Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v2.c15: Part IX. The Kākatīyas of Warangal

The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v2.c15

Language
English

Contents

Part IX. The Kākatīyas of Warangal

v2.c15.2

by DR. N. VENKATARAMANAYYA and MR. M. SOMASEKHARA SARMA

v2.c15.3

I. Origin of the dynasty and early feudatory rulers—Bēta I, Prola I, Bēta II, and Prola II.

v2.c15.4

II. The Independent Sovereigns—Kākati Rudradēva, his victories over the neighbouring princes; Rudradēva's war with Bhima of the Telugu Choḷa family; subjugation of the Kōṭas and the Koṇḍapaḍumaṭis in the South, conflict with the Sēuṇas of Dēvagiri, suffered defeat and was killed in the battlefield; his ministers and officers. Mahādēva (A.D. 1195-98-99), a doughty warrior, invaded the Sēuṇa Kingdom and perished seated on the back of an elephant during the fight. Gaṇapatidēva (A.D. 1199-1261), and his captivity; invasions of Nāgati and the Chōḷa emperor, Kulōttuṅga III; Gaṇapati's subsequent reinstatement and his invasion of the coastal Āndhra districts against Prithvīśvara; after his victory over Prithvīśvara Gaṇapati sent an army to Kaliṅga to reduce it to subjection; the Eastern Gaṅga incursion, the conquest of Koḷanu, Gaṇapati's southern expedition, his relations with the Sēuṇas, his war with the Pāṇḍyas of Madura; Gaṇapati's inter-state relations, his family and vassals, generals and ministers. Rudramadēvī (A.D. 1259-95), rebellion of her half-brothers aided by certain nobles; they ousted her from the capital which she recaptured and put to death her half-brothers; Kākatiya authority re-established in the Godavari valley with the help of Nāyak commanders, war with the Pāṇḍyas who had usurped Kākatiya territory in the South, the Sēuṇa Mahādēva invaded the Kākatiya Kingdom but Rudrama fought valiantly and put the enemy to flight, Ambadēva, the Kāyastha chief, foreswore his allegiance to the Kākatiya queen, he entered into alliance with Sēuṇas and the Pāṇḍyas to cope effectively with the superior forces of the Kākatiyas, Rudramadēvī launched a three-pronged attack on Ambadēva and his allies, Rudramadēvī's vassals, ministers, and officials, her family. Pratāparudra (A.D. 1295-1323) recruited seventy-seven nāyaks to strengthen the defences of the kingdom, tested his new modelled army against some refractory Kāyastha chiefs whom he subdued, the Muslim, incursions into the Deccan, the earliest of 'Alā-ud-Dīn', expedition against Telin̄gāna in A.D. 1303, the Muslim generals Fakhr-ud-Dīn and Jhāju penetrated into the heart of the kingdom and reached near Warangal, they sustained a crushing defeat, the failure of the expedition did not affect 'Alā-ud-Dīn's designs of conquest and he dispatched a larger army under Malik Nā'ib who arrived near the Kākatiya capital on 24 January 1310, after a prolonged siege by the enemy Pratāparudra sued for peace and Malik Nā'ib agreed on the condition that Pratāparudra should hand over all his accumulated wealth and further pay annually a stipulated sum of money and send a contingent of trained elephants and horses to the Delhi Sultān as tribute, ‘Alā-ud-Din’s confidence in Pratāparudra as a faithful ally, asked the latter to help Malik Nā’ib in the conquest of South India, Pratāparudra co-operated with the Imperial troops, succession of new Sultāns in Delhi, Pratāparudra did not send the stipulated annual tribute to Delhi owing to weakness of the Imperial control over the Deccan, Ghiyās-ud-Din Tughluq sent his son Ulugh Khān with a large army, the latter besieged Warangal, the siege lasted for six months, conflicting accounts of the siege by Muslim historians, *Isāmī* comparatively more reliable, Pratāparudra surrendered finally, ordered by Ulugh Khān to be taken to Delhi with his family, died on the way, Pratāparudra’s family, his vassals, generals, and ministers.

v2.c15.5

III. Military Institutions and Administration—Sources; Military Organization, the Army; the Government; Taxation; Irrigation; Land Reclamation.

Origin of the Dynasty and Early Feudatory Rulers

v2.c15.s1.1

THE Kākatīyas rose to power during the dominion of the Chālukyas of Kalyāṇi. The attempt made by certain scholars to trace the descent of this dynasty from Kākartya Guṇḍyana, a subordinate of the Eastern Chālukyan king, Amma II (A.D. 945-70), cannot be said to have been successful, since the evidence adduced by them is not strong enough to support their thesis. It is indeed possible that the names Kākartya, Kākatya, and Kākatīya are etymologically connected, but there is no ground to warrant the belief that the Kākatīya kings of Anumakoṇḍa and Warangal were really the descendants of Guṇḍyana, the feudatory of the Eastern Chālukyan Amma II.

v2.c15.s1.2

Bēta II, a subordinate of Tribhuvanamalla Vikramāditya VI (A.D. 1076-1126), was the first prince of the Kākatīya family to leave behind any records of his rule. His Anumakoṇḍa and Kāzīpēṭa epigraphs, dated respectively in A.D. 1079 and A.D. 1090, not only indicate clearly the period during which he flourished but also furnish some interesting information about his immediate ancestors.¹

v2.c15.s1.3

¹ *Corpus*, No. 7, pp. 25 ff.

v2.c15.s1.4

According to the Kāzīpēṭa record, Bēta II’s grandfather, Bēta I, ‘churned the ocean of the army of the Chōḷa king and obtained the Lakshmī’ (of Victory). This assertion should be compared with the statement in the Pālampēṭa inscription of the time of Gaṇapati² that Rēcherla Brahma, the progenitor of Rēcherla Rudra, who in all probability was the commander of

v2.c15.s1.5

² *H.A.S.*, No. 3, I. The Pālampēṭa pillar inscription of the time of Gaṇapatidēva, dated in Śaka 1135 (A.D. 1213), attributes the conquest of Kāñchī to a Kākati monarch, the campaign being directed by his general, Brahma of the Rēcherla family (v. 11). The Kākati monarch alluded to here is in fact no other than Bēta I. The relationship between Kāṭa, the father of Kāma Chamūpati, and Brahma, the first known member of the Rēcherla family, is not made clear in this inscription. Kāma is said to have been the chief officer of Kākati Prōla, the opponent of Manthena Guṇḍa. This Prōla is evidently Prōla II. Hence it is reasonable to suppose that the difference in time between Rēcherla Brahma and his descendant Kāma corresponds to that between Bēta I and Prōla II. However, the Pillalamarri record (*Corpus*, No. 41, pp. 114 ff.) of the Rēcherla chief Nāma says that Muchcha was the father of Kāṭa and that he was born in the family of Bamma, evidently Brahma, who ‘having taken away the gate of the city of Kāñchī uprooted the tree of the dignity (*māna*) of the Chōḍa king in the play of the terrific battle’ (*yaḥ Kāmchinagari-kavaṭa-haraṇam kṛtvā prachand-āhava-krīḍas-Chōḍa-narādhipasya kṛtavān māna-drum-ōnmūlanam*. Ibid., v. 4). Muchcha is in fact much earlier in time than Kāṭa. He was probably Brahma’s grandson or his brother’s son. These Rēcherla chiefs served the Kākatīyas, very loyally from the time of Brahma onwards. In order to understand correctly the comparative dates of the Rēcherla chiefs and their Kākatīya overlords the pedigrees given overleaf may be helpful to the reader.

v2.c15.s1.6

From these pedigrees it would seem probable that Muchcha and his son Kāṭa were the commanders of Prōla I and his son Bēta II respectively. In this case Kākati Bēta and his commander, Bēta I’s army, ‘flung open, like a curtain, the doors of the city of Kāñchī’, and ‘promptly brought about the marriage of the Kākati monarch with the Goddess of Victory’. Neither the actual date of this victory nor the circumstances in which it was achieved, are known. Bēta I was an obscure petty chief in Telingāna, which was then included in the Western Chālukyan dominions. He thus obviously could not, on his own account and entirely by himself, have led an expedition all the way across the Eastern Chālukyan kingdom to Kāñchī, defeated the powerful Chōḷa emperor, and captured the city. It is, on the other hand, not unlikely that Bēta I and his general Brahma did in fact accompany their Western Chālukyan overlords during an expedition which the latter conducted against the Chōḷa kingdom. Now before the date of the Kāzīpēṭa inscription the Western Chālukyas invaded the Chōḷa kingdom only once and that happened during the reign of Āhavamalla Sōmēśvara I. The Chōḷa king Rājādhirāja I, taking advantage of Sōmēśvara’s expedition to Māḷava, made an attack on the latter’s capital, Kalyāṇi, and destroyed it by fire, in A.D. 1052, whereupon Sōmēśvara, as soon as he returned from Māḷava, sent a large army under Polakēśin, and devastated, in retaliation, the city of Kāñchī, the northern capital of the Chōḷa kingdom. Bēta and his general most probably participated in Polakēśin’s expedition and thereafter assumed credit for the success of the enterprise. Of the other events of Bēta’s rule nothing is known, and it appears to have come to an end soon after his return from the South.

v2.c15.s1.7

Bēta I was succeeded by his son Prōla who is said to have subdued a number of chiefs hostile to his overlord and to have acquired the hereditary rulership of Anumakoṇḍa-vishaya from Sōmēśvara I; to have ‘straightened’ the Chakrakūṭa-vishaya, that is Chakrakōṭ in Bastar, restored order after taking it from his enemies; to have subjugated the Koṅkaṇa-maṇḍala, put to flight Bhadraṅga; conquered the son (not named) of Dugga of Kāḍparti, driving him into the forests; and killed in battle Gonna, the chief of Purukūṭa. Prōla’s victory over these chiefs was perhaps his earliest achievement, after which by the acquisition of the hereditary rulership of the Anumakoṇḍa-vishaya he laid the foundation of a new principality which was destined to extend during the next century over the whole of the Āndhra country.

v2.c15.s1.8

Prōla I took an active part in the military campaigns of his sovereign and overlord Sōmēśvara I. According to Bilhaṇa, the author of the Vikramaṅkadēvacharita, Brahma or Bamma of the Rēcherla family, were the contemporaries and subordinates of the Western Chālukyan king, Trailōkyamalla Sōmēśvara I (A.D. 1044–68 or Śaka 966–90).

v2.c15.s1.9

| Rēcherla Chiefs | Kākatiya Monarchs |
| Brahma or Bamma, Commander of | Bēta I |
| Muchcha | Prōla I |
| Kāṭa | Bēta II |
| Kāma, Commander of | Prōla II |

v2.c15.s1.10

māṅkadēva-charitra, Vikramāditya VI, son of Āhavamalla Sōmēśvara I, while he was yet a prince, observing the unsettled state of affairs in the neighbouring Chōḷa kingdom, obtained the permission of his father and set out on an expedition of conquest. Vikramāditya advanced at first on the Koṅkan, which he brought under his control, and then passed through the Kēraḷa and Pāṇḍya countries; after this he attacked and captured Gaṅgakuṇḍa and Kāñchī, the two great cities of the Chōḷa kingdom, and then overcame Vēṅgī and Chakrakōṭa.¹ Prōla seems to have accompanied the Chāḷukyan army under Prince Vikramāditya to Koṅkan in A.D. 1066, and later assisted him in dislodging the Chōḷas from Chakrakōṭa and occupying the fort with its dependent territory. The identity of the Bhadraṅga whom Prōla put to flight is not easy to establish. Bhadraṅga in fact does not appear to be a personal designation, since no prince or chief of that name is known to have existed. It is not unlikely that it is the name of a place. And in fact there is a town named Bhadraṅga very near Bastar on the banks of the Indrāvatī, a tributary of the river Gōdāvarī. As Prōla I is said to have put Bhadraṅga to flight, this should probably be understood as meaning that he drove away the chief or the people of that place. Purukūṭa, in view of its similarity to Chakrakūṭa, must be looked for somewhere in the neighbourhood of Bastar. There is actually a town of the name of Parakot in its vicinity, which may perhaps be identical with Purukūṭa. Just as Chakrakūṭa became Chakrakōṭ, Purukūṭa might have become Purukōṭ and subsequently Parakot in local speech. Bhadraṅga and Purukūṭa appear to have been places of some importance in the Bastar State in ancient times. Prōla I evidently reduced them to subjection during the Western Chāḷukyan campaign against Chakrakōṭa. He drove away the people of Bhadraṅga from their town and put Gonna, the chief of Purukūṭa, to death. Kāḍparti, the headquarters of the chief Dugga, whose unnamed son Prōla I subdued, lay perhaps in the neighbourhood of Warangal; it is probably identical with the present village of that name in the modern Warangal tāluk of the same district.

v2.c15.s1.11

¹ Vikramāṅkadēva-charitra, 4, 11-18.

v2.c15.s1.12

Thus, in all the important campaigns of the Western Chāḷukya Sōmēśvara I and his son Vikramāditya, the Kākatīyas played a very definite part in helping them to win their victories. At first Bēta I and after him his son Prōla I remained firmly loyal to the Western Chāḷukyan standard, and thus won the affection and favour of their overlords. Delighted by the military ability and unswerving loyalty of Prōla I, the emperor Āhavamalla Sōmēśvara I granted him Anumakoṇḍa-vishaya as a permanent fief. Prōla I thus became the founder of the Kākatīya principality, which under his ambitious successors grew into a powerful kingdom embracing the whole of the country. Although he was engaged in various wars throughout his reign, Prōla I seems yet to have found time to bestow attention on the civil administration of the kingdom and to promote its economic prosperity. According to the inscriptions in the temple of Ekāmranātha at Kāñchī and Mōṭupalli of his grandson Gaṇapati, he constructed an irrigation tank of the name of Kēsari or Jagatikēsari in commemoration of one of his own birudas.¹ Like his father before him, Prōla I was a Śaiva by faith, having been a pupil of Rāmēśvara Paṇḍita, a well-known exponent of the Lākulīśvara-Āgama, on whom he bestowed the village of Vaijanampalli, making it a Śivapura.²

v2.c15.s1.13

¹ IA, xxi, 197 f.; EI, xii, 188 f.

v2.c15.s1.14

² Corpus, No. 12.

v2.c15.s1.15

Prōla I died about the year A.D. 1075 and was succeeded by his young son Bēta II. The most important event of the reign of this king was the outbreak of serious disturbances in his dominion, which brought the power of his family to a very low ebb. The circumstances in which this happened are not known. It is not unlikely that the outbreak was an aftermath of the civil war between Sōmēśvara II and Vikramāditya VI for the possession of the imperial throne; Bēta II probably supported the former, and on his defeat Vikramāditya either sent his armies to chastise him or instigated the chiefs who were his vassals to rise against him and overthrow his authority. It is significant that in the Hanumakoṇḍa inscription, dated Ś. 1001 (A.D. 1079-80), the title Tribhuvanamalla is not associated with the name of Bēta II, nor is there any reference in it to Tribhuvanamalla Vikramāditya, who by that time had succeeded in establishing himself firmly on the imperial throne. Bēta II, however, had powerful allies who stood by him in the hour of peril and helped him to overthrow his enemies. Foremost amongst these were Erra and Rēva, the heads respectively of the Viriyāla and the Vēma-Chōḷa families. The former, according to an undated epigraph at Gūḍūr, in the Warangal district, took the side of Poṭṭa-Bēta (i.e. Bēta II), put his enemies to death in battle, and established him firmly in the Koṟavi country;³ and the latter, according to an inscription dated A.D. 1120 at Māṭūru in the same district, offered protection to the kings of the Kākatī family, defeated their enemies, and preserved the integrity of their kingdom.⁴ However, notwithstanding the victories of his allies, Bēta II does not appear to have felt himself securely established in his dominion without the sanction of the emperor. Therefore, his minister Vaija-daṇḍādhīśa, accompanied by Kāmasāni, the able wife of the Viriyāla chief Erra, took him to the court of the emperor Vikramāditya at Kalyāṇi, and having there caused him to prostrate himself at the feet of the emperor, secured for him the government of the Sabbi-Thousand which probably included the Anumakoṇḍa and the Koṟavi districts, and thus preserved the integrity of the Kākatīya principality.⁵ This event must have taken place before A.D. 1090, since in the Kāzīpēṭa record dated in that year, Bēta is said to have made the gift registered therein as bestowed during the reign of Tribhuvanamalladēva, that is, Vikramāditya VI.⁶ The titles Tribhuvanamalla and Vikramachakrī which he thereafter assumed also indicate his submission to Vikramāditya. No information is available about the happenings in the subsequent years of his rule, except that he perhaps participated in the Mālaya and the Chōḷa wars of Vikramāditya.¹ The duration of his reign is not definitely known, but he appears to have succeeded his father about A.D. 1075, and to have died in or about A.D. 1090.

v2.c15.s1.16

³ Ibid., No. 24; Tel. Ins. Kāk., 55.

v2.c15.s1.17

⁴ Ibid., 54. Telingāna Inscriptions Revised (Unpublished), No. 47.

v2.c15.s1.18

⁵ Tel. Ins. Kāk., 55; EI, ix, 256, verse 3.

v2.c15.s1.19

⁶ Corpus, No. 7.

v2.c15.s1.20

¹ *Corpus*, No. 7.

Successors of Bēta II

v2.c15.s1.t1.1

Bēta II appears to have been succeeded by his son Durganṛpati in or before A.D. 1090. He is represented by a single inscription at Kāzīpēṭa in the Warangal district, which, however, does not furnish any information of historical importance beyond the fact that he also, like his father, held the title Tribhuvanamalladēva.² Nothing is known about the duration of his reign or the events that happened in his time.

v2.c15.s1.t1.2

² Ibid.

v2.c15.s1.t1.3

Durga was succeeded by his brother Prōla II in or about A.D. 1117. Two inscriptions belonging to his reign which have recently come to light, state that he established the son of Gōkarṇa on his throne, defeated Mēḍarāja, conquered Polavāsadēśa (probably the territory of this chieftain), and bestowed it on Gaṅgarāja, who built a temple for the God Prasanna Kēśavadēva at Hanumakoṇḍa.³ These facts are not, however, mentioned in the Hanumakoṇḍa record of his son, Rudradēva, which describes his other achievements at some length. Prōla II, according to this record, captured Tailapa, the crest-jewel of the Chāḷukyas, but, impressed by his devout and amiable bearing, immediately released him; he also conquered Gōvindarāja, plundered the territory of Udaya, which he, however, restored to its owner; pursued Guṇḍa of Mantrakūṭa, who having been defeated in battle fled to his capital, where his conqueror had his head shaved and caused him to be branded on the breast with the symbol of the boar. Prōla also repelled Jagaddēva, who had laid siege to his capital Anumakoṇḍa.⁴ Before proceeding to consider the identity of the enemies of Prōla II and the circumstances in which he came into conflict with them, it may be noted that he was originally only a *maṇḍalika*, the vassal ruler of a small tract of country comprising at most the whole of the Warangal and parts of the Karimnagar districts in Teliṅgāṇa and owing allegiance to the Western Chāḷukyan emperor of Kalyāṇi. The enemies whom he is said to have vanquished were likewise feudatories of the same sovereign holding appanages in different parts of Teliṅgāṇa in the neighbourhood of Prōla’s territory.

v2.c15.s1.t1.4

³ *JAHRS*, xxi, 105-6.

v2.c15.s1.t1.5

⁴ *Corpus*, No. 3.

v2.c15.s1.t1.6

The names of the son of Gōkarṇa and of the family to which he belonged are unfortunately not mentioned in Prōla’s inscriptions, but the name Gōkarṇa, which is peculiar to the Kandūr branch of the Telugu Chōḷa family, seems to indicate that the unnamed prince and his father belonged in fact to this family. An inscription found at Māmilla-palli and dated Ś. 1100 (A.D. 1178) states that it was set up during the reign of a king of the name of Bhīma, who was the elder brother of Gōkarṇa of the Solar family. Three generations of kings, viz. Gōkarṇa I, his son Udayāditya, and his grandsons Bhīma and Gōkarṇa II, are mentioned in this record.¹ It is not improbable that Gōkarṇa, the father of the prince whom Prōla II established on the throne, was the Gōkarṇa I of the Māmillapalli inscription. And indeed we know that a Gōkarṇadēva Chōḍa was in fact ruling at Pānugal in the Nalgonda district during the early years of Prōla II. For, on the occasion of a solar eclipse which took place on a Friday, Phālguna-bahula Amāvāsya of the year Śubhakṛt, corresponding to the Chālukya-Vikrama (a mistake for the Śaka) 1043 (Friday, 10 March, A.D. 1122), this ruler made a gift of land to some Brāhmans.² He was in all probability identical with the Gōkarṇa I of the Māmillapalli epigraph cited above. Gōkarṇa was, in fact, the last of the three sons of Toṇḍa and his queen Mailāmbikā, and was a younger brother of the Udayāditya and Bhīma mentioned in another inscription at Pānugal dated Ś. 1046 Krōdhi (A.D. 1124).³ Toṇḍa was a scion of the Ēruva branch of the Telugu Chōḷa family and a vassal of the Western Chālukyan king Tribhuvanamalla Vikramāditya VI, as is shown by a record of his queen Mailamadēvī (Mailāmbikā) at Dākshārāmam dated Ś. 1043—C.V. 46 (A.D. 1121).⁴ If the identification of the Gōkarṇa of Prōla II's inscriptions with the Gōkarṇa of the Māmillapalli inscription suggested be accepted, it will follow as a corollary from this that the name of Gōkarṇa's son whom Prōla II established on his throne was Udayāditya. He was probably identical with the Udaya or Chōḍōdaya mentioned in the Anumakoṇḍa and Gaṇapēśvaram inscriptions of Rudradēva and Gaṇapati respectively; for it is stated there that Prōla II pillaged his territory but subsequently restored it to him.⁵ Mēḍa, the ruler of Polavāsadēśa, was a powerful chief. Though he is said to have suffered a defeat at the hands of Prōla II and to have lost his kingdom as a consequence of this, he appears to have recovered it again; for he figures in the Anumakoṇḍa inscription among the enemies later subdued by Rudradēva. Taila, ‘the crest-jewel of the Chālukyas’, was the son of Vikramāditya VI. He is referred to as Kumāra or Yuvarāja Tailapadēva in a series of inscriptions ranging from A.D. 1110 to 1125; he was evidently at that time ruling over Kandūru-nāḍu and the region in its neighbourhood.⁶ Gōvindarāja is generally taken to have been the same person as the nephew, a sister's son, of Vikramāditya VI's famous Brāhman general Anantapāla Daṇḍanāyaka, who is mentioned in several inscriptions in Teliṅgāṇa and coastal Āndhra. He was a valiant soldier who together with his brother Lakshmaṇa rendered valuable assistance to his uncle in the subjugation of Veṅgī and other maritime dis tricts in A.D. 1118; he was ruling over Koṇḍapalli and its dependent territories in A.D. 1126.¹ It is, however, more likely that Prōla's opponent was not this Gōvindarāja but his namesake, the son of Bāgi Mādimayya Nāyaka, who was associated with Lakshmaṇa Daṇḍanāyaka, son of Mākāmbā, in the government of Veṅgī in A.D. 1133, under Bhūlōkamalla Sōmēśvara III.² Jagaddēva was, no doubt, the Paramāra prince of that name who governed Kollipāka Seven-Thousand under Vikramāditya VI and Sōmēśvara III.³ The antecedents of Guṇḍa of Mantrakūṭa are not known. He was also in all probability a feudatory of the Chāḷukyas of Kalyāṇi.

v2.c15.s1.t1.7

¹ M. Ramakrishna Kavi, *Lithic Records in the Hyderabad State*.

v2.c15.s1.t1.8

² *Corpus*, No. 32.

v2.c15.s1.t1.9

³ *Tel. Inr. Misc.*, 18. The text is badly deciphered and edited. The genealogy of the family given in the record is as follows:

v2.c15.s1.t1.10

⁴ *SII*, iv, 1216; *AR*, 335 of 1893.

v2.c15.s1.t1.11

⁵ *EI*, iii, p. 89.

v2.c15.s1.t1.12

⁶ *Telingāna Inscriptions Revised* (Unpublished), Nos. 44 (Alavānipalle), 45 (Āvañcha), 53 (Nek-koṇḍa), 59 (Pānugallu (Nalgonda)).

v2.c15.s1.t1.13

¹ EI, xii, p. 261.

v2.c15.s1.t1.14

² SII, iv, 1094; AR, 243-B of 1893.

v2.c15.s1.t1.15

³ Tel. Ins., Ch., 13, 42.

v2.c15.s1.t1.16

... rppēri, the crest-jewel of kings m. Bedaṃgā | Mailāmbikā m. King Toṇḍa | Udayāditya | Bhīma | Gōkarṇa

v2.c15.s1.t1.17

Neither the period nor the circumstances in which Prōla II waged war successfully on these chiefs are definitely known. It is not unlikely that he came into conflict with them when he attempted to carve out a kingdom for himself at their expense, taking advantage of the confusion prevalent in the Western Chāḷukyan dominion subsequent to their defeat in, and expulsion from, the coastal Āndhra country in A.D. 1135.

v2.c15.s1.t1.18

The defeat in the maritime Āndhra coupled with the death of Sōmēśvara III a few years later in A.D. 1139 let loose the latent forces of disintegration and the Chāḷukyan empire began to fall rapidly to pieces. In the general scramble for power, the feudatories looked after their own interests and each attempted to grab as much territory as he could lay hands upon. It must have been about this time that Prōla II rose to prominence, and throwing off the imperial yoke asserted his independence. His aggressions would not have been possible earlier, since at that time the imperial army in Veṅgī and other places in the neighbourhood would have easily crushed him.

v2.c15.s1.t1.19

The extent of the territory acquired by him as a result of the wars described above cannot now be definitely ascertained. However, it can be confidently asserted that he made himself master of the districts lying between the rivers Gōdāvarī and Kṛishṇā. With the defeat of Guṇḍa, Manthena on the Gōdāvarī and its dependent territory must have passed into his hands; and the Telugu Chōḷa Udayāditya of Nalgoṇḍa-Pānugal, to whom after conquest he restored the kingdom, must have acknowledged his supremacy. In the absence of evidence, it is not possible to state how far his authority extended in the west. But it is certain that the victorious career of Prōla II met with a rude check. He invaded Veṅgī towards the close of his reign, when he appears to have met his death in battle with the forces of a confederacy of the local chiefs who opposed his advance.

v2.c15.s1.t1.20

The Dākshārāmam inscription of Kōṭa Sūramamahādēvī, dated Śaka 1091 (A.D. 1169), mentions Kākati-Prōla-nirdahana as one of the titles of her husband.

v2.c15.s1.t1.21

Kōṭa Chōḍayarāja, a fact which indicates that Kākati Prōla, evidently Prōla II, was slain by him.¹ Like Kōṭa Chōḍayarāja, Manma Satya and Mallidēva, the Haihaya chiefs of the Kōna country, and Mahādēvarāja, the Sūryavaṁśa chief of the Malaya country, also seem to have borne titles of the same kind. In the Piṭhāpuram Pillar inscription of the Haihaya chiefs mentioned above, dated Śaka 1117 (A.D. 1195),² the former is spoken of as *Prōḍa-kṣitipāla-mauḷi-makuṭ-ālaṁkāra-siṁhāsanaḥ*, that is ‘one whose throne was adorned by the crown on the head of Prōḍa-kṣitipāla’. The editor of the inscription, Dr. E. Hultzsch, wrongly corrected Prōḍa to *Prauḍha* and construed it as an adjective qualifying *kṣitipāla*. But the correction is hardly necessary. Prōḍa is obviously a variant of the name Prōla. Moreover, Dr. Hultzsch’s correction does not quite suit the context. Kings are usually described as *vīras* and *śūras*, and seldom as *prauḍhas*. Therefore the title in the Piṭhāpuram Pillar inscription may be taken as referring to the defeat of Kākati Prōla at the hands of the Haihaya chiefs, Manma Satya and Mallidēva. Mahādēvarāja, the Malaya chief of the Solar race, and a vassal of the later Eastern Chāḷukyan ruler Malla Viṣṇuvardhana of the Bēta-Vijayāditya line, who came to the throne while he was still a boy, bears a similar title, *Prōḍ-āri-baḍab-ānalaḥ*, ‘the submarine fire to the enemy, viz. Prōḍa’, in the Madras Museum plates of his overlord.³ Here also Prōḍa cannot be corrected to Prauḍha, for *Prauḍh-āri* would make little or no sense. It is better to take Prōḍa as a personal name denoting a particular king. This view is supported by the evidence of the Ēkāmranātha inscription of Gaṇapatidēva, in which his ancestor Prōḍarāja is said to have constructed a tank called *Jagatīkēsari*.⁴ Now the construction of a tank called *Jagatīkēsari* is ascribed in Gaṇapatidēva’s Mōṭupalli inscription to Prōla II. It is therefore evident that Prōḍa and Prōla are identical. If, then, the Prōḍa mentioned in the Piṭhāpuram Pillar inscription and the Madras Museum Plates cited above is identical with Prōla II, it seems certain that he must have invaded the Vēṅgī country some time about A.D. 1150, and that he was opposed by the Kōṭa chief of Amarāvatī, the Haihaya chiefs of Kōna-maṇḍala, and the Solar chiefs of Malaya, who were the vassals of the Eastern Chāḷukyas of Vēṅgī. He appears to have been defeated and slain during the course of this invasion.

v2.c15.s1.t1.22

¹ SII, iv, 1242; AR, 351 of 1893.

v2.c15.s1.t1.23

² EI, iv, p. 91.

v2.c15.s1.t1.24

³ Cp. No. 10 of 1916-17.

v2.c15.s1.t1.25

⁴ IA, xxi, 197.

v2.c15.s1.t1.26

The reign of Prōla II marks an important stage in the history of the Kākatiyas. He was a mighty warrior; he transformed the feudal fief which he inherited into a sovereign state by his military skill. Though he began his career as a small *māṇḍalika* in the eastern marches of the Chāḷukyan empire, he managed, by taking advantage of the unsettled state of affairs which prevailed in the territories after the death of Sōmēśvara III, to throw off the imperial yoke and to carve out for himself an independent kingdom which was destined to grow under his successors into a powerful empire embracing the whole of the Āndhra country.

The Independent Sovereigns

Kākati Rudradēva

v2.c15.s2.t1.1

(? A.D. 1150-1195/6)

v2.c15.s2.t1.2

PRŌLA II had five sons,¹ of whom only two, namely Rudradēva and Mahādēva, are generally mentioned in the inscriptions and literary works. The name of another, Rēpalli Duggarāja (Durgarāja), so called after his appanage, Rēpalli, is mentioned in an inscription at Dākshārāmam dated A.D. 1163.² The Yenamadala inscription of Gaṇapāmbikā mentions Mādhava as the son of Prōla II.³ This is obviously a mistake for Mahādēva; for no other record mentions Mādhava and the fact that he is there spoken of as the father of Gaṇapati clearly shows that this Mādhava was none other than Mahādēva and that the variation in the name must be attributed to a scribal error. Nothing is known about the remaining two sons of Prōla II. Rudra may be assumed to have been the eldest of all the sons of Prōla II; for the Ekāmranātha inscription of Kākati Gaṇapatidēva mentions Mahādēva as ‘the first of the multitude of his younger brothers sprung from the race of the Sun as was the Pārijāta from the ocean’.⁴ This simile implies that Rudradēva had four younger brothers of whom Mahādēva was the eldest. Rudradēva was probably a grown-up prince at the time of his accession to the throne, since he seems to have participated in some of the wars of his father.

v2.c15.s2.t1.3

¹ *IA*, xxi, pp. 197 ff.

v2.c15.s2.t1.4

² *SII*, iv, 1071; *AR*, 229 of 1893.

v2.c15.s2.t1.5

³ *AR*, 142 of 1913; *EI*, iii, p. 94.

v2.c15.s2.t1.6

⁴ *AR*, 26 of 1890; *IA*, xxi, pp. 122 and 197.

v2.c15.s2.t1.7

Rudradēva was a valiant fighter. He probably took part, as suggested above, in the campaigns conducted by his father, Prōla II, and assisted him to establish his independence and to maintain intact the principality bequeathed to him by his ancestors. After his accession to the throne he devoted all his energy and resources to safeguarding his independent status and to extending his dominion wherever possible. His political activities may therefore be said to have been directed to promoting the schemes of conquest designed by his father Prōla. In pursuance of this policy of aggrandizement Rudradēva had to wage wars on many chiefs. His achievements are described in his Anumakoṇḍa inscription,⁵ a lengthy document of great historical importance, which fully justifies the lavish praises of his prowess embodied in the records of his successors. It narrates the valiant deeds not only of Rudradēva, but also of his father, Prōla II. By the Śaka year 1084 (A.D. 1162), the date of this record, Rudradēva seems already to have vanquished a number of his enemies and to have transformed his petty principality into an extensive kingdom. The Anumakoṇḍa record mentions the names of Ḍommarāja, Mēḍarāja, and Mailigidēva as opponents, whom he had overcome in battle. They seem to have been neighbouring princes whose dominions abutted upon Rudradēva’s territories. A record of Mahāmaṇḍalēśvara Ḍommarāja from Nagunūr in the Karimnagar district, dated in the Chālukya Vikrama year corresponding to the cyclic year Pramādi (Śaka year 1081—A.D. 1159),¹ mentions Mēḍarāja and Jagaddēva, and refers to a victory gained by them with an army of 80,000 over some enemy, not mentioned by name. It is not unlikely that this unnamed enemy was Rudradēva himself; and the record refers in all probability to an earlier phase of the struggle in which he was involved with these chiefs. However that may be, it is certain that Rudradēva was ultimately victorious; he put to flight Ḍommarāja, famous as a rider and cavalry commander, ‘by hundreds of his shining arrows as Arjuna did Karṇa’, and occupied ‘his village and city having all excellences’, which lay in the Karimnagar district on the frontier of his territory.

v2.c15.s2.t1.8

⁵ *IA*, xi, 9 ff.

v2.c15.s2.t1.9

¹ *Telīngāna Inscriptions*, No. 17, p. 119.

v2.c15.s2.t1.10

The identification of Rudradēva’s other enemies, Mēḍarāja and Mailigidēva, is more difficult. A certain Mēḍarāja along with a Jagaddēva is mentioned in the Nagunūru record cited above. Whether he was in fact the Mēḍarāja who was defeated by Rudradēva, or another person of the same name, cannot, however, be definitely ascertained.

v2.c15.s2.t1.11

A Mahāmaṇḍalēśvara, by name Ugravāḍi Mēḷarasa, born in the family of Mādhavavarman, the master of 8,000 elephants, eight crores of horses, and unnumbered masses of footsoldiers, &c., is mentioned in one of the inscriptions at Hanumakoṇḍa. He was probably a vassal of the Western Chālukyan king Vikramāditya VI. He figures among the benefactors of the Jain temple, Kadalalāya Basadi, built by Mailama, wife of Bēta, the minister of Prōla II, in the Chālukya Vikrama year 42, Hēmaḷambi, that is, in Śaka 1040 (A.D. 1118), when he bestowed on this foundation one *mattar* of irrigated land at the head of the canal below the bund of Kūchikere belonging to Warangal included within his rule, and ten *mattar* of miscellaneous land close to the same.² Mēḷarasa, it would seem, was at this time ruling the territory in the neighbourhood of Warangal as Prōla’s subordinate. It is not unlikely that after Prōla’s death he attempted to throw off the Kākatīya yoke and to assert his independence,³ but Rudradēva worsted him in battle and annexed the territory which he had governed to his own kingdom.

v2.c15.s2.t1.12

² EI, ix, pp. 266 ff.

v2.c15.s2.t1.13

³ In the Book entitled ‘*Nizām-rāshṭra praśamśa*’ (1926, p. 104) it is said that according to the Gōvindapuram record of Nāgadēvarāja, Mēḍarāja, a descendant of Mādhavavarman, was the ruler of the country between Kuruvaṭṭa in the Pākhāl *tāluk* of the Warangal district and the river Gōdāvari; he was a younger contemporary of Prōla II, and a patron of the Jaina faith. His minister Nāgadēvarāja constructed a temple to Pārśvanātha (*Pārśvanāthavardhaya*) at Gōvindapuram in the Pākhāl *tāluk*, and set up an inscription to record the event (see *Vēyistambhālaguḍi Śāraṇamu*, by Vidwan Khambhampati Appanna Sastri, p. 36). The Gōvindapuram record of Nāgadēvarāja has not yet been published. However, since Mēḍarāja is said to have been born in the family of Mādhavavarman, it would seem that he was in fact the same person as Mēḷarasa of the Anumakoṇḍa record, the patron of the Kadalalāya Basadi.

v2.c15.s2.t1.14

The identity of Mailigidēva still remains a subject of controversy. Dr. Fleet, the editor of the Anumakoṇḍa inscription, confesses his inability to fix his identity;¹ but Dr. Hultzsch believed that he was identical with the Yādava king Mallugi, the predecessor of Bhillama;² this supposition, however, is untenable, since the name Mallugi cannot be considered, on philological grounds, as being a derivative of Mailigi. Whoever he may have been, there can be no doubt that he was a neighbour of Rudradēva. It is stated in the Anumakoṇḍa inscription that Rudradēva humbled the pride of Mailigidēva in battle and gained possession of the region of Polavāsa situated in the Jagatyala tāluk of the present Karimnagar district of the old Hyderabad State.³ The victories thus gained by Rudradēva over Ḍommarāja, Mēḍarāja, and Mailigidēva, all in the region to the north of Anumakoṇḍa, enabled him to extend his dominion right up to the banks of the Gōdāvarī.

v2.c15.s2.t1.15

¹ IA, xi, p. 11.

v2.c15.s2.t1.16

² IA, xxi, p. 198.

v2.c15.s2.t1.17

³ IA, xxi, p. 10.

v2.c15.s2.t1.18

Rudradēva then turned his attention to the south. The Anumakoṇḍa record mentions four kings Bhīma, Gōkarṇa, Chōḍōdaya, and Tailapa in this connexion. Gōkarṇa was killed by Bhīma; Chōḍōdaya died as a result of the ‘bewilderment born of the fear produced by the prowess of Rudradēva’; and Tailapa ‘with body completely overcome by dysentery’ died from fear of Rudradēva. Then Bhīma enjoyed the kingship for a short time. He killed his brother by poisoning his food or otherwise while he was dining, and took his step-mother for his wife. To put an end to his misdeeds Rudradēva invaded his territories, when Bhīma fled to the forests with his mother, brothers, and wives. Rudradēva then burnt the city of Vardhamāna (Vardhamāna-nagari) and subsequently the city of Chōḍōdaya, thought to be protected by the surrounding forests. After burning the latter fort and the woods around it he constructed a big tank in the midst of the fort and became ‘the resort of the shining lotus (padmā) born of the milky ocean of the dynasty of Kandūr Odaya Chōḍa’ (L. 107). Scholars like Dr. Hultzsch opined that ‘Padmā has to be taken as the actual name of Chōḍōdaya’s daughter, whom Rudra married for political reasons, though he had caused the death of her father and destroyed his city’.⁴

v2.c15.s2.t1.19

⁴ EI, iii, p. 83.

v2.c15.s2.t1.20

Rudradēva’s war with Bhīma appears to have been the one event of outstanding importance which happened during the early years of his rule. The struggle between them is described at some length in the Anumakoṇḍa inscription, no less than twelve out of the total number of fifty verses being devoted to a description of it. In recounting the causes of the war the author of the inscription enumerates first the atrocious crimes committed by Bhīma, which provoked Rudradēva to launch an attack on him. Bhīma’s first evil deed was the capture and execution of a person called Gōkarṇa; he next appropriated the territories of two chiefs named Chōḍōdaya and Tailapa, both of whom are said to have died of the fear caused by Rudra’s military successes. The confiscation of the territory belonging to Chōḍōdaya is not recorded in the inscription as explicitly as is that of Tailapa. A close examination of the account, however, leaves no room for doubt. The statement that Rudra, after the destruction of Vardhamāna, went in pursuit of Bhīma to Chōḍōdaya’s city, Kandūr, and burnt it, clearly indicates that some time before that incident it must have passed into Bhīma’s hands. Had it not been then part of Bhīma’s territories, Rudra would not have attacked and destroyed it. Moreover, the ruthless and villainous Bhīma had, as we know, murdered his excellent brother by poisoning his food, and had taken his step-mother (co-wife of his own mother) as his wife. These dreadful deeds, however, were actually but pretexts for Rudra’s attack upon Bhīma. The real cause of the war was political rivalry. Bhīma gathered together a number of the petty chiefs around him, and proclaiming himself king, became Rudra’s rival for the sovereignty over Telingāṇa. Therefore, it became necessary for Rudra to declare war on Bhīma in order to humble him and to establish his own supremacy over the whole country.

v2.c15.s2.t1.21

The first important event of the war mentioned in the inscription is the burning of the city of Vardhamāna, that is Vaḍḍamān in the Mahbubnagar district, which appears to have been the capital of Bhīma. It is stated that Rudra, having taken ‘three or four steps’ in his march against Bhīma, offered the city of Vardhamāna as an oblation to the fire of his anger. Bhīma, unable to offer resistance, fled from his capital to the forest, accompanied by his mother, brothers, and wives, after abandoning his royal fortune. Rudra set out in pursuit of him and attacked Kandūr, the city of Udaya or Odaya Chōḍa, where apparently he had taken refuge. Rudra first cut down the forest, which formed, as it were, a protective barrier around the city, then set fire to it and destroyed the fort. He constructed in the midst of the city, evidently on the site where the fort had stood, a large and wonderful tank. He then appears to have married Padmā, the daughter of Kandūr Odaya Chōḍa. What happened to Bhīma, in pursuit of whom Rudra had come to Kandūr, is not definitely known. He seems to have perished either during Rudra’s attack on Kandūr, or at some time subsequent to this; for it is stated in the Anumakoṇḍa inscription that ‘those kings like Bhīma and others who dwelt between Kāñchī-maṇḍala and the Vindhyas, and who came to be heard of by Rudradēva, became gods (i.e. died) at the very sight of him.’¹

v2.c15.s2.t1.22

¹ *Corpus* 3, v. 30.

v2.c15.s2.t1.23.1

The identity and antecedents of Bhīma and the three other chiefs Gōkarṇa, Chōḍōdaya, and Tailapa, whose names are linked with his in the Anumakoṇḍa inscription, are not disclosed in it. There is reason to believe that all of them with the exception of Tailapa were princes of the Telugu Chōḍa origin. Gōkarṇa is an unusual name, which, as pointed out already, was peculiar to the Kandūr branch of that family. It is met with, if at all, very rarely elsewhere. Thus Gōkarṇa may be said definitely to have been a scion of the Kandūr Telugu Chōḍa family. There is absolutely no room for doubt about the family affiliations of Chōḍōdaya; his very name proclaims that he was a Telugu Chōḷa by birth. Bhīma also appears to have been a member of the same family. The brother whom he murdered by poisoning has generally been taken to be identical with Gōkarṇa, on the ground that the latter, in addition to bearing a characteristic Telugu Chōḷa name, also suffered death at Bhīma’s hands. The identification is probably correct. It may therefore be assumed that Bhīma, like Gōkarṇa and Chōḍōdaya, was also a member of the Kandūr Telugu Chōḷa family. In fact the names Bhīma, Gōkarṇa, and Odaya or Udaya occur frequently in the inscriptions of the family, which are found in several places in the Nalgonda and Mahbubnagar districts of the old Hyderabad State over which they bore sway. The Pānugal inscription of Mailāmbikā dated Ś. 1046 (A.D.

v2.c15.s2.t1.23.2

1124), and the Māmiḷḷapalli inscription of Bhīma dated Viḷambi (Ś. 1100/A.D. 1178-9), furnish, as noticed earlier, genealogies comprising two and three generations respectively. The former, as stated above, mentions Toṇḍa-nṛipa, his queen Mailāmbikā, and their three sons, Udayāditya, Bhīma, and Gōkarṇa; and the latter refers to Gōkarṇa (I), his son Udayāditya, and Udayāditya’s two sons, Bhīma and Gōkarṇa (II).¹ However, none of these, with the exception of Udayāditya of the Māmiḷḷapalli record, can be identified with any of the chiefs mentioned in the Anumakoṇḍa inscription; for the Udayāditya, Bhīma, and Gōkarṇa of the Pānugal epigraph flourished a generation too early to have been the contemporaries of Rudra. Since the Bhīma and the Gōkarṇa II of the Māmiḷḷapalli record are seen to have been ruling some fourteen years after the date of the Anumakoṇḍa inscription, they could hardly have been the chiefs of the same name whose death is referred to therein. It is not improbable that Udayāditya, the father of these two princes, was a contemporary of Rudra; he may have been the Chōḍōdaya who, according to the Anumakoṇḍa inscription, died of terror in face of the military successes of Rudra, and whose daughter the latter subsequently married after burning his city.

v2.c15.s2.t1.23.3

He is perhaps identical with Mahāmaṇḍalēśvara Kandūr Udaya Chōḍa Mahārāja of the lineage of Karikāla Chōḍa of the Solar race, who, according to an epigraph at Jeḍcherla in the Mahbubnagar district, dated Tuesday, Paushya ba 2, Chitrabhānu C.V. (mistake for Śaka) 1084 (Tuesday, 25 December, A.D. 1162), was then ruling the country in the neighbourhood.² Another record at Nēlakoṇḍapalli in the Warangal district, which records the construction of a sluice to the big tank of Koṇḍapalli by a certain nāyaka in the reign of Mahāmaṇḍalēśvara Kandūri Odaya Chōḍa Mahārāja, on Māgha śu, Manmatha, Ś. 1097 (A.D. 1175), belongs to the reign of the same king.³ In that case Kandūr Udaya or Odaya Chōḍa Mahārāja must be considered to have been ruling between A.D. 1162 and 1175. This raises an interesting question. The Anumakoṇḍa inscription, it may be remembered, refers to the death of Chōḍōdaya; but the Jeḍcherla and Nelakoṇḍapalli records clearly show that he was ruling between A.D. 1163 and 1175. It is not easy to reconcile the conflicting evidence of these inscriptions. Either the Chōḍōdaya of the Anumakoṇḍa inscription must have been a different person from his namesake of the Jeḍcherla and Nelakoṇḍapalli records, or the statement of his death in the former is an unreliable anticipation.

v2.c15.s2.t1.23.4

In view of the fact that the Jeḍcherla inscription is only twenty-six days earlier than that of Anumakoṇḍa, a period too short for all the events described therein to have taken place, the supposition that Chōḍōdaya did not in fact die of the fear of Rudra as described in the inscription, but lived for several years after, having made peace with that chieftain by giving him his daughter in marriage, cannot altogether be avoided.¹

v2.c15.s2.t1.24

¹ See ante, pp. 381-2.

v2.c15.s2.t1.25

² Tel. Ins. Mir., No. 6.

v2.c15.s2.t1.26

³ Ibid., No. 2. The reading 'Rudrayana' and the date Ś. 1047 in the text of the Telinġāna Inscriptions published by the Lakshmaṇarāya Pariśōdhaka Maṇḍali, Hyderabad, is faulty. The late Rao Bahadur C. R. K. Charlu revised the text with the help of estampages and corrected the mistakes.

v2.c15.s2.t1.27

¹ This is supported by the evidence of an unpublished record of Kākati Ganapatidēva at Jamalāpuram, dated Ś. 1124 Dundubhi (A.D. 1202-3), which, while alluding to Rudradēva’s war with Chōḍōdaya, refers only to the defeat of the latter’s general Arasālu and the destruction of his army, but not to his death.

v2.c15.s2.t1.28

The identity of Tailapa is not definitely known. On account of the similarity of his name and the fact that he was a contemporary of the Western Chāḷukyan king Tailapa III, son of Bhūlōkamalla Sōmēśvara III, he has generally been taken as being identical with that monarch. It is not possible, however, to accept this identification; for the latest regnal year, according to the inscriptions of Tailapa III, is fifteen, corresponding to Ś. 1087 (A.D. 1165); but as the Tailapa of the Anumakoṇḍa inscription is said to have died of dysentery caused by the fear of Rudra in or before Ś. 1084 (A.D. 1162-3), he could not have been the same as the Western Chāḷukyan king. He was probably some other chief ruling in the neighbourhood of Bhīma’s dominions whose identity is at present unknown.

v2.c15.s2.t1.29

The victories of Rudra over the Telugu Chōḷa chiefs, so eloquently described in his Anumakoṇḍa inscription, do not seem to have brought him fresh accessions of territory; for no record of Rudra has yet been found anywhere in the Nalgonda and the Mahbubnagar districts, the region which was under their sway; and the Nelakoṇḍapalli and Māmilla-palli inscriptions of Odaya Chōḍa, Bhīma, and Gōkarṇa, which are later in date than the Anumakoṇḍa inscription, make no mention of any overlord to whom they owed allegiance. Taking these facts into consideration, it seems reasonable to suppose that Rudra’s victories over the Telugu Chōḷas were not as complete as the language of the Anumakoṇḍa inscription would have us believe, and that the latter continued to rule over their ancestral territories independent of any outside authority.

v2.c15.s2.t1.30

Rudra appears to have devoted the rest of his reign to the conquest of the coastal region which lay between his kingdom and the sea. Like his father, he seems to have regarded himself as the political successor of the Western Chālukyan emperors, the erstwhile overlords of his family, in the eastern provinces of their empire, and to have laid claim to the sovereignty over Vēngī and other parts of the coastal Āndhra country conquered by Vikramāditya, and ruled by him and by his son and successor Bhūlōkamalla Sōmēśvara III until A.D. 1133. Throughout the long period of his rule he made persistent efforts to reduce this coastal country whenever circumstances appeared favourable. Though no mention of the conquest of the maritime tracts or of the chiefs holding sway over them is made in his Anumakoṇḍa inscription, there is good reason to believe that he invaded Vēngī some time before A.D. 1162, the date of that inscription; for it is stated in the record that Rudra's kingdom extended in the east at that time as far as the sea. This claim is corroborated by the evidence of his inscription at Dākshārāmam dated A.D. 1158,¹ which registers the gift of a lamp to the temple of Bhīmēśvara by Inaṅgala Brahmi Reḍḍi, a preggaḍa or minister in the service of Rudradēva. The inscription does not, however, disclose the circumstances in which Rudra came to establish his authority over the Gōdāvarī delta, though the manner of its dating seems to offer a clue. Brahmi Reḍḍi dated his inscription not in the regnal year of his master or simply in the Śaka year, as was the custom observed by Rudra elsewhere in his inscriptions, but in Ś. 1080 coupled with the 13th regnal year of the Chālukya-Chōḷa emperor Rājarāja II, the significance of which dating is still obscure. It may be remembered that the Chālukya-Chōḷas, as Kulōttuṅga I and his successors are entitled by modern historians, were at this time still regarded as the overlords of Vēngī and the coastal Āndhra, and that their authority was widely recognized in the region, though their power was not felt effectively in every part of it. Rudra probably entered into an alliance with Rājarāja II, and having obtained the Gōdāvarī delta as a fief from him, invaded the country with the object of avenging the previous defeat and death of his father at the hands of the Haihayas of Kōna and the Sūryavaṁśis of Malaya, and of reducing these clans to subjection. Another possibility is that Rudra invaded the Gōdāvarī delta on his own account without any reference to the Chālukya-Chōḷa emperor, and following the custom that was obtaining in Dākshārāmam and its neighbourhood, dated his record in the Śaka as well as the regnal year of the reigning Chālukya-Chōḷa monarch. However this may be, it appears certain that Rudra led an expedition to the Gōdāvarī delta and succeeded in imposing his authority over it. An inscription in the same place, set up by Rēpalli Duggarāja (Durgarāja), so called after the name of his fief, son of Anumakoṇḍa Prōla-nṛipati (Prōla II), obviously one of Rudra's younger brothers whom he had apparently placed in charge of the conquered territory, clearly shows that Rudra managed to keep his hold on it for a period of four or five years after its conquest until A.D. 1163.²

v2.c15.s2.t1.31

¹ SII, iv, 1107; AR, 252 of 1893.

v2.c15.s2.t1.32

² SII, iv, 1071; AR, 229 of 1893.

First 85 of 755 passages. Read on

Linked texts (25)