The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v2.c15.s2.t4.46

Language: English

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.