Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v2.c21.s1.t2: B. Communal Questions—How settled
Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v2.c21.s1.t2
- Language
- English
B. Communal Questions—How settled
v2.c21.s1.t2.1
The clause relating to those who violated the agreement made by the Brahmans of the Paḍaiviḍu-rājya, and their punishment by the king, leads us to the question whether the State in mediaeval times ever interfered in matters concerning the social welfare of the people. There is reason to affirm that at the request of the people themselves, the Government did intervene in their social affairs, especially when it was a question of settling details about trivial formalities, which caused much concern to the humbler sections of the people.
v2.c21.s1.t2.2
That there was nothing new in the Government of Vijayanagara adjusting the social differences of the people is seen when we examine the measures which earlier rulers took to settle allied questions relating to society. From the fourteenth year of Rājādhirāja II, for example, it was declared (evidently by the State) that a woman who was wedded to a person, was entitled, on his demise, to become the owner of the lands, slaves, jewels, or other valuables, and the cattle of her deceased husband; that if before his death, he made default and had his lands sold, the purchaser had the right of the lands and slaves that belonged to the deceased; that Brahmans should not till lands with bulls yoked to the plough; that those classes that were engaged as labourers should not become *vēḷ* and *araśu*; that *kāviḍis*, potters, drummers, weavers, and barbers should not keep locks of hair; that during their mourning or joyous occasions big drums (*bērigai*) should not be taken; and that they should not possess slaves. Further, bullocks grazing near the village channels should be impounded in pens erected for the purpose; and cattle-stands or house-sites of the village should not be converted into paddy fields. Finally, it was also ordered that potters, who made small lamps and pots, and sold them, should wear an upper cloth.¹
v2.c21.s1.t2.3
¹ *Ep. Report* for 1919, pp. 97-8.
v2.c21.s1.t2.4
We have evidence of the settlement of equally complicated questions in the reign of Tribhuvana Chakravartin Kulōttuṅga Chōḷa Dēva (who has been identified with Kulōttuṅga Chōḷa Dēva I), as is related in an inscription dated in the forty-eighth year of his reign. This epigraph deals with the decision arrived at as regards the question of caste, and lays down the profession to be followed by a certain *anulōma* class called *Rathakāras* who are described as the sons of *Māhishyas* by *Karaṇi* women. On the strength of previous authorities such as Yājñavalkya, Gautama, Kauṭilya, Baudhāyana, and others, the *bhaṭṭas* (i.e., the learned Brahmans) of Rājāśraya-chaturvēdimaṅgalam defined (1) a *Māhishya* as one born of a Kshatriya father by a Vaiśya mother; (2) a *Karaṇi* as the daughter of a Vaiśya father by a Śūdra mother; and (3) a *Rathakāra* as the son of a *Māhishya* father by a *Karaṇi* mother.
v2.c21.s1.t2.5
The following means of livelihood were also laid down for adoption by the *Rathakāras*: (1) architecture, (2) building coaches and chariots, (3) erecting *gōpuras* of temples with images on them; (4) preparation of instruments required by the Brāhmaṇas in their sacrificial ceremonies such as ladle (srik) etc., (5) building maṇḍapas, (6) not clear, and (7) making jewels for kings such as diadems, bracelets, etc.
v2.c21.s1.t2.6
It was decided also that this anulōma sect of Rathakāras was superior to the pratilōma sect (‘born the other way’), viz., from a father of a lower class, and a mother of a higher class. One of the authorities quoted also states that these Rathakāras were entitled to upanayana (the sacred thread ceremony), ijyā (performing sacrifice), and ādhana (receiving sacred fire). Another authority, however, suggests that the anulōmas thus entitled to upanayana are forbidden from performing the agnihōtra (keeping the sacred fire always alive), aupāsana (worshipping the fire thus kindled), pañchamahāyajña (the five sacred duties prescribed for the Brahmans, viz., (1) Dēva yajña [ceremonial worship of gods], (2) pitṛi-yajña [ceremonial worship of manes]; (3) brahma-yajña [ceremonial worship of ṛishis], (4) bhūta-yajña [ceremonial worship of living creatures other than men] and (5) manushya-yajña [ceremonial worship of men] and adhyāyana [recital of the Vēdas]. The same authority also says that their upanayana ceremony ought not to be conducted by quoting the mantras (sacred hymns). This was the decision of the learned men of Uyyakoṇḍān-Tirumalai at the beginning of the twelfth century.¹
v2.c21.s1.t2.7
¹ Ep. Report for 1909, pp. 95-6. As regards the Rathakāras, it is interesting to observe that they were an ancient class. See Rāja Radhakanta Deva Bahadur Śabdakalpadruma, under the article Rathakāra, q. v. Cf. Srinivasa Aiyangar, Tamil Studies, pp. 74-5.
v2.c21.s1.t2.8
In the decision of the Chōḷa kings of the early times we have the echoes of those same intricate communal problems which compelled the Vijayanagara rulers to step into the wrangling circles of the cultivators and the Pañchāḷas, the barbers and the potters, and the weavers and the Seṭṭis. The cases which the mediaeval monarchs had to solve may roughly be divided into two broad classes—those relating to marriage and the consequent rise in social estimation, and those concerning honours, birudus, and rights during festivals and religious occasions. An instance of a lower class claiming equality with a higher class as regards marriage may be mentioned. The following account of the fate which befell the Bēḍars, who, as we saw, belonged to the Left Hand division, illustrates this as well as other phases of Vijayanagara history. The Bēḍars, who were ruling around the places called Piriyapaṭṭaṇa and Tuṅga, where Maṅgarasa and Caṅgarāya, two Jaina Kshatriyas, had settled, claimed their daughters in marriage. The Kshatriyas could not openly refuse the demand as the Bēḍars were all powerful. They had recourse to diplomacy: they built a great house with six large halls ostensibly for marriages, and dug a well at the back of the last hall. One day they mustered all their forces and invited the Bēḍars for the marriage. Elated with the prospect of a marriage alliance with Kshatriyas, the Bēḍars repaired to the place with their famlilies. But the Jaina Kshatriyas told them that it was a custom of theirs that only a single pair of married couple should enter the house at a time. The Bēḍars went inside two by two. As each pair went to the innermost hall the Kshatriyas arranged to have their heads cut off and bodies thrown into the well.¹ Thus all the Bēḍars were killed and Maṅgarasa conquered all the country round and became a powerful chief with Piriyapaṭṭaṇa as his capital, Changalarāya becoming king of Raṅgapaṭṭaṇa. These two, we may note, were feudatories of the Vijayanagara kings.
v2.c21.s1.t2.9
¹ My. Arch. Report for 1925, p. 15. In three copper-plate grants dated Śālivāhana Śaka 1212, Vikrama Śaka 1012, and Śālivāhana Śaka 1157 referring to the reigns of Bukka Rāya, and a number of other kings some interesting details are given as regards the question of intermarriage among the gauḍa and the reḍḍi classes, and the different kinds of honours to which they were entitled on festive occasions. These inscriptions are rambling epigraphs and are all dated wrongly, and, therefore, untrustworthy. But some of the details are the following: The gauḍas, we are told, were given the right of possessing a palanquin carried cross-ways, round umbrella, torch by day, big and little kettle-drum, silk flag, turban, gold marriage crown, gold necklace, and shoes of honour. One of them states that a number of reḍḍis (named with descent), of the Sujana-kula and Pembolu-gōtra, on the Sultan (not named) demanding one of their daughters migrated (the same night ?) with 101 families and seven elephants to the Naḍinigadda country. There they sought to make marriages in Chittalapuripaṭṭaṇa, but were refused. Whereupon Koṇḍāma Nāyaka and two others went to Penugoṇḍa and represented the matter to Rāma Rāyal and Bukka Rāyal, who came with an army to Naḍinigadda. There they held an enquiry as to why the reḍḍis of Bōḍipet and Chandragiri declined intermarriages, and sent for their guru Tātāchārya to decide the question. In his presence the heads of the Sujana-kula were invested with honours (like those given above), and they agreed to make certain payments (specified) on occasions of marriages. Marriages were accordingly performed, the Rāyal spending 150 Rāmateṅki-varāha for the purpose. E. C. XIII, 18, 72, 82, pp. 119, 128, 131, and text, pp. 363, 388, 397. See also Pg.
v2.c21.s1.t2.10
The other type of cases relates to the rights and *birudus* granted to communities on festive occasions. There were, for example, the minute distinctions between the Right Hand and Left Hand sections, the rivalries between the Pañchāḷas and cultivators, and the acrimonious differences between the potters and the barbers. The feeling between the Iḍaṅgai and Vaḷaṅgai subdivisions seems to have reached its climax in about Śaka 1352 (A. D. 1440-1), as is related in an inscription dated only in the cycle year Saumya Chittirai, 16, when an agreement was reached as regards some social conduct among the Vaḷaṅgai and Iḍaṅgai classes of two out of the eighteen subdivisions, residing around Poṇparappi in Iruṅgōḷappāṇḍi-vaḷanāḍu in Mērkāl--nāḍu, a subdivision of Virudarāja-bhayaṅkar-vaḷanāḍu on the northern bank of the Kāvērī. The parties met in the temple of Tiruvālandurai-mahādēvar (in the Trichinopoly district) and settled the question amicably.¹ Two years earlier, however, according to an inscription dated Śaka 1350 (A. D. 1438-39), as given by Taylor, the people of some unspecified town came to a common understanding as regards the disturbances that might be created by the Right Hand and Left Hand sections. It was agreed that if members of either of these subdivisions caused any commotion and fought with each other during public festivals, "the said persons should be forthwith killed on the spot, with spears, without ceremony".²
v2.c21.s1.t2.11
¹ 253 of 1926; *Ep. Report* for 1926, p. 111. For a minute account of the insignia of the Right Hand and Left Hand Sections, see Oppert, *Org. Inhab. of Bharatavarsha*, p. 90, n. 59.
v2.c21.s1.t2.12
² Taylor, *Cat. Rais.*, III, p. 305.
v2.c21.s1.t2.13
But this summary procedure did not always characterize the decision of the people as regards communal questions. A
v2.c21.s1.t2.14
96, p. 132. These considerations of status arising out of marriage may have been responsible for the claims of Śūdra Prapannas to be given the same position as Brahman Prapannas. See Tātāchārya, *Vedānta Deśika*, p. 23. Cf the case of Vipravinōdins given *supra*, Chapter II., Section 1, C.
v2.c21.s1.t2.15
copper-plate grant dated only in the cyclic year Siddhārtin, Bhādrapada Śuddha 5, Sō., but assigned to the year A. D. 1379, contains the following interesting details about the manner in which they solved their social problems: "If a caste dispute arises in the country, they (i.e. the rulers of the town—the nāyakas and gauḍas)—will summon the parties before them and advise them. And as they have the power of punishment, the parties must act according to the advice given. This proceeding to be free of cost to them." The royal signature at the end—Śrī Virūpāksha—lends some support to this document.¹
v2.c21.s1.t2.16
¹ E. C., XII, Si. 76, p. 100, text p. 288. The week-day, however, does not correspond. Śaka 1301, Siddhārti Samvatsara Bhādrapad-su. 5 Sō (mavāra) [Saumyavāra]=A. D. 1379, August, Thursday, the 18th. Swamikannu, Ind. Eph., IV, p. 361. Although there is the king's approval at the end, yet objection may be raised against the copper-plate grant on the ground that it does not contain the usual verses at the beginning. The imprecations at the end are in Kannaḍa, while they are often in Sanskrit. Cf. E. C. XII, Si. 95, p. 101, text, pp. 295-300. B. A. S.
v2.c21.s1.t2.17
The assemblies summoned by the nāyakas and gauḍas are to be distinguished from those which gathered under the auspices of the heads of the castes. These latter organizations were called kūṭa. Since even in our days every non-Brahman caste has its kūṭa, we may imagine that in mediaeval times too each community must have had its own organization. The kūṭa of the Ayyas of Kuṛubūr is mentioned in an inscription dated A. D. 1409.²
v2.c21.s1.t2.18
² E. C., X, Gd. 9, pp. 212-13.
v2.c21.s1.t2.19
Sometimes social differences were also submitted to the aribtration of Brahman Voḍayas (Odeyars ?), Elders, and merchants of a prominent city. Perhaps these assembled together to deal with questions which the smallest court comprising the the kūṭa, and the next higher tribunal composed of the rulers of the town, the nāyakas and gauḍas, had failed to decide, or with problems which concerned all the people of the towns and the nāḍ or province. We are, however, uncertain about this. An inscription dated Śaka 1464 (A. D. 1542-3) tells us that the Baḍuguluvāru and the Palināṭivāru quarrelled among themselves about the birudus to be carried during festal occasions.
v2.c21.s1.t2.20
The case was submitted to the Vaishṇavas, Voḍeyas, Elders and Merchants of Kāñchi for decision. They granted, on the authority of a previous document on stone, a very long list of privileges including that of kuṅkuma-vasantam, to the Baḍuguluvāru, though this did not please their opponents.¹
v2.c21.s1.t2.21
¹ C. P. No. 13 of 1912-13; Ep. Report for 1913, p. 9. These Baḍuguluvāru, we are told in this connection, refused to accept the theory of pollution in matter of food and the clothes to wear. It is conjectured that they have been shepherds of the Yādava race. Ibid., p. 9. The cyclic year given in this record, Krōdhana, is wrong. Śaka 1464=Plava. Sewell, The Siddhantas, p. 304; Ś. 1488=Krōdhana, ibid., p. 306. But according to Swamikannu Ś. 1464=Subhakrit. Ś. 1487=Krōdhana, Ind. Eph. V., V., pp. 286, 332.
v2.c21.s1.t2.22
But there were serious questions which necessitated the interference of the State in social affairs. On such occasions the Emperor appointed dictators who were vested with exceptionally high powers. In Śaka 1444 (A. D. 1522-3), for instance, Kṛishṇa Dēva Rāya the Great gave to Veṅkaṭāṭāyarya extraordinary privileges to deal with socio-religious problems. We may incidentally observe that this great man was not unworthy of the honour bestowed on him. He was the son of Ahōbalāchārya and grandson of Śrīraṅga Dēśika. He is described as the establisher of the Vēdic path, proficient in both the Vēdāntas (Sanskrit and Tamil), as a rich man who possessed palanquins and other paraphernalia and as having performed the Sōma sacrifice, with liberal gifts of money, cows, cloths and land.²
v2.c21.s1.t2.23
² My. Arch. Report for 1918, p. 52.
v2.c21.s1.t2.24
The interference of the State is seen mostly in the affairs of minor communities of weavers and other artisans. According to an inscription dated Śaka 1407 (A. D. 1485-6), in the reign of Kumāra Mallikārjuna, the Kaikkōḷars of Vaḷudilambaṭṭu-rājya were granted, in the time of Aṛamvaḷatta Nāyaṉār, the privilege of using taṇḍu (palanquin) and conch as their insignia on the model of the Kaikkōḷars of Kañchipuram, who were enjoying these privileges.³ A similar charter relating to the same privileges was given to the Kaikkōḷars (of Kañchipuram?) on their representing the matter to the same dignitary at Kañchipuram in Śaka 1409 (A. D. 1487-8).¹ According to an epigraph dated Śaka 1425 (A. D. 1503-4), in the reign of Immaḍi Narasimha Rāya, an Agent of the Tuḷuva general Narasa Nāyaka bestowed on the weavers of the three villages Tribhuvaṇa-mahādēvi-parru, Naḍuvukaraipparru, and Neṇmalipparru, the right to have daṇḍu and śaṅku on all good and bad occasions. They were to enjoy these privileges on the model of those enjoyed by their community of the country situated on the bank of the river Peṇṇai. The epigraph further states that those who objected to this right should undergo the penalty stipulated for the offence mentioned in an inscription engraved at Seḷiyaṅanallūr.²
v2.c21.s1.t2.25
³ 473 of 1921.
v2.c21.s1.t2.26
¹ 422 of 1925.
v2.c21.s1.t2.27
² Ep. Report for 1918, p. 166.
v2.c21.s1.t2.28
The Kaikkōḷars residing round the temple of Lakshmī-Nārāyaṇa-Perumāḷ at Ambāsamudram, according to an inscription dated Śaka 1429 (A. D. 1517-18), having constructed "from the basement to the pinnacle" a temple for the god and his son Bhūtaḷa-Vira-Rāma, and having also provided for the requirements of the temple kitchen, were granted the hereditary right of receiving a garland in the temple with other incidental privileges.³ Since the name of the ruler's agent is not mentioned in the epigraph, we may presume that this action may have been taken by the temple itself on its own responsibility.
v2.c21.s1.t2.29
³ 312 of 1916.
v2.c21.s1.t2.30
An epigraph dated only in the cyclic year Parābhava but assignable to A. D. 1546, refers us to the reign of Sadāśiva Rāya when Sūrappa Nāyaka, the Agent of the king, governor over Tiruvaḍi-rājya, seems to have enacted measures in connection with the Ilaivāṇiyars. These agreed to accord the same privileges to the Kaikkōḷars of the place as were in vogue according to a previous stone inscription which, however, had been defaced by some member of the Ilaivāṇiyar sect in previous years, and which was now ordered to be so engraved on the temple walls.⁴
v2.c21.s1.t2.31
⁴ 41 of 1922.
v2.c21.s1.t2.32
The importance of the official dictator in social matters is seen in a copper plate grant dated A. D. 1555 which registers the agreement that was reached by (the dictator) Vēdānti-Rāmarājayapa together with the eighty-eight Śrī-Vaiṣṇava Brahmans, Banadarasayya, the Agent for the affairs of Rāma Rājayya Tirumala Rājayya, and Senabōva Seṭṭi, Agent for the affairs of Rāmapayya. The dispute between the cultivators and the Pañchāḷas, which is the subject of the above grant, took place in the reign of Sadāśiva Rāya. "Words having arisen between all the (?) cultivators and the Pañchāḷas (or artisans) in the place belonging to (the god) Chennigarāya of Bēlūr,—according to the decision formerly given by Rāma-Rājayya-Tirumala-Rājayya regarding the caste observances of the Pañchāḷas, fixing the southern street of Bēlūr for them, the stones were put up at the four boundaries (specified) within which the Pañchāḷas might erect rows of houses, carry on their caste observances and make jewellery, enjoying in the temple of Chennigarāya the same privileges and positions as were granted to the Pañchāḷas at the car-festival in Vidyānagara. Such is the śāsana granted to the Pañchāḷas, in accordance with the order of Rāma-Rājayya-Tirumala-Rājayya, by us—the Vēdānti Rāmarājayapa, the eighty-eight Śrī Vaiṣṇava Brahmans, Banadarasayya, agent for the affairs of Rāma-Rājayya-Tirumala-Rājayya, and Senabova Seṭṭi, agent for the affairs of Rāmapayya ".¹
v2.c21.s1.t2.33
¹ E. C., V, P. 1, Bl. 5, p. 45.
v2.c21.s1.t2.34
There is another instance of the officials of the Government settling communal questions. The inscription which gives us this information is undated, but it is possible that it may be assigned to the reign of the Emperor Sadāśiva Rāya. It narrates that in the time of Rāmarāja Nāyaka, a charter to the headmen of potters was given as follows: "When Chāma, Amsamāna, Honna, Dhūma, and Chaṇḍa, these barbers and washermen, saying that for the potters, paring of the toe-nails and tying on the upper cloth are not allowed,²—the chiefs of the potters saying that they are, gained the victory by (the ordeal of) dipping their hands in (boiling) *ghī* before (the god) Divya Liṅgēśvara in Haradanahaḷḷi, the following charter was written. ‘For the potters the toe-nails may be pared and the upper-cloth may be tied on-thus it is ordered. The caste tax is nine varāha, gold five varāha. If a woman of Yelavandūr lose her living, the five varāha may be excused and six varāha given......’¹ The epigraph which breaks off at the end, evidently records the decision which was the outcome of the inquiry conducted by Rāma Rāja Nāyaka.
v2.c21.s1.t2.35
² "Apparently the reference is to the case of the bride and bridegroom at the time of marriage." E. C., IV p. 27, n. (1).
v2.c21.s1.t2.36
¹ The date of this is given by Rice thus: "Date? About A. D. 1580". But there is nothing in the original which justifies this assumption. *E.C.*, IV, Yl. 2, p. 27, text, p. 72.
v2.c21.s1.t2.37
We have a case of a Provincial Government settling these trivial questions relating to honours during marriage occasions. An inscription dated only in the cyclic year Bhāva but assignable to the year A. D. 1634, on the strength of the name Dikshitasvāmi—the well known Minister Gōvinda Dikshita of the two Nāyakas, Achyuta and Raghunātha—informs us that a *vaḷakkumuṛi* or petition was made as regards a dispute which arose among the weavers (*paṭṭunūlkār*) and the Śeṭṭis of Paṭṭīśvaram. The problem was in connection with the order of procedure in the receipt of betel leaves and areca-nut during marriages. It was agreed that in cases of disturbances caused on this count, a new cloth worth five *paṇam* should be offered to the goddess (of the local temple) along with thirty arecanuts and 100 leaves. The epigraph closes with a vow made on the feet of Nāyakkarayyaṇ, who, it is suggested, may have been Raghunātha Nāyaka of Tanjore.²
v2.c21.s1.t2.38
² 257 of 1927; *Ep. Report* for 1927, p. 117. A copper-plate grant dated A. D. 1693 of the time of Raṅga Rāya Dēva Mahārāya "seated on the jewel throne in Ghaṇagiri-durga" relates some very interesting details about communal fights which arose on account of the procession of the Nandi-kōlu in Anekal. This was between the Śeṭṭis and merchants on one side, and all the other people on the other. The question of the procession of the goddess Kālikā in Nagarta-pēṭe caused complete disorder in both *pēṭes*. Mammuḍi Chikka Rāya Tamme Gauḍarayya gave certain grants (specified) to Veṅkaṭācharya (whose pedigree is given) for having restored order with the aid of the *samayagāras* and the Mutta-dāsris and other people. It was agreed that according to former custom the Nandi-
v2.c21.s1.t2.39
Social legislation, it may not be out of place to observe, sometimes took a strange turn. Instead of unifying the conflicting elements in the community, the Government helped the dismemberment of the castes. Two records dated Śaka 1545 (A.D. 1623-4) and Śaka 1547 (A.D. 1625-6) register a royal writ granted by Virappa Nāyaka of Madura to the five sub-sects of the artisan community, facilitating their separation from each other. It has to be noted that the order does not seem to have proceeded from the king himself but to have been the result of an initiative taken by the subsects themselves. This is inferred partly from the statement that the writ was a privilege granted in the presence Uḍaṅkūṭṭam-pāḍa-gaṇanaiñjāṉ Kulaśēkharaṉ-āśāri or Uḍaṅkūṭṭa-aṇaiñjāṉ, who was evidently the leader of the Kaṇmāla community. We may add that the epigraphs which give us the above information, do not enlighten us on the causes which brought about the dismemberment of the artisan community.¹
v2.c21.s1.t2.40
¹ 309 and 378 of 1916; Ep. Report for 1917, p. 134; "The non-interference of the Brahmans in this connection is significant." Ibid. Satyanatha wrongly interprets these inscriptions as having emanated from the Government. "The caste system was considered sacrosanct, and there were occasions of royal interference to check breaches of its rules". Nayaks, p. 256. About the year A. D. 1371, "the temple priests (sthāvikaru) of Nallūr-nāḍ agreeing together caused a śāsana to be written. The meaning of this is not at all clear. See E. C., IX, Dv. 73, p. 83, text, p. 189.
v2.c21.s1.t2.41
We may give one more example of State interference in social matters. An inscription dated only in the cyclic year Aṅgiras but assignable to A. D. 1632,² of the reign of Śrīraṅga Dēva, registers an undertaking by the residents of the village Tiruvamattūr, South Arcot district, that the three artisan communities (Kaṇmāla) carpenters, blacksmiths, and goldsmiths of the several villages in the northern parru (ward) shall no more be treated ill, or deprived of their privileges; that the same
v2.c21.s1.t2.42
² Swamikannu, Ind. Eph., VI, p. 66.
v2.c21.s1.t2.43
kōlu procession should pass through the Dēśada-pēṭe and the goddess Kālikā's procession through the Nagarta-pēṭe. E. C., IX, Ht. 105, p. 101. Interesting as the above details are, they cannot be given entire credence since the epigraph takes us to the year A. D. 1693 when Vijayanagara rulers had ceased to exercise any authority. B. A. S.
v2.c21.s1.t2.44
rights and privileges as were given to their brethren in Paḍaiviḍu Śeñji, Tiruvaṇṇāmalai, and Kañchipuram should be accorded to them; and that in default a fine of twelve *pon* was to be paid by them (residents) [?]. In this record Kṛṣṇappa Nāyaka is mentioned as the king's Agent; and Rāyasam Tirumalayyaṇ, as the subordinate of the former.¹
v2.c21.s1.t2.45
¹ 65 of 1922.
Cites (6)
- Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit
- Baudhāyanadharmasūtra — Baudhāyana, Sanskrit
- Yājñavalkyasmṛti — Yājñavalkya, Sanskrit
- Gautamadharmasūtra — Gautama (dharmasūtrakāra), Sanskrit
- Epigraphia Carnatica
- Śabdakalpadruma — Rājā Sir Rādhākānta Deb, Sanskrit