Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v1.c9: Chapter III. The Capitals of the Empire

Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v1.c9

Language
English

Contents

Chapter III. The Capitals of the Empire

Section 1. Introduction

v1.c9.s1.1

THE fame of the Vijayanagara Empire rests, according to popular belief, on the grandeur of its capital, which foreign travellers have greatly extolled; but there is every reason to believe that something of its greatness originated from and ended in places other than the City of Victory. The common conception about this greatest capital of the Empire deserves to be modified to some extent in the light of contemporary history. The beginnings of the Empire were laid, as the reader must have guessed by the remarks about the origin of the kingdom of Harihara I, not in the famous city which has given the Empire its name, but in one or two centres about it which were hallowed by the memories of quasi-historical persons and of the Hoysalas themselves. It has already been pointed out that in the times of Ballāla III, his Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara Hariappa, who was placed over the principality of Kukkala-nāḍu, was the most prominent figure amongst the provincial governors of that Hoysala monarch. Further it was also noted that the absence of any political upheaval, or even of a revolt, and the matrimonial alliance between the family of Harihara I and that of the Hoysalas suggest some sort of tacit understanding between the latter, whose influence as a ruling power was dying out, and the sons of Saṅgama, whose domain was now assuming definite shape, as regards the place from where Harihara and his brothers were to continue the rule and tradition of the kings of the Hosyala-vaṁśa. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to suppose that the newcomers in order to preserve a semblance of their respect for, and to justify their relationship with, the Hoysalas, would have ruled from the old capitals of the latter rather than from a new one till they had firmly established themselves on the Karṇāṭaka soil. The founders of the Vijayanagara Empire, we may once again note, had limited resources both as regards men and money; and what is worse, they were fully aware of the presence of the Muhamadans in the south. They rightly concentrated their attention more on the question of the southern danger than on the topic of creating a grand capital. This explains the fact that Hariappa Oḍeyar, who always styled himself, as was said a while ago, only a Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara, had no capital worth the name, although he wielded considerable influence through his governors Gautarasa, placed at Maṅgaḷūr, Gōpēśa at Kuppaṭṭūr in Nāgarakhaṇḍa, and Chāmeya Nāyaka at Bādāmi.¹ But about the principality of Kukkala-nāḍu, and about the centre from where Harihara exercised his jurisdiction, there is, unfortunately, no record in the inscriptions.² This conjecture of ours would take us to the year A.D. 1346 which may be said to be the date of the foundation of the Vijayanagara Empire. But such an assumption is challenged by the evidence of stone inscriptions and copper-plate grants which ascribe the building of the capital called Vijayanagara to the great sage Vidyāraṇya and Harihara I in A.D. 1336.

v1.c9.s1.2

¹ A.S.R. for 1907-8, p. 240.

v1.c9.s1.3

² Saletore, Indian Historical Quarterly, VIII, pp. 294-301; 768-774; IX, pp. 521-566.

Section 2. Stories about the Origin of the Capital

v1.c9.s2.1

The stories in connection with the origin of the city of Vijayanagara are to be found in tradition, in the accounts of foreign travellers and in the inscriptions. These have led almost all writers on Vijayanagara history to conclude that the city was built by Harihara I with the aid of Vidyāraṇya. The different versions of the construction of the capital which recall, however, the memory of the performance of a great event by the rishis of old,¹ deserve to be dealt with in detail before we examine them on the strength of contemporary evidence. Mr. Sewell enumerates them thus:

v1.c9.s2.2

¹ J. Bom. R.A.S. XVII, pp. 83-4, where Dr. R. G. Bhandarkar describes one such congress of rishis as given in the Brihadāraṇyaka Upanishad and the Vāyu Purāṇa.

v1.c9.s2.3

"One has it that two brothers named Bukka and Harihara, who had been in the service of the king of Warangal at the time of the destruction of that kingdom by the Muhammadans in 1323, escaped with a small body of horse to the hill country about Anegundi, being accompanied in their flight by the Brahman Mādhava or Mādhavāchārya Vidyāraṇya, and by some means not stated became lords of that tract, afterwards founding the city of Vijayanagar.

v1.c9.s2.4

"Another states that the two brothers were officers in the service of the Muhammadan governor of Warangal subsequent to its first capture in 1309. They were despatched against the Hoysala Ballāla sovereign in the expedition under the command of Malik Kāfur in 1310, which resulted in the capture of the Hindu capital, Dvārasamudra; but the portion of the force to which the brothers belonged suffered a defeat, and they fled to the mountainous tract near Anegundi. Here they met the holy Mādhava, who was living the life of a recluse, and by his aid they established the kingdom and capital city.

v1.c9.s2.5

"A variant of this relates that the two brothers for some reason fled direct from Warangal to Anegundi. This account redounds more to their honour as Hindus. Though compelled first to accept service under their conquerors, their patriotism triumphed in the end, and they abandoned the flesh-pots of Egypt to throw in their luck with their co-religionists.

v1.c9.s2.6

"A fourth story avers that the hermit Mādhava himself founded the city after the discovery of a hidden treasure, ruled over it himself, and left it after his death to a Kuruba family who established the first regular dynasty.

v1.c9.s2.7

"A fifth mentioned by Couto,² who fixes the date as 1220, states that while Mādhava was living his ascetic life amongst the mountains he was supported by meals brought to him by a poor shepherd called Bukka, and one day the Brahman said to him, 'Thou shalt be king and emperor of all Industan'. The other shepherds learned this, and began to treat this shepherd with veneration, and made him their head; and he acquired the name of 'king', and began to conquer his neighbours who were five in number, viz., Canara, Taligas, Canguivarao, Negapatao, and he of the Badagas, and he at last became lord of all and called himself 'Boca Rao'. He was attacked by the king of Delhi, but the latter was defeated and retired, whereupon Bukka established a city and called it Visaja Nagar, which we corruptly called Bisnaga; and we call all the kingdom by that name, but the natives amongst themselves always call it the 'kingdom of Canara'. Couto's narrative seems to be a mixture of several stories. His wrong date points to his having partly depended upon the original chronicle of Nuniz, or the summary of it published by Barros; while the rest of the tale savours more of Hindu romance than of historical accuracy. He retains, however, the tradition of an attack by the king of Delhi and the latter's subsequent retirement.

v1.c9.s2.8

² Decada, VI, I.v.c. 4; Sewell, For. Emp., p. 22, n. (1).

v1.c9.s2.9

"Another authority suggests that Bukka and Harihara may have been feudatories of the Hoysala Ballālas".¹

v1.c9.s2.10

¹ Sewell, *For. Emp.*, pp. 20-2. For some other versions, see Salem Manual, I, p. 44, cited by Rangachari, *I.A.*, XLIII, p. 6. ² Fergusson, *History of Indian and Eastern Architecture* (being the III vol. of the *History of Arch.* 1876) p. 374, cited by Sewell, *Lists.*, I, p. 106. ³ Gopinatha Rao, *Ep. Ind.*, XV, p. 10, seq.

v1.c9.s2.11

There is another tradition which ascribes the foundation of the city to a certain Vijaya Rāyal in the year A.D. 1118.²

v1.c9.s2.12

Some have based their remarks on the authority of the Rājakālanirṇaya. This MS. "though not of any historical value, (it) is nevertheless noteworthy, as it puts forth a new view concerning the foundation of the kingdom of Vijayanagara".³ "It relates that, when the 'Suratrāṇa' conquered the country of Vira Rudra and killed him, Harihara and Bukka, two brothers who were the keepers of the treasury of the vanquished Hindu king, fled away from the country and took shelter under another king named Rāmanātha. When Rāmanātha was also killed by the army of the 'Suratrāṇa', these brothers were taken prisoners. But the 'Suratrāṇa' finding them good and capable fellows, deputed them for the conquest of the king Ballāla. After one unsuccessful attempt they gained a complete victory over Ballāla and took possession of the Karṇāṭaka kingdom. Then the incident of a hare chasing the dogs of Harihara and the founding of the city of Vidyānagara with the assistance of the sage Vidyāraṇya is mentioned.

v1.c9.s2.13

In the *Siva-tattvaratnākara* compiled under the patronage of Basava Raja of Keḷadi, of the eighteenth century A.D., it is narrated that Harihara and Bukka, who were treasurers of king Vīra Rudra, returning from Ujjaini, whither they had been on a pilgrimage after the destruction of Warangal by the Muhammadans, desired to go and see Virūpāksha of Hampe. Siva appeared to them in a dream and asked them to proceed to that holy place where a famous sage—Vidyāraṇya—would create a city for them, and place them as rulers with a view to establish peace in the land. On reaching Hampe they related their dream to the sage, who had also a like vision to that effect. They conferred together about the place of the city. Meanwhile a shepherd appeared and told them that on the southern bank of the river Tuṅgabhadrā there was a hillock where the goddess of wealth lived, and that she would help their cause. The shepherd, however, begged them not to divulge his name. The three men then went to the place and worshipped her, whereupon the goddess, without showing herself, told them that she would bless them and fulfil their wishes, in case they gave her the shepherd as a sacrifice. Thereupon the shepherd was brought to the place. He agreed to sacrifice himself for the great cause on one condition, viz., that all the kings of that line would assume his name. Then he went near the goddess and disappeared. The goddess then asked Vidyāraṇya to create a town in the form of *Srīchakra*, where she would rain gold for 3¾ *ghaṭis* (i.e. 1½ hours).²

v1.c9.s2.14

¹ Gopinatha Rao, *Ep. Ind.*, XV, p. 10, seq., Dr. Venkata Ramanayya in his *Kampili and Vijayanagara* gives the extract from the *Rājakālanirṇaya*, Appendix A, pp. 34-5.

v1.c9.s2.15

² Basava Rāja of Keḷadi, *Siva-tattva-ratnākara*, Kallōla IV, 29-56. (Ed. by B. Rama Rao and Sundara Sastri). For another modern account of the foundation of the city see *Keḷadi-nṛipa-Vijaya* by Liṅgaṇṇa. (Ed. by Dr. R. Shama Sastry), pp. 15-17. (Uny. of Mysore, Oriental Library publication, No. 9). A palm-leaf version of the same work which is in the India Office Library, contains some very slight variations, but is substantially the same. It may be interesting to know that in the *kāvya* called *Keḷadi-nṛipa-Vijaya*, Harihara and Bukka are described to have come from the north. ಕತಿಪಯ ದಿವಸ: ವಶಿಸುತೃಮಿರಲಾಗಿ ಉತ್ತರದೇಶದಿಂ ಸಹೋದರರಾದ ಹರಿಹರಬುಕ್ಕರೆಂಬ ಬಡ ಕ್ಷತ್ರಿಯರು ಯಾ ದಕ್ಷಿಣರಾಜ್ಯ ಕೈತಂದು ಕುರುಬರಲಿ ಸಂತತನ ಮಾಡಿ ಹೆಂಡು ತಂದು ಮದುವೆಯಾಗಿ ಸುಖಿವಾಸಿಗಳಾಗಿ ಯಿರುತ್ತಮಿರಲಾಗಿ... India Office copy. Cf. Liṅgaṇṇa's version, p. 15. Liṅgaṇṇa, who is supposed to have been the author of *Keḷadi-nṛipa-kāvya*, lived somewhere in the first or last quarter of the seventeenth century. Liṅgaṇṇa, ibid., Intr., p. vi.

v1.c9.s2.16

The story as given in the account of Nuniz is the following: "The King (Deorao) going one day a-hunting, as was often his wont, to a mountain on the other side of the river of Nagumdym (Anegundi), where now is the city of Bisnaga,—which at that time was a desert place in which much hunting took place, and which the King had reserved for his own amusement,—being in it with his dogs and appurtenances of the chase, a hare rose up before him, which, instead of fleeing from the dogs, ran towards them and bit them all, so that none of them dared go near it for the harm that it did them.¹ And seeing this, the King, astonished at so feeble a thing biting dogs which had already caught for him a tiger and a lion, judged it to be not really a hare but (more likely) some prodigy; and he at once turned back to the city of Nagumdym.

v1.c9.s2.17

¹ "This same tale is told of many kings and chiefs in southern India. The 'Tazkirat-ul-Muluk' (Ind. Ant., May 1890 p. 129) also relates it of the Bahmani Sultan Ahmad Shah (1422-35), alleging that it was the behaviour of a hunted hare that induced him to make Bidar his capital". Sewell, For. Emp., p. 299, n. (1).

v1.c9.s2.18

"And arriving at the river, he met a hermit who was walking along the bank, a man holy among them, to whom he told what had happened concerning the hare. And the hermit, wondering at it, said to the King that he should turn back with him and shew him the place where so marvellous a thing had happened; and being there, the hermit said that the King ought in that place to erect houses in which he could dwell, and build a city, for the prodigy meant that this would be the strongest city in the world, and that it would never be captured by his enemies, and would be the chief city in the kingdom. And so the King did, and on that very day began work on his houses, and he enclosed the city round about; and that done he left Nagumdym and soon filled the new city with people. And he gave it the name Vydiajuna, for so the hermit called himself who had bidden him construct it; but in course of time the name has become corrupted, and it is now called Bisnaga".² Firishtah's narrative of the same has already been noted in an earlier connection.

v1.c9.s2.19

² Sewell, ibid., pp. 299-300.

v1.c9.s2.20

Before we examine the epigraphical evidence in favour of the story of the Hare, the Hermit, and Harihara, it may not be out of place to recount the opinions of scholars who have almost unanimously adhered to this strange fiction as an historical fact. Thus Wilson writes: "Tradition places also the foundation of Vijayanagar in A.D. 1336, a period not incompatible with the political events to which it probably owed its elevation, the capture of Dvārasamudra (the capital of the Belāl kings of Mysore) by the Mohamedans, and consequent decline of their power occurring in 1310-11, and the destruction of Warankal and the subversion of the Andhra or Telinga monarchy by the same enemies taking place about 1323".¹ Sir Walter Elliot remarks thus: "Assisted by his celebrated minister Mādhava, also called Vidyāraṇya, he (Harihara) fixed his capital near the ancient town of Anegundi, giving to it first the name of Hosapaṭṭana, ('new city'), afterwards of Hastināvati, perhaps the Sanskrit equivalent of the Canarese Anegundi, and, finally, as his power extended, that of Vijayanagar, 'the city of victory', which became its permanent designation, sometimes exchanged for Vidyānagara, 'the city of learning', in honour of his great minister".²

v1.c9.s2.21

¹ Wilson, As. Res., XX, pp. 4, 6. ² Elliot, Num. Or., p. 91. ³ Venkayya, I.A., XXXVIII, p.

v1.c9.s2.22

Mr. Venkayya, commenting on an inscription (Bg. 70) which will be examined presently, writes: "Verses 1 to 28 of the first grant (Bg. 70) are nearly identical with verses 2 to 29 of the Kāpalūr grant and refer to the building of the city of Vijayanagara by king Harihara at the instance of the sage Vidyāraṇya. The two latter grants refer to the city as having been founded by Vidyāraṇya. The legend concerning the foundation of the city of Vijayanagara mentioned both in the Kāpalūr grant and in Mr. Rice's inscriptions was current also in the first half of the 16th century. The Portuguese chronicler Fernão Nuniz mentions the identical story in connection with the foundation of the city".³ But Mr. Venkayya however has expressed a more accurate opinion in another connection.

v1.c9.s2.23

Mr. Lewis Rice opines thus: "The Vijayanagara empire was founded in 1336, immediately on the disappearance of the Hoysalas from the stage of history. The founders were two princes named Hakka and Bukka, sons of Sangama. . . . They were probably subordinates of or connected with the Hoysalas, and were aided in their enterprise by the head of the maṭha at Sringēri (in the Kaḍūr district) founded by the reformer Sankarāchārya in the eighth century. The name of this guru was Mādhavā and he is known as Vidyāraṇya. He became the first minister of the new state¹. This later opinion of Mr. Rice runs counter to one of his earlier conclusions.

v1.c9.s2.24

⁹⁰ Read Krishnamacharlu, I.A., LI, p. 233, for a similar opinion.

v1.c9.s2.25

¹ Rice, *Mysore and Coorg*, p. 100.

v1.c9.s2.26

Mr. Sewell, whose work has become classical on the subject, says: "The city of Vijayanagar, thus founded about the year 1335, speedily grew in importance and became the refuge of the out-casts, refugees, and fighting men of the Hindus, beaten and driven out of their old strongholds by the advancing Muhammadans"². But strangely enough Mr. Sewell contradicts himself in these words wherein he criticizes Buchanan's version of the legend: "But this story entirely leaves out of account the most important point. How could two brothers, flying from a captured capital, and a conquered kingdom, suddenly establish in a new country a great city and a sovereignty?"³

v1.c9.s2.27

² Sewell, *For. Emp.*, pp. 25, 7, 19.

v1.c9.s2.28

³ *Ibid.*, pp. 21, n. (1); 300, n. (1), where Sewell says that the derivation of the name of the city from Vidyāraṇya is believed to be erroneous.

v1.c9.s2.29

Mr. Subramiah Pantulu, however, expressed his doubts as regards the stories in connection with the foundation of the capital⁴. The earlier opinion of Mr. Rice was that was Bukka I who made Vijayanagara his permanent capital⁵.

v1.c9.s2.30

⁴ Subramiah Pantulu, *I.A.*, XXII, pp. 247-8. Mr. Pantulu (ibid. p. 248) asserts, however, that Vijayanagara had already "reached a considerable degree of power" by A.D. 1336.

v1.c9.s2.31

⁵ Rice, *Mys. Ins.*, pp. 55, 278.

v1.c9.s2.32

Mr. Venkayya is more accurate when he asserts that "it is during the time of Bukka I that the capital of Vijayanagara first makes its appearance"⁶.

v1.c9.s2.33

⁶ Venkayya, *Ep. Ind.*, III, p. 115.

v1.c9.s2.34

Mr. T. A. Gopinatha Rao has brought forward another view in the following words: "It was more likely at the advice of Vidyāraṇya's guru Vidyātirtha that Harihara I built the city of Vijayanagara"⁷. Dr. S. Krishnaswamy Aiyangar thinks that "it was possibly about this period (ie., in about A.D. 1328-29) that he (Vira Ballāḷa III) went farther afield from Dvārasamudra and laid the foundations of the city generally called Hosapaṭṭaṇa or Virūpākṣapaṭṭaṇa, which ultimately became Vijayanagara, to secure his northern frontier"⁸. The Rev. Father Heras agrees with this conclusion of Dr. Aiyangar,¹ although in the same work (The Beginnings of Vijayanagara History) he approaches nearest to the accurate date when he says: "Bukka I is the real founder (in 1368) of Vijayanagara south of the Tungabhadra".²

v1.c9.s2.35

⁷ Gopinatha Rao, *Ep. Ind.*, XV, p. 11.

v1.c9.s2.36

⁸ S. K. Aiyangar, *Q. J. M. S.* XI, 16, seq. pp. 21. Dr. Venkata Ramanayya calls this "the most astounding myth" in the field of south Indian historical research. *Kampili and Vijayanagara*, p. 24; but sticks to the stupendous fiction of the hare and the hermit, *ibid.*, p. 33.

v1.c9.s2.37

¹ Heras, The Beginnings, pp. 50, 56, and passim.

v1.c9.s2.38

² Heras, ibid., p. 130.

v1.c9.s2.39

This opinion of Father Heras is different to that which he expressed in his earlier work, when he said that the glorious event of establishing the capital "may be placed about 1340".³ His later conclusions, as well as those of Mr. Gopinatha Rao, are correct in the main. But whereas the latter ignores the name of the real monarch who began the building of the capital, and does not enlighten us as to the exact date of its foundation, the former is not as conclusive as one would wish him to be, since in the opinion of Father Heras there was also a Vijayanagara on the northern bank of the river Tungabhadrā. We admit that we could refer the name Vijaya to, for instance, Vijayasamudra spoken of in the inscriptions as the capital of the Hoysalas,⁴ especially when we note that it agrees very well with the Beejanuggur which Firishtah describes as having been the city built by Ballāla III, and christened after his son Beeja (i.e., Vijaya—Vijaya Virūpāksha).

v1.c9.s2.40

³ Heras, Aravidu, p. 103.

v1.c9.s2.41

⁴ Rice identified Vijayasamudra with Hullavūru, the ancient capital of the Sindas, in the Rāgi-Bennūr taluka. E.C., XI, Intr., p. 15.

v1.c9.s2.42

Epigraphical evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of the theory that Vijayanagara existed in A.D. 1336 or thereabouts, and that it was founded by Harihara with the advice of Vidyāraṇya. The controversy about the date of the foundation of the capital is so important that we may be permitted to discuss it at length in this chapter. Inscriptional evidence about the existence of the capital in A.D. 1336 centres round these following epigraphs, which deserve to be examined with the aid of contemporary records.

v1.c9.s2.43

1. The story of Vidyāraṇya is given in an inscription dated A.D. 1336. ". . . Usual account of the descent of Yadu from the moon. In his line were many kings, among whom was Bukka, whose wife was Magāmbikā. From them (omitting laudations) was born Saṅgama, whose wife was Manāmbikā, and they had five sons—Harihara, Kampa, Bukka, Māra and Mudda. The eldest of these became the ruler of the nine continents. Having conquered all the points of the compass, he was served by the kings of Aṅga, Kaliṅga, and other countries. And he ruled in Kuñjarakōṇapuri (Anegundi). On one occasion he crossed the Tuṅgabhadrā with the intention of hunting, and coming forth with his army, saw the forests to the south. And in the forest, that moon to the ocean Saṅgamēśa was surprised to see a fierce dog with long teeth, only chewing what had been bitten, and a hare. And seeing the god Virūpāksha along with the goddess Pampā, he did obeisance to them; and drawing near paid respect to Vidyāraṇya, the yati in that temple, and informed him of the very curious circumstance. The yatīndra (his praise) smiled above and said: ‘O King, this place is worth to be the residence of a family of great kings; and this is a specially strong site. Make here a city named Vidyā equal to Alaka (Kubēra's city) with nine gates, wherein you may reside, like Purandhara, in wealth acquired by victory in war on all sides, and hold the world in your serpent-like arms’. Thereupon Hariharēśvara, doing according to his direction, was seated on the throne, adorned with the white umbrella, and made the sixteen great gifts, resplendent in the nagara (or city) called Vidyā (or Vidyānagara) of vast dimensions. (On the date specified) during the phalābhishēka festival for Pampā-Virūpāksha-Mahēśvara, he formed certain agrahāras. And (with praises) to Arakare Bhāskara's son Pampāvirūpāksha, he gave Yāraguḍi in Tammadāmala, in the Koṇḍakāmala Vallūru Sime. . .(its boundaries). And he gave it the new name of Vidyāranyapura. And for the worship of the god Mahēśvara of Śrīśaila he granted Chiravārapalli. By order of the king the Sāsana was engraved by the Sāsanāchārya Nāga-dēva. Boundaries in the language of the country (Telugu). Usual imprecatory verses. (Signed) Śrī-Virūpāksha’.¹

v1.c9.s2.44

¹ E.C., X. Bg. 70, p. 241.

v1.c9.s2.45

2. Three copper-plates from the Nellore district record that after the coronation which took place on the seventh tithi in the bright fortnight in the month of Vaiśākha in the year Dhātri Saka 1258 (=18th April, A.D. 1336), the Vijayanagara king Harihara Mahārāja founded an agrahāra in the village of Kāpalūr, situated in the kingdom of Chandragiri in Paḍanāḍu-śīmā, (its location), and gave it to a Brāhmaṇa named Ananta Sūraya. (The division of the agrahāra into shares and the circumstances under which Harihara founded Vidyānagara are also given.)¹

v1.c9.s2.46

¹ Sewell, Lists, II, No. 79, p. 11; C.P. No. 3 of 1906-7; Butterworth-Chetty, Nellore Ins. I, p. 109, seq.; S. R. Aiyangar, Cat. of Copper-plate Grants in the Madras Museum, No. 3, p. 43.

v1.c9.s2.47

3. An indistinct copper-plate from Hassan dated about A.D. 1335 gives the names of the five sons of Saṅgama; then verses praising the king whose name is obliterated, after which we have "His capital city was Vijaya. . . His chief queen was Gaurāmbikā . . . by her he had a son . . . in the form of Harihara".²

v1.c9.s2.48

² Rice, My. Ins., p. 278.

v1.c9.s2.49

4. A set of copper-plates dated A.D. 1344 in which the following is stated: "(Obeisance to the gods. The descent of Yadu in whose family) was Bukka (his praise). Magāmbikā was his queen (her praise). There was in his family (with laudations) the king named Saṅgama. Mālāmbikā was the queen of that king (her praise). The sons of that king were (the five brothers). The middle one of the five, the king Bukka was famous (his laudations). Distinguished by the titles Rājādhirāja, Rājaparamēśvara, Garuḍa to the serpent kings who break their word, a royal rival of kings, terrifier of hostile kings, the Suratrāṇa of Hindu Rāyas, seated on the jewel throne in the city named Vidyā, distinguished as the abode of Vijaya (victory) made by Vidyāraṇya, (made great gifts etc.) by him (on the date specified) in Pampa in the Bhāskara-kshētra, in the presence of the god Virūpāksha, to Sōma, a moon (sōma) to the ocean Nāchana, versed in all the āgamas, understanding all the accepted meanings of the eighteen purāṇas, by the success of his poetry in eight languages, having acquired wealth,—was given in the Guttidurga kingdom in the Kōḍūr country, in the Pena-māgaṇi, on the bank of the Pinākinī, the village previously called Pañchakaladhinne, giving it another name of Bukkarāyapura (boundary villages named). And the illustrious Nāchana's (son), the great poet (mahākavi) Sōma, blessed the king to have a long life; (division of the village into shares and their distribution). (The boundaries of the agrahāra written in Telugu). The greatness of this śāsana of the king Bukka Rājēndra (His praise.) Kōṭidēvārādhya's son, Mallanārādhya, composed the verses. The carpenter Sāsanāchārya's son, by order of the king, the sculptor Nāgadēva made (or inscribed) it. (Usual final verses.) Signed Srī-Virūpāksha".¹

v1.c9.s2.50

¹ E.C., X. Mb. 158, p. 113.

v1.c9.s2.51

5. Another copper-plate grant dated A.D. 1354 says: ".... (on the date specified) when the rājādhirāja, rāja-paramēśvara Vira-pratāpa Bukkā-rāya-Dēva, Mahārāya, seated on the jewel throne in Vidyānagara, was ruling the empire of the world. In the Kundurupi kingdom, along with the grāma-gauḍike of Achchutabharampalle belonging to Kanyalakuriki, were granted to Kunchukāpu Liṅgaṇa-gauḍa the following lands (specified with boundaries [in Telugu?]) in Gollapōtanagaunipalle and made over in front of the temple of Sōmēśvara at Penugoṇḍa. Imprecation (signed) śrī-Virūpāksha (in Telugu?)".²

v1.c9.s2.52

² E.C., XII, Pg. 74, p. 129, text, pp. 389-90.

v1.c9.s2.53

6. The story of Vidyāraṇya is also mentioned in an inscription dated A.D. 1652: "Formerly, the (original) guru of our line, author of Vēda-Bhāshya, Vidyāraṇya Srīpāda, out of charity to the world, through the boon obtained by virtue of his penance from (the god) Virūpāksha dwelling on the banks of the Pampā, having founded Vidyānagara,—for the protection of the cows, gods, and Brahmanas performed the coronation anointing of Harihara-mahārāya to the throne".³

v1.c9.s2.54

³ E.C., VI, Sg. 11, p. 95.

v1.c9.s2.55

None of the above inscriptions can be given any credence for determining the date of the foundation of the great Hindu capital. We shall examine every one of these in turn.

v1.c9.s2.56

1. The Inscription styled "Bg. 70". This is defective because of the following reasons:

v1.c9.s2.57

(a) Its genuineness has been questioned by Rice. "From its date this inscription would be of special interest, if authentic, but cannot be depended on, being printed from a hand-copy supplied by the people, no original being forthcoming".⁴

v1.c9.s2.58

⁴ E.C., X, Intr., pp. xxxiv, 241, n. (1).

v1.c9.s2.59

(b) Granting its authenticity, we cannot deduce from it that the capital was Vijayanagara in A.D. 1336. For it says that Harihara was in Kuñjarakōṇa ("Elephant-pit" = Āneguṇḍi). He reigned from 1336 to A.D. 1353.⁵ Therefore, the city of Vijayanagara did not make its appearance till the end of his reign.

v1.c9.s2.60

⁵ Rice, Mysore and Coorg, p. 112.

v1.c9.s2.61

(c) This inscription, on the other hand, gives us the more correct information of Bukka having built the capital. But there is one important detail which it mentions: the city had nine gates. This is historically inaccurate. According to the evidence of an eye-witness, who will presently figure in this chapter, the capital had only seven gates.¹ Therefore, the person who fabricated this detail about the city, was not aware of the true nature of the fortifications of the capital; and it follows that the capital mentioned herein could only have been imaginary.

v1.c9.s2.62

¹ It was the PALACE that had nine gates. Caesar Frederick, Purchas, Pilgrims, X, pp. 97-8; Heras, Aravidu, p. 231.

v1.c9.s2.63

(d) Finally, the boundaries of the village and the signature of the king at the end of the grant are in Telugu. Admitting that for practical purposes the founders may have used the Telugu language to denote the boundaries of the village, their inscriptions discovered so far do not give us any scope to believe that they subscribed themselves in the name of Śrī-Virūpāksha in that language.

v1.c9.s2.64

Hence the document fails to convince us that the capital Vijayanagara existed in A.D. 1336.

v1.c9.s2.65

2. The *three copper-plate grants from Nellore* are next to be examined.

v1.c9.s2.66

(a) Their genuineness has been questioned by the editors themselves.²

v1.c9.s2.67

² C.P. No. 3 of 1906-7.

v1.c9.s2.68

(b) These grants speak of Harihara Mahārāya and of Vidyāraṇya. As is well known, Harihara never assumed that title and Vidyāraṇya, as we shall see, came at a later stage.

v1.c9.s2.69

3. The *copper-plate grant from Hassan*. The name of the capital Vijaya given in this grant may refer to Vijayasamudra or Vijayanagara itself. The former was the capital of Vira Ballāḷa in about A.D. 1200. It is also said to have been on the bank of the Tuṅgabhadrā.³ But in all likelihood the name Vijaya refers to the Vijayanagara. This we infer from the name of the queen Gaurāmbikā. In early Vijayanagara history the only queen who was called by that name was the wife of Bukka I. The king, therefore, whose name is effaced in the grant, could only have been Bukka I; and it is rightly said that his capital was Vijaya.

v1.c9.s2.70

³ E.C., V, Pt. 1, Hn. 139, p. 39.

v1.c9.s2.71

4. The next copper-plate grant is important in the sense that it has been the mainstay of all those who have advocated the theory of the existence of Vijayanagara in A.D. 1336 or thereabouts. This copper-plate record is styled "Mb.158". It must be confessed at the outset that one may be easily led to accept this document as authentic. Firstly, it is to all appearances, a royal grant. There is the royal signature Śrī-Virūpāksha at the end. It is also engraved by the order of the king. Secondly, the details of the grant carry weight with them. Nevertheless this record gives us ample room to doubt its genuineness. It is a copper-plate grant, and appeals less to the student of history than a stone inscription. The following reasons invalidate its evidence:

v1.c9.s2.72

(a) The statements made as regards the king are unconvincing. Bukka is stated to have been "seated in the jewel throne in the city named Vidyā, distinguished as the abode of Vijaya (victory) made by Vidyāraṇya".¹ This is historically incorrect, because in that year A.D. 1344 the kingdom of Vijayanagara was not founded. Secondly, when it was first established, it was ruled not by one man but by all the brothers conjointly. The joint-sovereignty of the sons of Saṅgama is commemorated in two ways: in their famous pilgrimage to the holy place of Śṛiṅgēri in A.D. 1346;² and in an inscription also of the same date, which definitely informs us that the great city of Hastini (Anegundi) was "protected by Harihara together with his brothers".³ The other statement made about Bukka is that he had the title of Rājādhirāja, and the like. It is highly improbable that the founders ever assumed imperial titles when they were aware of their powerful enemies in the south.

v1.c9.s2.73

¹ E.C., X, Mb. 158, op. cit.

v1.c9.s2.74

² E.C., VI, Sg. 1, op. cit.

v1.c9.s2.75

³ E.C., VIII, Sb. 375, p. 66. Cf. Saletore, I.H.Q., IX, pp. 531-2. We infer that Anegundi was called Hastini from an inscription dated A.D. 1420, which speaks of Vidyānagari belonging to Anegundidurga, which is Hampe Hastināvati, E.C., VII, Sk. 288, p. 148.

v1.c9.s2.76

(b) The Mūḷbāgal record mentions Vidyāraṇya in A.D. 1344. The first family priest of the sons of Saṅgama was not a guru of the Śṛiṅgēri Maṭha. It was Kriyāśakti Āchārya who was the first royal preceptor of the founders of Vijayanagara;⁴ and in this important office he was succeeded by Vidyātīrtha-svāmi of Śringēri. Vidyātīrtha was the predecessor of Vidyāraṇya in the pontificate of Śringēri. Therefore, we cannot credit the statement that in A.D. 1344 Vidyāraṇya was the rāja-guru of the founders of the new Empire.

v1.c9.s2.77

⁴ Infra, pp. 108-9.

v1.c9.s2.78

(c) The name of the engraver is next to be examined. The Mūlbāgal inscription says that the carpenter was Nāga Dēva, son of the carpenter Sāsanāchārya. The royal engraver in A.D. 1346 was Liṅgōja, son of Chinna Mallōja.¹ No carpenter is mentioned in a royal grant of A.D. 1354.² In about A.D. 1360 too the epigraph is silent about the engraver.³ Bukka assumed this year, perhaps on account of the impending danger in the south, only modest titles. It is only when we come to A.D. 1388 that we meet with the name of Nāga (or Nāgi) Dēva. He is called Sāsanāchārya Nāgi Dēva.⁴ This is confirmed by a grant of A.D. 1394,⁵ and again by that of A.D. 1397.⁶ If Nāga Dēva was the sculptor in A.D. 1397, he could not have held the same office in A.D. 1344. Firstly, there is no evidence to prove that Nāga Dēva lived to such a ripe age as to have been the royal sculptor from A.D. 1344 till 1397. Secondly, we have the fact of the existence of one royal engraver two years after the professed date of "Mb.158". If Nāga Dēva was the sculptor in A.D. 1344 we fail to see why he should have disappeared in A.D. 1346 and reappeared in A.D. 1388. Thirdly, in the Mūlbāgal inscription he is said to be the son of the Sāsanāchārya. It is doubtful if ever this was so. He himself is properly styled in A.D. 1388 Sāsanāchārya. In fact, we shall see while dealing with the Vijayanagara engravers that sāsanāchārya was the official designation of the royal sculptor. These considerations enable us to reject the name of Nāga Dēva in A.D. 1344.

v1.c9.s2.79

¹ E.C., VI, Sg. 1, op. cit.

v1.c9.s2.80

² E.C., XI, Dg. 67, p. 63.

v1.c9.s2.81

³ E.C., III, Sr. 87, p. 26.

v1.c9.s2.82

⁴ E.C., XII, Tp. 9, p. 44.

v1.c9.s2.83

⁵ E.C., VIII, Tl. 201, p. 208.

v1.c9.s2.84

⁶ E.C., III, TN. 134, p. 93. For a detailed list of the Vijayanagara sculptors and engravers, see infra, Chapter V, Administration, Section on Minor Officials.

v1.c9.s2.85

(d) The reason why the name of Nāga Dēva appears in A.D. 1344 is to be found in the inscription styled "Gd. 46". Here under the date A.D. 1370 we have all the contents of "Mb. 158" repeated—the same monarch makes a grant of the same village to the same donee.¹ The question that may be asked is—what was the necessity for a grant of A.D. 1344 to be repeated in A.D. 1370? We admit that there are instances of a grant having been repeated after a space of some years. Thus in A.D. 1531 Achyuta Rāya confirms along with the sapta-sāgara-dāna, to Śrinivāsa, son of Subramanya, the village of Baḷekere, "which King Narasimha had formerly presented, with enjoyment for one life, to his father Subramanya at Śrīśaila".² Then, again, in Śaka 1448 (A.D. 1526-7) we have the confirmation of the grants of land originally made to the gods and the Brahmans of the five villages Malakatāla, Chintalacheru, Kōṭakoṇḍa, Teligi, and Chitrachēḍu in the Guṭṭi-rājya in the time of Vira-pratāpa Kumāra Bukka Rāya, by the Mahānayakāchārya Kāṭi Nāyaka, by his descendant Tammā Nāyaka.³ In the one instance we have a definite reason why the grant was renewed. Achyuta Rāya confirms a grant for life, because the previous one had only been an endowment for one life. About the second example we may presume that a reconfirmation was called for by some disturbed state of things the nature of which we do not know.

v1.c9.s2.86

¹ E.C. X, Gd. 46, p. 219.

v1.c9.s2.87

² E.C., IV, Kr. 11, p. 101.

v1.c9.s2.88

³ 367 of 1920.

v1.c9.s2.89

These instances are not analogous to the one of Sōma, because the latter fails to justify the repetiton in almost identical terms of a grant in the space of twenty-six years. One may as well question the genuineness of the record "Mb. 158" after a study of this document with other grants that were engraved by Nāga Dēva. The first of these grants which lends support to the view that "Mb. 158" is a suspicious record is that already given "Gd. 46". In "Mb. 158" Nāga Dēva is called the illustrious Nāchana's (son), the great poet Sōma.⁴ Secondly, the village received as a gift in "Mb. 158" is divided into 110 shares, out of which the donee retained twenty-six for himself as manager, bestowing the others on Brahmans. In "Gd. 46" the same gift is divided by the same person into 110 shares, out of which he kept thirty-six for himself as manager, and gave away the remaining to Brahmans, the principal among whom received twenty-eight. Thirdly, in "Mb. 158" praise is lavished on Bukka at the end of the grant. "The greatness of the Sāsana of King Bukka Rājēndra, whose praise sung by all the chief kings was like the hum of bees, and who resembled an only tree of paradise on earth". This unusual encomium is not repeated by the same engraver in the second version of the same fact ("Gd. 46"). Finally, as related above, Sāsānāchārya in "Mb. 158" is made the father of Nāga Dēva. But in "Gd. 46" Nāga Dēva himself is the Sāsānāchārya. These discrepancies in two identical versions of the same facts said to have been recorded by the same engraver, stamp them as spurious grants.

v1.c9.s2.90

⁴ But the original texts of both "Mb. 158" and "Gd. 46" are identical. *Śrimān Nāchana Sōmākhya Mahākavi-varōpy atha Rājānam āśishach chaiva chira-jivi bhavatu iti.* E.C., X, P. II, text, p. 108.

v1.c9.s2.91

Our suspicions are heightened when we make a further examination of "Gd. 46" in the light of the evidence supplied by two more records in which the name of Nāga Dēva figures. Before we cite the evidence from these, we may note in passing that the date of "Gd. 46" has been questioned. Mr. Rice says: "This (i.e., the date) is given as the Saka year rasa bhū-nayana indu (=1216), the year Tāraṇa. But this does not fall within Bukka's reign, during which there was no Tāraṇa. Hence Sādhāraṇa, Saka 1292, expired, has been conjecturally taken".¹ In addition to this chronological difficulty, we have that of reconciling the evidence given both in "Mb. 158" and repeated in "Gd. 46" with that mentioned in "Tp. 9"² and "Tl. 202"³, about the important details in connection with the king and the composer. In the genealogy as given in "Mb. 158" and "Gd. 46" we have the name of Bukka, the progenitor of Saṅgama, who was the father of the five brothers. The name of Bukka is not corroborated by any of the authentic inscriptions of the founders of Vijayanagara who were always content to trace their lineage to Saṅgama. Admitting that these two inscriptions, "Mb. 158" and "Gd. 46", are unique in this respect, it is strange that Nāga Dēva, who engraved all the four copper-plate grants, "Mb. 158", "Gd. 46", "Tp. 9" and "Tl. 202", and who,—if it is true that he lived from A.D. 1344 till A.D. 1397, -must have been thoroughly acquainted with the pedigree of the monarchs, does not mention the name of Bukka, the progenitor of Saṅgama. Moreover, the details given about the composer, Mallaṇārādhya, in "Mb. 158" and "Gd. 46" on the one hand, and in "Tp. 9" on the other, do not agree. In the two former he is called Koṭidēvārādhya's son, Mallaṇārādhya. But in "Tp. 9" he is called Kōṭidēvārādhya's elder brother, Mallaṇārādhya.

v1.c9.s2.92

¹ E.C., X, p. 219, n. (1).

v1.c9.s2.93

² E.C., XII, Tp. 9, p. 44, text, p. 122.

v1.c9.s2.94

³ E.C., VIII, Tl. 202, p. 208.

v1.c9.s2.95

The internal evidence supplied by "Mb. 158" and "Gd. 46", therefore, is not only conflicting in itself but is also irreconcilable with that given by other contemporary records. Therefore, one may safely assert that the statements, especially those relating to the foundation of the capital by Harihara with the aid of Vidyāraṇya in or about A.D. 1336 made in the suspicious grants called "Mb. 158" and "Gd. 46", are not of any historical value.¹

v1.c9.s2.96

¹ On Nāchana Sōma and "Mb. 156", Mr. Venkayya wrote thus: "From the description (of the sūtra, gōtra, śākhā as given in "Mb. 158") it seems as if the donee was the Telugu poet Nāchana Sōma, who according to Rao Bahadur Virēśalingam Pantulu must have lived about 20 or 30 years after Eṇḍapra-gaḍa. The latter was the protegé of the Koṇḍavīḍu Reḍḍi chief Ana Vēma, whose earliest date is Saka-Samvat 1267 (An. Report for 1899-1900, paragraphs 60-1). The gōtra, sūtra, śākhā of the poet cannot be verified as the first āśvāsa of his Harivaṁśamu, where all the details may be expected, has not yet been traced." E. Report for 1907, p. 82. See also Virēśalingam Pantulu, Andhrakavula Charitramu, I, p. 97.

v1.c9.s2.97

The evidence from the next record "Pg. 74" may now be considered. The Rev. Heras commented on this inscription as follows: "This inscription also seems to be suspicious, as it grants imperial titles to Bukka I, who never assumed them. Moreover Bukka is said to be 'seated on the jewel throne' one year before Harihara I's death".² These reasons, we are afraid, are insufficient to prove that "Pg. 74" is a spurious grant. Other considerations may be levelled against this record. Firstly, it may be noted that "Pg. 74" is a copper-plate grant in which the usual invocation to the gods, so characteristic of all, especially royal, documents, is not given. Secondly, it belongs to a certain class of copper-plate grants which on a closer examination may be said to contain not only conflicting statements but unreliable data for any historical purpose. These copper-plate grants are the following: copper-plates styled Nos. 5, 6 and 9 of 1920-21, and No. 16 of 1925. The first of these (C.P. grant No. 5) is dated Saka 1109 under Vīra-pratāpa Bukka Rāya and registers the granting of several āyagārs like the reḍḍi, karaṇam, and purōhita for the villages of Poṭṭipāḍu and Kavuluṛa in the Guṭṭi-durga. The second (C.P. grant No. 6) is dated Śaka 1093, Vijaya, but deals with the reign of Vīra-pratāpa Harihara-dēva Mahārāya, ruling at Vidyānagara, and the assignment of lands to several services attached to the village of Tarmela in the Guṭṭi-rājya. The third (C.P. grant No. 9) is dated Śaka 1270, Sarvajit Vaiśakha, Śu. 15, and informs us that Vīra-pratāpa Harihara-dēva Mahārāya, ruling at Vidyānagara, granted the post of reḍḍi with lands attached to it, to a certain Koṭireḍḍi Nārapareḍḍi in respect of the village of Dēvarapalle in the Guṭṭi-rājya known as Bhāskarakshētra.¹ From the remarks of Mr. Venkoba Rao on this document, it appears as if we are to give some credit to it. Mr. Venkoba Rao in his *Annual Report on Epigraphy* says: "The early King Harihara I of this dynasty for whom records are not as numerous as for the later kings, is represented by the copper-plate grant No. 9 of Appendix A, dated in Śaka 1270, Sarvajit. Herein he is said to be ruling from the capital town Vidyānagara. The main interest of this inscription lies in the earliest known epigraphical reference to the deity Ahōbalēśvara".²

v1.c9.s2.98

² Heras, The Beginnings, pp. 29-30.

v1.c9.s2.99

¹ E. Report for 1921, pp. 15-16.

v1.c9.s2.100

² Ibid., p. 101.

v1.c9.s2.101

Whatever may be the importance of this record for other purposes, so far as the history of Vijayanagara is concerned, no reliance can be placed on it. It gives the birudu of Mahārāya to Harihara. We have seen that that monarch never assumed the title Mahārāya. Further the unreliability of this copper-plate grant is apparent when we compare it with the grant called C.P. No. 6 of Śaka 1093 already cited, and with another grant called C.P. No. 16 of 1925. This last record is dated Śaka 1273, and it relates that Vīra-pratāpa Bukka-dēva Mahārāya, ruling at Vidyānagara, conferred the gauḍike rights over the village Nasana in Guṭṭi-rājya to Peḍa Chōḍama Reḍḍi.³ The conclusion which can be drawn from an examination of all these grants is that these records, which stick to the gauḍike rights in Guṭṭi-rājya, the donors whose birudus uniformly start with Vīra-pratāpa and the donees who are all Telugu Reḍḍis, must have emanated from some common source which sought to secure certain hereditary rights by fabricating documents of doubtful authenticity.¹

v1.c9.s2.102

³ C.P. No. 16 of 1925-6. Cf. C.P. Nos. 13-15; E. Report for 1921, p. 101. All these deal with gauḍike and reḍḍigāram rights.

v1.c9.s2.103

¹ No. 6 of 1921 is written in characters too late for the grant given. Ep. Report for 1921., p. 15. To this class belongs C.P. No. 8 of 1925 which informs us that Harihara Mahārāya was ruling from Kurukshētra-Vidyānagara in Śaka 1275. E. Report for 1926, p. 11. In C.P. No. 16 of 1925 Bukka is said to be ruling at the same place in Śaka 1273.

v1.c9.s2.104

6. The story of Harihara founding the city with the help of Vidyāraṇya as given in the epigraph of A.D. 1652 may be dispensed with as an invention of the later ages.

v1.c9.s2.105

From the above examination of all the epigraphical records one may unequivocally assert that there was no city called Vijayanagara in A.D. 1336. Such an assertion is implied in the statements of scholars who, however, have given ample evidence of their indecision. Mr. Rice, as we shall see, attributed the transformation of the name of the capital to Vijayanagari to Bukka I. But it may be noted Mr. Rice identifies Vidyātīrtha with Vidyāraṇya in his list of the Śṛṅgēri gurus.² This, as Mr. Kṛṣṇa Sāstri pointed out, is inadmissible.³

v1.c9.s2.106

² E.C., I, Intr., p. 24: My. Gazetteer, I, p. 473. (rev. ed.)

v1.c9.s2.107

³ A.S.R. for 1907-8, p. 237, n. (1).

v1.c9.s2.108

It is imperative that we should ascertain the year of the foundation of the capital, the name of the king, and of the ascetic who helped him in building it. Here it would be worth while to recount the facts we discussed in the previous pages about the political situation in southern India. The Hoysalas were powerful till A.D. 1342. In A.D. 1360 the Toṇḍaimaṇḍala was conquered by the new rulers; and about ten years later, the southern Sultanate was brought to an end. The desperate situation which presented itself to the sons of Saṅgama in A.D. 1346 assumed a brighter hue in A.D. 1370. There is no evidence to prove that Harihara, who had won over to his side Vallappa Daṇṇāyaka, the most powerful representative of the Hoysala dynasty, ever desired to hasten the end of the Hoysala rule by founding a new capital in the Karṇāṭaka. When the founders of the new principality had got the situation wellnigh under control, and when the Hoysalas as a ruling power had completely disappeared, acting under the advice of the head of the most powerful religious institution in the land, they thought of commemorating their victories over their enemies by the erection of a city called Vijayanagara.

v1.c9.s2.109

The name of this great capital does not figure in any authentic record till A.D. 1368. In the earliest trustworthy epigraph of Harihara, which deals with the famous pilgrimage to Śringēri in A.D. 1346, no capital is mentioned. In the next year, as we have just remarked, he is said to have ruled from a place called Hastini "which was protected by him along with his brothers".¹ We lose sight of the capital till the Śaka year 1274 (A.D. 1352-3) when Bukka was at Dōrasamudra.² No capital is mentioned in a grant dated A.D. 1354 where Bukka I gave to the illustrious astrologer Rāmaṇṇa-Jōyisha a village as a gift.³ Penugoṇḍa was probably the capital of Bukka Oḍeyar in the same year.⁴ Hosapaṭṭaṇa in A.D. 1355 was the capital of Bukka.⁵ This place, as we have already seen, was called the royal city of Nijagali Kaṭaka Rāya.⁶ As regards Hosapaṭṭaṇa Mr. Rice remarks thus: "There is no certainty as to this place. Sir Walter Elliot says (Num. Or. p. 91) that the first name of Vijayanagara was Hosapaṭṭaṇa, which is quite possible, as the word merely means New Town. But that would not be in the Hoysaṇa country. Some other place must therefore be meant. No reference has been found to Nijagali Kaṭaka Rāya".⁷ In the next year A.D. 1356 Bukka was in the same capital.⁸ Although Bukka's name figures in an inscription dated A.D. 1358, yet the capital is not given.⁹ In A.D. 1359 the capital appears to have been Basapaṭṭaṇa,¹⁰ which may be an engraver's or copyist's mistake for Hosapaṭṭaṇa. About A.D. 1360 we have an inscription of Bukka without mention being made of the capital.¹¹ Likewise in A.D. 1363 the engraver is silent about the capital of Bukka.¹² It is unfortunate that in an inscription of about A.D. 1365, there should be a gap as regards the neleviḍu.¹³ There is an effaced inscription of A.D. 1368 from which nothing can be gathered about the capital.¹ Bukka in the same year is spoken of thus—"Champion over kings who break their word, lord of the Eastern and Western Oceans, Vira Bukka-Rāya Oḍeya was ruling the kingdom of the world".²

v1.c9.s2.110

¹ E.C., VIII, Sb. 375, p. 66, op. cit. ² A.S.R., 1907-8, p. 240. ³ E.C., XI, Dg. 67, p. 63, op. cit. ⁴ 330 of 1901: E. Report for 1920, p.

v1.c9.s2.111

⁸ See also Ep. Ind., VI, p. 327, n. 2 and 3. ⁵ Rice, My. Ins., p. 2. ⁶ E.C., XI, Cd. 2, p. 2. ⁷ Ibid., Intr., p. 24. ⁸ Rice, My. Ins., p. 4. ⁹ E.C., III, Ml. 22, p. 58. ¹⁰ E.C., IX, Nl. 23, p. 33. ¹¹ E.C., III, Sr. 87, p. 26. ¹² E.C., IV, Ch. 117, p. 16. ¹³ Ibid., Ng. 61, p. 128.

v1.c9.s2.112

¹ E.C., IV, Gu. 46, p. 44.

v1.c9.s2.113

² Ibid., Ch. 113, p. 15.

v1.c9.s2.114

Nevertheless this was the year A.D. 1368 which witnessed the glorious event of the foundation of the capital. It was the year when the very existence of the Hindu Empire seemed to have split on the rock of religious controversy; and when all the resources of the royal patron were put to the test by the appeals of two rival religious parties. It was the year when the Vijayanagara Emperor stood forth indeed as the champion of Hindu Dharma, and gave to the country the best example of religious toleration. The Śrīvaiṣṇavas were unjustly slaying the Jainas, and the adherents of these two religious sections placed the matter before Bukka I. He settled the question in such an admirable manner that his action seemed to stamp the deeds of his successors with the hall-mark of toleration. Partly as a sign of the success of the Hindus over their enemies in the south, and partly as an indication of the happy settlement of the great controversy between the Jainas and the Śrīvaiṣṇavas, Bukka I, we may assume, laid the foundation of the capital in the sacred region of the ancient Pampā-kṣētra.

v1.c9.s2.115

The information about the Jaina-Śrīvaiṣṇava dispute is given in the inscription called "Māgaḍi 18", which runs thus: "Dispute having arisen between the Jainas and the Bhaktas (or the faithful), the Jainas of all nāḍs within Aṇevagoṇḍi, Hosapaṭṭaṇa, Penu-goṇḍa and Kalyaha³ having made petition to Bukka-Rāya that the Bhaktas were unjustly killing them. . .".⁴

First 118 of 377 passages. Read on

Linked texts (19)