Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v2.c15.s2: The Independent Sovereigns

The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v2.c15.s2

Language
English

Contents

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.

v2.c15.s2.t1.33

But Rudra's authority over the Gōdāvarī delta was soon challenged. The chiefs of Velanāḍu, who had been ruling in Vēṅgī and its neighbourhood as the vassals of the Chālukya-Chōḷas since the days of Kulōttuṅga I, could not tolerate the existence of a powerful rival in this territory which they considered as their own. Kulōttuṅga Rājēndra Chōḍa II, who was then governing the country, sent an army into the Gōdāvarī delta under his pradhāni, Dēvana-Preggaḍa, the son of Amṛitalūri Mañchirāju, with instructions to bring it under his control. Dēvana-Preggaḍa successfully accomplished the task entrusted to him; he first reduced the country bordering on the sea and established himself at Dākshārāmam in A.D. 1163;¹ next he advanced, in A.D. 1165, on the Haihayas of the Kōna country, and having vanquished them in battle compelled them to acknowledge the supremacy of his sovereign.² Though the provenance of the inscriptions of Kulōttuṅga Rājēndra Chōḍa II and his subordinates shows that his rule over this region continued until at least A.D. 1181,³ Rudra does not seem to have left him in undisturbed possession of it, for an inscription in Dākshārāmam, which registers the gift of a lamp to the temple of Bhīmēśvara by Rudra's queen Dannamadēvī in the 23rd year of Rājarāja II (A.D. 1168), proves unmistakably that Rudra had, at that time, again invaded the country to re-establish his authority.⁴ This expedition, however, does not seem to have had any permanent result, since no further evidence of his rule is found in the Gōdāvarī delta in the years immediately following it.

v2.c15.s2.t1.34

¹ SII, iv, 1086; AR, 238 of 1893.

v2.c15.s2.t1.35

² SII, iv, 1083; AR, 236 of 1893.

v2.c15.s2.t1.36

³ SII, iv, 1241, 1242, 1335, 1365, and 1366.

v2.c15.s2.t1.37

⁴ SII, iv, 1095; AR, 244 of 1893.

v2.c15.s2.t1.38

The death of the Chālukya-Chōḷa emperor Rājarāja II in A.D. 1172 marks an important epoch in the history of the coastal Āndhra territories. He was the last monarch of his line who exercised real authority over his vassals in the Āndhra country and succeeded in checking their separatist tendencies. His successor Rājādhirāja II was a weak monarch whose authority was hardly recognized by his Āndhra feudatories. A scramble for power soon began, and the vassal chiefs were soon in conflict, each attempting to establish himself as an independent ruler. The most powerful of them all was no doubt Kulōttuṅga Rājēndra Chōḍa, the ruler of Velanāḍu, who quickly took advantage of this breakdown of the imperial power and soon made himself master of almost the whole of the maritime region.

v2.c15.s2.t1.39

The power of the Velanāḍu chiefs had now reached its zenith. Their territory extended in the south-west beyond Tripurāntakam in the Markapur tāluk of the Kurnool region; the western marches of their kingdom were guarded by the Koṇḍapaḍumaṭi chiefs of Nādeṇḍla, who were subject to their authority. In the south, their rule extended as far as Darśi in the Nellore country; the tract comprising the Narasaraopeta and Vinukonda tāluks of the present Guntur district was also included in their dominion. In the north and north-east their sway was recognized probably as far as Simhāchalam in the Visakhapatnam district.

v2.c15.s2.t1.40

Rudra, who had himself similar designs on the coastal stretches, was by no means indifferent to the revolutionary changes that were taking place in the maritime provinces. But so long as Kulōttuṅga Rājēndra Chōḍa II was supreme at Chandavōlu, he was perforce obliged to abandon for the time his schemes of aggression. Circumstances, however, soon took a turn in his favour. Kulōttuṅga Rājēndra Chōḍa II died unexpectedly in A.D. 1181, and after his death the power of the Velanāṭi chiefs suffered a sudden eclipse, the causes of which are not definitely known. A tradition preserved in the Paṇḍitārādhya-charitra of Pālkuriki Sōmanātha ascribes their fall to the outbreak of a civil war among the late king's heirs for the possession of the throne. Goṅka III, the son of Kulōttuṅga Rājēndra Chōḍa, probably perished during the fighting, and Pṛthvīśvara, his grandson, was then driven out of his native country. About the same time a fratricidal war broke out in Palnāḍu between the Haihaya prince Nalagāma and his brothers, in which several local chiefs, including the Durjayas of Velanāḍu, were involved. Nalagāma, according to the Palnāṭivīrula-charitra, a ballad ascribed to the famous poet Śrīnātha, which celebrates the valiant deeds of the Palnāḍu heroes, sought the help of Kākati Rudra, who no doubt readily responded to his call, since it seemed to give him an excellent opportunity to extend his power over that part of the coastal tract lying along the valley of the Kṛṣṇā. He set out with a large army accompanied by the nāyaks of the Malyāla, Komaravelli, Vipparla and other families, the Nāṭavāḍis of Maḍapalli (near Manthena in the Warangal district) and other feudatories, and pushed through to the banks of the Kṛṣṇā. However, he does not appear to have taken much interest in the Palnāṭi war, since he appears to have sent only one contingent of a thousand horsemen to assist his friend Nalagāma; rather did he employ his forces in subjugating the districts of Pennātavāḍi and Koṇḍa- or Kon-nātavāḍi-vishayas situated respectively on the northern and the southern banks of the river corresponding to the present Nandigama tāluk of the Krishna district, then ruled by the Kōṭa chiefs of Dharaṇikōṭa (known also as Dhānyavāṭi, Dannavāḍa, and Dannāḍa) who traced their descent from Harisimakṛṣṇa and Dhanañjaya. These Kōṭas owed allegiance to the Chālukya-Chōḷa emperor and were closely allied to the chiefs of Velanāḍu to whom they were bound by marriage alliances. Bhīma II or Doḍḍa Bhīma, a son-in-law of the Velanāṭi Kulōttuṅga Rājēndra Chōḍa II, who was then ruling at Dharaṇikōṭa, led out his forces to oppose the advance of Rudra's armies. A terrible battle took place at Dharaṇikōṭa, in which Kāṭa, son of Sabba-sēnāni and Bollama of the Malyāla family, won a victory over the enemy and captured the city. Doḍḍa Bhīma seems to have met his death during the conflict at the hands of the chiefs of the Vipparla, Komaravelli, and Peṇpāla families, who apparently assumed the title Doḍḍa-Bhimani-śiras-chchhēdaka to commemorate their achievement.

v2.c15.s2.t1.41

Rudra was highly pleased; and he honoured Kāṭa by bestowing on him the title of *Kōṭagelpāta* or the conqueror of Dharaṇikōṭa.¹ The power of the Kōṭas was broken, their capital fell into Rudra’s hands, and their territory lay prostrate at his feet; but Rudra did not annex it to his kingdom. Believing that it would better serve his purpose to treat the vanquished enemy with kindness and consideration than to confiscate his possessions, he adopted a policy of conciliation, installed Kēta II, the son of Doḍḍa Bhīma, on his father’s throne, and gave him back his ancestral territories. Kēta II reciprocated by becoming a loyal friend of Rudra and supported him during his campaign in the south. Having thus made himself master of the Kōṭa dominions, Rudra next proceeded against the territories of the Velanāḍu chiefs. He appears to have concentrated his efforts on the subjugation of the Koṇḍapaḍumaṭis, who, as mentioned above, served the Velanāṭi princes as wardens of the western marches of their kingdom. Though the details of this campaign are lacking, it is certain that Rudra was successful. An inscription at Tripurāntakam dated A.D. 1185, registering his gift of the village of Rēvūru on the bank of the Kṛṣṇā in Koṇḍapalli-nāḍu to the temple of the god Tripurāntaka Mahādēva of that place, shows clearly that he had penetrated far into the interior of the Velanāṭi kingdom and had brought Tripurāntakam under his sway.² The Koṇḍapaḍumaṭis would seem to have been completely obliterated as a family during the course of this campaign, since there is no further mention of them as a ruling family in the years which followed.

v2.c15.s2.t1.42

¹ *Corpus*, 8, v. 13.

v2.c15.s2.t1.43

² *SII*, x, 241; *AR*, 273 of 1905.

v2.c15.s2.t1.44

While Rudra was busily engaged in the subjugation of the Kōṭas and Koṇḍapaḍumaṭis in the south, important changes were taking place at the same time in the Gōdāvarī delta to the east. On the death of the Chālukya-Chōḷa emperor Rājarāja II in A.D. 1172, Mallapadēva, the son of Vijayāditya III of the Bēta-Vijayāditya line of the later Eastern Chālukyan family, asserted his independence, and made himself master of Prōlu-*nāḍu* comprising portions of the Pihāpuram and Kākināḍa *tāluks* of the E. Godavari district. How a petty chief like Mallapadēva succeeded in establishing his independence in defiance of the authority of the Velanāṭis, the representatives of the Chālukya-Chōḷa emperors, without some powerful support from outside, is not quite clear. Judging from the friendship which obviously existed between him and Kākati Rudra in subsequent years, it is not improbable that the latter, who had been making great efforts since the time of his accession to bring the Gōdāvarī delta under his control, lent him a helping hand. In any case matters came to a head about A.D. 1184, when Velanāṭi Pṛthvīśvara, who, as mentioned above, had lost his hold on his home territory, made his appearance in the Godavari district at the head of an army and attacked Mallapadēva. The latter, unable to oppose him single-handed, appealed to Rudradēva for help, and who, responding readily to the call, marched into the Gōdāvarī valley with his army and joined him at Dākshārāmam, as shown by an epigraph found at that place, dated in the 5th regnal year of Sarvalōkāśraya Vishṇuvardhana, corresponding to Śaka 1108 (A.D. 1185–6).¹ Rudra’s help did not, however, prove of much avail to Mallapadēva; for he seems to have been worsted in the fight and to have been driven from power; for the inscriptions of Pṛthvīśvara leave no room for doubt that this prince became the master of Prōlū-nāḍu in A.D. 1185, and successfully held it until the time of his death.²

v2.c15.s2.t1.45

¹ SII, iv, 1155; AR, 288 of 1903.

v2.c15.s2.t1.46

² SII, iv, 1100; AR, 247 of 1893; SII. x, 211; AR, 97 of 1909.

v2.c15.s2.t1.47

The history of the last decade of Rudra’s reign is a blank; what happened between A.D. 1185–6, the date of the Tripurāntakam and Dākshārāmam inscriptions, and A.D. 1195–6, when he appears to have met with his death on the battlefield, is not known. However, it is certain that he came into conflict with the Sēuṇas of Dēvagiri in the last year of his reign. It has as yet proved impossible to ascertain the circumstances in which this conflict arose. Whether Rudra, in an attempt to expand his territory westwards, invaded the Sēuṇa kingdom, or whether it was the Sēuṇas who, hoping to curb his growing power, first attacked him, are questions which we are unable to answer for lack of information. However this may be, it is certain that Rudra suffered defeat and death in his encounter with the Sēuṇa army. The earliest reference to the Sēuṇa victory over the Kākatīya king is met with in the Pāṭṇa inscription dated in the time of Siṅghaṇa (A.D. 1210–47), in which it is stated that Siṅghaṇa’s father Jaitugi or Jaitrapāla I ‘put an end to the pleasures of the beloved ones of the ladies of Āndhra’.³ This notice is amplified by Hēmādri, the Śrikaraṇādhipa of Mahādēva, and of his nephew Rāmachandra, who states in the *Vratakhaṇḍa* of his *Chaturvargachintāmaṇi* that Jaitrapāla ‘assumed the sacrificial vow on the holy ground on the battlefield, and throwing a great many kings into the fire of his prowess by means of ladles in the form of weapons, offered a human sacrifice by immolating a victim in the shape of Rudra, the “Tilliṅgādhipa”, the lord of the Tailiṅgas, and thus vanquished the three worlds’.⁴ Further references to Sēuṇa victories over the Teḷuṅga king are found in the inscriptions of Siṅghaṇa and his successors. They will be dealt with in another context, since there is reason to believe that they refer to a later incident in the history of the Kākatīyas.

v2.c15.s2.t1.48

³ EI, II, pp. 338 f. The inscription is undated. Though the grant registered in it was made probably in Ś. 1128 or Ś. 1129 (A.D. 1207), it may have been composed, according to its editor, ‘in the first quarter of the thirteenth century, sometime after A.D. 1209-10’, the date of the accession of Siṅghaṇa.

v2.c15.s2.t1.49

⁴ Bhandarkar, The History of the Dekkan, App. C, v. 4.

v2.c15.s2.t1.50

An important event which took place during the last years of Rudra’s reign must be noticed here. He founded near his capital Anumakoṇḍa, according to the *Śivayōgasāra* of Kolani Gaṇapatidēva, a new town called Ōrugallu, which was destined to become the chief city of the entire Āndhra country under his successors. How Rudra proceeded to build it is described in the Gaṇapēśvaram inscription which belongs to the time of Gaṇapati. It is stated that ‘the towns which he razed to the ground were known (only) by the quarters which (he) founded in the city of Orugallu under their respective names, and peopled with their respective inhabitants’.¹

v2.c15.s2.t1.51

¹ EI, iii, p. 90.

v2.c15.s2.t1.52

Rudradēva was a powerful king. He adhered strictly to the policy of territorial expansion planned by his father, and enlarged his original principality into an extensive kingdom which must be reckoned amongst the principal states of the early medieval Deccan. Rudra realized to a great extent the ambitions of his father. He built up a kingdom extending from the Gōdāvarī in the north to the Kṛṣṇa in the south. Although his efforts to conquer Vēṅgī and make the sea the eastern boundary of his dominions ended in failure, he yet paved the way for its subjugation by his successors by contracting diplomatic and marital alliances with the great feudatory families such as the Kōṭas and the Nāṭavāḍis. Rudra was assisted in his wars by a band of devoted *nāyakas* belonging to the families of the Ceṟaku, the Malyālas of Saṁkisapura, and the Rēceṟlas of Pillalamarri. Of these the Rēceṟlas of Pillalamarri had served the Kākatīyas with devotion and fidelity for many generations since the time of Bēta I. Kāma, the son of Kāṭa, and Nāma, his grandson, were both in the service of Rudradēva as commanders of his armies. Kāṭa, son of Sabba and Āchama of the Malyāla family, was his general as well as his *pradhāni*. It was this same Kāṭa who reduced the Kōṭa chiefs to subjection and received from his sovereign the title of *Kōṭagelpāta* (conqueror of Kōṭa).

v2.c15.s2.t1.53

Ministers and officers of Rudradēva. Rudradēva was assisted in his wars by several feudatory chiefs. The services of the members of the Rēceṟla, Malyāla, and Ceṟaku families have already been noticed above. Besides these the names of some of his ministers and officers are mentioned in the inscriptions. Among Rudradēva’s ministers Gaṅgādhara, son of Gōvinda of the Vellaki family, may be mentioned first, as he appears to have stood high in the esteem of his sovereign. In an inscription set up by him at Karimnagar in the old Hyderabad State in Ś. 1092 (A.D. 1170) he gives a brief account of his own official career. First of all he attracted the attention of king Prōla II, who invited him to his court and took him into his service. ‘King Prōla of wellknown fame’, says he, ‘sent for me with great consideration,’ because ‘I was a lover of fierce battle and a man of upright character’; ‘I could be considered to have known all arts’, and possessed ‘a group of qualities’ ‘praised by all men in the assemblies of the wise’. Therefore, he ‘commanded me to attend to all necessary work in the (royal) palace’.² Gaṅgādhara seems to have discharged his official duties to the satisfaction of all, and especially of the crown prince Rudradēva; for, on the death of Prōla II, Rudradēva made Gaṅgādhara a minister of state, bestowed on him the *vrittis* (lands) pertaining to that *niyōgam* (office), and presented to him a palanquin (*andalam*), white parasols, jewels, ointments, and clothes.³ Gaṅgādhara was a minister of pious inclinations. He built several temples in the capital and other places in the kingdom, founded an agrahāra of the Brāhmans, and probably also was the benefactor who constructed a tank called Gaṅgachiya-cheruvu near the temple of Prasanna-Kēśava at Anumakoṇḍa.¹ Another minister of the crown of whom mention is made in the inscriptions was Malli Nāyaka, who made a gift to a temple at Pānugal in the Nalgonda district to acquire merit for his royal master. He held the important office of tantrapāla or war minister.² The Sivayōgasāram discloses the names of two other officers, Peda Mallana and China Mallana, sons of Nānagaurya of the Indulūri family, who held positions of great responsibility in the state. The former was the governor of the newly built capital of Ōrugallu and the latter the peda-samprati or chief accountant. These two officers deserve to be remembered; for their descendants rose to positions of high distinction under Rudradēva’s successors, whom they served with steadfast loyalty and devotion.

v2.c15.s2.t1.54

² Corpus, 56, v. 10.

v2.c15.s2.t1.55

³ Ibid., v. 15. The English rendering of this verse in the Corpus (p. 175) is faulty.

v2.c15.s2.t1.56

¹ Corpus, v. 21. ² Ibid., 53. ³ Ibid., 38, v. 3. ⁴ SII, iv, 1155. It is wrongly stated by the late Śrī Chilukūri Vīrabhadra Rao in his History of the Age of the Kākatīya Kings (p. 305) that Rudra had the title of Vidyābhūshaṇa.

v2.c15.s2.t1.57

Rudra was a patron of art and letters. Inheriting, as he did, through his ancestors the architectural tradition of the Western Chālukyas, the former overlords of his family, he delighted in building magnificent temples in his dominions, dedicated to the god Śiva to whose worship he was specially devoted. It is stated in the Gaṇapeśvaram inscription cited above that he built in the towns of the enemies whom he destroyed a number of celebrated temples called Rudrēśvarams, called of course after his own name. It is probable that the famous Thousand-Pillar temple (the Vēyi-stambhāla-guḍi) at Anumakoṇḍa, the presidium of which is known as Rudrēśvara, was also built by him. The king’s example was followed in this respect by his ministers, his officers, and his nobles and their families. It was also customary for people to erect temples in groups of three (trikūṭa) dedicated to Śiva in the names of their relatives to perpetuate their memory and to acquire merit for them. These temples were generously endowed with donations of land, and permanent arrangements were made to carry on daily worship and the performance of Āgamic rites in them. Thus many splendid fanes built in the Chālukyan style rose all over the country, and as a consequence Teliṅgāṇa became justly famous as a veritable land of temples.

v2.c15.s2.t1.58

Rudradēva was a great patron of learning; he subsidized men of letters and encouraged them to pursue their calling. In the Pillalamarri inscription of Nāmi Reḍḍi dated A.D. 1195 he is described as the resort and refuge of learned men, who regarded him with much affection.³ He was known, according to his Dākshārāmam inscription dated A.D. 1186, by the title Vinaya-vibhūshaṇa (he whose adornment is modesty).⁴ Indeed the authorship of a work on rājanīti called Nītisāram is sometimes ascribed to him on the authority of an apocryphal verse found in one of the manuscripts of Baddena’s *Nītiśāstramuktāvali*; but it is extremely doubtful whether this treatise was actually composed by him, since, in the verse of the *Nītiśāstramuktāvali* cited above, Pratāparudra and not Rudra is said to have been its author.

Mahādēva

v2.c15.s2.t2.1

(A.D. 1195/6-98/9)

v2.c15.s2.t2.2

Rudra left no issue; and so after his death in the war with the Yādavas of Dēvagiri, his younger brother Mahādēva ascended the throne, and ruled the kingdom for a short period of about three years. Only one single damaged and fragmentary record of his time has come to light so far, and this gives little or no information about the events of his reign.¹ As for the accounts of his rule embodied in the inscriptions of his successors, these are too vague and general to have much value for the historian, and offer practically no authentic information about his activities. The tradition preserved in the *Pratāpa-charitramu* represents him as a doughty warrior who invaded the Sēuṇa kingdom and perished in an attack on Dēvagiri, the Sēuṇa capital, while fighting seated on the back of an elephant.² This story is partly corroborated by the evidence of the Yenamadala inscription dated Ś. 1172 (A.D. 1249-50), in which it is stated that Mahādēva fell asleep in a great battle on the two temples of a female elephant and awoke to find himself reclining on the bosom of a celestial nymph.³ The contemporary and near contemporary inscriptions of the Sēuṇa kings refer to victories won by them or their predecessors over a Teluṅga king. Their evidence, however, is not consistent. Whereas in some records of Siṅghaṇa he is spoken of as the uprooter of the water-lily, that is, the head of the Teluṅga king, the conqueror of the Teluṅga king, and the establisher subsequently of the Teluṅga king on his throne,⁴ the same acts are attributed in others not to Siṅghaṇa but to his father Jaitugi or Jaitrapāla I. In the Bhawal inscription of Siṅghaṇa dated A.D. 1222-3 it is stated that Jaitrapāla, the ocean of compassion, made Gaṇapati, whose life had been spared in battle, the lord of the Āndhra country.⁵ According to the Paiṭhan copper-plate grant of Rāmachandra, dated A.D. 1271, Jaitugi (Jaitrapāla) slew the king of Trikaliṅga (an obvious mistake for Triliṅga due to confusion caused by the similarity of names) in battle, rescued Gaṇapati from his prison, and made him lord of the land.⁶ As no Teluṅga king either suffered death or began to rule during the time of Siṅghaṇa, the events referred to in the Sēuṇa inscriptions cannot have taken place in his reign (A.D. 1210-47). Jaitugi or Jaitrapāla, who ascended the throne in A.D. 1191, ruled until A.D. 1210; and during this period Rudra was killed, if we can depend upon the evidence of Hēmādri, in a battle with Jaitrapāla in A.D. 1196; Mahādēva, who succeeded him on the throne, lost his life in a battle with the Sēuṇas in A.D. 1199, and his son Gaṇapati succeeded him in the same year. It is therefore certain that the incidents mentioned in the inscriptions cited could only have taken place during the reign of Jaitugi I. It is not unlikely that Siṅghaṇa, as the heir apparent of his father, participated in the fight with the Kākatīyas and took an active part in effecting the release from prison and the restoration of Gaṇapati to his kingdom; and that perhaps was the reason for his assumption of the titles *Teluṅarāya-śiraḥ-kamal-ōtpāṭana* and *Teluṅarāya-sthāpan-āchārya*.

v2.c15.s2.t2.3

¹ *Corpus*, 15.

v2.c15.s2.t2.4

² *Pratāpa-charitramu* (Śaivagranthamāla, Warangal), pp. 40-41.

v2.c15.s2.t2.5

³ *EI*, iii, p. 101.

v2.c15.s2.t2.6

⁴ Fleet: *DKD*, Bombay *Gazetteer*, vol. i, part ii, pp. 524-5; *EC*, viii; Sb. 135, 276.

v2.c15.s2.t2.7

⁵ *EI*, iii, p. 111.

v2.c15.s2.t2.8

⁶ *IA*, xiv, p. 316; *EI*, iii, p. 111.

v2.c15.s2.t2.9

The Sēuṇa inscriptions do not, however, throw any light on the identity of the Teluṅa king whose head was cut off by Jaitugi. As both Rudra and Mahādēva were killed by him in battle these records may be taken to refer to the death of either. The fact that, in almost all these epigraphs, the cutting off of the head of the Teluṅa king is coupled with the release of Gaṇapati from prison and his restoration to his kingdom, demands attention. It clearly indicates that the king who was slain was the immediate predecessor of Gaṇapati, that is, his father, Mahādēva. It is therefore more likely that Gaṇapati accompanied his father rather than his uncle to the battle. However this may be, there is no doubt that the short reign of Mahādēva ended in disaster, and that as a consequence the country was thrown into confusion.

v2.c15.s2.t2.10

Mahādēva had, besides his son Gaṇapati, two daughters, Mēlāmbikā or Mailamā and Kundāmbikā,¹ both of whom were given in marriage to the Natavāḍi chief Rudra, son of Buddha. The marriage of his two daughters with this Natavāḍi prince, Rudra, shows that Mahādēva adhered to the policy of friendship and intermarriage with the feudatory families initiated by his predecessor. Mahādēva was a staunch Śaiva by faith; he was a disciple of the sage Dhruvēśvara from whom he had learnt the *Dharma*. Though he had acquired, by the grace of the Lord of Gauri, the sovereignty of the earth, he is said to have ‘cared not a straw for it, and to have become one completely engrossed in the worship of the lotus feet of the god Śiva’.² In spite, however, of his alleged indifference to worldly power and possessions, he showed no lack of interest in the protection of his kingdom, and never hesitated, when the call of duty came, to sacrifice his life in defence of it.

v2.c15.s2.t2.11

¹ SII, x, 254; AR, 204 of 1905; The Kākatīya Sañchika, App. No. 14.

v2.c15.s2.t2.12

² Corpus, 15.

Gaṇapatidēva

v2.c15.s2.t3.1

(A.D. 1199-1261)

v2.c15.s2.t3.2

*Gaṇapati's captivity.* The death of Mahādēva and the captivity of Gaṇapati, his son and heir to the throne, at Dēvagiri, led to the outbreak of disorders in the kingdom. The nobles rose in revolt, and the rulers of the neighbouring states invaded the country. Of the foreign invaders who appeared at this time, the names of only two, king Nāgati whose identity has otherwise not yet been established, and the Chōḷa emperor Kulōttuṅga III, are known. The latter, according to one of his inscriptions, ‘subdued the Vaḍugus (Telugus) who were fierce in war and (thus) brought Vēṅgai-maṇḍalam under his sway’.¹ Kulōttuṅga III effected his entry into Warangal by lavish bribery and gifts of gold. But Rēcherla Rudra, the commander-in-chief of the previous ruler, saved the kingdom from disintegration. ‘He forsooth cut off the head of a haughty feudatory, and set it up for public view, stuck upon the top of a lofty flag-staff, as a scarecrow to frighten the flocks of these wild beasts that are hostile kings.’² King Nāgati, threatened by the pennons fluttering from the lances of Rudra’s army, speedily took to flight. Kulōttuṅga III evidently followed his example. ‘When the fortune of the Kākati through error had set her foot among many sharp thorns, he (Rudra) himself by the might of his arm forcibly crushed and removed them and very firmly established her in security.’³ Rudra appears to have taken the reins of government into his own hands in the absence of his master; for the titles Kākatīya-rājya-bhāra-dhaurēya and Kākati-rājya-samartha⁴ associated with his name clearly show that he carried on the administration in the name of his lord and sovereign.

v2.c15.s2.t3.3

¹ Inscriptions of the Pudukkottai State, 163, 166; K. A. Nilakanta Sāstri, Colas, ii, 125, 133, 142.

v2.c15.s2.t3.4

² HAS, iii, v. 22.

v2.c15.s2.t3.5

³ Ibid. v. 24.

v2.c15.s2.t3.6

⁴ AR, 261 of 1893; SII, iv, 1117.

v2.c15.s2.t3.7

Gaṇapati was soon released from prison and sent back to rule his kingdom. Since his reign is usually reckoned as beginning in A.D. 1199, his incarceration cannot have lasted very long. The circumstances in which he was set free are not definitely known. The Sēuṇa inscriptions, no doubt, attribute his regaining of freedom to the compassion felt for him by the Yādava monarch Jaitrapāla. Sympathy and generosity may indeed have played their part, but political considerations must also have weighed with the Yādava in setting the youthful captive at liberty. He probably desired to secure himself against an attack from the east in the event of a conflict with the Hoysalas in the south. The aggressive policy of Ballāḷa II, who had already wrested from him a large part of the Northern Karṇāṭaka, must have made him apprehensive regarding the safety of his southern frontier.

v2.c15.s2.t3.8

The reign of Gaṇapati, though it began under unfavourable circumstances, was destined to become one of the most brilliant epochs in the history of the Āndhra country. Gaṇapati was an energetic monarch, and during his long reign of sixty-three years he brought under his sway by war or diplomacy almost the whole land inhabited by the Telugu-speaking peoples. The political disintegration which followed the dismemberment of the Western Chāḷukyan and Chōḷa empires rendered his task comparatively easy. The country was subjected to the authority of numerous petty chiefs engaged in constant internecine warfare for self-aggrandizement. The chiefs of Velanāḍu demand attention first. Although their power declined after the death of Chōḍa II about A.D. 1181, inscriptions at Dākshārāmam, Piṭhāpuram, and Śrīkūrmam indicate that Pṛthvīśvara’s authority over the northern portion of the maritime Āndhra country remained intact until the time of his death about A.D. 1210.¹ Some of the loyal subordinates of his family in the Divi island and its neighbourhood acknowledged his suzerainty and helped him in his wars,² though ruling their own fiefs as independent princes. A tradition preserved in the Telugu *Simhāsana-dvātriṁśika* of Gōparāju, a work composed in the early fifteenth century A.D., represents Pṛthvīśvara as ruling from his ancestral capital Tsandavōlu in the Krishna district.³ The evidence of the inscriptions, as well as literary tradition, thus bears testimony to the continuance of the rule of the Velanāṭi family over part, if not the whole, of the coastal Āndhra country. Their authority, such as it was, must have been limited by the power of numerous autonomous or semi-autonomous petty feudal states which honeycombed the country. The chiefs of Kolanu or Sarasipurī ruled over the region round the Kolair lake. The Chāgis of Guḍimeṭṭa held sway over parts of the Krishna tract in the interior, and the Nātavāḍis over the territory along the northern bank of the same river now included in the Kambhammet district of the old Hyderabad State. The Kōṭas, and the Telugu Chōḷas of Koṇidena, governed parts of the present Guṇṭur region and farther south lay the Telugu Chōḷa kingdom of Nellore, comprising the Nellore and Cuddapah districts of the Āndhra Pradesh, and the major portion of the Chingleput district of the Madras State with the cities of Nellore and Kāñchi as alternate capitals. The petty chiefs of Ēruva, a small tract of territory at the junction of the Nellore, Guntur, and Kurnool districts, acknowledged the supremacy of the Nellore Chōḷas, whilst several minor principalities flourished in the Cuddapah and Kurnool marches. And in the north-east the Gaṅgas of Kaliṅga were supreme in parts of that country. Such was the political state of the Āndhra country at the moment when Gaṇapati at length took the reins of the government into his own hands.

First 81 of 469 passages. Read on

Linked texts (28)