tributes; promising protection to those who obeyed, but threatening the refractory with vengeance. Most of them prepared to comply with his demands and intended coming in a body to visit him; but as Ganga Naik, who was one of the principal Rays of Malabar (Kanara), and had eight or ten thousand horse and foot in his pay, went first to pay his respects, the rest jealous of his power, and suspecting that he had gone to form some plan against them with Manjun Khan, broke off their engagements and withdrew to the mountains. Manjun Khan, not thinking it prudent to follow them into an unknown country, marched with Ganga Naik against Jerreh which belonged to Arsappa Naik; who with his allies, to the number of twenty thousand men, endeavoured to interrupt the siege. For three days bloody skirmishes were maintained by the Bijapur troops, who could not make use of their cavalry owing to the nature of the ground, so that their success was frequently doubtful. But at length the good fortune of the king prevailed”, says the Muhammadan writer; “and Arsappa, seeing further resistance vain, consented to pay tribute, and made a present of two fine elephants to Manjun Khan, with many curious and valuable effects for the King”.
v1.c26.44
Manjun Khan, accompanied by Ganga Nayak and Arsappa Nayak, who now joined the invader, then proceeded southwards and besieged the city of Mysore ¹. The siege lasted three months; but the city was finally reduced, twenty five elephants being taken among the booty. It is a pity that we have no further details concerning the surrender of Raja Wodeyar’s capital, about which the Hindu sources maintain a discreet silence.
v1.c26.45
¹ Ferishta says here that Mysore belonged to Venkatadri Naik, i. e., the Ikeri Nayak. This is a palpable mistake, copied by Burgess, *Chronology*, p. 56.
v1.c26.46
Mysore however did not remain long in the possession of the Muhammadans; for Manjun Khan was again recalled at Bijapur in the same year to assist the Sultan’s troops against his brother who had rebelled at Belgaum ². After his retreat the Kanarese Rajas again withdrew their allegiance to Bijapur, as is implied in Ferishta’s statement: “The Hindus of Malabar, (Kanara) seizing the opportunity, invaded the districts of Bankapur” ³. These Hindus who invaded the districts of Bankapur must have been a detachment sent by Venkata II himself, according to the treaty enacted just then between him and the Sultan of Ahmadnagar against the Sultan of Bijapur ⁴. Naturally the presence of the imperial army in North Kanara suggests the freedom of the petty Rajas of Kanara from Muslim slavery.
v1.c26.47
² Ferishta, III, p. 175-6.
v1.c26.48
³ Ibid., p. 180.
v1.c26.49
⁴ Ibid., p. 286.
v1.c26.50
The rising of Ibrahim Adil Shah’s brother at Belgaum proved on this occasion the salvation of Kanara. The rapid conquests made by Manjun Khan were the beginning of the successful campaign which would have marked the end of the Hindu power in this country. This was likewise the opinion of the Portuguese of those days, who were close to the scene of that tragedy, and interested enough in the revenue coming from Kanara to fill up the empty state-coffers. We know of this feeling of the Portuguese through a letter of their King written in 1596. He wrote to the Viceroy as follows: "(Mathias de Albuquerque) also writes to me that the Idalcao (Adil Khan) had sent some captains to fight against the Kings and Lords of Canara, at the request of the Queen of Baticalla (Bhatkal); he says likewise that two fortresses would have been taken by them in Gatty, had not the rising of the brother of the said Idalcao compelled him to recall the captains" 1.
v1.c26.51
6. Soon after the expulsion of the Muhammadans from the Kanarese country, an event took place in the capital of its Viceroyalty which completely upset the political balance in the West of the Empire. We refer to the occupation of Seringapatam by Raja Wodeyar of Mysore.
v1.c26.52
The Chikkadevaraya Vamsavali says that Raja Wodeyar, on hearing of the defection of Tirumala in the siege of Madura, "resolved to drive the traitor Tirumala Raya from his Viceroyalty, and sent his spies to test the feeling among Tirumala Raya's feudatories" 2. But we have rejected this passage as a concoction of the poet inconsistent with other proved historical facts, and as clearly evincing the author's biassed purpose, viz. to extol the founder of the dynasty. But this is not the only story forged around this event. "The acquisition of Seringapatam in 1610", says Wilks, "is related in different manuscripts with a diversity of statement, which seems only to prove a mysterious intricacy of intrigue beyond the reach of contemporaries to unravel. The pervailing tale states that the Viceroy Tremul Raj, being afflicted with rajpora or royal boil (the disorder most fatal to opulent and luxurious Indians) retired to the holy temple of Talcaud (Talakkad), with the view of being cured by the interposition of the idol, or of breathing his last before the sacred shrine; and that previously to his departure, he had selected Raj Wodeyar of Mysore for the confidential trust of administering the government in his absence; and in the event of his death, of transferring it to his kinsman and heir the Wodeyar of Ammatur" 1. Wilks wisely rejects this tale, and we reject both as contradictory to each other.
v1.c26.53
¹ From King Philip II to the Viceroy Mathias de Albuquerque, Lisbon, February 8th, 1596, Ap. b, No. V.
v1.c26.54
² S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Sources, p. 303.
v1.c26.55
It is, however, worth while noticing that according to Wilks the only thing proved is 'a mysterious intricacy of intrigue beyond the reach of contemporaries to unravel'. This intrigue was probably the one referred to in the MS. of Naggar Putia, which according to the same Wilks, "even details the names of the persons, probably of his own court, who had combined (as it is stated, with the permission of Vencatapetti Rayil who then reigned at Chandergherri) to compel him to retire" 2. Now it was Venkata's interest, as we have declared elsewhere, to disgrace Tirumala before his subjects, by showing him as incapable of defending Seringapatam against his opponent Raja Wodeyar; and he did so thoroughly attain his aim, that even now, three centuries after, the prevalent opinion is against the last Viceroy of Seringapatam 3.
v1.c26.56
Yielding to the advice of his courtiers and secretly admonished by Venkata, Tirumala quietly retired to Talakkad 4. According to the *Annals of the Mysore Royal Family*, the Viceroy retired from Seringapatam with his two wives Alamelamma and Rangamma 5. The *Palace History* gives one name only, viz. Alamelumanga ¹, and seems to suppose that before reaching her husband, who went ahead, she met her end; Raja Wodeyar being most probably responsible for her death ². Frs. S. de Sa and B. Coutinho, while going to Goa with Venkata’s embassy, met the father-in-law of Tirumala, viz. the father of one of these two ladies ³. But he seems to have had no sons, since the Kuniyur plates of Venkata III, speaking of the two nephews of his namesake Venkata II, say: ‘Of these two, Srirangaraya begot sons’ ⁴. Both Wilks and Rice state that Tirumala died soon afterwards ⁵. But there is a grant from Gundlupet Taluk which seems to indicate that he was still living in 1614, and probably with the authority of Viceroy, though very much reduced; he is called in it “the Mahamandalesvara Rama Raja Tirumala Rajayya”, and is said to have made to Vengadeyya-Bhatta, ‘establisher of the path of the Vedas’, a grant of the village of Yereyur, rent free ⁶.
v1.c26.57
¹ Wilks, *History of Mysore*, I, p. 41-2. See another story from a Mackenzie MS. in Rangachari, *History of the Naik Kingdom*, *Ind. Ant.*, XLV, p. 134, note 65.
v1.c26.58
² Ibid., p. 43.
v1.c26.59
³ Cf. Heras, *Venkatapatiraya I and the Portuguese*, *Q.J.M.S.*, XIV, p. 314.
v1.c26.60
⁴ S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar, *Sources*, p. 19, and *Ancient India*, p. 282-3, affirms that the retreat of Tirumala took place during a siege of Seringapatam by Raja Wodeyar. Really the *Congu Desa Rajakal Kyfeyut* speaks of a seige and storming of Seringapatam at this time. Taylor, *Catalogue Raisonnee*, III, p. 33.
v1.c26.61
⁵ Puttaiya, *A Note on the Mysore Throne*, *Q.J.M.S.*, XI, p.
v1.c26.62
²⁶³ There are incongruencies in this passage of the *Annals*, such as the
v1.c26.63
¹ Cf. S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar, *Ancient India*, p. 234.
v1.c26.64
² Ibid., p. 235
3. From Fr. B. Coutinho to Fr. C. Aquaviva, October 11th, 1608, Ap. C, No. XXIII.
v1.c26.65
⁴ *Ep. Ind.*, III, p. 253, v.
v1.c26.66
⁵ Wilks, o.c., p. 43; Rice, o.c., p. 364.
v1.c26.67
⁶ *Ep. Carn.* IV, Gu, 13.
v1.c26.68
7. After the retreat of Tirumala to Talakkad, Raja Wodeyar occupied Seringapatam, apparently with the consent of the Emperor Venkata, as will be proved by the latter’s further grants ⁷. Most likely on this occasion the Mysore Raja sat on the throne of the Viceroys of Seringapatam left vacant by the retreat of Tirumala ⁸.
v1.c26.69
⁷ This was already noticed by Rice, *Mysore and Coorg*, p. 122, and Richards, *Salem Gazetter*, p. 67.
v1.c26.70
⁸ Puttaiya, *A Note on the Mysore throne*, Q.J.M.S., XI, p. 252-3. This seems to be the old throne of the Mysore dynasty which is sacredly kept in the Royal Palace as a holy relic of the past.
v1.c26.71
appointment of Sri Ranga Raya, the son of Tirumala, as ruler at Seringapatam, the seven kings governing there till 1610, etc. Nevertheless there is no reason for rejecting the names of the two wives of Tirumala.
v1.c26.72
²² Several authors as Wilks, *History of Mysore*, I, p. 42; Sewell, II, p. 252; and Rice, I, p. 364, call Tirumala an aged man; we have proved elsewhere that he could not be more than forty on this occasion. Cf. Heras, *Venkatapatiraya I and the Portuguese*, l. c.
v1.c26.73
We cannot with confidence join in the chorus of the authors who look upon this event as the first act of the dismemberment of the Empire¹. Raja Wodeyar always acknowledged the sovereignty of Venkata II, as may be seen from an inscription of 1604, recording a grant made by him, when Venkatapati Raya was seated on the jewelled throne²; also from another of 1612, which commemorates another of his grants to Siva, after acknowledging Venkata as his paramount lord³. In the same year 1612, another event took place that proves Raja Wodeyar's subjection to the Emperor of Vijayanagara: it is a charter confirming the acquisition of Seringapatam, obtained by Raja Wodeyar from Venkata II. This document is not yet available, but is referred to in an inscription of Chama Raja Wodeyar of 1622: "On a certain day", says the incription, "when this Chama Raja Odeyar of Maisur was engaged in conversation on good stories of works of merit, it came into his mind that he would establish an agrahara. And on inquiry, finding that formerly in the Saka year 1534 (A. D. 1612), when Venkatapatideva Maharaya being in Ghanagiri (Penukonda), ruling the kingdom of the world, he had granted to Raj Odeyar, a King of his own line, Ummatur and Seringapatana, as an hereditary estate, Raja Odeyar had then sent a petition saying he wished to establish an agrahara, and that Venkatapati Raya had expressed his strong approval and granted a copper sasana" ⁴.
v1.c26.74
¹ Cf. Rice, *Mysore*, I, p. 356; Rice, *Mysore and Coorg*, p. 122; Sewell, p. 220; H. Krishna Sastri, *The Third Vijayanagara Dynasty*, A.S.I., 1911-12, p. 196.
v1.c26.75
² *Ep. Carn.*, IV, Ch, 62.
v1.c26.76
³ Ibid., 135.
v1.c26.77
⁴ *Ep. Carn.*, III, TN, 62.
v1.c26.78
This ratification of the capture of Seringapatam and the concession of the village of Bevinahalli to Raja Wodeyar by Venkata are recorded in two inscriptions of the former belonging to the years 1614 and 1615; both prove likewise the loyalty of the Raja to Venkata till the end of the latter's reign, for they mention him as the supreme sovereign. The first mentions a grant of Raja Wodeyar "for the god Chaluvaraya and 28
v1.c26.79
Brahmans belonging to Seringapatam, which Venkatapati Raya has assigned to him as an umbali¹; the second records another grant made by the same “for the god Ramachandra of Vahnipura of the village of Bevinahalli belonging to Bannur, which he had received from Venkatapadeva Maharaya as an hereditary permanent estate”².
v1.c26.80
¹ Ibid., Sr, 157.
v1.c26.81
² Ibid., TN, 116. According to Dr. S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Ancient India, p. 281, the ‘grants’ of Venkata II to Raja Wodeyar ‘appear to have been conquests rather than grants’.
v1.c26.82
8. The Mysore chief was not alone in his desire to obtain supremacy in Kanara. The Ikeri Nayak, Chikka Sankanna Nayaka, was successfully administering his kingdom. It was he who gave the first impulse to expansion, which was followed by his successor Venkatappa. A letter of the King of Portugal to the Viceroy Conde de Vidigueira informs us of the ambitious projects of Chikka Sankanna. It runs as follows: “You say that the Queen of Baticala (Bhatkal) has not paid the tribute due for many years, and that she is now in great distress on account of one Naique (Chikka Sankanna Nayaka) formerly a subject of the king of Narsingua (Vijayanagara) but now risen to power, and who gives clear proofs of his ambition to become the paramount lord over all those neighbouring kings”³.
v1.c26.83
³ From King Philip II to the Viceroy Conde de Vidigueira, Lisbon, Nevember 21st, 1598, Archivo Portuguez Oriental, III, pt. 2nd, p. 916.
v1.c26.84
Chikka Sankanna constructed a beautiful new town at Ikeri with a magnificent palace, which was provided with a handsome theatre. At the village of Sangala he had a big tank built and a garden laid out, which contained all kinds of trees and creepers⁴.
v1.c26.85
⁴ Sivatattvaratnakara, S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Sources, p. 339.
v1.c26.86
Although he had a son called Siddhappa Nayaka, in his old age he appointed his elder brother’s son, Venkatappa Nayaka, his successor, and nominated the latter’s younger brother, Rama Raja, Yuvaraja⁵. This fact must be placed before, or in the first half of 1592; for there is an inscription of September 30th, 1592, in which Venkatappa appears as Nayaka of Ikeri making a grant for the services of a matha 1.
v1.c26.87
⁵ Ibid., p. 338-9. Mr. Sewell, II, p. 177, says that Siddhappa Nayaka succeeded his father Sankanna, but reigned only one year (1603-4).
v1.c26.88
⁵ From King Philipp II to the Viceroy Mathias de Albuquerque, Lisbon, February 18th, 1595, Archivo Portuguez Oriental, III, p. 478.
v1.c26.89
The new ruler was to be the most illustrious of the princes of Ikeri, and was destined to become for time the rival of Mysore in his wars of conquest; but since most of his achievements as a successful conqueror belong to the period subsequent to the death of Venkata II, we shall refer to them all in the following volume. Mr. Sewell qualifies him as a ‘weak ruler’ 2, a statement that appears entirely false; for he was a valiant and enterprising general as well as a shrewd politician. It has also been said that he threw off his dependence on the Vijayanagara Emperor 3, though no reliable proof of this has been yet afforded. As a matter of fact, we have convincing proofs of his loyalty to Venkata II in the aforesaid inscription of 1592 and in another of 1614, at Udipi, South Kanara, in which mention is made of the grant of the village of Huvinakere by Venkatappa Nayak of Keladi to the local Krishnamatha 4. In both, the Ikeri chief acknowledges Venkata II as his sovereign.
v1.c26.90
9. One of Venkatappa’s royal neighbours was Bukka Devi Chautar, Queen of Ullal, of whom we have already spoken in a preceding chapter. After the settlement of the differences between her and the King of Bangher, recorded during the reign of Ranga I, it seems that she constructed a fortress in Ullal to oppose the one built by the Portuguese at Mangalore, but was compelled by the Portuguese Viceroy to destroy it probably in fulfilment of one of the terms of the treaty of peace. The King of Portugal wrote to the Viceroy on February 18th, 1595, approving of this treaty with the Queen of Ullal 5. But on the 26th of the same month, probably after getting fuller information, his Majesty wrote to his representative in India as follows: “I approve of the peace made with the Queen of Ollala (Ullal) after forcing her to pull down the fortress that she had constructed and retained with such great loss of reputation to that State (of Portuguese India); but I am informed now that the aforesaid fortress of Ollala has not been demolished as completely as it ought to have been, and that the foundations are still remaining, in such a way that in a very few days and with very little work it may be put up again; I recommend you to see that the foundations are totally destroyed" ¹.
v1.c26.91
¹ M. A. D., 1923, p. 106-7.
v1.c26.92
² Sewell, II, p. 177.
v1.c26.93
³ Rice, Mysore, II, p. 431.
v1.c26.94
⁴ 110 of 1901.
v1.c26.95
¹ From the same to the same, Lisbon, February 26th, 1595, Ibid., p. 503.
v1.c26.96
Accordingly the Viceroy sent to Ullal Dom Jeronymo d'Azevedo, who razed the fortress to the ground, as another letter of the King informs us ². In the same letter we are told that the Queen was waging war against the King of the Serra (?) at about 1597. The King of Portugal "had written to the King of Banguel (Bangher) charging him to settle such differences; and praying him that he would by no means join the aforesaid King of the Serra against the Queen " ³. This final recommendation of the Portuguese sovereign makes it seem probable that the King of Bangher had formerly rendered some aid to the King of the Serra against the sovereign of Ullal. This was customary in the court of Portugal; it recommended people not to do in future that which it knew was already being done. Anyhow this incident was probably the cause of the definite break of relations between the two neighbouring chiefs.
v1.c26.97
² From the same to the Viceroy Dom Francisco de Gama, Conde de Vidigueira, Lisbon, February 5th, 1597, Ibid., III, pt. 2nd, p. 667.
v1.c26.98
³ Ibid.
v1.c26.99
The Italian traveller Pietro della Valle informs us about the relations between these two sovereigns and the subsequent events resulting from this break of intercourse; "yet, though they were Husband and Wife," says he, "they liv'd not together, but apart, each in their own lands: on the confines whereof, either upon Rivers, where they caus'd Tents to be erected over boats, or in other places of delight, they came to see and converse with one another; the King of Banguel wanting not other Wives and Women who accompany'd him wherever he went. 'Tis reported that this Queen had the Children, which she hath, by this King of Banguel, if they were not by some other secret and more intimate Lover; for, they say, she wants not such " ¹.
v1.c26.100
¹ Della Valle, II, p. 313. Fr. Coutinho in one of his letters says that 'Tornagoda, the Governor of Olala, invites us (to go there)'. From Fr. B. Coutinho to Fr. N. Pimenta, Chandragiri, July 17th, 1600, Ap. C, No. V. This must be a governor on behalf of Bukka Devi.
v1.c26.101
10. During this period, in the petty state of Yelahanka, we find Immadi Kempe Gowda II; but we cannot admit that he was the immediate successor of Kempe Gowda, without at the same time admitting that his reign lasted 89 years; and specially when there are documents to support the probability of another chief between the two Kempe Gowdas ².
v1.c26.102
² Cf. Puttaiya, The Kempe Gowda Chiefs, Q.J.M.S., XIII, p. 729, and Ep. Cara., IX, An, 47.
v1.c26.103
He improved the Somesvara temple at Ulsur and, calling from Belur a famous sculptor named Jakanachary, ordered him to carve on its walls the episode of the marriage of Parvati and Siva. "The carvings," says Mr. B. Puttaiya, "consist of numerous sculptures and figures of Gods and Goddesses who attend the marriage, including Brahma and Vishnu and the thirty-three crores of Devathas or inhabitants of the celestial world. The details of the assemblage at the ceremony are all carved in stone with a wealth of elegance, ornament, and realism, so that one is astonished at the wonderful skill displayed in carving such intricating details on hard stone" ³.
v1.c26.104
³ Puttaiya, o. c., p. 730.
v1.c26.105
It is said that Kempe Gowda II died in 1658. Hence we shall speak of him again later.
v1.c26.106
11. Very little is known about the other states of Kanara during Venkata II's reign. The year 1602 seems to have witnessed the death of Obana Nayaka; who, being appointed by Sadasiva chief of Chitaldroog, had acquired considerable importance during the reign of Tirumala and Ranga. He was now succeeded by his son Kasturi Rangappa Nayaka, during whose reign the possession of Mayakonda, Sente Bennur, Holalkere, Anaji Jagalur and other places was contested in several battles with the Basvapatna chief. But they remained attached to the Chitaldroog territory. His governorship lasted until 1653; and in the long tenure of his office he had considerably extended his territories ¹.
v1.c26.107
¹ Rice, Mysore, II, p. 502.
v1.c26.108
In Bellur we find a grand-son of Era Krishnappa Nayaka and son of Venkatadri. An inscription of 1587, which acknowledges the suzerainty of Venkata II ‘ruling the kingdom in peace and wisdom’, records that Krishnappa Nayaka, grand-son of Era Krishnappa and son of Venkatappa Nayaka, made a grant for watchmen from money obtained from the temple endowments ².
v1.c26.109
² Ep. Carn., VI, Cm. 79.
v1.c26.110
12. No other conquests by the Portuguese took place in Kanara during this period; but the King of Portugal as well as his Viceroy at Goa were carefully watching the fortunes of this country. We have seen the interest the Portuguese sovereign took in the affair of the fortresses of Sao Carnao Botto. Portuguese trade received its greatest supplies from Kanara. “Accordingly (Manoel de Sousa) writes to me,” says Philip II, “that the greatest quantity of pepper that comes by these fleets is taken from Kanara, and according to him it will be increased every year; a thing which will be of great value for the loading of our ships. He says, moreover, that he was trying to satisfy the kings of the coast as much as he could because of this pepper, the majority of which comes from the lands of Sao Carnao Botto ³.”
v1.c26.111
³ From King Philipp II to the Viceroy Mathias de Albuquerque, Lisbon, January 12th, 1591, Ap. B, No I.
v1.c26.112
This was the reason of the intercourse between the Portuguese and the chiefs of the Kanara country; for trading purposes also, several Portuguese forts were built on the coast, as we have narrated during the reign of Sadasiva. In the begining of Venkata’s reign, these fortresses were repaired and furnished with sufficient ammunition, according to an order of the Portuguese sovereign to the Viceroy dated February 18th, 1595 ⁴.
v1.c26.113
⁴ From the same to the same, Lisbon, February 18th, 1595, Ap. B, No. IV.