The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v2.c15.s2.t4: Rudramadēvī
The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v2.c15.s2.t4
- Language
- English
Contents
- v2.c15.s2.t4.28 — 3 parts
- v2.c15.s2.t4.46 — 4 parts
- v2.c15.s2.t4.57 — 5 parts
Rudramadēvī
v2.c15.s2.t4.1
(A.D. 1259-95)
v2.c15.s2.t4.2
Rudramadēvī or Rudrāmbā, who, it may be remembered, was nominated by her father Gaṇapatidēva as the heir to the throne, began to rule the kingdom, as already stated, conjointly with him as his co-regent from Ś. 1182 (A.D. 1259-60) onwards,² under the name of Rudradēva Mahārāja. During the first two or three years of her joint rule with her father, whilst she was being initiated into the mysteries of government under his guidance, the country was thrown into confusion and disorder, as we have explained above, by the Pāṇḍyan invasion and the disastrous defeat on the battlefield of Muttukūr. Although Gaṇapati was, as we know, ultimately successful in vanquishing the Pāṇḍyan armies which had penetrated as far north as the banks of the Kṛṣṇā, and in turning back the tide of invasion, he yet suffered considerable loss of territory, and his hold over his feudatories and nobles was very much shaken. In consequence of this they became more powerful and manifested an increasing tendency to act independently without reference to the central government. Realizing perhaps that he was too old and feeble to cope with the new situation, Gaṇapati appears to have withdrawn from active politics about this time and to have retired into the background, leaving the government entirely in the hands of his daughter and her counsellors.
v2.c15.s2.t4.3
² AR, No. 194 of 1905 and SII, x, 398. The relationship between Gaṇapatidēva and Rudrāmbā had been, until recently, a subject of controversy. The Venetian traveller Marco Polo, who visited the Telugu country in or about A.D. 1295 during the closing years of Rudrāmbā's reign, speaks of her as the wife of her predecessor, viz. Gaṇapatidēva (K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, *Foreign Notices of South India*, p. 174). Similarly, Kumāraswāmi Sōmapithi, the son of the famous commentator, Kolachelama Mallinātha Sūri, asserts in his celebrated commentary on Vidyānātha's *Pratāparudra-yaśōbhūshaṇam* that after the death of Gaṇapatidēva, who had only female issue, his chief queen, Rudramadēvī, ruled the kingdom for several years without opposition (*Kākatiya Samchika*, App.). His evidence is not, however, consistent; for in the *Nāṭaka-prakaraṇam* of the same work he states that Rudrāmbā was the daughter of Gaṇapatidēva by his queen, Sōmāmbā, thereby contradicting his own earlier statement. How Kumāraswāmi Sōmapithi came to commit himself to two contradictory statements about Gaṇapatidēva's relationship to Rudrāmbā is not easily explicable. The *Pratāpacharita* and the *Local Records* (*Saivaprachāriṇī Granthamāla*, Warangal, No. 3, p. 40) also refer in the same manner to Rudramadēvī as Gaṇapatidēva's queen. On the authority of the works mentioned above, especially the first, several scholars and historians of the last generation held that Gaṇapatidēva was succeeded by his queen Rudramadēvī. This view, however, is utterly untenable. The contemporary epigraphic evidence leaves absolutely no room for doubt that Rudrāmbā was not the wife but the daughter of Gaṇapati. As this fact has now been universally recognized, it is not necessary to cite evidence or to embark on a fresh discussion of the subject here.
v2.c15.s2.t4.4
The king did not, however, as is generally assumed, die immediately after his retirement. There is reason to believe that he was alive at least until A.D. 1269–70, though he no longer took much part in the affairs of the kingdom. Two records call for special attention in this connexion. In an epigraph at Tripurāntakam dated Ś. 1188 Kṣaya (A.D. 1266) Pedda Mallaya Preggaḍa, feudal lord of the donor Tammirāja, is spoken of as the Mahāpradhāna and the subordinate of Gaṇapatidēva Mahārāja.¹ It is evident then that Gaṇapati was still living at this time; otherwise the donor of the record would not have omitted the name of the ruling sovereign Rudramadēvī and referred to his master as a Mahāpradhāna of Gaṇapatidēva. More important still is an inscription of the Kāyastha chief Jannigadēva at Duggi in the Palnad tāluk of the Guntur district dated Ś. 1191 Śukla (A.D. 1269), in which Rudramadēvī is spoken of as the Paṭṭōddhati of Gaṇapatidēva Mahārāja and not as a queen formally invested with sovereign powers;² for the term paṭṭōddhati, an obvious scribal error for paṭṭōdhṛiti (paṭṭa, royalty, and ud-dhṛiti, chosen or selected), indicates that Rudramadēvī was still at that time only queen designate and not yet formally anointed as sovereign ruler. Two important conclusions follow from this: (1) that Gaṇapatidēva was alive until Ś. 1191 (A.D. 1269); and (2) that Rudramadēvī was not the crowned queen of the Kākatīya kingdom until that year. The time was not yet propitious for celebrating her coronation. The political situation in the country was indeed critical; both internal and external danger threatened the stability of the kingdom.
v2.c15.s2.t4.5
¹ AR, 207 of 1905; SII, x, 407.
v2.c15.s2.t4.6
² AR, 573 of 1909; SII, x, 422.
v2.c15.s2.t4.7
The nomination of Rudrāmbā by Gaṇapatidēva as his heir and successor, and her appointment as his co-regent, did not meet with general approval. Some of the nobles of the country who were unwilling to pay obeisance to a woman and submit to her authority took up arms against her and attempted to throw off her yoke. Certain other members of the royal house, according to the Pratāpacharitra, also made a bid for the throne. It is stated that Hariharadēva and Murāridēva, sons of Gaṇapatidēva by another queen who was not the mother of Rudrāmbā, gathered their followers together, captured Warangal, and ousted Rudrāmbā from the capital city; but she had powerful supporters who rallied round her and helped her to put down the rebels with a stern hand. She marched on the capital with all speed at the head of a large army, persuaded the citizens to join her and abandon her enemies, and with their help easily effected entrance into the fort and put to death her half-brothers who there fell into her hands.³ This account, however, is not supported by other evidence. Nowhere excepting in the Pratāpacharitra do we find any mention of Gaṇapatidēva’s sons Hariharadēva and Murāridēva in the numerous epigraphical and literary records of the time. Thus in the absence of supporting evidence of a trustworthy character no historical value need be attached to the story of Hariharadēva and Murāridēva, though it is not unlikely that the account preserves the memory of a rebellion against the authority of Rudrāmbā. Most of the feudatories, generals, and officials remained firmly loyal to the queen. The Kāyastha chiefs, Jannigadēva and his younger brothers Tripurāri and Ambadēva, Prasāditya of the Rēcherla family, and some of the Reḍḍi chiefs like Gōna Gannaya Reḍḍi espoused her cause and helped her to defeat the rebels. According to the *Velugōṭivāri-vaṁśāvaḷi* Rudrāmbā’s victory over the rebels was entirely due to the unswerving loyalty and soldierly prowess of Rēcherla Prasāditya. After vanquishing the queen’s enemies, he is said to have carried through her coronation and himself to have assumed the proud titles of *Kākatiya-rājya-sthāpanāchārya* and *Rāya-pitāmahāṅka*.¹
v2.c15.s2.t4.8
³ Śaivaprachāriṇī-Granthamāla (Warangal), No. 3, p. 40.
v2.c15.s2.t4.9
¹ *Velugōṭivāri-vaṁśāvaḷi* (University of Madras), 1939, Introd., pp. 3-4 and vv. 17-18.
v2.c15.s2.t4.10
The *Velugōṭivāri-vaṁśāvaḷi*, which is in fact the family chronicle of the Rēcherla chiefs, attributes the entire credit of suppressing the rebels to Prasāditya and ignores the parts played by others. But in fact Prasāditya was not the only chief who was distinguished by the titles mentioned above. Several other nobles and officers who bore the same or similar titles must have joined him in suppressing the rebels and in establishing the queen firmly on her father’s throne.² Of these *Mahāpradhāna* Kannara Nāyaka, *Mahāpradhāna* Gaṇapaddēva Mahārājulu, Nissaṅkamalla Mallikārjuna Nāyaka, and Ambadēva, who are all referred to as *Rāyasthāpanāchāryas* in their inscriptions ranging in date from Ś. 1196 (A.D. 1275) to Ś. 1212 (A.D. 1290), deserve special mention.³ And beside these Guṇḍaya Nāyaka and Mādaya Nāyaka, who bore the *birudas* of *svāmidrōhara-gaṇḍa*, and Māchaya Nāyaka who, in addition to this, is called *svāmivañchakara-gaṇḍa*, may have also participated in putting down the intransigent chieftains.⁴
v2.c15.s2.t4.11
² Dēvari Nāyaḍu, son of Māchaya Nāyanithgāru, is spoken of as *Kākatarājya-sthāpan-āchārya* in his inscriptions dated Ś. 1235 (A.D. 1313) and Ś. 1239 (A.D. 1317) (SII, x, 505; *AR*, 79 of 1938-9). Similarly, Kāchaya Reḍḍi ‘who vanquished the Muslim ruler who had penetrated into the Telugu country after conquering Gauḍa, Gūrjara, Mālava, Mahārāṣṭra and other countries’ is styled *Mahārāya-sthāpan-āchārya* in an undated inscription at Śrīsailam in the Kurnool district (*AR*, 54 of 1942-3). These two officers may have acquired their titles by the services which they rendered to the state after the incursion of the Muhammadans into the Telugu country, and had in all probability no connexion with Rudrāmbā’s installation on the throne.
v2.c15.s2.t4.12
³ *Teliṅgāṇa Inscriptions Revised* (Unpublished), No. 114 (Alugaḍapa, Nalgonda district), dated Ś. 1196 Raktākshi (A.D. 1275); *AR*, 804 of 1922; *SII*, x, 450, dated Ś. 1202 Pramādi (A.D. 1280) (Naṇḍūru, Bapatla *tāluk*, Guntur district); *Corpus*, 35 (Pānugal, Nalgonda district), dated Ś. 1212 Vikṛiti (A.D. 1290); *AR*, 268 of 1905; *SII*, x, 465 (Tripurāntakam, Kurnool district), dated Ś. 1212, Vikṛiti (A.D. 1290).
v2.c15.s2.t4.13
⁴ *Teliṅgāṇa Inscriptions Revised* (Unpublished), No. 126 (Ś. 1219, A.D. 1297), No. 127 (Ś. 1220, A.D. 1298); and *SII*, x, 491.
v2.c15.s2.t4.14
The external dangers were not less threatening. Some of the rulers of the neighbouring states seized the Kākatiya territory in the neighbourhood of their frontiers and established themselves there permanently. The Kaliṅga Gajapati Narasiṁha I, it may be remembered, had suffered a defeat in or before A.D. 1157-8 at the hands of Gaṇapati in a battle fought on the bank of the Gōdāvarī and had had to retreat into his own country, abandoning his conquests on the bank of the river. The Kākatīya authority lasted there until Ś. 1184 (A.D. 1262), as is clearly proved by Kōpperuñjiṅga’s Dākshārāmam inscriptions of that date, in which he acknowledges the supremacy of Gaṇapatidēva.¹ No trace of the Kākatīya rule is found in any documentary evidence from the Gōdāvarī valley until A.D. 1278-9, when a certain Kāra-paṛti Sūraya Reḍḍi, a servant of Kākatīya Rudradēva Mahārāja, who is identical with Rudrāmbā, made a gift to the temple of the god Bhīmēśvara of Dākshārāmam.² It is obvious that the Kākatīya power must have suffered an eclipse in the Gōdāvarī valley during the interval. What happened there during this period is not definitely known. It is not unlikely that the Gajapati Narasiṁha I of Kaliṅga, taking advantage of the then unsettled state of the Kākatīya dominions, led his forces into the Gōdāvarī delta with the object of recovering his lost possessions. A short incomplete epigraph at Dākshārāmam dated Ś. 1184 (A.D. 1262) mentions a Nārasiṁga Narādhipa who may well be in fact the same person.³
v2.c15.s2.t4.15
¹ SII, iv, 1341, 1342, 1342-B.
v2.c15.s2.t4.16
² Ibid., 1097.
v2.c15.s2.t4.17
³ Ibid., 1152.
v2.c15.s2.t4.18
However this may be, no trace of the Kākatīya rule is to be found either in the Gōdāvarī valley or in Vēṅgī during the first sixteen years of Rudramadēvi’s reign. The Eastern Chāḷukyan and the Haihaya chiefs who were ruling in the region during this period acknowledge no overlord. It is not possible to ascertain whether they were actually independent or were merely for some time allowed by the queen to govern as nominally autonomous princes because of their relationship to her through her marriage. During the latter part of her reign, at any rate, the Gōdāvarī valley and Vēṅgī would appear to have come once more fully under her sway. The Gajapati Vīra Bhānudēva I, son and successor of Narasiṁha I, accompanied by Arjunadēva, the Matsya chief of Oḍḍādi, and others, invaded Vēṅgī in Ś. 1196 (A.D. 1274) and advanced as far as Dākshārāmam on the Gōdāvarī.⁴ To check his advance and to defend the territories of the petty chiefs of Vēṅgī who were probably under her protection, Rudramadēvi sent an army to the east under two capable commanders, Pōti Nāyaka and Prōli Nāyaka, sons of Nallapa Nāyaka, to oppose the invasion. The Kākatīya generals met the Gajapati somewhere on the banks of the Gōdāvarī and inflicted a crushing defeat on his army. They assumed as a mark of their victory the titles *Gajapati-matta-mātaṅga-siṁha* (lion to the rutting elephant, viz. the Gajapati) and *Oḍḍiyarāya-māna-mardana* (the destroyer of the pride of Oḍḍiyarāya, that is the Gajapati).⁵ Kākatīya authority was thus re-established in the coastal Āndhra country, and that it remained unchallenged there until the end of Rudrāmbā’s reign is shown by the provenance of the inscriptions of herself and her subordinates found in the region.¹
v2.c15.s2.t4.19
⁴ SII, iv, 1089 and 1373.
v2.c15.s2.t4.20
⁵ SII, x, 422; The *Andhra Patrika*, 1922, Kārtika ba. 30 Saturday, Literary Supplement, The Pulidiṇḍi Inscription.
v2.c15.s2.t4.21
¹ AR, 285 of 1893; SII, iv, 1152. Dākshārāmam, Ś. 1200 (A.D. 1278-9); AR, 281 of 1930-1. Telikicherla-Tadepalligudem tāluk, West Godavari district, Ś. 1202 (A.D. 1200); AR, 318 of 1924. Guḍimeṭṭa, Nandigam tāluk, Krishna district, Ś. 1213 (A.D. 1291); SII, iv, No. 81. Pedakaḷḷe palle, Masulipatam tāluk, Krishna district, Ś. 1214 (A.D. 1292); SII, iv, No. 1307. Dākshārāmam, East Godavari district, Ś. 1215 (A.D. 1293).
v2.c15.s2.t4.22
The Pāṇḍyas were now in possession of a large part of the Kākatīya territory in the south which they had occupied after their victory at Muttukūr. Jaṭāvarman Sundara Pāṇḍya I is indeed said to have entrusted this country to the brothers of that Vīra-Gaṇḍagōpāla whom he had slain in the battle; apparently they were to govern it as the feudatories of the Pāṇḍyas.² But in fact nothing is really known either of these brothers or of their reputed rule at Nellore. It is most probable that Vikrama Pāṇḍya, one of the co-regents of Jaṭāvarman Sundara Pāṇḍya I, had actually made an unsuccessful attack on the Kākatīya dominions; the statement in one of his undated inscriptions at Chidambaram that he did not carry his arms to the north because a woman who had assumed the name of a king was then ruling there would seem to be a euphemistic cover for the failure of an abortive expedition led by him against the Kākatīya kingdom.³ The available epigraphic evidence shows that immediately after Jaṭāvarman Sundara Pāṇḍya I’s return to the south, Nellore and its dependencies passed into the hands of Tribhuvana Chakravartin Vīrarājēndra Chōḷa, who is identical with the last Chōḷa emperor Rājēndra III,⁴ and who apparently held the territory as a subordinate of the Pāṇḍyan monarch. The inscriptions of Jaṭāvarman Sundara Pāṇḍya I at Nandalūr and Tirupati show that the eastern half of the Cuddapah district as well as the Chittoor district were also annexed by him.⁵ The Kalukaḍa chiefs Kēsavadēva and his brother Rāyamurāri Sōmidēva, sons of Rāyadēva Mahārāja whom Gaṅgaya Sāhiṇi had previously fought with and subdued, encouraged probably by the Pāṇḍyas, forswore their allegiance and proclaimed their independence. They made inroads into the Kāyastha territory and succeeded in reducing a large part of it. Though in his inscriptions dated Ś. 1186 and Ś. 1191 Gaṇḍapeṇḍēra Jannigadēva is said to have been then ruling the territory extending from Pānugal to Kaivāraṅkoṭa in the Kolar district, this assertion is contradicted by the records of the two Kalukaḍa chieftains.¹ It is stated in an epigraph at Ellāreḍḍipalle in the Kamalapur tāluk of the Cuddapah district, dated Prabhava corresponding to Ś. 1189 (A.D. 1267–8), that Bhujabala Viranārāyaṇa Sōmēśvaradēva Mahārāja, who is the Sōmidēva mentioned above, was at that time in control of the districts of Muliki 300, Homnahaṭi (Honnavāḍi) 90, and Peṇḍekallu 800 from the Kāyastha capital Vallūripaṭṭaṇam.² Another inscription at Chintalaputtūru in the Cuddapah tāluk of the Cuddapah district, dated Vibhava corresponding to Ś. 1190 (A.D. 1268–9), bears testimony to the rule of Mahāmaṇḍalēśvaras Murāri Kēśavadēva Mahārāja and Sōmidēva Mahārāja, the lords of Kalukaḍapura, over the Kāyastha territory at that time.³ If the Sōmidēva mentioned in a record at Guṇḍluru in the Rajampet tāluk of the Cuddapah district dated Ś. 1206 is, as is very likely, identical with the Kalukaḍa chief of that name, then the Kāyastha territory must have remained under the Kalukaḍas at least until that year.⁴ The absence of any reference in the inscriptions of Tripurāridēva and Ambadēva, brothers and successors of Jannigadēva, to any victory over the Kalukaḍa chiefs prior to Ś. 1194 (A.D. 1272)⁵ seems to point in the same direction.
v2.c15.s2.t4.23
² K. A. N. Sastri, The Pāṇḍyan Kingdom, p. 168.
v2.c15.s2.t4.24
³ AR, No. 365 of 1913.
v2.c15.s2.t4.25
⁴ V. Venkayya is of opinion that this Vīrarājēndra Chōḷa is a different person from the Chōḷa emperor of the same name (IA, xxxvii (1909), p. 356). The chronological data furnished by his inscriptions, in which the Śaka years 1174, 1178, 1185 are coupled respectively with his 9th, 13th, and 20th regnal years, show that he came to the throne in Śaka 1165, that is A.D. 1243-4; and though he appears to have begun his reign some three years before the date of accession assigned to the Chōḷa emperor Rājēndra III, yet the fact that he is mentioned as the overlord both of the Telugu Chōḷa chief Tikka I and of his son Munuma Siddhi II would seem to indicate that Vīrarājēndra Chōḷa and Rājēndra Chōḷa III are in fact identical (Nellore Inscriptions, G. 39, 85, 90; U. 48).
v2.c15.s2.t4.26
⁵ AR, 613 of 1907; TTDI, i, Nos. 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 54.
v2.c15.s2.t4.27
¹ *AR*, 550 and 573 of 1909; *SII*, x, 402 and 422. ² *AR*, 226 of 1937–8. ³ *AR*, 319 of 1915. ⁴ *AR*, 622 of 1909. ⁵ *AR*, 168 and 248 of 1905; *SII*, x, 431 and 432. ⁶ Hēmādri-*Vratakhaṇḍa*, Rājapraśasti I, vv. 48 and 52; see *Bombay Gazetteer*, vol. ii, i, p. 273. ⁷ *EC*, vii, Sk. 95.
v2.c15.s2.t4.28.1
The most serious danger which threatened to subvert the Kākatīya monarchy came, however, from the west. The Sēuṇa Mahādēva who succeeded his cousin Kṛṣṇa in A.D. 1260 appears to have invaded the Kākatīya kingdom soon after his accession to the throne. In some of his inscriptions Mahādēva is said to have been ‘the uprooter of the stalk of the lotus of the head of Tilliṅgarāya’; he is also said to have ‘blown away like a tempestuous wind the heap of cotton, viz. the ruler of the Tilliṅga country’, and to have ‘captured in battle the elephants, and the five musical instruments of the ruler of Tilliṅga’; but to have left that ruler Rudrama free, ‘because of his reluctance to kill a woman’.⁶ These statements cannot possibly be accepted at their face value since they are clearly one-sided and, to say the least, highly exaggerated. In the first place, Mahādēva never in fact killed any ruler of the Tilliṅga country, as his title *Teluṅgarāya-śiraḥ-kamala-mūlōtpāṭana* appears to suggest; for Rudrāmbā, his contemporary on the Āndhra throne, actually survived him for several years. The title was, as a matter of fact, hereditary; it had its origin in Jaitugi I’s victory over Kākatī Rudra in A.D. 1196; and it was borne by at least one Sēuṇa king before Mahādēva ever came to the throne.⁷ His invasion of the Kākatīya kingdom was, however, a fact;
v2.c15.s2.t4.28.2
it was an attack which, though successful at first, seems to have ended, entirely contrary to the statement in the Sēuṇa records, in utter failure; for according to the *Pratāpa-* charitra Mahādēvarāja did indeed invade the Kākatīya kingdom and laid siege to the capital, Warangal; but Queen Rudrāmbā fought him valiantly for fifteen days during which she destroyed three lakhs of the Sēuṇa infantry and a lakh of cavalry. In the end she completely defeated him in a battle fought under the walls of the fort and put him to flight, pursuing the retreating Sēuṇa forces up to the walls of their capital Dēvagiri. Unable to oppose her advance, Mahādēva sued for peace and, agreeing to pay a crore of gold coins as war indemnity, he concluded a treaty with her. Rudrāmbā distributed the money thus obtained among the commanders of her army, and after setting up a pillar of victory returned to her own kingdom.¹ This account of the Sēuṇa invasion seems at any rate to embody substantial elements of fact. The vast numbers of Sēuṇa infantry and cavalry said to have been slain by Rudrāmbā in the battle may doubtless be dismissed as exaggeration; but the epigraphic and numismatic evidence available bears witness to the essentially authentic character of the narrative of the Pratāpacharitra. Two interesting facts so far ignored by scholars may be taken into consideration in this context. An inscription found at Pānugal in the Nalgonda district of the old Hyderabad State and dated Ś. 1189 (A.D.
v2.c15.s2.t4.28.3
1267) registers a gift of land to the temple of the Chhāyā-Sōmanātha of that place by Śārṅgapāṇidēva, son of the Sēuṇa king, Siṅghaṇa, a subordinate of Kākatīya Manuma-Rudradēva, who is Rudrāmbā.² We also learn from another epigraph at Hire-Kōgilūr in the Channagiri tāluk of the Shimoga district of the Mysore State dated Ś. 1190 (A.D. 1268) that this Śārṅgapāṇidēva was the father of Mahādēva.³ The fact that Śārṅgapāṇidēva, the father of Mahādēva, was compelled to accept service under Rudrāmbā and enrol himself as one of her vassals clearly indicates that the Sēuṇa king must have suffered a defeat, and thus the account in the Pratāpacharitra is confirmed. Evidently Śārṅgapāṇidēva, who had probably seized the fort of Pānugal during the invasion, was unwilling to surrender it and return to his native country even after the defeat and subsequent retreat of his son. Having realized that under these circumstances it would be impossible for him to exercise independent authority there, he appears to have decided to acknowledge the supremacy of the Kākatīya queen and to pay homage to her as one of her vassals in order to retain the fort in his possession.
v2.c15.s2.t4.29
¹ Śaiva-prachāriṇī-granthamāla (Warangal), No. 3, pp. 40-41.
v2.c15.s2.t4.30
² Corpus, No. 34.
v2.c15.s2.t4.31
³ EC, vii, Cl. 21. The inscription which traces the descent of Mahādēva is of immense interest. ‘Svasti Śrī Sōmavamśōddayati nṛipatir-Jaitugis-tat-sutō-bhūt Jātō-sa Bhillam-ākhyas-tadanu vijayatē Siṅhaṇaś-Chakravartī tasmāt-Śārṅgapāṇiḥ prati-nṛipati-bala-brāta vidrāvakaḥ-yam vīra Śrī Mahādēvardya-nṛipatis-trailōkyam-ākrāmati.’ As the Śārṅgapāṇi mentioned in this verse never ascended the Sēuṇa throne and as Krishna-Kannara who succeeded his grandfather Siṅghaṇa is ignored altogether, it is obvious that the object of the composer of the praśasti embodied in this record is to trace Mahādēva's descent and not to enumerate the names of rulers who preceded him on the throne.
v2.c15.s2.t4.32
The buried treasure which was unearthed in 1922 at Rāchapaṭnam in the Kaikalur tāluk of this Krishna district throws further interesting light on this subject. This find consisted of forty-three of the gold coins known as *padma-ṭaṅkas* bearing the legends Siṅghaṇa, Kaṇhapa, Mahādēva, and Śrī Rāma in the Dēvanāgarī script.¹ Attempts have been made on the evidence of these coins to build up a theory supporting the existence of Sēuṇa rule over the coastal Āndhra country at this time.² Any such theory is, however, utterly untenable. No territorial claims can be put forward on the evidence of the place where the treasure trove has been found. Coins are remarkably migratory; they often travel vast distances from the places where they were minted.³ And it is in fact by no means unlikely that the hoard of Sēuṇa coins discovered at Rāchapaṭṇam actually represents a part of the money which Rudrāmbā, according to the *Pratāpacharitam*, received from Mahādēva as war indemnity and distributed among the officers of her army.
v2.c15.s2.t4.33
¹ *JRASB*, xxi, Numismatic Supplement, No. xxxiv, pp. 6 ff.
v2.c15.s2.t4.34
² *EI*, xxiii, 193, n. 2.
v2.c15.s2.t4.35
³ Hoards of Roman coins have been discovered in several places in South India; similarly E. Chāḷukyan coins bearing the legend *Chāḷukya Chandra* (Śaktivarman I) have been unearthed in Burma. It would be ridiculous to argue on the evidence of these that the authority of the Roman emperors or of Śaktivarman I extended over South India and Burma respectively.
v2.c15.s2.t4.36
Very early in her reign Rudramadēvī seems to have recovered a part of the territory conquered by the Pāṇḍyas in the course of their invasion in A.D. 1263. Though no definite information is at present available about the events which took place at this time, yet the provenance of the inscriptions of Rudramadēvī and her subordinates in the eastern part of the Cuddapah and Nellore districts bears ample testimony to the triumph of the Kākatīya arms in this region. An epigraph at Nandalūr in the Rajampeta *tāluk* of the Cuddapah district registering a gift to the temple of Saumyanāthasvāmi at that place by Nāgarāja, the *pradhāni* of the Gaṇḍapendēra Jannigadēva, shows that the Kāyasthas had displaced the Pāṇḍyas in that neighbourhood as early as Ś. 1186 Raktākshi (A.D. 1264);⁴ another record at Aṭlūru in the Siddhavatam *tāluk* of the same district dated Ś. 1190 Prabhava (A.D. 1268) indicates that the Kāyastha success was not temporary but involved the permanent dislodgement of the Pāṇḍyas from that area.⁵ This second inscription is unfortunately damaged, and the name of the chieftain at whose instance it was set up is lost; but the titles, *Maṇḍalika brahmarākshasa*, and *Gaṇḍapendēra* coupled with the date of the record leave no room for doubt that the ruler mentioned in it was in fact none other than Jannigadēva.
v2.c15.s2.t4.37
⁴ *AR*, 610 of 1907.
v2.c15.s2.t4.38
⁵ *AR*, 1 of 1939-40.
v2.c15.s2.t4.39
Vira Rājēndra Chōḷa who, as we have seen, was ruling at Nellore from Ś. 1185 to 1190 (A.D. 1263-8) was ousted from power by a certain Mahā-maṇḍalēśvara Nāgadēva Mahārāja, a vassal of Rudradēva Mahārāja, who is Rudramadēvī. Evidently Rudramadēvī had effected the conquest of Nellore and the surrounding territory, and had placed Nāgadēva Mahārāja in charge of its government. His rule lasted there for a period of five years from Ś. 1193 to 1197 (A.D. 1271-5),⁶ at the end of which time he was compelled to retire northwards into the southern marches of Kamma-nāḍu, where he continued as governor at Maṇikēśvaram and in its neighbourhood in the Ongole *tāluk* of the Guntur district until Ś. 1202 (A.D. 1280).¹ It would appear that he was displaced by Tribhuvanachakravarti Irumaḍi (Immaḍi) Tirukāḷattidēva, or Tirukāḷattidēva II, of whom a record dated in his second regnal year, corresponding to Ś. 1201 (A.D. 1279), was found at Maḍamanūr in the Gudur *tāluk* less than twenty miles to the south of Nellore.² He was the eldest son of Manuma Siddhi II,³ the Telugu Chōḷa king of Nellore who suffered death on the battlefield of Muttukūr during the Pāṇḍyan invasion in A.D. 1263. His antecedents are, however, completely unknown to us. How he managed to expel the Kākatīya governor from Nellore and to re-occupy his ancestral territory cannot be ascertained definitely in the present state of knowledge. Though his title Tribhuvanachakravarti is suggestive of independent status, he was probably no more than an instrument in the hands of some external power hostile to the Kākatīyas and cherishing designs on the Nellore country. An interesting fact which has so far escaped the attention of historians may well be noticed here. Irumaḍi Tirukāḷattidēva’s attack on Nellore synchronized with Vijaya-Gaṇḍagōpāla’s invasion of the Kāyastha dominions, as is shown by an epigraph at Nandalūr dated in his 29th regnal year (A.D. 1278-9).⁴ We may remind ourselves at this point that the whole of the Gudur *tāluk* of the Nellore district and parts of the Chittoor district comprising Kāḷahasti and Tirupati were included in Vijaya-Gaṇḍagōpāla’s possessions.⁵ It is not unlikely that Tirukāḷattidēva’s attack on Nellore was somehow connected with Vijaya-Gaṇḍagōpāla’s invasion of the Kāyastha territory. How long after Ś. 1201 (A.D. 1279) Irumaḍi Tirukāḷattidēva continued to rule at Nellore is not known; his rule probably lasted until Ś. 1204, when he was succeeded by Manuma-Gaṇḍagōpāla, obviously another Telugu Chōḷa chief, whose relationship with Irumaḍi, however, cannot be determined owing to the lack of any evidence.
v2.c15.s2.t4.40
⁶ *NI*, A. 51, KV. 48, and N. 21.
v2.c15.s2.t4.41
¹ NI, O. 75.
v2.c15.s2.t4.42
² NI, G. 45.
v2.c15.s2.t4.43
³ JTA, xvii, pp. 223; AR. 213 of 1893; SII, iv, 661.
v2.c15.s2.t4.44
⁴ AR, No. 423 of 1911.
v2.c15.s2.t4.45
⁵ NI, G. 57, 67, 69, 74, 75, 80, 91, 116; s. 3, 8, and 19. The latest regnal year quoted in these records is the 27th (A.D. 1276-7) (G. 80). The Tirupati inscriptions are mostly fragmentary and undated (TDI, i, Nos. 59 (9th year), 61 (4th year), 63, 67, 68, 69, 72, 76, 77 and 79).
v2.c15.s2.t4.46.1
Ambadēva: Vijaya-Gaṇḍagōpāla’s attack on the Kāyastha dominion was not perhaps an isolated act of aggression; probably it was part of an organized attempt made by the Pāṇḍyas to recover the territory recently taken from them by the Kākatīya queen and her Kāyastha feudatories. Beside Vijaya-Gaṇḍagōpāla, Kōpperuñjiṅga and other Pāṇḍyan feudatories joined the expedition and marched against the Kāyastha country under the command of Kulaśēkhara who had come to power in A.D. 1268. The attack naturally brought them into conflict with Ambadēva, the ambitious and powerful Kāyastha chief, who had succeeded his brother Tripurāridēva I in A.D. 1272. He seems to have resolved almost at the very outset of his career to resuscitate the fortunes of his family, which were then at a low ebb, and to carve out an independent kingdom for himself. In pursuance of these two objects, he was constantly engaged in warfare with his neighbours during his long reign of thirty-two years. Ambadēva would seem to have forsworn his allegiance to the Kākatīya queen almost from the very beginning of his rule, since no mention is made of an overlord in any of his inscriptions. His achievements are fully set forth in an epigraph at Tripurāntakam dated Ś. 1212 Vikṛiti (A.D. 1290).¹ In the first part of the inscription, which is entirely in Sanskrit verse, Ambadēva is said to have conquered a chief of the name of Śrīpati Gaṇapati and to have assumed the title Rāyasahasramalla which had been borne by him;
v2.c15.s2.t4.46.2
he is also said to have cut off the heads of seventy-five kings, to have beheaded Eṟuva Mallidēva in battle, and assisted by twelve kṣōṇi-maṇḍalikas, to have put to flight Kēśava together with Sōmidēva and Allugaṅga; he killed Mallikārjuna, the enemy of gods and brāhmans; he gave his daughter in marriage to Rājaṇṇa, the son of king Bollaya, and conferred on him, probably as a marriage portion, the territory in the neighbourhood of Nandanapura; he also defeated all the Āndhra kings and thereby acquired fame, and he re-established Manuma-Gaṇḍagōpāla who had been deprived of his kingship by his own followers at Vikramasiṃhapura (Nellore); and finally he churned the ocean of his enemies from which he obtained troops of horses and elephants, wealth, and immortal renown as well as the Pāṇḍya-kalpa-drumas or wish-yielding trees, that is to say the (five) Pāṇḍyas. The long praśasti in Sanskrit prose forming the second part of the record enumerates several birudas or titles of Ambadēva, some of which are important because they refer to real events which actually took place during the course of his career.
v2.c15.s2.t4.46.3
Of these the titles (1) Rāyasahasramalla (the wrestler with thousand kings), (2) Eṟuva-Mallidēvani-tala-goṇḍu-gaṇḍa (the hero who had taken the head of Eṟuva Mallidēva), (3) Praty-anika-prasādāya-māna-Kulaśēkhara-gaṇḍa (the hero who vanquished Kulaśēkhara who made the opposing army his own palace), (4) Dēvagiri-rāya prasthāpita-prābhṛita-maṇi-kanaka-bhūṣaṇa (he who is adorned with ornaments of gold and gems sent as gifts by the king of Dēvagiri), (5) Mallikārjuna-saptāṅga-haraṇa (confiscator of the seven constituent members of Mallikārjuna’s royalty), (6) Kāḍavarāya-vidhvaṃsana (destroyer of the Kāḍava king), and (7) Ati Pāṇḍava-Parākama-Pāṇḍya-rājanya-priya-prēṣita chaṇḍa vētaṇḍa Vainatēya-jaṃghāla-turaṅga-sārtha-virājamāna sampōṣita-sauhārda (he whose friendship is nourished by the fierce elephants and the horses fleet as Vainatēya (that is Garuḍa) sent with affection by the (five) Pāṇḍya kings who have surpassed the Pāṇḍavas in valour) deserve particular attention. They not only confirm some of the statements made in the earlier part of the inscription but also furnish much fresh information which finds no place in it. The information contained in this record is of immense importance, since it throws considerable light on certain events of the reign of Rudrāmbā which had previously been shrouded in obscurity.
v2.c15.s2.t4.46.4
The chronological sequence in which they occurred cannot, however, be ascertained with perfect certainty, though it is not altogether impossible to determine it roughly from the data which we find in other records of the period.
v2.c15.s2.t4.47
¹ AR, 268 of 1905; SII, x, 465, 599.
v2.c15.s2.t4.48
Ambadēva seems to have come very early in his career into conflict with the Kākatīya feudatories who owed allegiance to the queen. The first enemy whom he vanquished, according to the Tripurāntakam epigraph mentioned above, was a chief named Śrīpati Gaṇapati who bore the title Rāya-sahasramalla. From the fact that he is spoken of as ‘Gurindāla-Gaṇādhipa’ in Ambadēva’s Nilagaṅgavaram inscription,¹ it may be surmised that he was the ruler of Gurindāla, that is Gurijāla in the Palnad tāluk of the Guntur district. This is confirmed by the evidence of another inscription at Mutukūr in the neighbourhood of Gurijāla dated Ś. 1190 Vibhava (A.D. 1268) in which it is stated that Śrīpati Gaṇapati was then ruling at Gurindāla, obviously as a vassal of Rudradēva Mahārāja (Rudrāmbā); for according to another inscription engraved on the same stone on the same day, the local Vira Balañja community had at the same time made a gift to a temple in the village on behalf of the queen.² Evidently Queen Rudrāmbā and Śrīpati Gaṇapati were both ruling over the district at the former as sovereign lady and the latter as her vassal. The title (Rāya)sahasramalla which Śrīpati Gaṇapati bore throws light on the past history of this leader. It would appear to have appertained originally to a certain Mahādēvarāja who was ruling over a part of Palnāḍu in Ś. 1170 Kīlaka (A.D. 1258).³ The designation of Rāya-daṇḍādhipati which he bore in addition to the title sahasramalla seems to show that he had once held a command in the royal army under Gaṇapati. Mahādēvarāja was probably one of the recalcitrant Kākatīya nobles who had opposed Rudramadēvī’s coronation. It is not unlikely that Śrīpati Gaṇapati, who was loyal to the queen, took up her cause and attacked and defeated him, and that he then appropriated his enemy’s title as well as his estate. The circumstances in which he came into conflict with Ambadēva are not known. But he was certainly worsted in the battle which took place in A.D. 1273 and Ambadēva then seized his possessions and appropriated his title as a token of his own victory.⁴ Ambadēva’s victory over Śrīpati Gaṇapati led of course to his conflict with the Kākatīya queen. She seems to have sent a powerful army against him and to have made an unsuccessful attempt to put down his rebellion; for the seventy-five princes whose heads he claims to have cut off in battle are without doubt the seventy-five nāyaks in her service. It must not, however, be supposed that Ambadēva was actually involved in a fight with all the seventy-five nāyaks whom he is said to have put to death by cutting off their heads.
v2.c15.s2.t4.49
¹ EI, xxv, 227.
v2.c15.s2.t4.50
² AR, 87 and 87-A of 1929-30.
v2.c15.s2.t4.51
³ AR, 91 of 1929-30.
v2.c15.s2.t4.52
⁴ AR, 168 of 1905; SII, x, 452. Ambadēva is referred to in this inscription as Śrīman-mahā-sahasramalla-maṇḍalēśvara, &c.
v2.c15.s2.t4.53
Ambadēva’s claim of success is expressed in exaggerated language and must not be taken literally. The seventy-five *nāyaks* in this context should doubtless be understood as representing the whole of the Kākatīya army and the cutting off of their heads perhaps really means no more than that he was in fact victorious over them.
v2.c15.s2.t4.54
Some time after his victory over the Kākatīya army Ambadēva concerted measures to reconquer the ancestral territories of his family which had been under the occupation of the Kalukada chiefs ever since the Pāndyan invasion in A.D. 1263. Although the Kalukadas were strongly supported by their ally and kinsman, Allu Ganga the Telugu Chōla ruler of Jagatāpi Gutti, now Gutti in the Anantapur district in the Āndhra Pradesh, they seem to have felt that they could not by themselves successfully withstand the Kāyastha attack and therefore sought the help of the Pāndyas who were at this time masters of the whole of South India. In response to his request, Vijaya-Gandagōpāla and Kōpperunjinga were commissioned by the Pāndyas, as recorded above, to march with their forces to the north and to help the Kalukada princes to defend their possessions. They set out with their troops in A.D. 1278-9 and reached the frontier in due course. They seem to have met Ambadēva’s army somewhere in the neighbourhood of Nandalūr. In the engagement that followed they suffered a defeat; Kōpperunjinga was killed,¹ and Vijaya-Gandagōpāla withdrew into his own kingdom where he seems to have died during the course of the same year. Soon after this victory, an opportunity presented itself to Ambadēva which enabled him to extend his sway as far as Nellore in the east. Manuma-Gandagōpāla, obviously a prince of the Telugu Chōla lineage, who had been driven out of his kingdom by his followers, sought his help. He immediately marched to Nellore at the head of his army, and having put down Manuma-Gandagōpāla’s enemies re-established him on his throne. The date of Ambadēva’s intervention in the affairs of Nellore is not definitely known. It took place probably in A.D. 1282, in which year, according to the evidence of Manuma-Gandagōpāla’s inscriptions, he began his reign.²
v2.c15.s2.t4.55
¹ In his Tripurāntakam inscription dated Ś. 1212 (A.D. 1290) (*AR*, 268 of 1905; *SII*, x, 465) Ambadēva claims to have slain the Kādavarāya (*Kādavarāya-vidhvamsana*). The term *vidhvamsana* has been taken to mean defeat; and the event is said to have taken place in Ś. 1184 (A.D. 1261-2 (?)) during Kōpperunjinga’s inroad into Vēngi (*SII*, xii, Introd. xiii, n. 10). Now the term *vidhvamsana* does not denote defeat as it is supposed to do here, but rather destruction, ruin, or death. Ambadēva succeeded his brother Tripurāridēva only in A.D. 1272 and nothing is known of him, as far as the available evidence goes, before that date. It is not therefore reasonable to suppose that Ambadēva, some ten years before his accession, met Kōpperunjinga in battle at Vēngi and inflicted a defeat on him. The incident could have taken place only after Ambadēva came to power and indeed during Vijaya-Gandagōpāla’s invasion in A.D. 1278-9; and this also happens to have been the last year of Kōpperunjinga’s rule, his death in the battle with Ambadēva seems to be more than probable.
v2.c15.s2.t4.56
² An inscription of Manuma-Gandagōpāla at Kodavalūr, in the Kovur *tāluk* of the Nellore district (*NI*, N. 31, p. 794) couples Ś. 1206 with his 3rd regnal year. It is evident that the initial year of his rule began in Ś. 1204 (A.D. 1282-3).
v2.c15.s2.t4.57.1
The Pāṇḍyas did not, however, give up their designs on the Kāyastha dominions. The defeat of Vijaya-Gaṇḍagōpāla and Ambadēva’s interference in the internal politics of the kingdom of Nellore spurred them on to make a fresh effort to reconquer the southern Āndhra country and to crush the Kāyastha ruler who was causing so much trouble on their northern frontier. The Pāṇḍyan army led by Jaṭāvarman Sundara Pāṇḍya II (acc. A.D. 1276), Māravarman Sundara Pāṇḍya (acc. A.D. 1270),¹ and Māravarman Kulaśēkhara (acc. A.D. 1268) marched into Pottapināḍu in A.D. 1282-3, while Ambadēva was probably still busy with the affairs of Nellore, as is shown by an inscription of Māravarman Sundara Pāṇḍya dated in his 13th regnal year, at Lēpāka in the Rajampet tāluk of the Cuddapah district.² An epigraph at Guṇḍlūru in the same locality dated Ś. 1284 Tāraṇa (A.D. 1282-3) of Sōmidēva, the brother obviously of Kēśavadēva of Kalukaḍa, leaves no room for doubt that the Kalukaḍa chiefs joined the invaders.³ The provenance of the Pāṇḍyan inscriptions in the Lēpāka-Nandalūr region shows that the rule of the Pāṇḍyas in this part of the country lasted for about five years during which time Piḷḷai Pallavarāyan of Tuñjalūr in the Pāṇḍya-maṇḍalam was in charge of its administration.⁴ No definite information is available about Ambadēva’s activities during this period. As a matter of fact he is not represented by a single inscription between the dates Ś. 1194 (A.D. 1272-3) and Ś. 1209.
v2.c15.s2.t4.57.2
But curiously enough an epigraph at Akkāreḍḍipalli in the Badvel tāluk of the Cuddapah district dated Ś. 1205 Svabhānu (A.D. 1283) refers to Gaṇḍapeṇḍēra Tripurāridēva Mahārāja as the ruling monarch and records the construction of a temple of Śiva by Gaurēśvarabāyammaṅgāru for the worship of Gōśriṅgēśvara enshrined therein.⁵ His relationship with Ambadēva and the circumstances in which he came to ‘rule the earth’ in the middle of Ambadēva’s reign are not easy to understand. The Government epigraphist is inclined to believe that he was identical with Ambadēva’s elder brother, though it is equally possible that he may have been his son and successor Tripurāri II.⁶ It may also be noted here that about this time Ambadēva lost the Ēruva country which he had to reconquer a few years later. He very probably came into conflict with the Pāṇḍyas and was defeated by them, as a consequence of which disorders broke out in his dominions and he temporarily lost control over the government. However that may be, it is certain that Ambadēva gathered his forces together and attacked the Pāṇḍyas in A.D. 1286, and that he inflicted a defeat on Māravarman Kulaśēkhara who had come to oppose him at the head of a powerful army, as a consequence of which the elephants and horses and all the equipment in the Pāṇḍyan camp fell into his hands.⁷ The Pāṇḍyas then appear to have retired from the Kāyastha territory, leaving Ambadēva free to deal with his other enemies.
v2.c15.s2.t4.57.3
He first turned against the Kalukaḍa chiefs, Kēśavadēva and Sōmidēva, and having vanquished them in battle together with their ally Allu Gaṅga, the Telugu Chōḷa ruler of Jagatāpi Gutti, won back from them all the Kāyastha country including the capital Vallūrupaṭṭaṇa which had been in their possession ever since the Pāṇḍyan invasion of A.D. 1263. He made Vallūrupaṭṭaṇa the headquarters of his government and strengthened and occupied Gaṇḍikōṭa-Manōrathapura, a strong hill-fort which commands the gorge through which the river Pennār forces its way into the plains below. Having thus destroyed the power of the Kalukaḍa chiefs and their allies and made himself master of the territories under their rule, Ambadēva next proceeded against Manu-Mallidēva, the Telugu Chōḷa ruler of Ēruva, who appears to have still defied his authority. Though two records of Manu-Mallidēva, both dated probably in Ś. 1189 Prabhava (A.D. 1267-8), are found at Tripurāntakam, they do not mention an overlord or reveal his political affiliations.¹ Very probably he was a Kākatīya vassal owing allegiance to Rudrāmbā and perhaps it was his loyalty to the queen that brought him into conflict with Ambadēva. Manu-Mallidēva could not withstand Ambadēva's power, and in the conflict which followed between them he was killed and his possessions passed into the hands of the victor.
v2.c15.s2.t4.57.4
After thus reducing Ēruva, Ambadēva proceeded against Peṇḍekallu (Peḍakallu), a tract of country comprising the old Bangānipalle State and the Dhone *tāluk* of the Kurnool district which lay in its neighbourhood to the west. To ensure the success of his enterprise, Ambadēva formed an alliance with a chief named Bollaya and to strengthen the bonds of friendship bestowed on Bollaya's son Rājaṇṇa the hand of his daughter together with the territory adjoining Nandanapura (Nandavaram in the Bangānipalle State) as her dowry. Ambadēva's attack on Peṇḍekallu did not go unchallenged. Queen Rudrāmbā seems to have sent an army to oppose his advance and frustrate his attempt. The princes of the whole of the Āndhra country who, according to his Tripurāntakam inscription, met him in battle somewhere in that neighbourhood were without doubt her feudatories;² but in the combat which followed Ambadēva was successful; 'he vanquished', in the language of the inscription, 'all the kings of Āndhra and acquired glory'. As a result of this victory the whole of Peṇḍekallu up to the river Kṛṣṇā passed into his hands, and he became the master of an extensive kingdom. Ambadēva was then at the height of his power. According to an inscription dated Ś. 1209 Sarvajit (A.D.
v2.c15.s2.t4.57.5
1287) found at Attirāla in the Rajampet *tāluk* of the Cuddapah district, he ruled from his capital Vallūrupaṭṭaṇa at that time all the countries of Gaṇḍikōṭa, Mulikināḍu, Rēnāṇḍu, Peṇḍekallu, Sakili, Ēruva, and Pottapināḍu.³ His authority extended probably as far west as Gutti in the Anantapur district. One of the verses in the Tripurāntakam inscription seems almost to suggest that the fort was under his protection.¹ He was served by a circle of twelve vassal princes and the rulers of the neighbouring states dispatched to his court elephants, horses, costly jewels, and other valuable gifts.²
v2.c15.s2.t4.58
¹ Sewell, HI, p. 379.
v2.c15.s2.t4.59
² AR, 425 of 1911. See Sewell, HI, p. 379, ARE, 1922, p. 92, for the date of the accession of the king.
v2.c15.s2.t4.60
³ AR, 622 of 1907.
v2.c15.s2.t4.61
⁴ AR, 590, 591, 592, 593, and 614 of 1907.
v2.c15.s2.t4.62
⁵ AR, 26 of 1941-2.
v2.c15.s2.t4.63
⁶ ARE, 1939-40 to 1942-43, ii, para. 76.
v2.c15.s2.t4.64
⁷ AR, 268 of 1905; SII, x, 465; EI, xxv.
v2.c15.s2.t4.65
¹ *AR*, 189 and 190 of 1905; *SII*, x, 417 and 418.
v2.c15.s2.t4.66
² *AR*, 268 of 1905; *SII*, x, 465.
v2.c15.s2.t4.67
³ *AR*, 406 of 1911; *SII*, x, 448.
v2.c15.s2.t4.68
¹ SII, x, 465. *Dōrtambha sambhṛita jaga-traya-guptim-ēnam* *Dharmasya harmyam-iva jaṅgamam=Ambadēvam* *A-Chandramā cha Ravi rakshatu Mīru-dhanvā* *Gaurim-iva Irita-tanus=Tripura-pramāthi.* *Jaga-traya-gupti* is obviously a Sanskritization of the vernacular name Jagatāpi Gutti.
v2.c15.s2.t4.69
² Ibid.
v2.c15.s2.t4.70
The good fortune which had smiled on Ambadēva since the beginning of his career deserted him in the latter part of his reign. The tide at last turned against him. He met in Kumāra Rudradēva, the heir apparent to the Kākatīya throne, a foe who proved more than a match for him. Kumāra Rudradēva was a grandson of Rudramadēvī—the son of her daughter Mummaḍamma and her husband Mahādēva—whom she had adopted as her son and appointed as heir apparent.³ By the time that Ambadēva succeeded his elder brother Tripurāri I in A.D. 1272, Kumāra Rudradēva appears to have been fully adult. According to one tradition preserved in the *Telugurājula-charitramu*, he was born in Ś. 1166 (obviously a mistake for Ś. 1176) Ānanda (A.D. 1254).⁴ This is not unlikely, since he is mentioned in the Mālkāpuram inscription of Rudramadēvī, dated Ś. 1183 Durmati (A.D. 1261).⁵ Ever since he had taken the reins of government into his own hands, he had made the rehabilitation of the kingdom his sole aim, and to achieve his purpose, had, if tradition can be depended on, reorganized the military force of the kingdom and had strengthened the *nāyankara* system which appears to have lost its vigour and efficiency during the previous administration. Ambadēva was not unaware of the danger threatening the security of his kingdom, and he took necessary steps to defend his possessions as soon as the danger took a concrete shape. Considering that his army, notwithstanding its strength and its tradition of continuous victory on several fields of battle, was unequal to coping with the Kākatīya forces, he entered into an alliance with the Sēuṇas and the Pāṇḍyas, the hereditary foes of the Kākatīyas. The former, according to his Tripurāntakam and Nilagaṅgavaram inscriptions dated Ś. 1212 Vikṛiti (A.D. 1290-1), merely sent him only presents of golden jewels set with gems presumably intended as tokens of their goodwill; but the latter showed their friendship by the dispatch of fierce elephants and fleet-footed horses as auxiliary forces to his assistance.⁶ This is corroborated by the evidence of three inscriptions at Nandalūr, one dated in the 15th and the other two in the 17th regnal year of Jaṭāvarman Sundara Pāṇḍya II corresponding respectively to (Ś. 1208)
v2.c15.s2.t4.71
³ *Pratāparudra-yaśōbhūshaṇam* (*Nāṭaka Prakaraṇam*).
v2.c15.s2.t4.72
⁴ JAHRS, vi, 168.
v2.c15.s2.t4.73
⁵ AR, 94 of 1917; SII, x, 395: *Srī Viśvēśvara-dēśik-ēndra-śiva-(-iri-)hastō’si dōrv-vikramas=* *Trikshōṇīa-jagaddaḷaḥ pratibala-pradhvaṁsi-janm-ōtsavaḥ* *Yasyāḥ Kākati-vaṁśa-mauktika-maṇi(ḥ) Śrī Rudradēva-sutas* *Tasyāḥ kim kathayāma vaibhavam=ata Śrī Rudradēvyāḥ param.*
v2.c15.s2.t4.74
⁶ AR, 268 of 1905; SII, x, 465; EI, xxv, pp. 270 f.
v2.c15.s2.t4.75
Vyaya, and (Ś. 1214) Nandana (A.D. 1279-92), which seem to indicate the presence of friendly Pāṇḍyan troops in the Kāyastha dominions.¹
v2.c15.s2.t4.76
¹ *AR*, nos. 590, 594, and 588 of 1907.
v2.c15.s2.t4.77
When Kumāra Rudradēva, having completed his preparations for war, felt that he could take the field confident of victory, he proceeded most carefully to draw up his plans for the invasion. He was well aware that an attack upon Ambadēva would also involve him in a war with his allies, and it was his object to isolate Ambadēva from these allies and so to deal with each of them separately. Keeping this object in view, he concerted measures to launch a three-pronged attack on Ambadēva’s territories and at the same time to dispatch separate expeditions against his allies. In A.D. 1291 Queen Rudrāmbā set out for Tripurāntakam to attack Ambadēva, accompanied by a large army under Manuma-Gannaya, son of Kolani Sōmamantri, and his cousin Annayadēva, son of Indulūri Peda Gannayamantri. No details of the ensuing conflict are recorded. It is, however, certain that Ambadēva was defeated and retreated southwards into Mulikināḍu; for according to the *Śivayōgasāram* the Kolani and Indulūri chiefs mentioned above, inspired by the valiant leadership of Rudramadēvī, dispersed the dispositions of the enemy’s forces, and captured seventy-two forts during a single onslaught.² As a result of this victory, Tripurāntakam and the surrounding country passed into the hands of Rudramadēvī, who concerted measures for re-establishing her authority firmly over the district. The exact date of the reconquest of the region is not definitely known; but a comparative study of the various Kāyastha and Kākatīya inscriptions found in the locality points to the middle of A.D. 1291 as the probable time when it was effected.³ The attack on Cheraku Rājanarēndra by the Chāḷukyan chief, Tāta Pinnama, ancestor of the later Āreviḍu family, which took place at this time, was apparently connected with Rudramadēvī’s Tripurāntakam expedition. Rājanarēndra was probably a vassal and ally of Ambadēva; he is referred to in the Telugu *Dvipada Bālabhāgavatām* of Dōnēru Kōnērunātha as perpetrator of all kinds of evil deeds.⁴ Tāta Pinnama appears to have been a contemporary of Kumāra Rudradēva; and it is not unlikely that he proceeded against the Cheraku chief at the instance of Rudradēva and put an end to his evil career. It is interesting to note that the Cherakus who make their appearance in the inscriptions in the Nandikotkur
First 86 of 133 passages. Read on